Community Development Journal

Downey,, Heather;Threlkeld,, Guinever

doi: 10.1093/cdj/bsaa012pmid: N/A

Abstract Communities That Care (CTC) is an evidence-based social development strategy that uses a structured process of intervention based on the evidence about risk and protective factors in communities. CTC uses particular governance groups as central instruments in a process that aims to build the capacity of communities to enhance the lives of young people. This article reports findings from a formal evaluation which used a collaborative governance lens to examine governance of the application of CTC in a small rural Australian community. Specifically, the evaluation focussed on the perspectives of members of the governance structures concerning CTC’s operation and value at the interstice of youth and rural disadvantage. Findings suggest the potential within CTC to achieve sustainable community change may be enhanced through an endogenous governance approach that recognizes and develops community residents’ potential for leadership. The CTC strategy is now utilized internationally. This article offers important insights for practitioners, organizations and communities considering implementing this approach. Introduction Cooperative governance arrangements are an increasingly common approach to leading responses to address the community impact of major political, economic and social change (Lepine et al., 2007; Emerson et al., 2012). These governance structures provide space for voices from civil society to participate in initiatives focussed on addressing issues that matter to them (Lepine et al., 2007; Purdue, 2007). Therefore, we draw on the seminal work of Ansell and Gash (2008)1 to conceptualize governance as a contextually situated arrangement involving collective and formal decision-making processes, policy design and management and overseeing related service and programme delivery. Some note potential for community members to be marginalized within these governance structures (Purdue, 2001; Lowndes and Sullivan, 2004), yet others suggest these arrangements provide increased opportunities for both the articulation and implementation of alternative agendas (Lepine et al., 2007) and for collective learning (Wildemeersch et al., 1998). Consequently, leadership within collaborative governance structures focuses on providing opportunities to debate solutions to local problems, articulate and resolve tensions between sectors and develop trust between members through honesty, respect and reflection on power imbalances (Purdue, 2001; Purdue, 2007; Emerson et al., 2012). Key to effective collaborative governance leadership is the development of clear terms of reference and a defined scope of activities (Kenny and Connors, 2017), trust, resilience and the capacity to resolve ethical concerns (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2011; Emerson et al., 2012). This article examines governance of the application of a Communities That Care (CTC) intervention in rural Australia. In Australia, definitions of ‘rural’ tend to be drawn from population, spatial factors and historical and social characteristics (Alston, 2010; Koziol et al., 2015). As a locale, rural is defined by the Australian Standard Geographical Standard (ABS, 2018) as a formal measure that categorizes locations relative to their physical proximity to urban centres, thus providing a sliding scale of remoteness. Historically the deceit of ‘terra nullius’, the legal concept meaning empty land, resulted in the loss of Australia’s Indigenous people’s culture, economy, language and land and opened up rural Australia for European settlers (Pascoe, 2018). Consequently, Australian rurality as a social construct has long been informed by the mythologized family farming trope, including the key tenet of generational patrilineal farm inheritance (Hicks et al., 2012). However, the impacts of climate change and restructuring within the agricultural sector necessitating change in crops over the past two decades have resulted in a considerable decrease in Australian farmer numbers (ABS, 2012), interrupting the expected life course trajectory of many young rural Australians. Across the diversity of rural communities, it is common for residents to experience persistent disadvantage in many areas including education, employment and health outcomes and socio-economic status (King and Cruickshank, 2010; Steiner and Markantoni, 2013; AIHW, 2016; Vinson et al., 2017). Factors including geographical isolation, limited access to public transport and narrow leisure activity choices (McLachlan et al., 2013) may contribute to high rates of illicit substance misuse (NRHA, 2015) and mental health issues in rural Australia, particularly amongst young people (Williams et al., 2016). The ongoing impacts of settler colonialism compound this scenario for Indigenous rural residents who experience disproportionately higher rates of suicide, violence, incarceration and child removal than non-Indigenous Australians (Commonwealth of Australia, 2018). CTC is a proceduralized social development process that aims to prevent health issues including alcohol and substance misuse and offending behaviours (Hawkins et al., 2008; CTC, 2019) for young people in early (aged ten to fourteen) and middle (aged fifteen to seventeen) adolescence (Harms, 2010). CTC’s sequential approach to community change includes the identification of individual and community protective and risk factors to guide communities’ selection, purchase, implementation and evaluation of a range of empirically tested prevention programmes (Bumbarger, 2016). Evaluative literature suggests CTC has effectively curtailed the commencement of these behaviours amongst young people in communities in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia (Crow et al., 2004; CTC, 2012; Oesterle et al., 2014). Consequently, CTC as a mode of community intervention has gained a measure of credibility; however critiques of its governance arrangements, particularly governance leadership, remain limited in the literature. The little available literature points out CTC governance is characterized by a tenuous reliance on relationships between local agencies and agencies’ capacity to both source funding and identify and mobilize key community leaders (Pawson and Tilley, 1998; Feinberg et al., 2010). Consequently, effectiveness of CTC governance arrangements is worthy of exploration. Theoretical framework Collaborative governance positions communities centrally within change initiatives and involves multiple sectors engaging in partnership arrangements (Purdue, 2007; Ife, 2016; Kenny and Connors, 2017). Collaborative governance arrangements require leadership that is shared amongst participants (Purdue, 2001; Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Page, 2010) and