Evaluation_Alice O'Reilly

SRAP3006 Organizational Report z3464029
1
“How the decentralization of the social housing industry effects community development in
the Redfern Waterloo social housing precinct”
Abstract
With the upcoming redevelopment of the Redfern-Waterloo social housing precinct, the
relationships, networks and partnerships fostered by the residents is sure to be tested.
Decentralization of governance has often been seen as the best approach to assisting
community development, a tool of empowering residents and creating agency, however
observation of the community proceedings and interactions with local government challenges
this long standing view.
Introduction
The Redfern-Waterloo social housing community is about to face great change with the
redevelopment of the area. The redevelopment will involve the building of a new metro
station and high rise private and public housing. The exact number of public housing to be
rebuilt is yet to be confirmed by state government officials and it is the uncertainty of housing
that has residents concerned about their future in the area. Response to the news of
development varies from public outcry to grief stricken residents being hospitalized, scared
they will have to relocate from their community, which for some has been their home for up
to 40 years. It is fair to assume that more than ever the Redfern-Waterloo social housing
community has a great need for the services and assistance provided by community
development agencies. However, after a 14-week observation of the interactions between
state government, community development agencies and residents in the Redfern-Waterloo
social housing precinct it is evident that decentralization of the industry has obstructed the
processes of community development in the area. Decentralization of management is the
process of distributing authority by top management down the line to other bodies, this in
turn lessens the portfolio of top management to only major decision making. The aim of
decentralization is to make the operation and decision making processes of organization more
effective and efficient (Chand 2016). Although often hailed as the best approach to
community development, its role in developing the Redfern-Waterloo community has proven
rather to hinder the progress and implementation of projects for social housing residents

2
Decentralization in the Redfern Waterloo social housing precinct
The decentralization of authority and management presents itself in the NSW government's
approach to public housing in the Redfern-Waterloo area. The system of housing itself is
complex and multifaceted, 79% of all public housing in NSW is run and owned by the state
government bodies (Gardiner 2013), but is operated by a series of sectors and external
agencies. Family and Community Services (FACS) is the overseeing state department for
social housing, responsible for tenancy applications, management of tenants and transitions
and casework (NSW Family and Community Services 2016), however The Land and
Housing Corporation (LAHC), a department under FACS, is responsible for the land and
physical structures of public housing. Although there seems to be two core government
bodies responsible for the majority of social housing, it is once again divided into different
levels and staff. FACS portfolios are divided by location, the Redfern-Waterloo social
housing precinct is part of the South Sydney district (NSW Family and Community Services
2016). The services provided by FACS also form separate departments, for example
disability services is part of the Ageing, Disability and Home Care service, although still a
NSW state government body it is its own separate entity. External from the state government
departments there is a string of Non-Government Organizations (NGO), who rely on grants
and funding to provide community development services.
The management of social housing in Redfern and Waterloo has also been outsourced to the
private sector. Private contractors tend to the common area, cleaning, grounds and building
maintenance. However, there is not just one contractor responsible for the maintenance of all
buildings and residencies. Residents of Marton, Turanga and Solander residential towers
often commented on the discrepancies between the cleaning rates and standards of each floor
and common area but were unsure who to contact, whether it be the contractor itself or
LAHC. The way social housing is maintained and operated highlights a continuing theme
with decentralization, that especially in this context, which is how it can inhibit the ease of
communication and access between resident and government body.

3
Findings: The effects of decentralization in the Redfern-Waterloo social housing
precinct
The formation of community is a process that is often contested, traditionally, communities
were thought to be based on geography, forming due to sharing a common location and
building relationships with their neighbors (Chaskin 2004). Although this view is present in
the evolution of the Redfern-Waterloo community, it is also evident that the relationships
formed are also based on something greater than location, a shared experience of life in the
social housing system. The Redfern-Waterloo social housing community is one that is
culturally and linguistically diverse, out of this communities based on shared cultural
identities have formed, this formation of communities based on ideology and experiences
highlights modern perspectives of community, that there are more influential factors than
geography (Chaskin 2004). It is the aim of community development workers to foster and
assist these networks and relationships in any way possible.
Community development is the process of community members and other stakeholders
coming together to take collective action to develop strategies to problems and develop
networks to strengthen community wellbeing (Bhattacharyya 2009, Smith & Frank 1999).
Therefore, the role of community development practitioners to facilitate these processes,
through projects, meets and greets and community forums. However, the end goal is for
community members to take over these roles, that members will take responsibility for the
welfare of their community (Bhattacharyya 2009). It is often argued that decentralization is a
beneficial approach to development, that ultimately it increases community participation,
representation and service delivery (Ahmed & Abu Talib 2015), although, actions of the
government in this time have highlighted two key ways in which decentralization impedes
the so very needed community development work in this area. The way in which
decentralization impedes community development is explored through the following case
studies, firstly the Redfern and Waterloo Tenant Representative Program and secondly the
Waterloo Neighborhood Markets.
Case study one: Tenant Representative Program
One of the core principles of community development is to get the community involved in
decisions that affect them (Bhattacharyya 2009), which in the context of social housing in

