Rethinking Systems, Stories and Communities

I often return to the moment when I first began to understand that every act of kindness, every community initiative and every policy discussion sits within a much larger context. Early in my work I saw individuals and organisations trying to fix problems with immense passion, yet the underlying conditions that created those problems remained unchanged. It became clear that even the most committed people were fighting upstream against systems that were never designed with belonging or prevention in mind.

When, during the pandemic, my friend Marco De Angelis first offered a small number of meals to local residents who were struggling, it sparked a broader idea that I and others helped shape and grow into what is now Good in the Hood. It was never intended to become a movement. Yet something happened that has been well documented in fields such as community psychology and disaster recovery. When communities are given simple, human opportunities to act in service of one another, participation grows organically and social cohesion strengthens in measurable ways. Research from the Australian Institute of Family Studies has consistently shown that neighbourhood-level social support correlates strongly with resilience, mental wellbeing, and pro-social behaviour in young people.¹

Over time, what started with twenty meals evolved into thousands of acts of connection each year. Volunteers delivered groceries. Students learned to cook meals for others. Neighbours who had never spoken built relationships that lasted well beyond lockdown. What struck me most was that none of this required complex program logic. It required opportunity, purpose and a shared belief that community is something we create together rather than something we inherit.

At the same time, my work with Our Futures Institute revealed the evidence behind these everyday experiences. Prevention science shows that skills-based programs delivered in schools can reduce later risks of anxiety, depression, substance misuse and behavioural difficulties by strengthening protective factors early in life.² These programs do not replace community; they mirror and reinforce the same relational foundations that Good in the Hood was demonstrating at a grassroots level. Young people learn best when they feel safe, supported and connected. They are far more likely to develop resilience when their environments offer predictability, positive relationships and opportunities for contribution.

StreetWork adds another lens. Its mentoring model is intensely relational, often working with young people who have become disconnected from school, family and community life. Longitudinal studies in youth development have shown that consistent one-to-one mentoring can significantly reduce justice involvement, improve educational engagement and build long-term psychological wellbeing.³ The work is quiet and personal, yet its impact is deeply systemic. When a young person forms a stable relationship with a trusted adult, it can interrupt cycles of disadvantage that might otherwise continue for years.

Rethink Collective emerged as the bridge between these worlds. It recognises that isolated programs cannot shoulder the burden of fixing complex social issues. Systems produce the outcomes they are designed to produce. If we want different outcomes, we need to shift the structures, incentives and relationships that sit underneath everything else. This aligns with decades of systems thinking research, including the work of Donella Meadows who argued that sustainable improvement requires changing not only policies and programs but the paradigms and relationships that define how systems operate.⁴

Through Rethink Collective, these strands begin to weave together. Community initiatives like Good in the Hood show what belonging looks like in daily life. Evidence-based school programs create structured opportunities to build protective factors. Relational interventions like StreetWork demonstrate the power of presence. Coalition work brings philanthropy, government, local organisations and researchers into shared frameworks that promote prevention rather than patching crisis after crisis.

What ties all of this together is the idea that belonging is not simply a feeling. Belonging is a structural condition. 

It emerges when the environments around young people provide predictability, safety, agency and connection. International studies on youth development, including work by the Search Institute and the OECD, have repeatedly shown that belonging predicts improvements in mental health, school engagement and social behaviour more strongly than many traditional indicators.⁵

The work ahead is not about scaling isolated programs but about strengthening the connective tissue between systems and communities. It requires us to move beyond fragmented responses and toward ecosystems where prevention is normalised, collaboration is expected and community is understood as a form of infrastructure rather than a sentimental ideal.

The threads of my work come together because they were never separate. They are parts of a larger story about what it takes to build a country where young people do not have to navigate systems alone. A story about the environments that shape opportunity. And a story about the quiet power of connection, not as a soft concept but as a structural determinant of wellbeing.

REFERENCES 

1. Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2022). Community attitudes and social cohesion: Impacts on young people.

2. Teesson, M., Newton, N., & Slade, T. (2017). Prevention of mental health and substance use disorders in young people: An integrated approach. The Lancet Psychiatry.

3. Dubois, D., & Karcher, M. (2014). Handbook of Youth Mentoring. Sage Publications.

4. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Sustainability Institute.

5. Search Institute. (2018). Developmental Relationships Framework. OECD (2021). Education and Well-being Indicators.