Understanding the terminology

Deciding what constitutes a family-centred community is fraught with difficulties, not least of which is the lack of a common understanding of the terms ‘family’ and ‘community’. Despite national policy statements and initiatives regarding ‘family strength’, ‘family resilience’ and ‘strong communities’, the concepts remain highly abstract. There are many interpretations and possibly incompatible goals amongst the various approaches.

This section attempts to provide an overview of the common interpretations and establish how the terms are interpreted in this report.

Definition of family

The term ‘family’ has many different meanings which vary depending upon context and use. The meaning of the term depends on whether it is being interpreted in a social, biological, cultural or statistical sense (Bogenschneider, Young, Melli, & Fleming, 1993; Jacobsen, Fursman, Bryant, Claridge, & Jensen, 2004; Stone, 2000). Attempts to agree on a definition of family often become a values question: What is the ideal, normative-type of family? (Ooms, 1995).

In recent decades, economic, social and demographic changes have affected family structure significantly. New patterns of partnering, family formation, relationship dissolution and re-partnering have resulted in a growing diversity of family forms, as well as greater frequency of change between family forms. Marriages are less permanent, there are more non-cohabiting partners and one-parent families and two-parent ‘blended’ or ‘step’ families are becoming much more common. Increasingly, the family comprises people who live in separate households for some or all of the time (Families Commission, 2005; Ministry of Social Development, 2004a; True, 2005).

The Ministry of Social Development (2004a) found four central features of recent family change which are common in New Zealand and most post-industrial societies:

an increase in the instability of partnerships
a decline in the rate of marriage
a weakening in the link between marriage and childbearing
a fundamental change in women’s economic role in the family.

Other changes include the growing number of older people. This includes an increase in the number of older people who are supported by the state, whether in hospitals or rest homes, or by home-based services, rather than solely by their families (Ministry of Social Development, 2004a).

In practice, people may see themselves as members of several families; for example, as a member of a family with their parents and siblings, and also a member of a family that they have formed themselves. They may have family members to whom they are not actually biologically or legally related (Hodgson & Birks, 2002).

Increasingly we conceive of families in terms of what they do – sharing resources, caring, responsibilities and obligations – rather than the particular organisational form they take:

In this context of fluid and changing definitions of families, a basic core remains which refers to the sharing of resources, caring, responsibilities and obligations. What a family is appears intrinsically related to what it does. … While there are new family forms emerging, alongside new normative guidelines about family relationships, this does not mean that values of caring and obligation are abandoned. On the contrary, these are central issues which continue to bind people together (Smart & Silva, 1999, p. 7 cited in Stone, 2000, p. 24).

Legal and policy definitions of family relationships are continually evolving in New Zealand in order to take account of changing social and cultural norms. Several definitions of family are used in policy. In some, but not all, cases, government policies take into consideration extended families, especially in the case of Māori whānau.[2]

New Zealand law seeks to be ‘relatively neutral’ with respect to the kinds of social relationships that constitute a family (Ministry of Social Development, 2004a). It recognises de facto and de jure relationships by cohabitation and marriage; relationships between same-sex and opposite-sex couples; biological and adopted children; and single-parent, two-parent and extended families. Legislation recognising non-marital civil unions of same-sex and opposite-sex couples (the Civil Union Act 2004) is a recent example of the normative evolution in the concept of the family.

The Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act (1989) acknowledges both legal and functional relationships and also tries to incorporate cultural differences into the definition. This definition is:

A family group including an extended family, in which there is at least one adult member with whom a child or another adult member has a biological or legal relationship; or to whom the child or other adult member has a significant psychological attachment; or that is the child’s or other adult member’s Whānau or other culturally recognised group (Section 2, Child, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989)[3].

The ‘family’ in the Families Commission Act 2003 includes:

…a group of people related by marriage [or civil union], blood or adoption, an extended family, two or more persons living together as a family, and a whānau or other culturally recognised family group (Section 10, Families Commission Act 2003).

