Community Consultation and the ‘Hard to Reach’
City of Whittlesea Case Study Report Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Nicola Brackertz The Hard to Reach Project is a collaborative research venture with eight Victorian local councils, the Victorian Local Governance Association and researchers from Swinburne University of Technology. The three year project is jointly funded by the Australian Research Council and partner organisations.
Project Team Chief Investigator: Professor Denise Meredyth Project Leader: Nicola Brackertz Researchers: Katrina Gorjanicyn, Dr Helen Sheil, Dr Ivan Zwart Statistician: Liss Ralston
Partner Organisations City of Boroondara, City of Darebin, City of Maribyrnong, City of Melbourne, City of Moreland, Shire of Nillumbik, City of Port Phillip, City of Whittlesea, Victorian Local Governance Association.
Published October 2007 by Swinburne Institute for Social Research Swinburne University of Technology PO Box 218 Hawthorn Victoria 3122 Australia
T +61 3 9214 8825 F +61 3 9819 5349 Email: [email protected]
© Copyright Swinburne Institute for Social Research 2007
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any other process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
Contents Introduction...... 1 Why the case study was chosen ...... 1 Who is hard to reach and why?...... 3 Problems with hard to reach terminology ...... 3
Origins and usage of ‘hard to reach’...... 3
Who is identified as hard to reach? ...... 4
Sampling hard to reach...... 5 Legitimacy of the participation process...... 7 Democratic legitimacy of public participation...... 8 Models of public participation ...... 9 Demographic characteristics: City of Whittlesea and Thomastown ...... 12
Social and Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)...... 15 Community consultation at the City of Whittlesea...... 18
The consultation process ...... 24
Profile of the facility ...... 24
Community discussion groups ...... 26
Evaluation of the TRAC strategy consultation ...... 28 Recommendations...... 30 References ...... 31 Appendix 1 ...... 34 Appendix 2 ...... 35 Appendix 3 ...... 36
Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Introduction
This report is part of a series of each partner council. In order to case study reports for the gain a balanced insight into current Community Consultation and the practice, case studies were Hard to Reach research project. matched to provide examples of a The project is investigating how range of levels of consultation: community consultation is currently • high level strategic planning practised by Victorian councils, especially in relation to multiple • place based issues publics and groups that councils • service reviews can find hard to reach. • issue based consultations The Hard to Reach project is a collaborative research venture, with • consultations aimed at involving eight Victorian local councils, the specific hard to reach groups Victorian Local Governance • community development. Association, and researchers from Swinburne University. The three The matched case studies will year project is jointly funded by the assist the greater Community Australian Research Council and Consultation and the Hard to the Cities of Boroondara, Darebin, Reach project to provide some Maribyrnong, Melbourne, useful resources for each of the Moreland, Port Phillip and partner councils, as well as a Whittlesea, and the Shire of broader commentary and analysis Nillumbik. The eight participating of the challenges faced when councils comprise inner city as well councils attempt to consult with or as city fringe locations, engage their communities. homogenous and highly ethnically and culturally diverse populations, Why the case study was economically advantaged and chosen disadvantaged areas, well established and newly developing The Thomastown Recreation and areas, municipalities with a long- Aquatic Centre (TRAC) Strategy standing commitment to community was chosen as an example of a consultation as well as those which consultation about a service with are still developing their policies place based issues in an area with and practices. The range of high levels of disadvantage and a contexts and socio-demographic high proportion of residents from characteristics reflect the attitudes culturally and linguistically diverse and practice of community (CALD) backgrounds. consultation as it is currently taking TRAC is an important community place in Victoria. facility that is used primarily by As part of this research, a detailed local residents. It has wet and dry case study is being conducted with recreational spaces and is co-
1 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
located with the Thomastown to reach groups. This is followed by Library and Community Centre in the problems associated with Main Street. The centre provides a community consultation, with service for the whole community reference to debates on democratic and is significant for their health legitimacy and public participation and wellbeing. TRAC is owned by in local government decision the City of Whittlesea and operated making. through a management agreement Section 2 provides demographic by a contractor. profiles of Whittlesea and The demographic characteristics of Thomastown and Section 3 Thomastown (highly CALD; low provides a context for consultation socio-economic status; declining at the City of Whittlesea. Section 4 and ageing population) mean that describes the TRAC Strategy many of its residents are less likely consultation and Section 5 to participate in recreational presents findings and sporting activities. The literature recommendations. shows that persons tend to be As part of the case study under-represented in most methodology, Nicola Brackertz, a recreational sporting activities if researcher from Swinburne they have poor English proficiency, University, attended most of the are aged over 45, and have little consultation workshops; social contact or access to interviewed consultants as well as transport (Stratton et al. 2005). This councillors and council staff; and adds currency to the need to reviewed relevant council involve a representative sample of documents. potential centre users so that any strategy developed for TRAC will reflect their needs and preferences and maximise health and wellbeing outcomes. There is a degree of overlap between persons who can be difficult to involve in public consultation and those who are under-represented in recreation activities such as those offered by
TRAC. This makes an investigation of how the involvement of hard to reach groups in the TRAC strategy consultation all the more relevant.
