British Journal of Social Work (2014) 44, 1582–1601

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct010
Advance Access publication March 3, 2013

Community Development and Umbrella

Bodies: Networking for Neighbourhood
Change

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

Gretchen Ennis* and Deborah West

Gretchen is a social worker with a decade-long history of community development, cross-

cultural and group work practice. Gretchen recently completed her Ph.D. thesis on the subject
of networking and critical approaches to ‘creating community’ in a culturally diverse
suburban setting. After lecturing in Social Work and Community Studies for five years.
Gretchen has recently began a post-doctoral research fellowship at the Research Centre for
Health and Wellbeing at Charles Darwin University. Deborah is the Director of Education
and Learning Development at Charles Darwin University in the Northern Territory of
Australia after working as Associate Professor and Theme Leader in Social Work and
Community Studies for over five years. Deborah holds a wealth of social work practice
experience in government policy and has recently completed research on the intersection of
juvenile justice and child protection, and the impact of mandatory notification of family
violence in the Northern Territory.
*
Correspondence to Gretchen Ennis, Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Research Centre for
Health and Wellbeing, School of Health Faculty of Engineering, Health, Science and the
Environment, Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia. E-mail:
gretchen.ennis@cdu.edu.au

Abstract
This paper explores the application of a network approach within the context of a com-
munity development project in suburban Northern Australia which aimed to develop
positive social connections across different cultural groups. A neighbourhood group
facilitated by a social worker drew upon network approaches to community develop-
ment and created an ‘umbrella body’ comprising citizens and organisations to work
towards the project aims. This paper presents research (pre- and post-project social
network analysis and qualitative thematic analysis) that explores some of the impacts
of this umbrella body. The social network analysis demonstrates positive changes in
terms of developing a larger and more cohesive community network of people and
organisations. The thematic analysis shows that organisations benefited from being
involved in a range of ways, including networking opportunities, adding value to
their existing work and being able to access and work with inspiring ideas from the com-
munity. In short, the research highlights the positive differences a small volunteer group
can have upon a community when overtly embracing ‘network thinking’.

# The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of

The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved.
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1583

Keywords: Community development, networking, social network analysis,

umbrella bodies

Accepted: December 2012

Introduction

Umbrella bodies have received minimal attention in social work and com-
munity development literature. The exception to this is found within ‘net-

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

working approaches’ to community development (see Gilchrist, 2000,
2004, 2009; Hardcastle et al., 2004; Trevillion, 1992, 1999). Networking
approaches place high value on the formation of socially just partnerships
as community-building mechanisms. However, there is little research ex-
ploring the use of networking approaches to community development or
the impact an umbrella organisation can have in geographic communities.
This article explores the application of a networking model of community
development focusing on the role of the umbrella organisation via a case
study approach. In particular, we will explore the umbrella organisation
as a mechanism for ‘doing’ a network approach. Linked to the theoretical
concept of social capital, the paper demonstrates the role of this approach
in building linking and bridging capital in a community. The context for this
work is a grass-roots community project (Ludmilla Neighbourhood Con-
nections) aimed at increasing positive social connections between different
cultural groups in a Northern Australian suburb. Using a networking
approach to community development (Gilchrist, 2009), Ludmilla Neigh-
bourhood Connections (LNC) was formed as an umbrella body with a
social worker as facilitator. LNC brought together diverse people and orga-
nisations to focus attention on their neighbourhood and bring about posi-
tive changes. LNC participants agreed that the suburb and community
names could be identified. The term ‘Aboriginal’ is used at the request of
the participants who identify as Aboriginal.
To set the scene, the paper begins with a description of the case and case
study site and then moves to the key theoretical concepts that underpin the
work—a networking approach to community development and social
capital. The methodology and findings are presented, and the paper
concludes with a discussion reflecting on umbrella bodies as mechanisms
for the creation of valuable linking ties.

About Ludmilla and Ludmilla Neighbourhood Connections

The ‘Top End’ (north coast) of the Northern Territory was one of the last
areas of Australia to be colonised (a little over 140 years ago). Despite well
over a century of often brutally colonising practices that sought to remove
1584 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

Aboriginal people from their land and culture, Aboriginal people have sur-
vived and make up 30 per cent of the population of the Northern Territory
(ABS, 2007). Colonisation and dispossession have greatly affected many
Aboriginal communities, with high rates of poverty, violent crime,
suicide, unemployment and alcohol abuse (Ranzijn et al., 2009).
The suburb of Ludmilla in the city of Darwin has a large Aboriginal com-
munity located within the suburb, Bagot Community. Bagot Community is
by and large socially, physically and structurally separated from the rest of
the suburb. Of the approximately 1,700 people that live in the Ludmilla, 430
are Aboriginal and 252 were born overseas, with the balance identifying as