On the basis of the definition in its Act, the Families Commission has adopted a broad and inclusive approach to families that considers the full range of families and their roles and functions. These include:

groups of people who are related by marriage, blood or adoption
extended families
two or more people living together as a family
whānau or other culturally recognised groups (Families Commission, 2006).

It recognises that these groups have a wide range of living arrangements including:

single-household nuclear families
extended families and wider kinship groupings
Māori whānau
customary family structures in Pacific and Asian communities and other ethnic groups
multi-generational groupings
families dispersed across multiple households
joint and shared child custody arrangements
‘blended’ families (Families Commission, 2006).

This research adopted the Families Commission interpretation of ‘families’. This created some difficulties in identifying the components of family-centred communities. The diversity of forms, functions and relationship implicit in this definition made it difficult to identify the variables for family-centred communities as opposed to people-centred communities.

Some families have all their members living in a single locality or neighbourhood, while others can have members spread across many neighbourhoods, districts or nations. Some families comprise people who have little or no interest in being in contact with children and may prefer child-free settings or, in some extreme cases, a child-free gated community (as Freeman (2006) identified in her critique of gated communities). Others want child-friendly settings.

Most literature on families interpreted family as adults (parents or caregivers) with young children. Literature reporting family perceptions, therefore, only reflected the views of parents with dependent children.

Return to Top

What is community?

Community is also a term that is used in many different ways, and the understanding of community has varied and changed through time:

We talk about community in a way, assuming that we all understand what that means, and I’m interested, just thinking about how our location of community has changed, even in a physical way, that the sense of community as a neighborhood, which is an allegedly physical space, dropped off the screen. And then slowly, throughout the ’70s and ’80s, we began to talk about the medical community, the academic community, the computer community. Community was relocated in a physical sense from the place we lived to the place we work, which took on stability and which took on relationships. A sense of people who knew each other, and who knew more about the people that they worked with than the people that they lived next door to. And then in the ’90s, that is now eroding because the security and the constancy and the sense that you’re going to know people over a long period of time, because you’re going to be in one work space, has now eroded … simultaneously we have developed new ways of communicating and new communities through new technology, particularly the computer, e-mailing everybody, and knowing people who you e-mail better than people you’re going to meet in the corridor, even at work (Goodman, 1997).

A community may be thought of as a network of people and organisations linked by various factors. The term can refer to:

a geographic community (such as a neighbourhood, city, rural town or district)[4]
a community of common interest, identity or whakapapa (such as a hapū, ethnic group, voluntary organisation or virtual online community)[5] or
an administrative or political community (such as a district, a state or the European Union) (Blakeley, 1995, 1996; Bowles, 1999; Loomis, 2005; Richardson, 1998; Royal Commission on Social Policy, 1988).

Almost all communities embrace aspects of each definition; for example, geographical communities contain multiple communities created by common identity or interest. Most people are members of many different communities at the same time, such as a neighbourhood community, community of friends, school community, work community and cultural community. We are all members of several communities, and our ties with them can increase or decrease. It is both illogical and dangerous to assume people belong to only one community.

Communities include individuals and families along with groups, organisations and institutions from the private, public, community and voluntary sectors. A community’s activities can involve interactions between people inside and outside of the community. Some boundaries are rigidly maintained while others are more open and fluid.

While ‘community’ implies a degree of co-operation and interaction, usually communities comprise diverse groups, families and individuals with competing interests. Within any community there will be different viewpoints and interests. These will not always ‘jigsaw’ neatly, and, in fact, will often conflict (Hounslow, 2002). Invariably there are differences in power and wealth. People’s actions have repercussions on others – the rights of some may equate to the hardships of others (Richardson, 1998; Short, 1989).

Some communities maintain members’ interests and commitment, and function in ways which generally provide positive experiences for members. They can manage to organise themselves around shared goals and act together as a cohesive group. For example, communities can fundraise for and build local facilities such as community or medical centres.

Other communities are fragmented and disorganised. They do not attract a broad level of involvement and appear unable to resolve internal conflicts. Communities can also be parochial with little concern for wider society; for example, resistance to the proposed location of community houses and public facilities in local communities – often described as the NIMBY principle (Not In My Backyard).[6] They can be instruments of privilege and exclusion.