engages the community in building a common vision and commitment to community change projects (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Kenny and Connors, 2017). Framed as a learning experience, this type of leadership has potential to develop individual and collective participatory capacities to marshal resources and consider and articulate the meaning of actions aimed at addressing social injustice (Wildemeersch et al., 1998). Consequently, the seminal work of Purdue (2001); Purdue, 2007) informs our conceptualization of governance leadership that involves developing the skills that community residents bring to leadership work. In this view, leadership is understood as both a process or ‘series of linked actions or proceedings’ (Denhardt and Denhardt, 2011, p. 428) and a practice that integrates process yet recognizes that community change initiatives are situated within diverse historical, social, economic, political and environmental contexts (Crosby and Bryson, 2010; Ife, 2016). We consider the collaborative approach to governance leadership that privileges local history, culture, wisdom, knowledge, skills and processes over planned outcomes (Ife, 2016) appropriate for addressing the local consequences of the dynamic contemporary context. In contrast to a collaborative style of governance, the community governance of CTC involves a hierarchy of two coalitions, a Key Leader Group (KLG), comprised of organizational leaders from multiple sectors who are key decision-makers, and Community Board (CB), comprised of organizational representatives and lay community stakeholders (CTC, 2019). However, multiple recruitment strategies that might reflect community composition, including social media, the engagement of diverse cultural groups and visiting residents in their communal spaces (Westoby, 2008), are ignored. These coalitions are central instruments in a phased approach to building communities’ capacity to create social environments that encourage young people to realize their potential (CTC, 2012; CTC, 2019). Yet formal mechanisms enabling young people to directly participate in the governance coalitions are curiously absent (Bumbarger, 2016). The CTC literature argues that coalitions that adhere to guidelines regarding the CTC programme’s content, duration and delivery methods may be more likely to positively influence health and behaviour outcomes (Rhew et al., 2013; Bumbarger, 2016). Further, CTC mandates all coalition members engage in training about the five phases of the CTC process, ‘Getting started’, ‘Getting organised’, ‘Developing a profile’, ‘Creating a plan’ and ‘Implement and evaluate’, (see Table 1), as a mechanism for building their capacity (CTC, 2019). Table 1 CTC’s five phases Phases . . Phase one—Getting started Community readies for the CTC process by engaging community stakeholders and key decision-makers to the governance coalitions—Key Leader Group and Community Board Phase two—Getting organised Establishes governance coalitions and orients members to the CTC model. Coalitions guide decision-making and planning for CTC community interventions Phase three—Developing a profile The coalitions identify individual, family and community risk and protective factors using data collected from the CTC Youth Survey, community data and assessments of community assets. Priorities for action are determined Phase four—Creating a plan The CB develops a comprehensive community action plan that details chosen prevention programmes and clear and feasible goals and designates roles and responsibility for implementation and evaluation Phase five—Implement and evaluate The KLG and CB ensure prevention programmes are implemented with fidelity to the CTC model and evaluated Phases . . Phase one—Getting started Community readies for the CTC process by engaging community stakeholders and key decision-makers to the governance coalitions—Key Leader Group and Community Board Phase two—Getting organised Establishes governance coalitions and orients members to the CTC model. Coalitions guide decision-making and planning for CTC community interventions Phase three—Developing a profile The coalitions identify individual, family and community risk and protective factors using data collected from the CTC Youth Survey, community data and assessments of community assets. Priorities for action are determined Phase four—Creating a plan The CB develops a comprehensive community action plan that details chosen prevention programmes and clear and feasible goals and designates roles and responsibility for implementation and evaluation Phase five—Implement and evaluate The KLG and CB ensure prevention programmes are implemented with fidelity to the CTC model and evaluated CTC (2019) Open in new tab Table 1 CTC’s five phases Phases . . Phase one—Getting started Community readies for the CTC process by engaging community stakeholders and key decision-makers to the governance coalitions—Key Leader Group and Community Board Phase two—Getting organised Establishes governance coalitions and orients members to the CTC model. Coalitions guide decision-making and planning for CTC community interventions Phase three—Developing a profile The coalitions identify individual, family and community risk and protective factors using data collected from the CTC Youth Survey, community data and assessments of community assets. Priorities for action are determined Phase four—Creating a plan The CB develops a comprehensive community action plan that details chosen prevention programmes and clear and feasible goals and designates roles and responsibility for implementation and evaluation Phase five—Implement and evaluate The KLG and CB ensure prevention programmes are implemented with fidelity to the CTC model and evaluated Phases . . Phase one—Getting started Community readies for the CTC process by engaging community stakeholders and key decision-makers to the governance coalitions—Key Leader Group and Community Board Phase two—Getting organised Establishes governance coalitions and orients members to the CTC model. Coalitions guide decision-making and planning for CTC community interventions Phase three—Developing a profile The coalitions identify individual, family and community risk and protective factors using data collected from the CTC Youth Survey, community data and assessments of community assets. Priorities for action are determined Phase four—Creating a plan The CB develops a comprehensive community action plan that details chosen prevention programmes and clear and feasible goals and designates roles and responsibility for implementation and evaluation Phase five—Implement and evaluate The KLG and CB ensure prevention programmes are implemented with fidelity to the CTC model and evaluated CTC (2019) Open in new tab Good governance is central to achieving sustainable community