![]() |
Media Release
25 January 2007
The future prosperity and well being of our young people, and thus of our community as a whole, depends on the skills and knowledge they gain and on the system of values they develop. So how do young people fare in our area?
Recent research shows that ‘social exclusion’ can happen to people who suffer problems like unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime rates, ill health and family breakdown. If the problems are sufficiently widespread they can have that effect on an entire community or area.
Bearing that in mind, there are some disturbing and shameful statistics about the state of affairs in our own backyard:
The presence of a whole range of indicators of social disadvantage in our area suggests that from a policy perspective there is no point trying to deal with any single factor in isolation. What we need is a holistic approach, one that takes into account, and that deals as best it can, with all of the relevant factors.
To achieve this, governments need to listen to the people on the ground, the people who deal with these problems – and their victims – on a daily basis. It is the people at the coal face who really understand the problems, and who usually can suggest the best and most practical solutions.
Are we restricting the opportunities for our young people to access education and training and improve their skills? If so, how? And what are we doing about it? What are we doing to help our young people access affordable housing? How are we restricting their access to health services? What community facilities, services and activities do we provide to promote their physical and social health, and their sense of worth and well being, on an ongoing basis?
Is it the case, as so many community service workers on the ground say, that 40-50% of their time is spent on complying with bureaucratic and administrative requirements about the work they do instead of doing the work itself? If so, does this not indicate a systemic problem in terms of bureaucratic requirements eating up human resources and money that should be spent on delivery of on the ground services? Does it not indicate a need for an overall review of the bureaucratic burden placed on community services? Could the reporting and compliance requirements not be reduced to manageable levels by changing to a system of self-reporting coupled with random official audits (like systems apparently used in some heavy transport industry and WorkCover compliance schemes) with the aim of reducing administrative and compliance costs to perhaps 20% -- or hopefully even 10% -- of operating budgets? That would free up about one third of overall funding for “on the ground” service delivery, effectively doubling the money available to the people who can and do use it effectively.
And let's not forget about the additional resources that must be consumed on the other end of this paper trail? How much do we pay for the bureaucracy that shuffles and files the paperwork the service providers are required to generate?
Community consultation, co-operation between governments, minimal bureaucratic intervention, long term commitment and funding beyond election cycles is needed.
Media Contact: Justin McKee
02 49 33 0564 / 0404 824 020