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

non-Aboriginal, Australian-born residents. The majority of Aboriginal
residents live in Bagot Community (ABS, 2007).
LNC is a volunteer-based community group that formed in 2007 in re-
sponse to a range of issues (such as violence, land use disagreements,
noise complaints and a general feeling of their being ‘no sense of commu-
nity’) in the neighbourhood. Underpinning these issues was the long-term
structural separation of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. There
were few relationships between people inside and outside Bagot Commu-
nity, which resulted in wide-ranging misconceptions, negative assumptions
and very little interaction or understanding between Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal people in the area.
In its early stages, LNC comprised a handful of local residents, the local
member of the Northern Territory government, representatives from Bagot
Community, a church group, a school and a local welfare agency. The aim of
the group was to increase social connections across different cultural groups
in the suburb. From 2007 onwards, the group of people and organisations
involved in LNC began talking with others in their own networks, such as
local people, community groups and organisations they were affiliated
with in some way. These conversations sought to identify the important
issues for people in the area, understand what was already going on in
the neighbourhood and think about who else might be interested in
coming in under the LNC umbrella. Through these conversations, a
range of activities and events began occurring organically and the
network of individuals and organisations grew.
Whilst LNC began in 2007, Gretchen (who had been involved since the
outset) did not begin to study this network until 2009. Over the measure-
ment period of January 2009 to July 2010, LNC members met with a
range of organisations to put forward ideas about building networks and
‘community’ that had arisen from the earlier meetings and sought their in-
volvement and support. Activities began in a more coordinated and stra-
tegic way. Ten community meetings were held which helped to identify,
highlight and document neighbourhood strengths (drawing upon ‘strengths’
or ‘assets’ philosophies as articulated by Green and Haines, 2008; Kretz-
mann and McKnight, 1993; McCashen, 2005) and link up a range of
people and organisations. This resulted in further events and activities.
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1585

A monthly newsletter was established, focusing on positive new activities in

the area and exploring our past from different (often challenging) view-
points. LNC became involved in establishing an ‘edible garden’ in Bagot
Community and developed and produced a neighbourhood DVD which
celebrated the diversity of culture, experience and history in the area.
A range of neighbourhood ‘get together’ events were organised. These
included bushwalks, barbeques, family fun days and other activities
aimed at bringing diverse groups of people together through both the
organisation of the events and the events themselves.
As previously noted, LNC was facilitated by a social worker (Gretchen)

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

who lived in the suburb and was one of the local residents who started the
informal meetings that ended up becoming ‘the LNC project’. Researching
the impact and efficacy of network approaches via a case study of the LNC
project formed a major part of Gretchen’s Ph.D. thesis and much of the
content of this article is drawn from that thesis (Ennis, 2011).

Umbrella bodies as a strategy for networking

approaches to community development

The networking approach to community work was first articulated in a

strong way by Trevillion (1992), who provided useful ‘how to’ knowledge
about creating community partnerships from an empowerment perspective.
Trevillion focused on the ways social network concepts might provide social
workers with additional insight about an ‘interactional and situational
approach to the making of community partnerships’ (Trevillion, 1992,
p. v). Trevillion provided in-depth consideration of networking in terms
of neighbourhood work, inter-agency work, case management, community
care and community assessment. It was Gilchrist (2004), however, who
more fully developed the idea of the ‘well-connected community’, applying
network concepts specifically to the community development field. In this
section, we briefly describe and critique the networking approach to
community development and explain the concept of umbrella bodies.
Gilchrist proposed that ‘the purpose of community development is
simply to support and shape formal and informal networking in order to
facilitate the emergence of effective and empowering collective action’
(Gilchrist, 2004, p. 95). One strategy for enacting a network approach is
the development of umbrella bodies (Gilchrist, 2004, 2009; Gilchrist et al.,
2010). It has been suggested that umbrella bodies, and the networks they
pull together, can provide the conditions from which community action
can grow (Gilchrist, 2004; Ennis and West, 2010). However, this proposition
has not been tested using an empirical approach.
Umbrella bodies are a form of organisation that bring together and facili-
tate a range of organisations and individuals working together for a
1586 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

common purpose or specific goal. There is minimal discussion about the use
of umbrella bodies in social work or community studies literature; perhaps
this is because they are often temporary in nature or formed by groups of
volunteers who seek to resolve a particular issue and then disband.
However, Gilchrist (2004) argues that they play an important role as ‘inter-
mediary bodies’ that:
. . . often act as social relays and brokers, enabling smaller organisations to
network with one another and connecting informal networks into more
formal partnerships (Skelcher et al., 1996; Taylor, 1997). Many intermediary

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

bodies perform a coordinating function: convening meetings, producing
mailings, running training workshops, providing specific advice and
facilitating consultation exercises (Gilchrist, 2004, p. 116).

Such a role is vital in community development work and we contend that

umbrella bodies require greater attention so that they might be better
utilised as a practice approach.
Partnerships of various kinds are recognised as a key element of commu-
nity development work and authors such as Trevillion (1992, 1999) and
Hardcastle et al. (2004) have long championed the importance of network-
ing to build partnerships for community. Trevillion (1992, p. 57) advises that
inter-agency partnerships require a number of elements to be effective.
These include the development of trusting relationships between people
within the various agencies, exploration and acceptance of different world-
views for the sake of a common identity, ‘establishing a culture of innov-
ation’, establishing effective communication systems and the development
of specific projects to collaborate upon.
Such ideas appear reasonable and achievable; however, research has
shown that effective community partnerships or coalitions are difficult to
develop and maintain and have limited impact upon the communities
they seek to serve. In a review of large-scale community coalitions involving
organisations from a range of sectors, Kadushin et al. (2005) summarised
the major problems:
Coalition structures and the concept of community are loosely defined; local
structures attempt to cope with problems that have regional, state, national,
and international roots; ethnic, class, and racial divisions lead to cooptation;
the narrative of past failed interventions creates current problems; organi-
sations with different sizes and institutional affiliations have problems in
working together; and the presence of many organisations leads to confused
decision-making processes (Kadushin et al., 2005, p. 255).