change, particularly at the local level (Purdue, 2007). Some have argued that aspects of CTC governance structures, notably the reliance on relationships between local agencies and the community, the stages of group formation, work of the group and their contributions to intervention outcomes, remain overlooked in evaluations (Pawson and Tilley, 1998; Feinberg et al., 2010). Consequently, this article reports findings from an evaluation of the governance of a CTC intervention in an Australian rural community. The evaluation used a collaborative governance lens informed by endogenous and strength-based approaches and key community development and social learning principles including participation, empowerment and sustainability as identified by Ife (2010, 2016), Vandenabeele et al. (2011), Taylor (2015), Kenny and Connors (2017), and Kirst-Ashman and Hull (2018)). Introduction to the study site The study site, Hilltop2, is a small Australian rural community with a population of 3,193. Nearly one-quarter of residents were born outside Australia, and 1 percent are Indigenous Australians. Five percent of residents are in early to middle adolescence, aged between ten and seventeen (ABS, 2017). The area’s major industry includes agriculture, forestry, hospitality, tourism and aged care. Hilltop experiences many characteristics of rural disadvantage. The median household weekly income of AUD$902 (ABS, 2017) is below the poverty line of $909 for a couple with two children (Davidson et al., 2018). Hilltop residents have lower educational attainment, lower status employment and higher rates of unemployment than national averages (ABS, 2017). In 2011, Hilltop’s health service approached CTC when service providers observed high levels of family violence and alcohol and substance abuse amongst young people. Later that year CTC conducted a youth survey that confirmed these observations. This CTC intervention was conducted over five years, from 2011 to 2016. Our evaluation was commissioned by the Hilltop health service and undertaken twelve months post-conclusion of the intervention. Research design The evaluation consisted of two distinct parts, a process evaluation (Mertens and Wilson, 2012) and an outcome evaluation (Spaulding, 2014). The process evaluation component examined coalition members’ experience of participating in the governance structures. The outcome evaluation examined achievements concerning capacity building. Investigation was informed by the responsive evaluation approach (Patton, 2002), with a data collection strategy that prioritized first-hand accounts from various stakeholders to capture a range of perspectives. Evaluation methods included one-to-one interviews conducted one year post-intervention and analysis of documentation including minutes of meetings. Research process Approval for this study was obtained from La Trobe University, SHE College Human Ethics Sub-Committee (S15/283). All people who had been members of the Hilltop CTC KLG and CB were invited to participate. Ten opted in and all were Anglo Australians and adult. Although participants’ early intentions were to engage young people’s direct participation in the coalitions, these efforts only translated to informal individual interactions with young people. Reflecting the feminization of volunteerism and the health, education and human services sectors worldwide (Olsen, 2008; Lee and Won, 2018), eight participants were female. Data were collected using semi-structured phone interviews with three current or past KLG members and seven current or past CB members. Interviews used a narrative approach to explore topics such as growth in individual understanding of the CTC approach and capacity to act on this understanding, perceptions of the work style and effectiveness of their group (KLG or CB), the extent of community visibility of CTC and support for CTC by participating organizations, colleagues and community contacts. Interviews lasted around 50 minutes and were audio recorded and transcribed. The use of pseudonyms protected participants’ anonymity. A narrative approach shows how reality and knowledge are constructed through communication with others (Riessman and Quinney, 2005). This approach permitted participants opportunity to tell their individual stories and was appropriate for addressing any marginalization experienced within the hierarchical CTC governance system (Wildemeersch et al., 1998; Vandenabeele et al., 2011). Minutes from programme meetings contextualized participants’ constructions of important issues (Patton, 2002). Data were coded for themes raised in the brief evaluation and the literature and by participants (Ryan and Bernard, 2000; Patton, 2002). Thematic analysis of participants’ stories was utilized as this approach may uncover diverse perceptions of shared experience (Riessman and Quinney, 2005). To demonstrate trustworthiness, credibility was supported by data triangulation and reflexive practice throughout the evaluation process, confirmability was supported by extensive quotations from participants and an audit trail was maintained (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Findings Findings presented below capture central themes in the interviews. To begin, analysis focuses on participants’ construction of the context. This is followed by sections analysing how participants constructed the benefit of inclusive governance, difficulties of maintaining broad-based governance, constraints on service delivery and the divide between community and professional members within the governance coalitions. Constructing the context Members of the KLG and CB were asked to describe what was happening in the community when impetus for change emerged, and CTC was identified as an appropriate intervention. Overall, participants’ narratives conveyed a sense of urgency for a localized response to the perceived problems experienced by young people, set against a backdrop of the after effects of natural disaster and social and economic change: ‘… preceding the fires was the closure of the major industry so there was great uncertainty about employment in the area’ (Belinda). Several participants recalled high levels of family violence as amongst the factors precipitating interest in the local application of CTC. Participants’ narratives highlighted the social exclusion experienced by young people, for instance: ‘if you weren’t a young person who was strongly engaged with your schooling and with sport, then you might not feel like there are many options’ (Jenny). Some suggested that such marginalization resulted in antisocial behaviours focussed on drug and alcohol use. Betty recalled widespread reaction when ‘a young local girl put on social media a pretty explicit account of drug-taking’. The behaviour of some young people was the trigger to action for most