Methodologies | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Community domain and subdomain/s | Description | Policy document* | Stakeholder interview* | Parent focus group* | Practitioner focus group* | Service survey* | Community survey* | GIS and park audit† | Service information† | Community demographics† | |
Physical domain | |||||||||||
1. Public open space | Objective counts, size, type, quality and proximity to green space (eg, parks), blue space (eg, water bodies such as beaches).† Perceptions of public open space* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
2. Public transport | Objective counts and proximity to bus, tram, rail/train and ferry stops.†Perceptions of public transport* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
3. Traffic exposure | Objective exposure to traffic volume (high vs low). Perceptions of traffic exposure* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
4. Housing | Objective residential density (number of dwellings/residential land area) and proportion of high rise (four or more storeys) vs Low rise.† Perceptions of housing* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
5. Destinations and services | Objective counts of and proximity to places/facilities/destinations such as services, childcare, libraries, community centres and recreation venues.† Perceptions of destinations and services* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||
6. Walkability | Objective walkability (density, mixed use, connectivity).† Perceived ease or difficulty of getting to and from destinations and services, that is, how ‘pedestrian friendly’ or ‘walkable’ the community is* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
7. Crime/incivilities | Objective crimes against the person in public or property, total crime rate.† Perceptions of crime* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
Social domain | |||||||||||
8. Social capital/ties | |||||||||||
a. Networks | Bonding, bridging and linking capital, that is, relationships, interactions and connections with people. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
b. Participation | Whether people participate in events and activities | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
c. Trust | Personalised trust (feeling able to trust other people within the community) and generalised trust (feeling able to trust/have confidence in institutions) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
d. Perceptions of community diversity | Perceptions of whether the community is homogeneous or diverse | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
9. Crime | |||||||||||
a. Community response to crime | Community response to crime: how people work together within the community in response to crime or perceived crime risk | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
b. Parental response to crime | Parent perception of crime and safety: the impact of parental views on neighbourhood safety on their parenting behaviour | ✓ | |||||||||
c. Perceptions of neighbourhood safety | Perceptions of how safe the community feels | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
d. Domestic violence and child protection | Perceptions and rates of domestic violence, and number of children notified in child protection reports | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
10. Neighbourhood attachment | |||||||||||
a. Mobility | Individual and community mobility and stability | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
b. Perceptions of neighbourhood attachment | Perceptions of neighbourhood attachment or how connected they feel to the community | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
11. Child friendliness | |||||||||||
a. Perceptions of child friendliness | Perceptions of whether people in the community are perceived as being well disposed to children in public places, and whether the community is perceived as a ‘good’ place to raise children | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
Sociodemographic domain | |||||||||||
12. Community sociodemographic status | As defined by the ABS SEIFA IRSD | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
13. Community demographics | Includes: age profile, education, employment, ethnic and cultural diversity, household types, housing affordability, income | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
Service domain | |||||||||||
14. Quality | |||||||||||
a. Accreditation | Accreditation and licensing | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
b.Perceptions of quality | Perceptions about quality of service, quality of care, welcoming staff, physical condition of service. This refers to how ‘good’ the service is perceived for children and families. | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
15. Quantity | |||||||||||
a. Number of services | Objective counts of number of services in the area.† Perceptions of number of services* | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||
b. Number per capita | Objective number of services per population† | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
c. Usage | Client use of the service | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
16. Access to services | |||||||||||
a. Opening hours | Opening hours of the service | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
b. Cost | Cost of what clients/patients pay to use the service | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
c. Capacity | Open to new clients/patients, number of vacancies | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
d. Waiting lists | Whether people have to wait to access a service | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
17. Coordination | |||||||||||
a. Co-locations | Whether the service is co-located with other services | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
b. Collaborations/networks/partnerships | Partnerships and collaborations at the service implementation level | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||||
Governance domain | |||||||||||
18. Context and characteristics | |||||||||||
a. History | Historical factors and events including environmental events that impact on the current arrangements including agenda and priorities, partnerships and collaborations | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
b. Multilevel governance | Characteristics of governance groups and/or community governance practices, including practices for decision-making. This refers to ‘vertical’ governance—that is, between levels of organisations | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
c. Priorities, policies and programmes | Key policies or programmes relating to children. Agenda and priorities that are currently (or recently) being pursued by policymakers, partnerships and collaborations in the community. Includes mention of priorities not specifically about children | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
19. Macro/meso policy environment (context) | |||||||||||
a. Role of federal and state government locally, involvement of portfolio staff locally | The involvement and incidence of Federal and State programmes and requirements in the area | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
b. Policies supporting/requiring governance coordination | Federal and State requirements for coordination of governance | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
20. Representation and demographic effects—local | |||||||||||
a. Citizen involvement in decision-making | Transparent/accountable/responsive structures that have the ability to reflect community-level interests and ensure everyone has the right to have a say. The way that involvement is facilitated in the community including membership of organisations and decision-making bodies. Also references to inclusion or exclusion for groups and/or individuals | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
21. Decision-making and leadership—local | |||||||||||
a. Common agenda | How is the local agenda agreed and is there general agreement or are there high levels of conflict—specifically referring to partnerships and coordination | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
b. Data for decision-making | Any reference to data or evidence used for the purpose of decision-making for policy | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||||
c. Key leaders | Involves individuals and organisations that are making a particular contribution, have a role in decision-making | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
d. Resources, rules, roles, structures | Local arrangements for the coordination of decision-making, policies and programmes and their implementation | ✓ | ✓ |
*Subjective measure.
†Objective measure.
ABS, Australian Bureau of Statistics; GIS, Geographic Information Systems; IRSD, Index of Relative Advantage and Disadvantage; SEIFA, Socio-economic Index for Areas.