While this critique provides a challenge for all community coalitions,

regardless of size, we argue that these criticisms are something to attend
to in practice, rather than a reason for not undertaking such partnerships
at all. The value of facilitating relationships between people and organisa-
tions to ‘build community’ has been documented by a range of authors (e.g.
Roussos and Fawcett, 2000; Provan et al., 2005; Piselli, 2007; Chia, 2011).
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1587

Common to their findings is the importance of understanding the networks

of affiliations that make up the communities and the coalitions.
The network approach to community development is focused on rela-
tionships as linkages and draws theoretically upon concepts from social
network theory and social capital theory. In terms of social network
theory, Granovetter’s (1973, 1983) ‘strength of weak ties’ thesis has been in-
fluential in understanding the value of acquaintances and ‘friends of
friends’ for accessing information and resources within networks wider
than our own social circles. Similarly, the network theoretical concept of
the ‘structural hole’ (Burt, 2004) provided an understanding of the powerful

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

position of particular people in networks who form bridges between other-
wise disconnected areas of networks. Such understandings about network
ties and positions are controversial, as they can be used either for personal
and corporate gain or for more altruistic purposes (such as community
development work) (Curtis, 2010).
The idea that we have ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ ties is also highlighted in social
capital theory, where the concepts are translated as ‘bonding’ and ‘bridging’
ties (Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 2000). Bonding ties refer to the ties we have
with close family and friends that we rely upon in our day-to-day lives. Bridg-
ing ties are relationships between acquaintances, associates and colleagues,
and play an important role in connecting people to diverse networks. A
further type of network tie, the ‘linking tie’, refers to relationships
between individuals and organisations, or the ties that organisations have
with each other. Linking ties have been the subject of far less discussion
and research yet are arguably a powerful factor in community work.
There is much debate about the concept of social capital and its use and
value as a theoretical lens. It is here that another critique of network
approaches to community development arises. The question about the rela-
tive value of bonding, bridging and linking ties and their importance in
community development work is an area of contention (Agnitsch et al.,
2006; Brisson and Usher, 2005; Dale and Newman, 2010; Fernandez,
2002; Gittell and Vidal, 1998; Rusch, 2010). There has been a focus upon
bridging ties (and, less frequently, linking ties) in community work, as
these ties can assist people to move outside tight-knit, homogenous net-
works to link with different groups and bring diverse people together.
However, the interplay between different ties are complex and a consider-
ation of the way in which relationships can oppress and reproduce existing
social inequalities is also required (Portes, 1998). The realities of social and
economic inequalities mean not all people have opportunities to develop all
types of ties (Bourdieu, 1986). Curtis (2010, p. 522), in his critique of
networking approaches to community development argues, ‘bridging and
linking network ties can go some way to alleviating social and economic
inequalities, but cannot cure them’. We do not dispute this, but argue
that it is possible to draw attention to such inequalities in the process of
forming ties, and umbrella bodies can play a key part in this.
1588 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

The networking approaches articulated by Trevillion (1992) and Gilchrist

(2004) have been informed by and developed from community practice
experience and knowledge. Yet, it seems that there has been little research
undertaken on the purposeful application of a network approach. While we
have previously explored the application of network approaches in the links
between individuals (Ennis and West, 2012), there does not appear to be
any exploration of the impact of umbrella bodies as a strategy for network-
focused community development. Nor is their research exploring the value
of umbrella bodies for the organisations involved and the communities they
seek to serve. There remains, then, a need to test the proposition about the

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

value of the umbrella organisations within community development.
We have argued elsewhere that network analysis can provide a logical
and useful way of understanding some of the impacts of network (and
strengths) approaches to community work (Ennis, 2009, 2011; Ennis and
West, 2010, 2012). As we have previously explained (Ennis and West,
2010), a network involves two key elements:
. . . these are generally known as actors (or nodes or points) and ties (some-
times referred to as links or relationships). An actor is most commonly an in-
dividual person, but it could be an organisation, a country, a community, or
some other defined entity. A tie indicates a relationship between the actors.
Any type of relationship may be represented, for example relationships of
trust, referral, economic exchange, or friendship can, and have, been repre-
sented as a social network. Thus a social network is a ‘system or pattern of
links between points’ (Seed, 1990, p. 19) ((Ennis and West, 2010, p. 408).
In Ludmilla, it could be argued that there were few ‘bridging ties’ between
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the neighbourhood and few
‘linking ties’ between many community members and organisations
outside their close networks. Because of the networking approach LNC
had adopted, the creation of linking ties was considered important.
Linking ties enable communities to communicate directly with those in
positions of decision-making power and, theoretically, to gain access to
the valuable information and resources within these larger networks (or
at least begin to enter into a dialogue with them) (Hughes et al., 2007).
The network approach and the underpinning theoretical framework in
the LNC project provided an opportunity to test several hypotheses. Can
umbrella bodies assist in creating positive linking ties between organisa-
tions, and between people and organisations? And, if so, what is the
value of these ties for the organisations involved?