participants: I went to Hilltop one weekend to stay…I got an opportunity to see some young people drinking a lot and doing that very publicly…we had evidence like children starting to use drugs in Grade Five…what would be going on for children that age to be using drugs, and wouldn’t we need to understand that? (Jenny) While concern with local context provided the impetus for choosing the CTC model, this choice resulted in priority being given to problem construction by experts who were mainly external to the community, rather than to an approach that supported the community to define its problems (Ife, 2016; Kenny and Connors, 2017). Benefit of inclusive governance This section focuses on both the recruitment strategies which sought to attract broad-based participation in the governance coalitions and the groups’ developmental stage. Two key recruitment strategies were utilized to attract professionals and community residents to the CTC governance coalitions. First, CTC guided staff from the central CTC organization as to who to invite to become involved, ‘[We] look[ed] at who we already saw as champions…the principals of each school, representatives from the three main industries of the town, as well as health and human service organizations’. Second, a representative of the central CTC organization ran a forum to introduce CTC to Hilltop where ‘there was also a list of if you were interested in being part of this’. These approaches appeared to some to bring together a broad range of people ‘I really liked the mix we had…people who were day-to-day [community members], their capacity to bring what was real every day was really important…to people with quite high qualifications’ (Jack). However, CB minutes show the group initially comprised twelve professional and only three community members, and narratives indicate a power imbalance. Naomi observed: ‘there’s always a danger for overloading these types of projects with service providers, we professionals can dictate and drive a whole range of things without really understanding that’s what we’re doing’. Adrienne suggested this imbalance may have affected recruitment to the coalitions: ‘when I heard about it…it didn’t feel open, I felt like you needed to be in a particular group to be a part of it, an in-group’. Young people were absent from the governance coalitions. Early CB minutes record an intention to form a youth council; however this did not eventuate. During interviews, only one voice recalled attempting to engage young people: I used to spend a bit of time talking with kids that hang around the street a lot…they felt like they weren’t being listened to. I remember trying to tell these young people, ‘You need to get on board here and say your words,’ but they didn’t feel they were wanting to. (Adrienne) Once established, the coalitions were trained to analyse the already completed youth survey that focussed on attitudes to family, school and the community and develop a community profile that prioritized areas of focus. However, narratives show the findings were tightly held, ‘there was police data…family violence data, some school data…tricky and confidential stuff that a lot of the different groups didn’t want advertised’ (Belinda), and ‘we weren’t really meant to talk about it too much because it was felt that people might think “is that going on in our community? Oh, that’s terrible”’ (Naomi). Although the groups’ stated intention was to shield the community from the findings, lack of transparent information sharing is incongruent with community development principles (Cornwall, 2008; Taylor, 2015). It appears that the development of a community profile generated a sense of collective purpose: ‘what we did decide by general consensus was the three priority risk factor areas: family conflict; low commitment to school; and community laws and norms favourable to alcohol3’ (Belinda). Comments suggest some participants experienced the CTC process as an endogenous approach: ‘It wasn’t just about identifying what the issues were, it was much more than that. It had great capacity in terms of informing communities about what communities could actually do, much more than what service providers can do’ (Naomi). In its optimal form, community members’ participation in community development work may enhance their capacity by building on strengths, giving voice and decision-making power to those involved (Wallerstein, 1992). However, the predominantly professional membership of the coalitions suggests that it was visiting professionals representing organizations rather than the community who constructed and responded to the focal community problems in a way consistent with a top-down approach (Kirst-Ashman and Hull, 2018). Importantly, both the KLG and the CB meeting minutes show a gap between the strategic intent for broad membership of these groups and the reality of both groups experiencing difficulty recruiting and retaining members. Consequently, it is important to examine the challenges of sustaining governance coalitions and their broad base. Difficulties of maintaining broad-based governance Several factors influenced participants’ continued engagement with CTC, including experience of the training involved in each discrete phase of the CTC process and factors affecting the coalitions’ capacity to work in a coordinated way. Participants’ observations suggest the training failed to recognize the diverse baseline skills participants brought to CTC: ‘so much information was being put on the table, it needed far more time for discussion’ (Steve) and ‘one criticism of the training sessions for general members around the table, it’s not their core business, it’s very difficult sometimes to understand the language and the intent behind that language’ (Belinda). While participants found training sessions rushed, there was broad dissatisfaction with the protracted and rigid nature of CTC: ‘the process around getting the CTC structure up and running seemed to take an inordinate amount of time’ (Jack), and ‘I’d like to see it become more responsive to the community, rather than being ‘this is what you do and here’s how you do it’ (Naomi). Kenny and Connors’ (2017) argument for early engagement of the community in activities, one participant observed: ‘I would have liked to have been involved in more practical aspects at an earlier stage…When we did the seminar on alcoholism at the College I did a lot of work on that and I felt that I was contributing’ (Steve). The KLG is comprised of prominent community leaders whose responsibilities include sourcing resources for interventions and championing CTC (Bumbarger, 2016). Most members suggested that the KLG’s role was comprehensively understood, ‘there were terms of reference drawn up for the KLG. Part of it was around making sure that CTC was represented in the strategic