Return to Top

Local government understanding of community

Local government has varied interpretations of community. Historically, communities were defined in terms of access to services. Separate isolated settlements built and organised most infrastructure, including reserves, road maintenance and sewage disposal. In addition to multi-purpose territorial bodies, a considerable number of ad hoc or single-purpose local authorities existed. These included harbour boards (the first in 1870), river boards (1884), hospital boards (1885), education boards (1877), rabbit boards (1886), drainage boards (1893), electric power boards (1918), catchment boards (1941) and reserves and domain boards (Bassett, 1987, 1997; Gray, 1993).

The Local Government Act 1989 brought the functions of local ad hoc bodies under central government policy and control.[7] The Act divided New Zealand into 12 regions, each with a regional council. The country was again divided into 74 areas whose boundaries were drawn, as far as possible, to include large enough population groups within common areas. These areas were given either a ‘city’ or ‘district’ designation, depending on the number of people living within their urban boundaries, and whether this was a major centre within the region.

The areas of some of the smaller authorities became communities with community boards within some of the new larger districts. The legislation made ward representation and community boards mandatory for territorial authorities with populations over 20,000. Both became optional again in 1991 under the National Government (Bush, 1995, 2002; Elwood, 1989).

Economies of scale have resulted in further integration of services across districts and cities. Ease of movement and centralisation of retail and other key services in the city centres have continued to influence the way local government views community.

The Local Government Act 2002 defines community as an area constituted in any part of the district in accordance with the Act. These communities are geographically based with defined boundaries which coincide with statistical meshblock areas. However, the Act also refers to Community Outcomes, and in this context community refers to the whole district.

The Local Electoral Act 2001 refers to communities of interests and, although the term is not defined by statute, the Local Government Commission takes the following view:

… that a community of interest is the area to which one feels a sense of belonging and to which one looks for social, service and economic support. Geographic features and the roading network can affect the sense of belonging to an area. The community of interest can often be identified by access to the goods and services needed for everyday existence… (Local Government Commission, 2005, p. 10).

Most councils take a wider view of the definition of community. For example, councils’ policies variously recognise Māori iwi structures, ethnic communities, arts communities, religious communities and population groups. The Dunedin City Council’s Community Policy states:

Council acknowledges the variety of communities that exist in the city. While neighbourhood development is an appropriate method of working to address issues relating to geographic communities, issues of concern to communities of interest (eg, Māori, older adults, ethnic, disability etc.) may require a different approach. When working with geographic communities conventional points of contact via neighbourhood groups or public meetings may not be effective in making contact with all sectors of that community. In some instances interest groups, eg, disability groups, may be more effective vehicles by which to contact specific sectors of a community. Likewise issues relating to a wider group may need an approach that is more inclusive than residents of an area, for example issues relating to Māori may require the input of a rununga or iwi group who are not resident of an area. An inclusive approach is necessary to any community development project and as such requires appropriate timeframes and resources to implement successfully (Dunedin City Council, 1997, p. 5).

Despite the wide interpretation of community in councils’ policies there still is a tendency to equate community with place. A substantial amount of council planning and community development is focused on locality; for example, at the neighbourhood level. Representation is still largely based on geographical boundaries (with the exception of some Māori constituencies, such as Environment Bay of Plenty).

Much of the literature on the ways in which local government impacts on family wellbeing is focused at the neighbourhood level (or community with some kind of implicit or explicit local spatial dimension).[8]

In the light of the local government interest in place-based communities, and the focus of a large body of literature on impact on neighbourhoods, this report includes a brief interpretation of ‘neighbourhood’.

Return to Top

What is neighbourhood?

Like ‘community’, neighbourhood is a concept that tends to be understood intuitively but, as noted by a number of writers, defies easy definition (Butterworth & Fisher, 2000; Forrest, 2004; Kearns & Parkinson, 2001; Witten, Penney, Faalau, & Jensen, 2006).