The methodology

This particular study was nested within a broader Ph.D. project and, as such,
only the methodology of the smaller study is reported here. This study incor-
porated two approaches: social network analysis and thematic content
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1589

analysis, both embedded within a case study framework. These approaches

provided different information. The social network analysis provided an
understanding of the network of people and organisations formed by LNC
at two different points in time and provided information about changes in
linking ties (January 2009 and July 2010). The thematic content analysis pro-
vided an understanding of the value of the umbrella organisation to those
involved. The methodology related to each approach is detailed separately.
As previously noted, Gretchen lived in Ludmilla (the case study site) and
was involved as a participant and facilitator in the LNC project. The re-
searcher can therefore be described as a ‘participant-observer’ (Yin, 2003,

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

p. 94)—a situation with benefits and drawbacks. The benefits of this
insider status were that Gretchen had continuous access to the project in
process, as well as the trust of the participants as fellow neighbours and
change advocates. Yet it also meant Gretchen was never a dispassionate ob-
server, but cared deeply about the neighbourhood and the people involved.
As discussed by Corbin Dwyer et al. (2009, p. 59), the values and enthusiasm
of the insider-researcher may prevent some participants from exploring or
sharing aspects (particularly negative aspects) of their own experiences. It
is our view that the benefits of participant observation outweighed the draw-
backs in this case. The use of multiple methods—a process of ongoing critical
reflection and open explanation of the researcher’s multiples roles within the
community—was used throughout the research in order to address some of
the drawbacks of insider status. The research received university ethics
approval in August 2008 and this was renewed each year until the research
was completed in March 2011. All participants provided informed consent.

Network analysis

The pre- and post-project network analysis was undertaken using the
concept of an ‘affiliation network’ (de Nooy et al., 2005). Affiliations are
relationships between people and organisations. They are useful to
explore because they indicate the formation of the previously discussed
‘linking ties’ between people and organisations. The two sets of diagrams
presented in this article represent the network of affiliations between orga-
nisations involved with LNC at the outset and at the end of the project.
In these diagrams, the actors (the ‘dots’) are organisations involved with the
LNC project. The links between the organisations are people affiliated with
the two organisations they are linking. If there is a single link between two
organisations, this means there is one person ‘affiliated with’ both of the orga-
nisations. The links are numbered to show how many people are affiliated with
the two organisations they are linking. The thickness of the linking line also
demonstrates the number of people who are affiliated with both organisations
they are linking. The thicker the line, the stronger the affiliation between the
organisation in terms of common members or employees.
1590 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

The pre-LNC project organisation affiliations data were generated by

first developing a list of who had attended any LNC meeting prior to
January 2009 (using meeting minutes and journal notes as data sources).
People were marked as ‘affiliated with LNC’ if they were on the LNC
contact list and either came to LNC meetings or were in regular communi-
cation about LNC with the facilitator.
People were marked as ‘affiliated’ with other organisations if they acted
as a representative of a particular organisation or group in their communi-
cations with LNC or at LNC meetings. This included people who worked or
volunteered for various organisations, or were on an organisations commit-

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

tee or board. A matrix of affiliations was formed and these data were input-
ted into network analysis software, Pajek, for analysis and network drawing.
The ‘Kamada-Kawai’ energy command was used to generate the organisa-
tion diagrams. This was selected because it is a good command for smaller
networks and separates network components well.
The post-LNC project organisations affiliations diagram was generated
by starting with a list of who had attended any LNC meetings over the
measurement period. The same criteria and process were followed as for
the pre-LNC project affiliation network.
Each set of pre- and post-project diagrams contains a diagram which
shows what the network would look like without LNC. To generate these
diagrams, the actor ‘LNC’ was removed from the analysis.

Thematic content analysis

Feedback was sought via e-mail and in person from thirteen organisations
involved in the LNC network by Gretchen at the end of the data-collection
period. Only thirteen of the twenty organisations included in the post-
project network diagram were approached, as three had left the network
and four were organisations which required separate specific ethics approv-
al to participate in an interview. This data was gathered using a set of ques-
tions sent to organisations via e-mail or discussed on the telephone.
Responses were entered into NVIVO software and analysed using a quali-
tative content analysis to gain an understanding of organisations’ views
about the LNC project.
The following questions were asked:
(1) What has LNC done well over the past nineteen months?
(2) What could we have done better?
(3) Has your organisation made any new connections with other organisa-
tions or individuals as a result of LNC activities, events or meetings?
(4) Has LNC assisted your organisation in any way? If so, how?
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1591

Seven organisations provided feedback within the data-collection period.

Organisations were advised that their responses would be de-identified so
comments could not be attributed to specific organisations. As such, refer-
ences to specific programmes and organisations have been changed to ‘XX’,
‘ZZ’ or ‘the programme’ to help ensure anonymity.