4
Redfern and Waterloo is empowering residents to stand up and be a voice for their
community in the face of redevelopment. This process has been made the responsibility of
community development workers and residents. The Neighborhood Advisory Boards (NAB)
were established in 1995 by Housing New South Wales (White 2014). The aim of the NAB
was to hold community meetings to discuss the matters of social housing, these meetings are
now attended by representatives from local council, police, and community development
agencies and the elected tenant representatives (White 2014). The Redfern-Waterloo social
housing area has been divided into precincts and each precinct elects a tenant representative
to speak on their behalf at the NAB bi-monthly meetings on any concern they may have. This
program is facilitated by supported by FACS funded tenant participation resource support
workers.
Initial research of the Tenant Representative Program emphasized a program that was
committed and effective in increasing community participation and representation, in contrast
discussion with community members from Waterloo generated a different image, many
members were unaware of the NABs and Tenant Representatives and many were unsure of
who their actual representative was.
“We do not know what it is they do, what is their role? What do they need to do? we
would like to know this, we would like to understand this…we would like to know
what it is the representative needs to do” (Waterloo Resident, August 2016)
Observation of the tenant representative elections reiterated the sentiments of residents.
Attendance of the Waterloo elections was minimal, despite there being 2,536 social housing
properties in Waterloo (UrbanGrowth NSW 2011) the highest attendance for the day was 15
people at the People’s Precinct Election; other precincts either had one or two attendees
inclusive of the tenant representative. Other issues that were made evident was the
dissatisfaction with tenant representatives, again sharing similar concerns with Marton Tower
residents, that they were not clear on what or who they were voting for or what their role was,
one woman was angered by the lack of engagement by her tenant representative stated;
“There is such disengagement in this area…reps are not engaging their neighbors,
checking on their neighbors seeing if they’re okay…it’s not working to the best

5
capacity it could be, it’s not working…community spirit is going to die next year”
(Waterloo Resident, September 2016)
Due to minimal participation, tenant representative candidates were lacking, three out of six
precincts did not meet the required two tenant representatives but despite this, representatives
were still elected. Other issues included lack of explanation about the program from
facilitators, backlash from residents, no interpreters for culturally and linguistically diverse
community members, and lack of interaction between nominees and voters, which clearly
impacts the desired participatory nature of the program.
The comments made by community members and the issues observed highlighted that the
program is failing in meeting its aims, due to the minimal participation and awareness of
elections and proceedings, it can be judged that representatives are not a fair and accurate
representation of the community. Although a product of a decentralized government, this
program directly challenges two of its key perceived benefits of decentralization, being
increased participation and representation. Initial observation may lead to the assumption that
this is a failing of the program facilitators, that they are not conducting and evaluating the
program properly. Increased investigation into the literature and facilitation highlighted that
workers are just following the command given to them, as when asked questions about the
proceedings they too seem confused about the exact rules or who to contact. This is
furthermore highlighted by the facilitator’s criticisms who comment on the lack of resources
and information given to them. The failings of this program underline the another issue
decentralization causes for community development, which is its impact on the speed and
efficacy of service delivery
Case study two: Waterloo Community Markets
Community markets have often been a useful tool in increasing social relationships and
networking in communities, the organizing and selling of goods and services on the
community level is often seen as a sustainable and effective way to increase agency and
resilience in difficult times (Orzanne & Orzanne 2016). The Waterloo community markets
are a project facilitated by the University of New South Wales Community Development
Project (UNSWCDP), addressing the UNSWCDP’s objectives of encouraging community
participation and assisting in responses to community priorities (UNSWSCDP 2016). In