planning around the key agencies’ (Naomi) and ‘the way I represented it is through our board of management, through community advisory groups. It was really well-received’ (Betty). However, participants noted the KLG’s capacity to work to its potential was compromised by a changing composition and members’ varying levels of commitment. For example, ‘the KLG lost momentum, just because of numbers, and [loss of] key people in the group that could actually make decisions and speak on behalf of their organizations’ (Betty), and ‘we were working at a level of informing and communicating with each other. I don’t think we ever got to the level of collaborative work as a KLG…some partners were more involved than others’ (Naomi). In contrast to the clarity surrounding the KLG’s purpose, participants appeared confused about the CB’s role. Some participants understood the role as learning about and then guiding work through the CTC phases. Another participant suggested a greater degree of judgement in the CB’s purpose: ‘gathering and making those decisions about what to disseminate, it was about the operational and strategic, this is what needs to happen and who’s going to do it’ (Jack). Some participants were critical of the CB role: ‘…the CB I don’t believe ever had any real governance structure. It was really a steering committee’ (Belinda), and ‘it was basically a reference group. They didn’t have the authority to make decisions, they had no resources, they could make recommendations to the key body’ (Betty). Such points indicate a tension between expectations of the CB role and structural constraints on its governance and decision-making capacity (Taylor, 2015). Consequently, some suggested that participation in the CB was both a pretence (Cornwall, 2008) and disempowering: ‘…some members didn’t feel that they were actively engaged or involved, we should have really looked at the skills around the table’ (Belinda), and ‘I felt a bit redundant to be honest’ (Jack). In contrast to the skill development, sense of purpose and meaningful participation in democratic processes characterizing empowerment (Wallerstein, 1992) and social learning (Wildemeersch et al., 1998), CTC processes appear to have overlooked local skills, resources and knowledge (Ife, 2016). Disempowerment was also evident in an observation that meetings were nearly always held at the health service, ‘where the group meets matters, and it does need to be a place that’s community-based and as independent as possible…that frees people to offer what they can’ (Jenny). Some participants commented that scheduling meetings during business hours prioritized attendance of members co-opted to the CB in organizational roles and made the CB inaccessible to many working community members. This section has highlighted that rather than valuing local skills, knowledge and the dynamism characterizing community life (Ife, 2010), CTC privileges formal, linear and goal-oriented processes. These arrangements appeared to marginalize community members and limit opportunities to build the capacity for partnership work within the coalitions. Funding and marshalling resources are also crucial in enabling communities to develop their capacity to achieve self-reliance and sustainability (Taylor, 2015). Hence, the challenges associated with governance of resourcing are a focus for examination. Constraints on service delivery This section examines the challenges of resource governance and other potential barriers to a coordinated intervention in Hilltop. Once decisions were made concerning the focal areas for change, such as community attitudes favourable to alcohol, the coalitions were tasked with selecting interventions from a CTC endorsed suite of prevention programmes. Difficulty inserting CTC goals into the service of delivery organizations, each with its own funding stream and accountability, and lack of financial resources were commonly identified constraints: …many members represented schools and they had their own constraints around what they could do or how the goals of CTC fitted or didn’t fit with their school environment and goals for the year. I felt frustrated at times that we couldn’t line that up in an action planning way…I was struck by the range of [prevention programme] choices, a lot looked like they needed substantial resourcing…the group didn’t have access to substantial sums of money…I felt a bit frustrated… how could we do it? (Jenny) The coalitions compensated for lack of money by using their influence in attempts to reconfigure CTC programmes to fit existing funding and service delivery models and to gain agreement to deliver programmes from community services over which they had no authority. Some participants suggested that unanticipated events significantly affected agencies’ participation in CTC and delivery of programmes selected by the CB: ‘there’s been such change over time…some things have got off the ground and then people haven’t followed things through properly...’ (Jack) and ‘a few major service providers…their priorities changed and they withdrew…’ (Betty). However, the coalitions’ influence resulted in some success, as Jack observed: ‘it kept our school on the ball…we said we’d run these programmes, so we were being asked, “How is it going? Where is it up to?” I saw it more as a catalyst…that would support CTC and support our whole township’. Some participants commended the schools’ effective relationship building with all spheres of community: ‘the changes at school certainly engaged younger people in the school environment a lot more…the school’s become a lot stronger as a consequence…and the relationship between the schools has changed…a much more coordinated approach to education within the community’ (Betty). Another participant attributed community change to the collaborative work of the governance coalitions: ‘we re-surveyed [young people, in the final year of the five-year intervention]. In some areas we had made significant gains which I think was a real testament to the work and the partnership development’ (Belinda). Overwhelmingly, participants’ narratives demonstrate a key element of social learning (Wildemeersch et al., 1998), learning about both barriers and enablers of creative collective agency when faced with external constraints. As the processes of negotiating across the rapidly changing organizational context proved challenging, internal relationships were also a source of tension for the governing coalitions. Divide between community and professional members The governance coalitions’ efficacy depended on bringing professional and community members together. Some observed that at times tensions between professionals took precedence over both coalitions’ shared sense of purpose, ‘Sometimes I found it to be fraught with political undertones, that was always related to