The findings

Pre- and post-LNC project affiliation network analysis

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

The following diagrams depict the LNC affiliations network at the begin-
ning and at the end of the measurement period. Figures 1 and 2 comprise
the ‘pre-project’ diagrams with and without LNC and Figures 3 and 4
make up the ‘post-project’ set of diagrams.
The most obvious feature of Figure 1 is the ‘hub-and-spoke’ layout. LNC
clearly has a role as the network facilitator, bringing most of the organisa-
tions together to form a loosely connected network. Removing LNC (as in
Figure 2) shows the organisations without the connecting ‘hub’ of the
umbrella body. In Figure 2, there are three small, separate networks visible.
Even with LNC ‘in the picture’ (Figure 1), it is clear that organisations
were not closely affiliated with each other at the outset of the project.
The organisations linked most closely (by people involved with both)

Figure 1 Pre-LNC project organisational affiliations network with LNC

1592 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

Figure 2 Pre-LNC project organisational affiliations network without LNC

are school three and LNC, and Bagot Council and LNC. The affiliations
between these two ‘pairs’ (or dyads) are three-people strong. Other organi-
sations have only one or two affiliations with other organisations, and these
links are only one-to-two-people strong. From Figures 1 and 2, it is fair to
say that LNC was a key actor in bringing these organisations together;
without LNC, five organisations are not linked to any others at all.
In comparison to the first measurement, the maps from the post measure-
ment are visually very different. Figure 3 demonstrates that there are more
organisations involved (twenty as opposed to the thirteen organisations
from Figure 1) after nineteen months. There are also many more links
between the actors in the post-projects diagrams. Whilst LNC is still
central in the network, it is not the only actor holding the network together
(as demonstrated by removing LNC in Figure 4).
In terms of new and strong linkages, in Figure 3, it is notable that there are
nine people affiliated with both LNC and the local environment group, and
also nine people affiliated with both LNC and the After School Program.
Other strong links are between the community NGO and the After School
Program, and between the local environment group and the local Landcare
group. The existing link between LNC and Bagot Council is slightly stronger
(one extra person affiliated with both organisations).
In terms of network cohesion, the average degree of the network (i.e. the
average number of connections each organisation has to others in terms
of common members) grows from 2.76 to 4.20 over the nineteen-month
period. This clearly indicates that more organisations are linked by
common members in the network.
Three organisations previously linked to LNC (see Figure 1) are no
longer linked into the network. The reasons for this unlinking from the
LNC organisations network were clear in two cases, but not in the third.
Two of the organisations were small (fewer than three staff) and the staff
member who was originally involved in LNC resigned and their
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1593

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

Figure 3 Post-LNC project organisational affiliations network with LNC

Figure 4 Post-LNC project organisational affiliations network without LNC

1594 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

replacement did not engage with the LNC network. The other organisation
(school three) unlinked due to planned relocation to a different suburb.
Figure 4 shows what the post-project network would be like if LNC were
removed. There are now six unconnected organisations without LNC. One
of these organisations is LNC, which was purposefully removed; three were
discussed above in relation to Figure 3, which leaves two organisations
unconnected if LNC is taken out of the network. There is still a large
connected network of affiliations between fourteen organisations without
LNC. This suggests that LNC assisted in linking people with organisations
and linking organisations together.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

Summarising findings from organisations affiliation
diagrams
The pre- and post-LNC organisational affiliation diagrams provide evi-
dence of a growing network that is becoming more cohesive. Put simply,
there are more people affiliated with more organisations. The LNC
project assisted in bringing together people from a range of organisations
at the local neighbourhood level, and these people then went on to
become affiliated with each other’s organisations (as evidenced via the
increase of common members between organisations). LNC’s role as a
network facilitator was crucial in ‘enacting’ the network in the first place;
the hub-and-spoke layout of the pre-project network (Figure 1) demon-
strates that, aside from a handful of people connecting a handful of organi-
sations, there really was no network apart from connections to LNC. The
post-project diagram (Figure 3) shows a strong increase in organisations
involved and in numbers and strength of affiliations between many of
them. Figure 4 shows that, in a nineteen-month period, a new network of
affiliations exists, without needing to connect ‘through’ LNC. In order to
further understand the role of LNC in this process, data were collected
from key organisational staff and are presented below.

Feedback from organisations

While these affiliations diagrams clearly show increased linkages, the
question of the value of this remains unanswered. Feedback from the
organisations provided some understanding of the value and challenges
of being involved with the umbrella body. The thematic analysis demon-
strates that organisations valued opportunities for better networking,
inspiring ideas and the educational role of LNC. Challenges centred
upon a lack of clarity about what LNC was and dependence upon the
facilitator.
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1595

Better networking

Every organisation commented on the value of the networking opportun-

ities provided by LNC. The networking role was discussed in terms of
‘bringing people together’, ‘helping with introductions’ and ‘enhancing
and extending connections’. LNC provided networking opportunities by
inviting organisation representatives to meetings and local events, as well
as providing opportunities to work together on various community projects.
Participants noted that they appreciated regular communication through
e-mails, newsletters and meetings. The following quote is indicative of the

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

general feedback about building better networks:
Excellent networking. Created opportunities for introductions, and better
involvement in community.