To provide a context to the case study, this report first outlines perceptions and definitions of hard
2 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Who is hard to reach and why?
In the context of local government, for example in the case of illicit hard to reach is a term sometimes drug users, gays and lesbians, and used to describe those sections of sexually active teens (Duncan et al. the community that are difficult to 2003). involve in public participation. It is The problem with using the term useful to take a step back and look ‘hard to reach’ is that implies a at the usage of the term in the homogeneity within distinct groups literature more generally, as many which does not necessarily exist. of the issues raised are also Thereby ‘it defines the problem as applicable to local councils. one within the group itself, not within your approach to them’ Problems with hard to reach (Smith 2006). This sentiment is terminology echoed by Murphy (2006). There is a lack of clarity about what exactly is meant by ‘hard to reach’. From what has been discussed so The term is employed far, it is not surprising that hard to inconsistently; sometimes it is used reach is a potentially stigmatising to refer to minority groups, such as terminology. Freimuth and Mettger ethnic people, gays and lesbians, (1990: 323) offer an illustrative or homeless people; it can be used summary of prejudices: to refer to ‘hidden populations’, i.e. Hard-to-reach audiences have groups of people who do not wish been called obstinate, to be found or contacted, such as recalcitrant, chronically illegal drug users or gang uninformed, disadvantaged, members; while at other times it have-not, illiterate, malfunctional, may refer to broader segments of and information poor. the population, such as old or young people or people with Origins and usage of ‘hard to disabilities (Jones & Newburn reach’ 2001: vi). In the service context, Hard to reach is often used in the hard to reach often refers to the context of social marketing (Beder ‘under-served’, namely, minority 1980). The aim of many social groups, those slipping through the marketing initiatives, especially in net, and the service resistant the field of health, is to affect (Doherty et al. 2004). An alternative change in behaviour using term used in the sampling context marketing tools and techniques is ‘hidden populations’ (Atkinson & adopted from the private sector Flint 2001; Duncan et al. 2003), as (Walsh et al. 1993). Social in they are hidden from the point of marketing is a consumer focused view of sampling. Hidden approach that believes nobody is populations may also actively seek impossible to reach; it just depends to conceal their group identity, as on the approach taken. Paul Vittles
3 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
commented that ‘no-one is hard to to reach populations using reach, just more expensive to demographic definitions (young reach. It is important to put more people, rural people, people with effort and creativity in reaching disabilities, ethnic groups), but it is these groups’ (Wilson 2001: 1). important to acknowledge that attitudinal aspects are a This is borne out in medical and contributing factor. For example, health research where hard to people could be hard to reach reach often appears in relation to because they think council does the ability of health services to not care about them, does not reach out to certain difficult to listen or even is irrelevant to them contact (or difficult to influence (Wilson 2001). It is these attitudes using existing techniques) that can be even harder to segments of the population overcome than demographic (Freimuth & Mettger 1990; Walsh aspects. et al. 1993; Faugier & Sargeant 1997; Burhansstipanov & Krebs In addition to demographic and 2005). Here hard to reach are also attitudinal characteristics, there are equated with the ‘under-served’, also practical reasons why some which can mean that either there people are hard to reach. In the are no services available for these medical context, the most groups or, more often, that they fail frequently reported barriers to to access the services that are participation in the US Head Start available (Earthman et al. 1999; programme were prior Barlow et al. 2005; commitments and schedule Burhansstipanov & Krebs 2005). conflicts (Lamb-Parker et al. 2001, The reasons why hard to reach cited in Barlow et al. 2005). people are of such concern in the Interviews and focus groups medical and educational fields is conducted with the partner councils that they tend to have poorer health to this research project identified and educational outcomes, which is CALD communities, indigenous, why reaching them is of particular young, elderly, disabled and concern to those working with homeless people as hard to reach. young people and in youth services Other groups included drug users, (Earthman et al. 1999; The sex workers, those on low incomes, Reading Agency 2006). high rise apartment dwellers, faith based communities, businesses Who is identified as hard to (traders), single parents, newly reach? arrived residents, gay and lesbian With the current emphasis on people, homeless, problem governance and community gamblers and residents of hostels engagement, councils are now also and boarding houses. Some rural focusing on those population populations were considered to be segments that do not usually hard to reach, while some groups participate. Many organisations, but of people (in particular, those who councils in particular, identify hard
4 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