different services and the tensions between those. I found that really uncomfortable’ (Chris). One participant described her role in defusing conflict, ‘I often found that everyone needed a bit of jollying along’ (Naomi). Others observed that professionals’ commitment to CTC was tenuous at times: ‘It was sometimes quite difficult…they didn’t always turn up…but you needed to have them’ (Steve), and ‘I think a lot of the people were actually doing it as part of their job…at times people’s phones would ring and they’d be on the phone…I’d think if you’re that busy don’t come’ (Naomi). Naomi also recalled suggesting a strategy for wider community engagement that was met with opposition from professionals, ‘had we of got that [youth] survey out, even just published in the paper…people may have come forward with questions and it might have led to other things…that was just one thing that I would have liked to have seen that didn’t happen’. In sum, participants’ narratives reflect Ife’s (2010) contention that an overwhelming representation of external stakeholders may marginalize community members. Further, it appears the coalitions did not reach a point of recognizing that all groups experience conflict (Wildemeersch et al., 1998; Kenny and Connors, 2017). Opening space for less powerful interests to express their perspective may result in partnership growth (Taylor, 2011). Discussion This article has reported findings from an evaluation that used a critical community development lens to examine governance of a CTC intervention in an Australian rural community. CTC’s objective was to address some of the social issues affecting young people in this community in a new way by proposing and implementing prevention solutions. Findings illustrate that this CTC intervention successfully attracted representatives from multiple service sectors to the governance coalitions. However, recruitment strategies failed to engage community members and all forms of difference. Greater gender and cultural diversity amongst participants may have impacted both CTC and the evaluation results. Overwhelmingly, CTC’s reliance on professionals, who in this case resided outside the community, reflects a design that is flawed from the outset, a top-down approach to community change. The resulting power imbalance between professionals and community members limited opportunities for collaborative governance. Findings suggest that the managerialist context appears to have fostered a competitive environment (Ife, 2016). The little collaboration there was focussed on harnessing available resources, particularly professional members’ influence to gain agreement from existing education providers and health and community services to deliver CTC programmes. Difficulty sustaining community coalitions through the five-year CTC process is a strong theme in the CTC literature (Crow et al., 2004; Hawkins et al., 2008; Oesterle et al., 2014) and in Hilltop collaboration appeared to be further compromised by the high turnover in membership of governing coalitions. Attrition appeared in some cases to result from the organizational context shaped by service agreement-based funding models (Taylor, 2015; Kenny and Connors, 2017) and associated changes in priorities and staff. Reflecting Ife’s (2010) critique of capacity building as a linear process the strong sense of community residents’ frustration and tested motivation appeared to be linked to CTC’s narrow focus on training about processes and techniques (CTC, 2019). CTC meeting locations and practices may also have affected participation by those intimidated by the power symbolized by particular spaces (Kenny and Connors, 2017). As a result, leadership throughout the intervention was reduced to a process rather than contextually situated practice that enabled collective learning about democratic participation within groups (Wildemeersch et al., 1998; Crosby and Bryson, 2010). Briefing all members about the difference between governance and operational levels at the outset of their involvement and the inclusion of clearly articulated values and an ethical decision-making framework (Emerson et al., 2012) in the CB’s terms of reference (Kenny and Connors, 2017) appear to be important considerations. In sum, a broad endogenous approach that recognizes community residents’ expertise and connection with the social context and provides opportunities to exercise the community voice (Ansell and Gash, 2008; Ife, 2010) may develop leadership and skills that might be sustained or relevant beyond CTC. Participants reported that CTC 2016 survey findings demonstrated a reduction in immediately risky behaviour in Hilltop; however, it remains unknown whether change was a consequence of the intervention or other factors. Latest data, for example, suggests that the number of Australian young people misusing alcohol and tobacco has decreased over the past decade (Williams et al., 2016). Critically, CTC’s focus on technical competency resulted in missed opportunities for CTC to connect with and assist young people in achieving tasks of identity formation and finding a place in the world (Erikson, 1968; Harms, 2010). Recent research indicates that empowering young people to identify their needs and co-design responses may develop their capacity more sustainably (Mission Australia, 2017). Findings also suggest the benefit of those involved in the governance of CTC engaging in critical reflection, a reflective practice that may develop potential for collective learning and action to affect social change (Kenny and Connors, 2017). Such reflection may be useful for exploring historical, social and economic factors including colonization, the patriarchal structures in rural Australia and a limited labour market underpinning the considerable disadvantage of some in rural communities (Vinson et al., 2017). Critically, this approach to reflection enables the inclusion of others’ perspectives (Wildemeersch et al., 1998). Listening to others’ accounts of the factors enabling their participation in community activities may prompt reflection about whether governance coalition members’ practice empowers others, particularly those who are less confident. Further, CTC appears to presume that all young people are attending school, yet recent data shows many of the most vulnerable are already disengaged from education (Victorian Ombudsman, 2017). Critical reflection may enable consideration of both the factors influencing the experience of this cohort and that prevention approaches to the issues experienced by young people may not be appropriate for all. Conclusion This article has reported on the results of an evaluation that applied a critical community development lens to the governance of a CTC intervention in a small rural Australian community. It appears that the governance of this CTC intervention became encapsulated in the CTC process that involved developing knowledge about CTC, its phases and its ways of working. Focussing on developing the capacity of the community to participate in a meaningful way by sharing leadership functions, building on existing strengths and developing community residents’ confidence to do things for themselves may result in more sustainable community change. This article will be of interest to rural human services workers, community development workers and community development educators, as well as those contemplating using the CTC approach. Strength of this research is an in-depth analysis of the CTC approach to community change in one small rural community. Further research is needed to explore the experience of doing collaboration in CTC governance in other rural settings across the Western world. Footnotes 1 This article has been cited over 3,600 times. 