All organisations advised that they made new connections as a result of the
LNC project. When asked whether new connections were formed as a result
of LNC, one respondent stated:
Big time! It was not that clear to me when I started in this job, that our XX
project had had so much to do with LNC. But the relationship with [another
organisation], which came through LNC, has been crucial for our program.
Plus, it has helped us to have the first pilot project in a particular area. So,
LNC has been absolutely vital for that to happen and we are very thankful
to LNC.

Some participants also noted that established ties to other organisations

were strengthened through LNC projects. The following quote highlights
the strengthening role:
We worked with XX on an LNC project and although we had been trying to
get something happening with them for a while, this activity provided the
key. Our relationship with ZZ has also grown. We ran activities at an
LNC event and then six months later re-connected with some of those
families and children at another program.

Better networking also meant that there were new opportunities for coord-
inating existing projects for maximum community value. The following
quote shows how ‘overlap’ in community programmes was identified and
addressed:
I was truly amazed at the range of activities for kids on the same day as ours!
We didn’t know we were competing for kid’s attention, but now we have
met the other organisations running activities and our work is now comple-
mentary, not in competition.

Networking is no doubt important to participants. It appears that the

benefits go beyond a coordinated approach to harnessing resources and
into a value-adding proposition as highlighted by the following theme of
‘inspiring ideas’.
1596 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

Inspiring ideas

Organisations appreciated the creativity of LNC and the way in which

working together with other groups could enhance and inspire ideas for
meaningful projects. One participant noted that a number of organisations
were striving towards similar outcomes for their service users, so it was good
to be able to think creatively together about how desired outcomes could be
achieved for everyone.
One project that many organisations worked together on was the creation
of a DVD that documented the past, present and future hopes of the neigh-

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

bourhood. The DVD and DVD launch celebrations were singled out for
attention by four of the seven organisations. LNC’s focus on events that
promoted strengths meant that organisations were provided with new
audiences who could appreciate community members’ diversity and
achievements:
LNC provided an opportunity for young people we work with at Bagot
Community to showcase their skills and performance, and in their
locality too.

In addition to providing ‘showcase’ opportunities, LNC events and

activities helped to motivate and/or inspire some organisations to work
on specific projects:
LNC provided the motivation to enhance our existing activities and docu-
ment them for the DVD, and to work with XX.

Two organisations noted that they appreciated the way in which LNC
acknowledged their input and participation in the various events and
activities. Such acknowledgement provided opportunities to promote
their organisation and to be seen as participants in the community, while
also leading to a broader educative impact.
Education

The educative role LNC members played was highlighted by two partici-
pants. LNC’s networks included many long-term residents from a range
of cultures who were keen to share local history. LNC was able to share
these stories widely and this provided some organisations with important
contextual background information about many local issues. Stories
which lent a human face to the historical separation of Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal people in the area were viewed as particularly important. The
sharing of this knowledge assisted organisations in planning their pro-
grammes and understanding some of the obstacles they came up against.
The following quote highlights this:
Through LNC our community development work has been easier, as we
have contact with a wider range of people, as well as getting to know
some of the community’s history and dynamics.
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1597

There were, however, some challenges that were raised in the qualitative
data which go to the heart of the role and sustainability of a ‘grass-roots’
umbrella organisation. These include a lack of clarity about LNC and the
role of the facilitator.
Lack of clarity about LNC

Organisation feedback indicated that there was an initial lack of clarity and
understanding about what LNC was. Given LNC’s relatively unusual
umbrella-body network approach, one participant noted that they could

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

not comment on what LNC might do better, as ‘there is nothing to
compare this to’. The LNC network was unlike anything they had previous-
ly worked with. The following quote highlights the lack of clarity felt by
some participants:
Well, the one thing that maybe I was not too clear about is who LNC is aus-
piced by, or where it fits exactly. But I don’t think this is a major issue.

The concept of a ‘grass-roots’ community-led umbrella body without an

auspicing agency was quite novel for many of those involved, particularly
those from the school and welfare sectors.
Dependence upon the facilitator

Helping the network become less dependent upon the LNC facilitator was
raised by one organisation as something LNC should consider. The concern
was that, without the facilitator as an ‘organisational point’, the meetings,
e-mails and newsletters would not occur, and the network would collapse.
The participant stated:
Resourcing such a group and maintaining an interested and active support
base and driver for the longer term is a challenge.

This is a crucial point. The position of facilitator undertaken by Gretchen

was financed by an academic scholarship and a handful of small community
grants. Mostly, the facilitator role was a volunteer one, with many volunteer
hours contributed by other people in the LNC network.
In summary, the findings demonstrate the value of umbrella bodies as
mechanisms for developing linking ties, as well as highlighting some of
the challenges. What this means in terms of the broader networking
approach is now discussed further.