were asked to regularly respond to involve hard to reach need to service reviews) were becoming overcome their own prejudices over-consulted and increasingly about the people they wish to reluctant to participate. To this contact, while at the same time illustrious list should be added having to work to address the persons who would like to have a preconceptions (often say in local issues, but do not know misconceptions) of those with how to access council processes. whom they wish to involve Also identified were unresponsive (Freimuth & Mettger 1990; Barlow people, such as the time-poor (who et al. 2005; Burhansstipanov & are in full-time work and/or who Krebs 2005). An alternative way to work outside the council area); view the ‘disinterest’ or ‘lack of persons who have a low motivation to contribute or become commitment to the local area or no involved’ often associated with hard vested interest in local issues (e.g. to reach groups is by emphasising renters); and disengaged people differences rather than deficits. The who are disillusioned with, or feel difference thesis suggests that disconnected from, the political when people are motivated to process (Brackertz et al. 2005). acquire information and when that information is functional in their However, a list of identified groups lives, they will make use of this. is not necessarily a useful tool to This notion has import for the recognise and establish sampling of hard to reach. relationships with hard to reach, all the more because certain groups Sampling hard to reach may be hard to reach in some contexts or locations and not in In sampling, the term ‘hard to others. A more fruitful approach is reach’ is used frequently in relation to define characteristics of hard to to the need to include certain reach groups and link these to population segments to obtain a representative sample (Messeri et successful approaches to contact 1 or involve them (Health and Safety al. 1995; Rhodes et al. 2004). In Executive 1994; Jones & Newburn relation to participatory practice in 2001). The wide connotations councils, representativeness is associated with and imprecise linked to the need to include all usage of the term ‘hard to reach’ those affected by a particular issue calls into question its utility. A to secure democratic legitimacy. number of groups and population The method and tool of public segments have traditionally been participation used will affect the under-represented in councils’ representativeness of those public participation. But in reality, participating. The degree to which few are hard to reach if the right particular groups are hard to reach approach is used. Common to many writings is the 1 Discussions here relate to the inclusion recognition that those wishing to of blacks, HIV positive people, drug users etc.
5 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
is context specific and depends on populations (Atkinson & Flint 2001). the population targeted, the It is a link-tracing methodology that participation method used and the is used most often for qualitative issue consulted upon. research. In essence, the Van Meter (1990, cited in Faugier & technique relies on a series of Sargeant 1996) distinguishes referrals that are made within a extensive (e.g. descending) and circle of people who know each intensive (e.g. ascending) data other or are loosely connected. The collection methodologies. respondent is asked to name other Descending methodologies persons who fit the criteria (quantitative strategies executed at described by the researcher. These the level of general populations) are then interviewed and in turn require highly standardised asked to nominate others who fit questionnaires, population samples the criteria, and so on. and traditional statistical analysis. In councils, involving the hard to These quantitative methods rely on reach is usually done through a ‘representative’ sampling strategies combination of targeting public to make inferences about the whole participation tools and reaching out population. Survey studies in the to communities in ways in which general population that rely on they are likely to respond to. closed questions are inherently However, many councils struggle to limited by the data obtained and involve a representative cross- may yield little understanding of the section of the community. phenomenon under study, which is particularly limiting when exploring new or sensitive areas (Hendricks & Blanken 1992, cited in Faugier & Sargeant 1996).
Ascending methodologies, on the other hand, use qualitative sampling designs and are usually non-generalisable, but provide a high degree of insight into a social process. Typically they use snowball sampling, life histories and ethnographic monographs, with analysis adapted to suit the specific techniques employed (Faugier & Sargeant 1996). Snowball sampling is an example of a special technique that was developed to attempt to include hard to reach and hidden
6 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Legitimacy of the participation process
To give political legitimacy to politically aware or have a vested decisions made and priorities set on interest in the issue. While the the basis of what the community participants in a publicly advertised says, it is necessary to be able to consultation – sometimes called ‘the show that those involved in the usual suspects’ – are not necessarily consultation are representative of the representative of the wider municipality’s population. Otherwise, community, at least the argument results are open to criticism and can be made that others, if they felt complaint and can be subject to strongly enough, could have become challenge on the basis that they do involved and raised their concerns. not reflect the interests of the wider The problem is that it is not easy to community. involve a large number of people. In the context of councils’ public Surveys are perhaps the preferred participation processes, means of eliciting information and ‘representative’ means those opinion from a large sample. They affected by the issue consulted upon. appeal also because they are able to In the case of TRAC, current and be quantified, thereby lending potential users constitute the target scientific validity and confidence to audience. Therefore representation the responses received. However, in the strictest sense would require especially where complex, future inclusion of all current and potential oriented and abstract planning is users of the centre. Clearly this is not concerned, surveys are limited practicable. The alternative is to aim because they impose simple options to consult with a sample of the on complex choice questions. community that mirrors the spread of Workshops, meetings and other age groups, genders, language and group based face to face cultural groups, socioeconomic