A neighbourhood can be understood as a small, localised area around the home. Some commentators describe it as a zone of varied size, but it generally involves interactions between residents, local service providers and visitors (Forrest & Kearns, 2001). Kearns and Parkinson (2001) use a distance-time measure, describing neighbourhood as the areas within a five-to-ten-minute walk from a person’s home.

In the Families Commission’s report Neighbourhood Environments That Support Families, the concept of neighbourhood was used in several ways (Witten et al, 2006). In the survey components of the research, a meshblock was used as a proxy for neighbourhood, as it enabled the survey responses of participants to be linked to the location of their homes. However, in the qualitative component of the research – interviews with parents in their homes – the term ‘neighbourhood’ was used loosely to describe the geographic area in the vicinity of participants’ homes. These varied in scale from something akin to a meshblock, through to an entire suburb (Witten et al, 2006).

Butterworth and Fisher (2000) suggested that neighbourhoods can be prescribed by government, or be organic, resulting from patterns of interaction, folklore and identification built up over long periods of time. Boundaries include landmarks such as roads, railway lines or buildings or other, more subtle markers, such as trees, parks, spaces or graffiti. They argued that sense of community at a neighbourhood level has been found to have benefited from urban planning that a) encourages visual coherence, diversity and attractiveness of houses and other buildings; b) affords sufficient privacy; c) ensures residents have easy access to amenities, parks, recreation facilities and the town centre; d) offers pedestrian-friendly spaces; e) provides streetscapes so that houses have views of the neighbourhood; f) encourages open porches and low fences, which help social interaction; and g) restricts motor traffic.

Others suggest that non-territorial and non-architectural solutions offer more hope for building a sense of community, and that environmental effects depend on particular social situations (Talen, 1999, p. 1375).

The literature on neighbourhood derives mostly from American or European studies. The notion of a ‘lost’ community of a previous industrial age forms an important part of the backdrop to debates about community and neighbourhood in Western European society. In some cases imagery is evoked of a world that has now moved on. There are implicit or explicit assumptions in much of the neighbourhood literature about the erosion of traditional family life and primary kinship networks; these assumptions need considerable qualification in, for example, a Māori or Asian context (Forrest, 2004).

Whatever the conceptual robustness of the term ‘neighbourhood’, politicians, policy-makers and many academics continue to use it to refer to something they believe does matter (Forrest, 2004). The idea of neighbourhood retains powerful imagery and appears to remain an important part of our lived experience.

The neighbourhood continues to be important in the local government policy context both in New Zealand and overseas.[9]

Where you live can clearly affect the quality of local services you have access to, your exposure to crime and violence and peer influences and processes of socialisation. Residents of poor neighbourhoods are, for example, less likely to complete school and are more likely to become victims or perpetrators of crime. The contextual effect of neighbourhoods may be particularly marked in the most disadvantaged areas. These context effects include the restricted opportunity structure of the neighbourhood (lack of formal and informal employment opportunities) and the development of deviant social norms, or at least social norms outside the mainstream. However, neighbourhood context may affect some groups more than others. For example, peer influence may play a much greater part in the socialisation of teenagers than of pre-schoolers, where parental influence is more likely to be dominant (Forrest, 2004).

As with all forms of community, spatial and non-spatial, neighbourhoods can be instruments of privilege and exclusion. The increasing concentration of the poor into particular parts of cities (often because of affordability) produces stigma, negative labelling and neighbourhoods with the kind of social capital which entraps rather than empowers (Healy & Cote, 2001; Woolcock, 1999).

The local government sector in New Zealand also appears to have a variety of interpretations of neighbourhood depending on the context and the activity involved. Residents’ groups and associations and ratepayer groups are often given fixed geographical ‘neighbourhood’ boundaries. These boundaries usually coincide with the boundaries of the statistical meshblock areas determined by Statistics New Zealand. However, they do not necessarily coincide with Statistics New Zealand census area units. For example, Christchurch City Councils’ Policy on Residents’ Groups stated:

Boundaries of neighbourhoods may be naturally occurring, for example the loop of a river, or the result of a planning decision such as a motorway. Some are focused on or around shopping centres, while others exist because of zoning regulations, for example where individual zones exist beside residential zones (Christchurch City Council, 1999, p. 1).