Discussion

Gilchrist (2004, p. 116) claimed that ‘community initiatives and processes

are organic, needing space and support to grow. Umbrella bodies provide
both the trellising and the nutrients for this growth’. This research supports
1598 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

Gilchrist’s assertion by providing two ‘snapshots’ of an umbrella body dem-

onstrating growth in numbers of partners and increased cohesion between
them. The thematic analysis provides an understanding of how the umbrella
bodies can focus organisation attention to increase community opportun-
ities, programmes and services that aim to benefit all community
members. In social capital terms, the research demonstrates that linking
ties between individuals and organisations and between organisations
were formed. The qualitative analysis demonstrated the impact these new
ties had for many organisations, and the programmes and services they
provided for the community.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

LNC, acting as an umbrella body, was able to value-add to the work of
those ‘under the umbrella’. Organisations were able to undertake new pro-
jects by working collaboratively, sharing ideas, information and resources.
Via LNC organisations also had a mechanism by which they could access
and share diverse ideas and views from individuals and groups in the com-
munity. In this respect, the findings add weight to Trevillion’s (1992, p. 57)
idea about the importance establishing a ‘culture of innovation’ in commu-
nity partnerships.
This research also highlights Kadushin et al.’s (2005) concerns about va-
garies in defining community coalitions, as some of the organisational feed-
back pointed to this issue. The structure of the LNC as an umbrella body
was intentionally loose, non-hierarchical and ‘organic’ at the outset. Yet,
with further network growth, the lack of structure may become problematic
(in terms of decision-making and power issues between organisations). It is
notable that many criticisms of community coalitions refer to much larger
coalitions than in the case study presented here. Perhaps there is something
about the relatively small scale of this project that protected the LNC
umbrella body from experiencing many of the negative issues faced by
some community coalitions.
The importance of LNC being independent of any of the participating
organisations was also critical of its ability to bypass some of the issues of
power and co-option discussed by Kadushin et al. (2005). Because LNC is
a community-driven body, not governed by any other organisation, there
was freedom to organise events that might not fit into any single organisa-
tion’s core business. Such events were open to maximum, diverse participa-
tion that actively facilitated cross-cultural links. Trevillion (1992) discussed
the way in which the success of community partnerships is dependent upon
individual people within organisations, developing trusting relationships
that are respectful of each other’s organisational culture and philosophies.
LNC involved a wide range of organisations, some with vastly different pol-
itical ideologies. Having a focus on strengths-based, socially just practice
helped to ensure that none of the existing organisations’ worldviews or pol-
itics could dominate the agenda or aims of LNC. Shared understandings
could not always be reached; however, respect for differences and a consid-
eration of underlying assumptions could be encouraged by the facilitator.
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1599

While this research has provided a useful understanding of the value of

umbrella bodies for creating linking ties, the research has limitations. The
network analysis does not demonstrate the extent to which the project
goals were achieved or provide any detail about changes that occurred in
the community. The qualitative feedback demonstrates that seven organisa-
tions found the umbrella body useful for their work, but does not demon-
strate any change to ‘the community’ itself. Other methods of research
are required to gain an understanding of these areas (see Ennis and
West, 2012). The small number of organisations responding to the feedback
questions is also an obvious limitation in terms of understanding organisa-

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

tions’ views. In addition to this, the impact of having the LNC facilitator
gather the qualitative feedback is an issue. While insider status was required
for other aspects of the broader Ph.D. study, organisations may have been
less inclined to provide negative feedback to the facilitator because of rela-
tionships developed with her as both a facilitator and a community member
during the project.

Conclusion
This paper demonstrates the value of an umbrella body as a mechanism for
‘doing’ network-based community development. The social network ana-
lysis has demonstrated significant changes in the size and cohesion of the
organisational network and the linking ties present in the location. The the-
matic analysis demonstrates the value of these ties to the organisations
involved. Via the processes of meeting, planning and implementing activ-
ities and events together with community members, LNC was able to
create a useful umbrella body that added value to the organisations
involved and increased their ability to work with the local community.

Acknowledgements
This research was carried out as part of a Ph.D. programme undertaken
by Gretchen Ennis at Charles Darwin University. Gretchen received an
Australian Postgraduate Award Scholarship (Australian Government,
Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary
Education) to assist her in undertaking her Ph.D. studies.

References
Agnitsch, K., Flora, J. and Ryan, V. (2006) ‘Bonding and bridging social capital: The
interactive effects on community action’, Community Development: Journal of the
Community Development Society, 37(1), pp. 36 – 51.
1600 Gretchen Ennis and Deborah West

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2007) Basic Community Profile: Ludmilla (SLA
705051054) (2001.0), Commonwealth of Australia, available online at www.
censusdata.abs.gov.au.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) ‘The forms of capital’, in J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York, Greenwood Press,
pp. 241 – 58.
Brisson, D. S. and Usher, C. L. (2005) ‘Bonding social capital in low-income neighbor-
hoods’, Family Relations, 54(5), pp. 644 – 53.
Burt, R. S. (2004) ‘Structural holes and good ideas’, American Journal of Sociology,
110(2), pp. 349 – 99.