consultation methods tend to be status, levels of education and resource intensive and difficult to do employment, and interests of the well. Their success depends on the target population. This, too, is no quality of the participants and the mean undertaking, as it is time, skill skill of the facilitator. The value of and resource intensive to involve a these forms of community wide spectrum of people in consultation is that they provide consultation on complex issues. deliberative forums that can be used This is why consultations that require to elicit qualitative information and wide representation are often cast light on why opinions are held advertised publicly, thereby (at least and decisions are made. They also in theory) providing everyone with an help council listen to people and equal opportunity to participate. In provide assurance to participants reality, those who do respond are that they are being heard. usually people who read council publications or the local paper, are
7 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Surveys and face to face methods Consultations may not require full are often used in conjunction. The inclusion, but should at least aim to difficulty lies in balancing the need involve a representative sample of for representation with the ability to the municipality’s population. In gain deeper understanding and reality, due to their complexity, insight about the issues. It is often consultations on major policies and hard to decide how much weight strategies that affect the entire should be given to a workshop, municipality (e.g. corporate plan, which provides in-depth information, strategic resource plan, or municipal as opposed to a survey, which has strategic statement) are often carried greater numbers of participants. out involving only a small number of community members who are often Democratic legitimacy of public not representative of the broader participation demographic. Consultations that The problem with open invitation relate to a service review or an workshops is in evaluating their operational matter are usually aimed place, scope and effectiveness. They at a subset of the municipality’s attract varying levels of attendance population and do not usually require and, in terms of representation, their full inclusion (though they may profile is patchy. Theoretically this benefit from it). However, even in dilemma can be framed using two these instances only a small key dimensions of democratic proportion of the affected citizens legitimacy: procedural legitimation take part in the consultation process. and the ability of political institutions The other key dimension of to provide outcomes. democratic legitimacy is the Procedural legitimation refers to the effectiveness of political institutions, way in which democratic processes which hinges upon the ability to are conducted to secure the consent deliver outcomes and address of the governed (Klausen & Sweeting emerging issues and needs as they 2002). The notion is linked to the arise (Hanssen et al. 2003; Klausen fundamental tenets of representative & Sweeting 2002). Here it is not so democracy where general much the representativeness of acceptance of political decisions is public participation that counts predicated on the principle that each (although representation remains an vote counts equally when electing issue), but the outcomes that result. representatives and that, beyond While the two dimensions of elections, everybody has the same democratic legitimacy are a useful right to attempt to influence political test of the validity of public decision making through lobbying participation, decisions about doing and advocacy. In the case of public and using the results of consultation participation in local government are inevitably tempered by practical decision making, procedural considerations. As outlined in an legitimation is closely linked to issues earlier report for the Community of representativeness and Consultation and the Hard to Reach opportunity to become involved. project (Brackertz et al. 2005),
8 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
something can be learned about the opportunities for participation may desired level of community simply increase the power of those involvement in decision making from who already have it. Nevertheless, pluralistic and purpose based models Arnstein rightly points out that of public participation. governments should be open about why they engage the public, and Models of public participation should not use consultation As outlined in the second report to processes to simply justify a decision councils (Brackertz et al. 2005), there that has already been made. are numerous ways in which An example of a more pragmatic and community consultation, participation pluralistic model, which views public and engagement can be participation as an activity that conceptualised and evaluated. should be shaped by the policy Arnstein’s (1969) ‘ladder of problem at hand, is the influential participation’ is a model that has International Association for Public shaped thinking about community Participations (IAP2) Spectrum, engagement. It describes community
9 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
The spectrum demonstrates a variety of options that organisations have when engaging their communities. At one end of the spectrum, organisations can choose to simply inform their citizens of a decision that has or will be made. At the other, they can delegate decision making to the public. The IAP2 Spectrum also suggests a small range of techniques that can be used depending upon the level of involvement required of citizens, although it should be noted that some techniques can be used for a range of engagement levels. The IAP2 Spectrum is useful for thinking about the degree to which organisations want citizens to contribute to decision making, and emphasises the need to be clear about the messages provided to the public. Nevertheless, it does little to address a range of other issues that are important to consider when undertaking community consultation. Among these is the manner in which ‘the public’ is invited to participate, and how information from the process is used in decision making.