6
attempt to reach objectives the facilitation of the markets is also supported by community
volunteers, each stallholder is also a member of the Redfern-Waterloo social housing
precinct.
The project involves residents holding their own stall to sell items, items range from
secondhand goods to artworks made by residents. The markets have 10 stalls and operate
Friday mornings, with stall holder fees funding the upkeep and associated costs. Markets are
attended by social housing residents, members of the community and workers such as
tradesman and retail staff. The markets thus far have proved as a good mechanism for
increasing the integration of social housing residents in the wider community, which is
important when trying to reduce the stigma surrounding social housing (Young et al. 2013).
The development of these markets seems straightforward, a simple process of picking a
time, acquiring a space and providing equipment for stalls. Observation of the development
of this project showed that it was a far more complex and arduous process, involving frequent
negotiations with all stakeholders, often with conditions for the implementation being
changed after meetings. The need for additional discourse and conversation extended the
implementation period, slowing down service delivery, impacting the enthusiasm of stall
holders who were beginning to think the project would not eventuate. Observations
highlighted two key reasons for the longer time frame of this project, the competition created
between community development practitioners and increased amount of stakeholders and
government bodies to consult on proceedings.
Participation in the organization of the Waterloo Markets highlighted the conflict between
NGOs working in the area. The organizing body often faced backlash from other practitioners
criticizing the logistics and management of the project, that it would directly impact the
success of another community organization. The present opinions highlighted a greater issue;
the existence of competition between NGOs rather than partnership and collaboration, which
is one of UNSWCDP’s core objectives (UNSWCDP 2016). The reason for conflict between
NGOs may be explained by competition for funding, as all are funded by FACS, funding can
be determined by performance and the success of another organization may be deemed as a
direct threat to the success and funding of another. The politics of local NGOs had
detrimental effects on the implementation process of the project, criticisms of opposing
organizations were echoed by government individuals, requiring further negotiation and

7
consultation, therefore further slowing the implementation of the project. The inability of
NGOs to positively engage with each other further impacted the credibility of involved
organizations, generating negative public perceptions, which could lead to community
backlash further on.
NGOs working directly with social housing residents receive on grants and funding from
FACS for their projects (UNSWCDP 2016), therefore to get funding for a specific project it
as to first meet all the requirements and conditions set by FACS. In a decentralized context
like Redfern-Waterloo, figures who need direct consultation are often increased and unclear.
Investigation into the development process of the market project highlighted occurrences
when one authority figure would advise of that certain regulations and fees needed to be paid,
but consultation of others would give conflicting requirements. This was also present when
gaining approval for use of certain facilities at the site, with individuals from FACS and
LAHC giving opposing views, but to gain clarification on a conflicting decision was also
difficult due to the lack of awareness of contactable authority figures specific to the Redfern-
Waterloo district. Like the conflict that arises between practitioners, the lack of explicit and
clear direction slows down the delivery and implementation of beneficial projects and
programs, which has consequences such as declining participation as confidence in an idea or
project falls. This effects the overall running of an organization as without participation from
residents the need for the organization will be questioned.
Concluding remarks and recommendations for improving community development in a
decentralized setting
The decentralization of government has made it challenging to practice participatory and
sustainable community development projects, however as the likelihood of state and federal
governments shifting away from this management system is highly improbable, there is a
need for practitioners to adjust their approach to development. From the case studies above
the need for three key changes can be ascertained. Partnerships and collaboration with NGOs
and other key stakeholders is important when creating innovative development projects
(Scriven & Sanghvi 2016), this is being overlooked in the context of Redfern-Waterloo, as
NGOs very much operate separate from each other. Greater partnerships between local NGOs
will not only increase resources but also knowledge and knowhow of the shared context.
Contextual awareness and experience is one of the most valuable tools in developing

8
sustainable development (Anderson 1999), developing more aware and informed projects has
the potential to increase engagement and participation, a problem area in both
aforementioned cases studies. Collaboration between NGOs can take the form of partnering
on a specific project together or using another as part of the evaluation process, however, the
preexisting politics should not be overlooked (Hughes & Hutchinson 2012) but discussed to
ensure clear and open communication to avoid further conflict.
Alongside greater collaboration of NGOs, it is evident that relationships between
government bodies and residents need to be fostered, discussion with residents highlighted
that there was limited interaction between FACS workers and residents. It was clear that there
was a lack of knowledge of contactable FACS staff and services, there also seemed to be
minimal awareness of local developments. Creating greater familiarity with local authority
assists with building transparency and accountability of housing services (Connelly 2011),
this may also assist in generating awareness of local residents about the upcoming
redevelopment, in turn easing stress and tension between the two bodies. This process has the
potential to increase community engagement and make community members as part of the
solution to problems therefore leading to better informed responses (Lawson 2015). Building
of relationships can take place through holding forums with community members and
authority figures, drop in sessions at local events organized by community development
agencies, or through literature published on who to contact at specific times subjective to
each resident.
The faults of the Tenant Representative Program highlighted the need for greater reflection
and evaluation of projects and policies. An earlier evaluation of the Tenant Representative
Program would have found and addressed the associated issues before they developed into
community wide problems. Early and regular evaluation of projects can determine whether it
is meeting the intended outcomes and whether the project is resource and time efficient
(Renger et al. 2015). To address this, it could be advised that practitioners implement a
mandatory evaluation process to their development design, for example six weeks after
implementation of the project team leaders would request evaluation reports and
recommendations on the project. Keeping a consistent evaluation mechanism across all
projects would also heighten the perceived credibility to organizations, as it emphasizes that
they are concerned about their projects outcomes (Lawson 2015). Inclusion of evaluation
processes has the potential to foster partnerships with other local NGOs, as they can be used