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

Chia, J. (2011) ‘Communicating, connecting and developing social capital for sustainable
organisations and their communities’, Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 17(3),
pp. 330 – 50.
Coleman, J. (1988) ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, American Journal of
Sociology, 94(Suppl), pp. 95 – 120.
Corbin Dwyer, S. and Buckle, J. L. (2009) ‘The space between: On being an insider– out-
sider in qualitative research’, International Journal of Qualtiative Methods, 8(1),
pp. 54 – 63.
Curtis, A. (2010) ‘Book Review: The well-connected community’, Community Develop-
ment Journal Advance Access published August 25, 2010, pp. 1 – 3, available online at
www.cdj.oxfordjournals.org.
Dale, A. and Newman, L. (2010) ‘Social capital: A necessary and sufficient condition
for sustainable community development?’, Community Development Journal, 45(1),
pp. 5 – 21.
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A. and Bategelj, V. (2005) Exploratory Social Network Analysis
with Pajek: Structural Analysis in the Social Sciences, New York, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Ennis, G. (2009) ‘Joining the dots: Social network theory and community development’,
paper presented at the 20th Asia Pacific Social Work Conference Auckland, NZ,
11 – 13 November.
Ennis, G. (2011) ‘Neighbourhood networking: A critical social work approach to “creat-
ing community” in a culturally diverse setting’, Doctor of Philisophy, Charles Darwin
University, Darwin. Northern Territory.
Ennis, G. and West, D. (2010) ‘Exploring the potential of social network analysis in asset-
based community development practice and research’, Australian Social Work, 63(4),
pp. 404 – 17.
Ennis, G. and West, D. (2012) ‘Using social network analysis in community development
practice and research: A case study’, Community Development Journal Advance
Access published May 10, 2012, 10.1093/community developmentj/bss013.
Fernandez, M. (2002) ‘Bridging and bonding capital: Pluralist ethnic relations in
Silicon Valley’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22(9/10),
pp. 104 – 22.
Gilchrist, A. (2000) ‘The well-connected community: Networking to the “edge of chaos”’,
Community Development Journal, 35(3), pp. 264 – 75.
Gilchrist, A. (2004) The Well-Connected Community: A Networking Approach to
Community Development, Bristol, Policy Press.
Gilchrist, A. (2009) The Well-Connected Community: A Networking Approach to
Community Development, 2nd edn, Bristol, Policy Press.
 Community Development and Umbrella Bodies 1601

Gilchrist, A., Bowles, M. and Wetherell, M. (2010) Identities and Social Action: Connect-
ing Communities for a Change, London, Economic and Social Research Foundation:
Indentities and Social Action Programme.
Gittell, R. J. and Vidal, A. (1998) Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a
Development Strategy, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications Inc.
Granovetter, M. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
pp. 1360 – 80.
Granovetter, M. (1983) ‘The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited’, Sociolgi-
cal Theory, 1, pp. 201 – 33.
Green, G. P. and Haines, A. (2008) Asset Building and Community Development, 2nd

Downloaded from http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/ at Charles Darwin University on September 24, 2016

edn, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.
Hardcastle, D. A., Powers, P. R. and Wenocur, S. (2004) Community Practice: Theories
and Skills for Social Workers, New York, Oxford University Press.
Hughes, P., Black, A., Kalder, P., Bellamy, J. and Castle, K. (2007) Building Stronger
Communities, Sydney, University of New South Wales Press Ltd.
Kadushin, C., Lindholm, M., Ryan, D., Brodsky, A. and Saxe, L. (2005) ‘Why is it so
difficult to form effective community coalitions?’, City and Community, 4(3),
pp. 255 – 75.
Kretzmann, J. P. and McKnight, J. L. (1993) Building Communities from the Inside Out:
A Path toward Finding and Mobilizing a Communities Assets, Evanston, IL, Commu-
nity Development Institute.
Lin, N. (2001) ‘Building a network theory of social captial’, in Lin, N., Cook, K. and Burt,
R. S. (eds), Social Capital, Theory and Research, New York, Aldine De Gruyter,
pp. 3 – 30.
McCashen, W. (2005) The Strengths Approach: A Strengths-Based Resource for Sharing
Power and Creating Change, Bendigo, St Lukes Innovative Resources.
Piselli, F. (2007) ‘Communities, places, and social networks’, American Behavioural
Scientist, 50(7), pp. 867 – 78.
Portes, A. (1998) ‘Social captial: Its orgins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual
Review Sociology, Annual Reviews 24, pp. 1 – 24.
Provan, K. G., Veazie, M. A., Staten, L. K. and Teufel-Shone, N. I. (2005) ‘The use of
network analysis to strengthen community partnerships’, Public Administration
Review, 65(5), pp. 603– 13.
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of Civic America,
New York, Simon and Schuster.
Ranzijn, R., McConnochie, K. and Nolan, W. (2009) Psychology and Indigenous Austra-
lians: Foundations of Cultural Competence, South Yarra, Palgrave Macmillan.
Roussos, S. T. and Fawcett, S. C. (2000) ‘A review of collaborative partnerships as a
strategy for improving community health’, Annual Review of Public Health, 21,
pp. 369 – 402.
Rusch, L. (2010) ‘Rethinking bridging: Risk and trust in multiracial community organiz-
ing’, Urban Affairs Review, 45(4), pp. 483 – 506.
Trevillion, S. (1992) Caring in the Community: A Networking Approach to Community
Partnership, Harlow, Essex, Longman Group UK Ltd.
Trevillion, S. (1999) Networking and Community Partnerships, 2nd edn, Aldershot,
Ashgate.
Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn, Thousand Oaks,
CA, Sage Publications.