10 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Table 1: IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower Public Public Public Public Public Participation Participation Participation Participation Participation Goal Goal Goal Goal Goal To provide the To obtain public To work directly To partner with To place final public with feedback on with the public the public in each decision making in balanced and analysis, throughout the aspect of the the hands of the objective alternatives and/ process to ensure decision including public information to or decisions that public the development assist them in concerns and of alternatives and understanding the aspirations are the identification problem, consistently of the preferred alternatives, understood and solution opportunities considered and/or solutions Promise to the Promise to the Promise to the Promise to the Promise to the Public Public Public Public Public We will keep you We will keep you We will work with We will look to you We will implement informed informed, listen to you to ensure that for direct advice what you decide and acknowledge your concerns and and innovation in concerns and aspirations are formulating aspirations, and directly reflected solutions and provide feedback in the alternatives incorporate your on how public developed and advice and input influenced provide feedback recommendations that decision on how public into the decision input influenced to the maximum the decision extent possible Example Example Example Example Example Techniques to Techniques to Techniques to Techniques to Techniques to Consider Consider Consider Consider Consider y Fact sheets y Public comment y Workshops y Citizen advisory y Citizen juries y Websites y Focus groups y Deliberative committees y Ballots y Open houses y Surveys polling y Consensus y Delegated building y Public meetings decisions y Participatory decision making
11 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Demographic characteristics: City of Whittlesea and Thomastown
The City of Whittlesea is located on the Glenvale, Humevale, Kinglake West, metropolitan fringe about 20 kilometres to Mernda, South Morang, Whittlesea, the north of the Melbourne CBD. It is a Wollert, Woodstock, Yan Yean and Yan large municipality that covers Yean South. Due to its location on the fringe of metropolitan Melbourne, Whittlesea confronts the challenges of providing services and balancing the needs of its rural as well as urban populations. Council faces the particular challenge of providing services equitably to its older and established areas as well as to the newer developments which contribute to its rapid population growth. The City of Whittlesea is growing rapidly. Its current population of 130,254 (Department for Victorian Communities 2006) is forecast to increase to 240,000 by 2030 (City of Whittlesea 2006: 7), making it Victoria’s fastest growing municipality. The state government has endorsed the role of the City of Whittlesea as a growth area of metropolitan significance. However, not all areas of Whittlesea are growing at the Figure 1: Whittlesea Council area (id consulting 2006a) same rate. Growth is strongly driven by major residential approximately 487 square kilometres and developments, particularly in comprises urban as well as rural areas. Blossom Park, Epping, Mill Park and The bulk of the population resides in the South Morang (id consulting 2006a: 4). urbanised southern sector, comprising Over 50% of people moving into the new Bundoora, Epping, Lalor, Mill Park and growth areas are already residents of Thomastown. Other localities within the Whittlesea and there is a general municipality include Beveridge, Bruces residential migration trend to move north. Creek, Donnybrook, Doreen, Eden Park,
12 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Figure 2: City of Whittlesea population change (City of Whittlesea 2006: 8)
However, some of the older established areas within the city are expected to decline in population, with many of the residents being older than the average for the Melbourne Statistical District (MSD). Based on population projections to 2021 done by id consulting (2006b), Thomastown is amongst these and experienced a small decrease in population between 1996 and 2001, the result of few dwellings being added and a decline in the average number of persons living in each dwelling.
13 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Figure 3: Distribution of speakers with low English proficiency
The population of Whittlesea is highly in Thomastown being from non-English- diverse, with residents coming from over speaking backgrounds, compared with 55 different countries of birth. 48% are 14.9% in the Whittlesea township from a non-English-speaking background (Townsend 2006: 9) . Figure 3 shows the and 46% speak a language other than distribution of speakers with low English English at home, most commonly Italian, proficiency in Whittlesea. Macedonian, Greek, Arabic and Vietnamese (City of Whittlesea 2006: 6). However, these cultural groups are not distributed evenly throughout the municipality, with 73.2% of the population
14 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Social and Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)2
Table 2: SEIFA rankings for participating LGAs
LGA Population Advantage Disadvantage Economic Education & Disadvantage Resources Occupation
N Rank* Index Rank* Index Rank* Index Rank* Index Rank*
Boroondara 150,233 4 1,173 1 1,122 1 1,154 2 1,180 1
Nillumbik 58,161 27 1,104 7 1,108 4 1,104 6 1,079 10
Port Phillip 77,541 25 1,135 5 1,079 7 1,114 5 1,161 4
Melbourne 57,808 29 1,145 3 1,038 13 1,115 4 1,179 2
Moreland 131,359 9 995 21 985 25 981 26 1,015 15
Darebin 123,708 13 989 22 967 26 978 27 1,008 17
Whittlesea 114,082 15 949 29 962 27 977 28 927 28
Maribyrnong 57,907 28 972 27 915 30 968 29 989 21
* Out of 31 Melbourne LGAs
Whittlesea ranks low on the SEIFA disadvantage and takes into account Indexes, thereby indicating that it has variables relating to income, education, high levels of disadvantage compared to occupation, wealth and living conditions. the MSD. This indicates that the area has low numbers of skilled workers, high Whittlesea ranks 29 out of 31 Melbourne unemployment and households with local government areas (LGAs) on the relatively lower incomes compared to the Index of Advantage/Disadvantage, which MSD. is a continuum of advantage to The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage does not offset households 2 For a more detailed discussion of the SEIFA in advantage against those that are indexes, refer to Brackertz et al. (2005).