2 Hilltop is a pseudonym used to protect this community’s privacy. 3 Norms include secondary supply or the provision of alcohol products to people under the age of eighteen by a third party (ADF, 2017). Dr Heather Downey is a senior lecturer in social work at La Trobe University’s Albury–Wodonga campus, Australia. Her research focus area is social and environmental justice in the context of climate change. Dr Guinever Threlkeld researches rural service delivery models and has taught extensively into La Trobe’s Social Work programme. References ABS ( 2012 ) 4102.0 - Australian Social Trends, Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed at: http:///www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Dec+2012 ( 19 February 2014 ). ABS ( 2018 ) Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS), Australian Bureau of Statistics, accessed at: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Australian+Statistical+Geography+Standard+(ASGS) ( 19 December 2018 ). ABS ( 2017 ) Community Profiles, Australian Burea of Statistics, accessed at: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/2016%20Census%20Community%20Profiles ( 08 May 2019 ). AIHW ( 2016 ) Australia's Health, accessed at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-health/australias-health-2016/contents/summary ( 20 May 2018 ). Alston , M. ( 2010 ) Innovative Human Services Practice - Australia's Changing Landscape , Palgrave MacMillan , Melbourne . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Ansell , C. and Gash , A. ( 2008 ) Collaborative governance in theory and practice , Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 18 , 543 – 571 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Bumbarger , B. ( 2016 ) From collaboration, to action, to implementation, to impact, to scale: putting all the pieces of a comprehensive community initiative together, in J. E. Zaff, E. Jones, A. Donlan, S. Anderson eds, Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Positive Youth Development , Routledge , New York , pp. 144 – 163 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Commonwealth of Australia ( 2018 ) Closing the Gap Prime Minister's Report, accessed at: http://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/ctg-report-2018.pdf?a=1 ( 06 January 2019 ) Cornwall , A. ( 2008 ) Unpacking ‘participation’: models, meanings and practices , Community Development Journal , 43 , 269 – 283 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crosby , B. and Bryson , J. ( 2010 ) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations , The Leadership Quarterly , 21 , 211 – 230 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Crow I. , France A., Hacking S. and Hart M. ( 2004 ) Does Communities That Care Work: An Evaluation of a Community-Based Risk Prevention Programme in Three Neighbourhoods, accessed at: https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/evaluation-three-communities-care-demonstration-projects ( 09 May 2018 ). CTC ( 2012 ) A Guide to Australian Prevention Strategies, Communities that Care Ltd , The Royal Children's Hospital , Parkville . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC CTC ( 2019 ) Communities that Care, Communities that Care, accessed at: https://www.communitiesthatcare.org.au/ ( 6 February 2019 ). Davidson P. , Saunders P., Bradbury B. and Wong M. ( 2018 ) Poverty in Australia 2018, accessed at: https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/ACOSS_Poverty-in-Australia-Report_Web-Final.pdf ( 30 November 2018 ). Denhardt , J. and Denhardt , R. ( 2011 ) Leadership, in M. Bevir ed, The SAGE Handbook of Governance , SAGE Publications , London , pp. 419 – 435 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Emerson , K. , Nabatchi , T., Balogh , S. ( 2012 ) An integrative framework for collaborative governance , Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 22 , 1 – 29 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Erikson , E. H. ( 1968 ) Identity: Youth and Crisis , W.W. Norton Company , New York . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Feinberg , M. E. , Jones , D., Greenberg , M. T. et al. ( 2010 ) Effects of the communities that care model in Pennsylvania on change in adolescent risk and problem Behaviors , Prevention Science , 11 , 163 – 171 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Harms , L. ( 2010 ) Understanding Human Development , 2nd edn, Oxford University Press , South Melbourne . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Hawkins , J. D. , Brown , E. C., Oesterle , S. et al. ( 2008 ) Early effects of communities that care on targeted risks and initiation of delinquent behavior and substance use , Journal of Adolescent Health , 43 , 15 – 22 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Hicks , J. , Sappey , R., Basu , P. et al. ( 2012 ) Succession planning in Australian farming , Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal , 6 , 94 – 110 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Ife , J. ( 2010 ) Capacity building and community development, in S. Kenny, M. Clark eds, Challenging Capacity Building: Comparative Perspectives , Palgrave Macmillan , Basingstoke . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Ife , J. ( 2016 ) Community Development in an Uncertain World , Cambridge University Press , Cambridge . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kenny , S. and Connors , P. ( 2017 ) Developing Communities for the Future , 5th edn, Cengage Learning , South Melbourne . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC King , C. and Cruickshank , M. ( 2010 ) Building capacity to engage: community engagement or government engagement? Community Development Journal , 47 , 5 – 28 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Kirst-Ashman , K. and Hull , G. ( 2018 ) Generalist Practice with Organizations and Communities , Cengage Learning , Boston . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Koziol , N. , Arthur , A., Hawley , L. et al. ( 2015 ) Identifying, Analyzing, and communicating rural: a quantitative perspective , Journal of Research in Rural Education , 30 , 1 – 14 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Lee , Y. and Won , D. ( 2018 ) Understanding international volunteering: who is most likely to participate? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing , 30 , 95 – 110 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Lepine , E. , Smith , I., Sullivan , H., Taylor , M. ( 2007 ) Introduction: of neighbourhoods and governance, in I. Smith, E. Lepine, M. Taylor eds, Disadvantaged by Where you Live? Policy Press , Bristol , pp. 1 – 17 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Lincoln , Y. S. and Guba , E. G. ( 1985 ) Naturalistic Inquiry , Sage , Thousand Oaks . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Lowndes , V. and Sullivan , H. ( 2004 ) Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: how well do local partnerships and public participation go together? Local Government Studies , 30 , 51 – 73 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat McLachlan R. , Gilfillan G. and Gordon J. ( 2013 ) Deep and Persistent Disadvantage in Australia, accessed at: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/deep-persistent-disadvantage/deep-persistent-disadvantage.pdf ( 27 January 2019 ). Mertens , D. M. and Wilson , A. T. ( 2012 ) Program Evaluation Theory and Practice: A Comprehensive Guide , Guilford Press , New York . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Mission Australia ( 2017 ) Concepts of Community: Young People’s Concerns, Views and Experiences. Findings From the Youth Survey 2016, accessed at: https://www.missionaustralia.com.au/publications/research/young-people ( 27 March 2019 ). NRHA ed ( 2015 ) Illicit Drug Use in Rural Australia, in National Rural Health Alliance, Ed , NRHA , Deakin West . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Oesterle , S. , Hawkins , J. D., Fagan , A. A. et al. ( 2014 ) Variation in the sustained effects of the communities that care prevention system on adolescent smoking, delinquency, and violence , Prevention Science , 15 , 138 – 145 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Olsen , B. ( 2008 ) How reasons for entry into the profession illuminate teacher identity development , Teacher Education Quarterly , 35 , 23 – 40 . OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat Page , S. ( 2010 ) Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: civic engagement in Seattle , The Leadership Quarterly , 21 , 246 – 263 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Pascoe , B. ( 2018 ) Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture , Magabala Books , Broome . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Patton , M. Q. ( 2002 ) in M. Q. Patton ed, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods , 3rd edn, Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Pawson , R. and Tilley , N. ( 1998 ) Caring communities, paradigm polemics, design debates , Evaluation , 4 , 73 – 90 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Purdue , D. ( 2001 ) Neighbourhood governance: leadership, trust and social capital , Urban Studies , 38 , 2211 – 2224 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Purdue , D. ( 2007 ) Community leadership cycles and neighbourhood governance, in I. Smith, E. Lepine, M. Taylor eds, Disadvantaged by Where You Live , Policy Press , Bristol , pp. 125 – 144 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Rhew , I. C. , Brown , E. C., Hawkins , J. D., Briney , J. S. ( 2013 ) Sustained effects of the communities that care system on prevention service system transformation , American Journal of Public Health , 103 , 529 – 535 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Riessman , C. K. and Quinney , L. ( 2005 ) Narrative in social work: a critical review , Qualitative Social Work , 4 , 391 – 412 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Ryan , G. W. and Bernard , H. R. ( 2000 ) Data management and analysis methods, in N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln eds, The Landscape of Qualitative Research , Sage Publications , Thousand Oaks , pp. 821 – 832 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Spaulding , D. ( 2014 ) Program Evaluation in Practice: Core Concepts and Examples for Discussion and Analysis , John Wiley & Sons , Milton . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Steiner , A. and Markantoni , M. ( 2013 ) Unpacking community resilience through capacity for change , Community Development Journal , 49 , 407 – 425 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Taylor , J. ( 2015 ) Working with Communities , Oxford University Press , Melbourne . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Taylor , M. ( 2011 ) Public Policy in the Community , Palgrave Macmillan , Basingstoke . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Vandenabeele , J. , Vanassche , E., Wildemeersch , D. ( 2011 ) Stories of/on citizenship education: a case of participatory planning , International Journal of Lifelong Education , 30 , 171 – 185 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Victorian Ombudsman ( 2017 ) Investigation into Victorian Government School Expulsions, accessed at: https://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/getattachment/57d918ec-fee0-48e0-a55e-87d0262d3c27 ( 21 August 2019 ) Vinson , T. , Rawsthorne , M., Beavis , A., Ericson , M. ( 2017 ) Dropping off the Edge 2015 , Jesuit Social Services/Catholic Social Services Australia , Curtin . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Wallerstein , N. ( 1992 ) Powerlessness, empowerment, and health: implications for health promotion programs , American Journal of Health Promotion , 6 , 197 – 205 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Westoby , P. ( 2008 ) Developing a community-development approach through engaging resettling Southern Sudanese refugees within Australia , Community Development Journal , 43 , 483 – 495 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Wildemeersch , D. , Jansen , T., Vandenabeele , J., Jans , M. ( 1998 ) Social learning: a new perspective on learning in participatory systems , Studies in Continuing Education , 20 , 251 – 265 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Williams T. , Faulkner A., Scalzo K. and White V. ( 2016 ) Tobacco, Alcohol, Over-The-Counter and Illicit Substance Use Among Victorian Secondary School Students 2014, accessed at: https://www.cancervic.org.au/downloads/cbrc/2014_VIC_ASSAD_Survey_report.pdf ( 27 January 2019 ). © Oxford University Press and Community Development Journal. 2020 All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected] This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)