9
as an external and objective evaluator, providing feedback, insight and recommendations that
may be overlooked during a self-assessment (Boudreau et al. 2013). In this context
Evaluation is not just essential for the organization’s growth and management but also to
ensure that it is meeting the needs of the community to its best abilities and establishing
beneficial and sustainable development works. More collaborative and sustainable
development practices will assist in undoing the negative implications of decentralization.
Improving the way in which agencies develop and implement projects will be essential not
only for their own success but key in the pursuit of fostering community wellbeing in a
community on the edge of mass redevelopment.
References
Ahmad, M. S & Talib, N. A, 2015, ‘Empowering local communities: decentralization,
empowerment and community driven development, Quality and Quantity, vol. 49, no. 2, pp.
827-838
Anderson, M. B, 1999, Do No Harm: How aid can support peace—or war, Lynne Rienner
Publishers, Colorado
Bhattacharyya, J, 2009, ‘Theorizing community development’, Journal of the Community
Development Society, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 5-34
Boudreau, M. L & Donnely, C. A, 2013, ‘The community development progress and
evaluation tool: Assessing community development field work’, Canadian Journal of
Occupational Therapy, vol. 80, no. 4, pp. 235-240
Chand, S, 2016 ‘Delegation and Decentralization of Authority’ Business Management, vol.2,
no. 1
Chaskin, R.J, 2004, ‘Theories of Community’, in M. Weil, M. Reisch & M. L. Ohmer (eds),
The Handbook of Community Practice, SAGE Publications, New York
Community Development Project, 2016, Our Approach, University of New South Wales,
accessed: 9/11/2016
<https://socialsciences.arts.unsw.edu.au/research/research-initiatives/community-
development-project/>
Connelly, S, 2011, ‘Constructing legitimacy in the new community governace’, Urban
Studies, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 929-946
Development Corporation, 2011, UrbanGrowth NSW, Characteristics Analysis, NSW
Government, Sydney, accessed: 7/11/2016
<http://www.ugdc.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/file_root/BEPS2/bep2_section2.pdf>
Family & Community Services, 2016, Our Structure, NSW Government, accessed:
6/11/2016 <http://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/about_us/our_structure>
Gardiner, W, 2013, ‘Public housing in decline’, Inner Sydney Voice, no. 118

10
Hughes, C & Hutchinson, J, 2012, ‘Development effectiveness and the politics of
commitment’, Third World Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 17-36
Lawson, T, 2015, ‘Making community governance work’, Public Administration Today, vol.
41, pp. 49-49
Orzanne, L.K & Orzanne, J.L, 2016, ‘How alternative consumer markets can build
community resiliency’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 330-357
Renger, R, Foltysova, J, Becker, K. L & Souvannasacd, E, 2015, ‘The Power of the context
map: Designing realistic outcome evaluation strategies and other anticipated benefits’,
Evaluation and Program Planning, vol. 52, pp. 118-125
Smith, A & Frank, F, 1999, ‘The community development handbook: A tool to build
capacity’ Human Resources Development Canada, Ontario
Scriven, K & Sangvhi, M, 2016, ‘How to be strategic in collaboration for humanitarian
innovation’, in B Ramalingam & K Bound (eds), International Development: Navigating the
paths and pitfalls, Nesta, London
White, D, 2014, ‘Giving public tenants a voice’, Inner Sydney Voice, no. 122, pp. 26-27
Young, A, Baldry, E, Goodwin, S, Irwin, J, Wannan, A, Ryan, M, Toivonen, C & Blomfied,
T, 2014, ‘Working together: Participatory approaches to community development in social
housing neighbourhoods’, Parity, vol.26, no. 6, pp. 57-58

Evaluation_Alice O'Reilly

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Evaluation_Alice O'Reilly

Similar to Evaluation_Alice O'Reilly (20)

Evaluation_Alice O'Reilly