15 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
disadvantaged and is therefore a better relatively lower incomes and status of indicator of disadvantage. Here residential tenure (numbers owning or Whittlesea ranks 27 out of 31 LGAs, purchasing their own home, as opposed confirming high levels of disadvantage. to renting). The index draws on attributes such as A geographic mapping of the SEIFA income, educational attainment, Index of Advantage/Disadvantage for the unemployment and dwellings without City of Whittlesea shows that the motor vehicles, relatively lower southern sector of the municipality, educational attainment and high especially Thomastown and Lalor, has unemployment. On the Index of high levels of disadvantage (many Economic Resources Whittlesea ranks 28 unskilled workers, higher unemployment out of 31 Melbourne LGAs, indicating
Figure 4: SEIFA Index of Advantage/Disadvantage
16 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
and households with low incomes need assistance in getting to places of compared to the MSD) which are not consultation (e.g. community transport) offset by indicators of advantage. and may feel more comfortable being Thomastown is a residential and consulted in surrounds that are familiar to industrial area. In the south of them. Thomastown there are numerous Active recruitment through existing factories, an electricity terminal station networks and community groups, the and the Metropolitan Ring Road. In the provision of information in community west there is a north-south reservation for languages and at places where the the Hume Freeway. Major features of the community congregates, and the use of area include seven primary schools, interpreters are key to successfully Thomastown Secondary College and engaging a diverse community such as Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Thomastown. Centre. Thomastown is connected to Active recruitment requires investment of greater Melbourne by the train line, but time and the development of trust by has relatively poor public transport within cultivating continuing long term the area. relationships between community groups Based on the demographic data and council. Otherwise invitations to presented above, a picture emerges of community groups to participate in Thomastown as an established urbanised consultation may not be successful. area with a population that is very multicultural, ageing, has high levels of disadvantage, and is declining slightly in numbers. These trends are expected to continue and become more pronounced.
This demographic profile implies that many Thomastown residents are unlikely to participate in public consultations on local government decision making if traditional means of recruitment and communication are used. This is because CALD communities are less likely to respond to consultations advertised in the local media or through flyers, but are more likely to become involved if they are approached through community leaders and established networks. Using community leaders and ethnic community organisations also minimises the language barrier that can be experienced if publicity is available only in English. Furthermore, the elderly and people facing disadvantage may
17 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Community consultation at the City of Whittlesea
The City of Whittlesea is in the process of was viewed as a process that could developing its policies and procedures for potentially lead to problems: ‘If you don’t community consultation. A draft policy, do everything the community asks, they the Community Consultation Checklist don’t see the consultation is valid.’ (2005), is currently under review, and a At the other end of the spectrum, the series of mayoral forums linked to the need to consult the community on a development of the Community Plan broad range of issues was emphasised. (2006) are providing opportunities to There was an awareness of the need to engage with the community and test establish a consistent and uniform various forms of consultation. Community understanding of consultation throughout consultation at the City of Whittlesea the organisation and operationalise this must be viewed in the context of an by linking with the administration. organisation that is undergoing changes to its institutional processes. Certain areas within Council (notably the service areas) have many established Interviews with three city councillors relationships with community groups and highlighted that they had differing organisations which they use to get understandings and knowledge of the community feedback. The support and process as well as the role of community initiative of the mayor are a good consultation in Council decision making. prerequisite for broadening community All stressed the importance of councillors consultation and engagement in being aware of community issues and Whittlesea. preferences. All said that they have undertaken formal as well as informal At present, the City of Whittlesea does consultation with the community. Mayoral not have a formalised consultation forums, which are linked to the framework. Commitment to community community plan, were seen as a key consultation varies considerably forum for formal consultation. The forums throughout the organisation – there is no were introduced in 2005. consistent approach and certain sections of Council have their own consultation Councillors’ views about the degree to documents and guidelines. Howeve r, which community opinions should affect Council is taking steps towards a more the decision making process ranged from formalised stance and has committed to minimal impact to broad engagement. On ‘develop and implement a Community one end of the spectrum, community Consultation Strategy by 30 June 2008’ consultation was seen mainly through the as a measure of its commitment to lens of statutory requirements. In this ‘facilitate community participation in context, gathering information from the decision making and service planning’ community was seen to be important, but outlined as Strategy 1.1 of the the understanding was that at the end of Community Plan 2006-2010 (City of the day it was the role of councillors to Whittlesea 2006: 11). make the ‘right’ decision. Consultation
18 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Figure 5: City of Whittlesea community consultation continuum
