Research

Research

Social partnerships in vocational education: Building community capacity

Interest in social partnerships is growing in Australia and in many other parts of the world. Furthermore, their value has been affirmed in the policies of governments and global agencies, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and civic organisations, such as Oxfam, as a means for building social capital—the skills and networks that result from collective, civic activities—and stronger communities.

Social partnerships are based on relationships between government, social agencies and communities or any combination of these. In an educational context, they can provide learning opportunities outside existing institutions such as school, university and vocational colleges, and can target ‘at-risk’ individuals who may not have access to traditional learning. Social partnerships provide an enhanced regional and local capacity for addressing some of the difficult and often intractable problems which countries currently face—problems relating to community breakdown, unemployment and social exclusion. These problems can be addressed in ways sensitive to localised concerns and environments, which means that the solutions generated will be more in line with local needs and more acceptable to local interests.

Resources are now being deployed to support partnerships attempting to achieve these kinds of goals. In Australia, federal, state and local governments are investing funds into a wide range of social partnerships—in health, community, regional and rural development, welfare support, as well as in education and training. They are encouraging whole-of-government approaches to regional policy-making and service delivery, and are promoting inter-agency cooperation as a way of building community capacity.

Social partnerships are seen to be particularly helpful in addressing the needs of young people, as well as communities whose sustainability depends upon establishing lifelong learning. Learning is seen as a way of helping both of these groups to deal with rapid social and economic change and to actively pursue initiatives—such as getting a job, developing new skills, establishing viable enterprises—which will give them a more secure and independent future.

The aim of this project was to examine the nature of social partnerships and how they may be relevant to the vocational education and training (VET) sector. Vocational education and training, which supports industry, individuals and communities, is increasingly identified as an important means of strengthening local communities. This relatively recent role for the VET sector complements its long-standing role in the development of skills and attitudes necessary for work. This sector also offers ‘second chance’ opportunities to those who had been unsuccessful at school or university.

In the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) national strategy, community-building is identified as one of four key objectives. It states:

Communities and regions will be strengthened economically and socially through learning and employment. This will mean: integrated learning and employment solutions will support regional economic, social, cultural and environmental development. Vocational education and training’s contribution to sustainable regions will involve linking skills to local employment, stimulating an interest in learning and strengthening TAFE [technical and further education] and other providers to partner with local agencies, businesses and industry clusters. Vocational education and training will help communities deal with change and take advantage of opportunities for growth. (ANTA 2003)

What will help ANTA and the national VET system to realise this goal? What kinds of partnerships will secure these goals? What strategies will be most useful? How will they be established and sustained? What are the danger points? What evidence and outcome measures will provide a meaningful basis for monitoring performance?

These questions are important because governments and other agencies are currently drawn to social partnerships, yet they are not panaceas for complex problems. Social partnerships have their own complexities and challenges, especially in their establishment and maintenance.

In this study, social partnerships were documented through a desktop review and a phone survey. In-depth case studies were also conducted in three states (Queensland, South Australia and Victoria) to provide a detailed view of how these partnerships actually work.

The project has identified community partnerships which grow out of community concerns and commitments and are formed to address local issues or problems. Enacted social partnerships, on the other hand, are initiated by agencies external to local communities, but with a view to developing and/or supporting particular functions within those communities. Vocational education and training is characterised by both community and enacted social partnerships which are often constructed in ways which support vocational learning, particularly for young adults, through a range of diverse local initiatives. Social partnerships also contribute to broader objectives aimed at strengthening communities by building relationships, working productively with a diversity of partners, and enhancing capacity for local governance.

Partnership work is complex and multi-layered and presents particular interpersonal and organisational challenges. For social partnerships to be successful and achieve the outcomes desired by both central auspicing agencies and local communities requires all partners to recognise that the partnership must work in specific ways. These include:

acknowledge and negotiate the interests and expectations of partners, sponsors and organisations supporting the partnership. In the longer term, whether the social partnership functions depends upon the development of capacity and reciprocity, both of which sustain productive relationships between stakeholders
develop resource and support structures which can, first of all, sustain initial partnership formation and its development and, secondly, assist in the transformation of the partnership into a durable, but responsive body within local or regional contexts
recognise volunteer contributions, the extent to which volunteers are motivated by non-tangible rewards (for example, satisfaction, relationships, the experience of supporting others in a community-building way), and the challenges of managing a largely volunteer workforce
develop careful specification of outcomes to recognise the full range of achievements and definitions of ‘success’ within partnerships. These achievements include tangible outcomes, like education and employment outcomes for youth, and also less tangible outcomes, such as enhanced participation, learning through involvement in partnerships, effective coordination of local agencies, increased trust and social capital.

Given the benefits of partnerships documented in this research, how might partnerships be initiated and sustained to better support local decision-making and local learning needs? In summary, key considerations for policy-makers include:

Processes

Social partnerships may require processes which support their establishment, development and maintenance, with different kinds of guidance likely in each phase.

Establishment

Establishment requires considerations of participation, participants, governance, supporting bodies and resources. Establishing partnerships without community input, interest or concern is likely to be perilous. Certainly, goals of strengthening community capacity are unlikely to be achieved without community interest and participation. Partnerships are most at risk when they are enacted across too wide a geographical area and attempt to cover too diverse an array of community interests.

Development

In the development phase partnerships require assistance with: establishing consensual decision-making and governance; building productive relationships; managing budgets; and obtaining data to guide decision-making. Empowering social partnerships requires that the ‘centre’ (that is, the central auspicing or initiating body) engages reciprocally with all partners. Communication, recommendations, demands and advice should be a two-way process and be acknowledged by both parties. Rigid bureaucratic processes may need to be adapted in order to ensure successful outcomes. This includes tolerance for difference rather than uniformity, for diverse patterns of participation and decision-making, and for localised needs and priorities. Also, community needs and requests may not neatly fit into individual existing policy portfolios.

Maintenance

Maintenance requires feedback to participants, acknowledgement of contributions, assistance in the management of voluntary effort and access to evaluation tools. The evaluation of social partnerships should focus as much upon the processes of building productive relationships, as it does on producing outcomes, since the actual development of the relationship determines both the immediate results and the future outcomes.

Social partnerships are established, developed and sustained largely by volunteer effort. Traditional government practices for managing partners may need to be modified to engage, support and sustain this voluntary effort. Among other goals and priorities, governments must not overlook the potential for social partnerships as vehicles for learning in and development of communities. It is important to remember that engagement in and with social partnerships constitutes capacity-building.

The project findings provide a basis for considering how community-building through social partnerships might be used to support vocational education and training goals. The findings section of the report reveals dangers inherent to the community-building approach and how they might be negotiated as community-building proceeds. This section also suggests strategies for advancing community capacity-building and monitoring performance through social partnerships.