Policy driven community development in rural and remote Australia: Analysis of University Departments of Rural Health using the Community Capitals framework

While community development is locally driven, it can stem from government investment. The Australian government has funded 19 University Departments of Rural Health (UDRHs) across Australia as one step to address health workforce shortages in rural and remote regions. These UDRHs train students, conduct research and support local health services and communities. While some UDRH contributions have been assessed, there is a lack of understanding of the impact of UDRHs for their rural and remote communities. This paper seeks to understand the impacts of UDRHs through application of the Community Capitals framework. Examples and case studies were developed by senior staff from six UDRHs. This analysis found that these university centres enhanced various forms of community capital. Beginning with financial investment (financial capital) and working to natural capital, investment in infrastructure (built capital) and employment of staff in rural and remote regions (human capital) followed. UDRHs bring students to the regions (financial and human capital), undertake projects with local partners (social capital), grow the First Nations workforce (cultural capital) and advocate for local and broader health issues (political capital). Examples and case studies demonstrated how these university departments have funds, staff, infrastructure and partnerships to leverage further community development in, with, and for their regions. Key to success of this program is flexibility, breadth and ensuring funds are spent in their region. This analysis calls improved understanding of intellectual capital in community development to increase insight into how universities can invest in community development initiatives. • Community development can result from government and university investment. • University Departments of Rural Health impact most forms of community capital in local rural community. • Community impacts resulted because funding had to be spent rurally and program targets were broad and flexible. • More attention to the role of intellectual capital in community development is required.