The most comprehensive document Whittlesea and make the Community currently in use is the Community Consultation Checklist a useful Consultation Checklist (City of Whittlesea document. However, Attachment 1, ‘The 2005: 6) which doubles as policy for Community Consultation Continuum’, community consultation (email from includes confusing and potentially Felicity Leahy, Social Planner and misleading information. Coordinator, Sustainability Planning Unit, Attachment 1 presents a continuum 21 March 2007). This is intended as a approach to community consultation. ‘How to …’ guide for staff wishing to Figure 1, The CC Continuum, presents a undertake community consultation at the progression from low to high levels of City of Whittlesea. It includes Keys to community involvement (City of good consultation practice, designed to Whittlesea 2005: 5). It is notable that the assist in the planning of public terms used to define these six levels participation and an attachment with mirror the changing focus of Victorian models of community consultation. The state government policy towards Community Consultation Checklist refers communities. its readers to contact City Marketing or the Research Unit (the authors of the Modelled very closely on the IAP2 Public document) for further support, or contact Participation Spectrum, this chart the Multicultural Officer and the Youth essentially presents a continuum of Services Officers if advice is required increasing involvement in decision about consulting with diverse and making along the following lines. Inform younger audiences. gives citizens no influence, with the steps consult, involve and collaborate leading The Keys to good consultation practice up to citizen empowerment through and the availability of staff with a deeper devolved decision making. Overlayed are knowledge of community consultation are the policy terms from Figure 1 as a good start to establishing successful illustrated in the summary graph below. participatory practice at the City of
19 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
The difficulty with this model is that it government to governance (Lane 2005). assumes the different levels of In Victoria, the introduction of the Best community consultation are part of a Value principles in 1999 and the passing linear progression, with steps that build of the Local Government (Democratic on one another. The continuum view of Reform) Act in 2003 emphasised public participation as a progression from increased accountability of local information provision to citizen government to the community and the empowerment is based in communitarian need for consultation with the community. perceptions of participatory democracy Paired with state government policy shifts and its attendant benefits and outcomes. towards more decentralised forms of However, such a conceptualisation is not policy and program development (e.g. a useful model for pragmatic decision place management and neighbourhood making in local government. renewal) in which local government plays a significant role, strategies for citizen A look at key terminology and policy can participation are now firmly on the shed light on this confusion. Changes in agenda. policy focus are due to an evolution in thinking about the relationship between Community consultation is seen as one local government and communities and of the central mechanisms to raise levels the roles and responsibilities of local of public participation and to build councils towards their constituents. capacity and social capital through the community building agenda. It is summed The notion of client focus is linked to the up by the idea of community broad-ranging reforms of new public engagement. Public participation can management that swept through the take many forms. In Victoria, the Victorian public sector in the 1990s. Department of Sustainability and These applied private sector models Environment (2006) offers this somewhat emphasising efficiency, effectiveness and nebulous definition: competition, and reshaped our public institutions. They targeted economic, [engagement is] a generic, inclusive management and governance aspects. term to describe the broad range of Similar legislation in all states resulted in interactions between people. It can the amalgamation of small authorities, include a variety of approaches, such the adoption of market practices and the as one-way communication or introduction of new management information delivery, consultation, methods, in particular, strategic planning. involvement and collaboration in In the process, citizens were recast as decision making, and empowered consumers (Brown & Keast 2003; action in informal groups or formal Fountain 2001) and the community base partnerships. for service delivery was eroded, leading The Victorian Local Governance to what is sometimes described as a 3 Association (VLGA) adds to this an crisis of community. The current community focus can be seen to be a direct reaction to this 3 The VLGA provides resources on governance, (Adams & Hess 2001; Reddel & community engagement and consultation that are Woolcock 2004) and is part of a shift from used frequently by Victorian councils,
20 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
emphasis on democratic legitimacy purposes of the Hard to Reach project it (democratic governance) but is not much is defined as ‘a two-way exchange of clearer on the meanings of engagement information prior to a decision being or participation: made’ (Brackertz et al. 2005). However, is a value-laden and complex concept Democratic governance exists when a that crosses definitional boundaries and government governs for and on behalf is frequently used to denote participatory of its community. Good democratic practice more generally. governance occurs when governments govern as a result of being elected by A further dimension is provided by the an informed and engaged electorate. state government’s community Citizens exercise their rights and strengthening agenda, which is about responsibilities by being informed and involving individuals and institutions in engaged. new forms of communication and connectedness. The underlying idea is Engagement is achieved when the that communities can be strengthened community is and feels part of the through better relationships with overall governance of that community. It government and that better governance is informed, connected and feels it has will result from stronger relationships with a role to play. community (Considine 2004). Participation means that the In policy terms engagement is supported community is involved in governance by the state government’s A Fairer activities. Victoria: Creating Opportunity and Consultation [is] the process of Addressing Disadvantage (2005) social informed communication between the policy statement, at the heart of which council and the community on an issue lies the community building Initiative. It prior to the council making a decision or aims to bring residents together with determining a direction on that issue. government and community agencies to What can be gleaned from these plan for and address local needs, build definitions is that participation is a broad local leadership and foster community category that encompasses various ways networks. This is backed by the Growing of involving the community in Victoria Together: A Vision for Victoria to governance, while consultation is one 2010 and Beyond (2005) framework, form that such participation can take. which commits to a vibrant democracy Engagement is an outcome which occurs and more accountable government by when there is good ongoing information giving more Victorians from all flow, consultation and participation backgrounds the opportunity to have a between council and community. say on issues that matter to them. Consultation is just one element in the Capacity building is a process that range of interactions that councils have provides organisations and citizens with with their constituencies. For the the skills and structures required for successful public participation rather than a level of community consultation. The
