I follow with interest the development of the new Human Services Coordination group for Redfern-Waterloo. It is kick-starting another wave of discussions from key government services about the need for a new move to coordinate the delivery of government services, especially in relation to public housing.
This is, of course, a reincarnation of yet another platform with the idea of improving human service coordination for the area following the Human Service Plans, Senior Officers’ Implementation Group and Ministerial Advisory Committee under the then Redfern-Waterloo Authority.
Nevertheless, there is a great reluctance to involve the non-government organisations that provide services in the area. The reason given is that it could infringe on some private and confidential information that may not be suitable to be discussed in a public domain. While I can understand the concern, I cannot help but wonder whether the move is an intentional exclusion. It also makes me ask: What is this confidential information that the community should not be aware of? How big an impact will this information have on the community?
When it comes to human services, there has not been much meaningful contact with the community. It has been more like an information-providing channel about what has been decided by the government. This has essentially made it a “spectator sport” for the public who may wish to have its voice heard; and this has further fed cynicism.
Any type of coordination should be voluntary and collective, or at least provide a platform (be it the same or otherwise) to have the passionate and compassionate voices of the community heard.
Don Tapscott talks about four principles for an open world. Here, utilising these principles, I try to paint an imperfect picture if the Human Services Coordination group is to welcome the community into discussions:
- Collaboration – a groups that has an impact in people’s lives should be collaborative so it is fluid and orchestrates capabilities from all stakeholders to create shared public values leading to change;
- Transparency will build trust as a sine qua non (without which there is nothing) and protect the integrity of the decisions made;
- Sharing information will be embraced by the community as a sign of respect and will also aid conscious decision-making and acceptance of decisions made; and
- Empowerment through the collective ownership of the decisions made, even though they may not be unanimous.
I know that these principles can be viewed as threats. However, using the SWOT analysis analogy, we can allocate these principles in all four quadrants: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. It is a matter of perception. With clear boundaries and trust perhaps we can convert threats into opportunities and move forward to better human services for the area.