In this report the term ‘neighbourhood’ generally referred to a small, localised area around the home.

Return to Top

Local government

Local authorities are autonomous and are accountable to the communities that they serve. They are separate legal entities from the Crown, and are not generally subject to direction by Ministers. The rights and powers of local authorities are given to them by statute, and correspondingly, the powers of Ministers over local authorities are also limited to those conferred on them by statute. They are funded largely by locally raised funds (88 percent of total revenue) and regulated by a range of Acts.

Under the Local Government Act 2002, the fundamental purpose of local government is to:

enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities
promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future.

New Zealand’s local government system comprises two complementary sets of local authorities – regional councils and territorial authorities. There are currently 86 local authorities consisting of:

12 regional councils
73 territorial authorities (comprising 16 city councils and 57 district councils – including the Chatham Islands and four unitary councils which have regional functions) (Local Government New Zealand, 2008).

The activities of the 12 regional councils include:

managing the effects of using fresh water, land, air and coastal waters, by developing regional policy statements and issuing consents
managing rivers – flood control and mitigating soil erosion
regional land transport planning and contracting passenger services
harbour navigation and safety, oil spills and other issues related to marine pollution
control of regional plant and animal pests
regional civil defence emergency management preparedness.

The activities of the 73 territorial authorities include:

controlling the effects of land use (including hazardous substances, natural hazards and harm to indigenous biodiversity), noise and the effects of activities on lakes and rivers
providing local infrastructure, including water supply, waste-water and sewerage and roading networks
environmental safety and health, building control, public health inspections, dog control, alcohol and gambling licensing
social and community development activities, including providing community centres, community grant funding, social housing and community safety initiatives
recreation and leisure culture services, including provision of recreation facilities
programmes, public libraries, parks and open space
economic development and tourism promotion
arts and cultural activities, such as museums, art galleries, art festivals and cultural programmes and facilities (Department of Internal Affairs, 2005).

The Local Government Act 2002 provides local authorities with flexible powers, but balances this with explicit decision-making, consultation, strategic planning and accountability expectations. These include requirements to consider the benefits and costs of decisions in terms of the present and future social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of the district or region. It also requires that councils consider community views at each stage of decision-making.

Return to Top

Footnotes

[2]: Whānau is a wider concept than the traditional nuclear family. Belonging to a Māori whānau often involves living in a multi-generational household where, for example, several whānau members may share the parental responsibility for raising children. Whānau provides for the caring needs of individuals and also gives Māori a sense of identity and belonging (Ministry of Social Development, 2004a, p. 105). [Return to reference]
[3]: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes [Return to reference]
[4]: Various commentators have highlighted the need to distinguish different levels of community (regions, cities, suburbs, towns and neighbourhoods) when adopting a place-based policy approach, depending on the scope of the proposed strategy or programme. The differentiation is useful for policy purposes, since it cannot be assumed that the processes that constitute communities at a neighbourhood level will necessarily operate at a suburb, city or town level (Loomis, 2005). [Return to reference]
[5]: These include ethnic community groups and Māori community organisations, but not Māori governing bodies or businesses. [Return to reference]
[6]: For example, Barry Curtis, CEO Manukau City Council, described the public discussion on the eastern corridor as an example of NIMBY (Curtis, 2003). Similarly, the press described the opposition of the Fire Station in a neighbourhood in Lower Hutt as parochial NIMBYism. The disputes about the prisons at Ngawha in Northland are another example. [Return to reference]
[7]: The number of territorial authorities was reduced from 205 (to 74) and over 400 ‘special purpose’ boards and all elected power boards were abolished. [Return to reference]
[8]: There is an extensive and longstanding debate about the relationship between neighbourhood and community. It is unnecessary to pursue these issues in any detail in this report. [Return to reference]
[9]: Around the world the idea of neighbourhood as a community is most often deployed in relation to poor or disadvantaged neighbourhoods in a city environment. [Return to reference]

Return to Top