21 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
citizens to interact with council and take other and work together does affect how action on issues that affect their successful public participation will be. community underpins the way local An internal document titled Summary of governments and citizens interact. There Community Consultation (City of is ‘an emerging role for local government Whittlesea 2004) highlights the need to to support and facilitate citizen build relationships with communities and participation in local governance through to build skills. However, it also states: capacity building processes‘ (Cuthill & Fien 2005: 64). For council, prerequisites There is no compulsion to constantly for this process include: move communities to higher levels of CC, nor is there any requirement that i) the collection and provision of after several years a movement to relevant empirical data describing the higher CC is necessary. In the absence local community of statutory regulation, Council can ii) establishing equitable, accountable select to undertake whichever level of and transparent participatory policy and CC best suits both its residents, its processes, and resources, and the area of consultation. (City of Whittlesea 2004: 1) iii) the development of a supportive organisational culture. (Cuthill & Fien These comments reflect a degree of 2005: 64) reservation about the need for and For the community, capacity building benefits of community consultation. This requirements include: sentiment was also echoed during a focus group held with Council staff i) enhanced citizen ability, (focus group transcripts, Whittlesea ii) enhanced community group ability, focus group, 27 July 2005) where some and participants felt that certain areas of Council were not necessarily in favour iii) the re/establishing of a cooperative of broad consultation. community culture. (Cuthill & Fien 2005: 64) This is also reflected in another comment made during the focus group that From these definitions it is clear that the steps presented in ‘The Community the emphasis on consultation is now Consultation Continuum’ need not be driven by state and federal government. seen as a linear progression, nor do they So we often consult not because we build on one another. Rather they can think it’s a good thing, but because we coexist as options, tools and approaches, are made to do it. depending on the purpose being These attitudes and the documents pursued. Community building, discussed above indicate that Whittlesea engagement and capacity building are is going through a series of institutional varying expressions of a focus on processes that are reshaping the way communities. consultation is done and thought about at However, the capacity of the community Council. and the council to engage with each The benefits of these processes could be extended and broadened across the
22 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
organisation by encouraging internal discussion of the issues, organising joint planning days with multiple departments, and provision of training and resources for community consultation to all staff and councillors.
23 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
The consultation process
The consultation on community facilities and external improvement to preferences for the proposed buildings and car park. redevelopment of TRAC was chosen as The consultation on the TRAC Strategy is an example of a consultation about an an example of a consultation about a important community facility in an area service that is for the whole community with a high proportion of residents from and is used primarily by local residents. disadvantaged or CALD backgrounds. How far the consultation succeeded in The demographic characteristics of attracting a representative section of Thomastown mean that many of its current and potential future centre users residents are seen to be hard to reach for was of particular interest in documenting the purposes of community consultation the consultation. and are also less likely to participate in recreational sporting activities. The consultation on the TRAC Strategy Consequently there is a degree of took place as part of a study into the overlap between persons who can be feasibility of redeveloping the facility to difficult to involve in consultation and better meet community needs and attract those who are under-represented in a greater number of users. This is recreation activities such as those offered particularly important as the leisure by TRAC. This makes an investigation of opportunities provided by TRAC can how to involve ‘hard to reach’ groups all significantly contribute to the health and the more relevant. wellbeing of a demographic (CALD, elderly and disadvantaged) that are As part of the research methodology traditionally under-represented in documenting the consultation process, recreational sporting activities (Stratton et the researcher observed many of the al. 2005). consultation workshops and interviewed Council staff and consultants. These issues arose because of the age and condition of TRAC and its limited Profile of the facility ability to meet community needs. The changing demographics of the TRAC provides wet and dry recreational Thomastown community and the need for spaces. Originally conceived as an a coordinated and informed approach to outdoor pool complex, it opened in 1979. redeveloping TRAC also supported the Since then it has undergone a series of need for public consultation about any extensions and alterations and now proposed development of the centre includes three heated indoor pools (25m, (Prior & Cheney et al. 2006: 5). The learner/ toddler, hydrotherapy) as well as consultation was intended to ascertain spa, sauna and steam rooms. Outdoors community and stakeholder perceptions, there are a further three non-heated attitudes, needs, issues and aspirations pools (50m, 25m and wading). Dry (Prior & Cheney et al. 2006: 6) before recreational areas are a gymnasium/ going to tender for the provision of health and fitness suite; a detailed architectural and design services multipurpose/aerobics room; a two court for the redevelopment of indoor aquatic multipurpose stadium; consulting
24 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
suites/massage room; male and female wet and dry change rooms; and a kiosk (Prior & Cheney et al. 2006: 8). A profile of TRAC’s users demonstrates its importance as a place of recreation for the local community, with most users coming from surrounding areas. Persons from Thomastown and Lalor, make up 68% of centre visitors, with another 20% coming from nearby Bundoora, Reservoir, Epping and Mill Park (Prior & Cheney et al. 2006: 26). The facility, which is co-located with the Thomastown library and Community Centre in Main Street, is owned by the City of Whittlesea and was operated through a management agreement As part of an estimated $17 million upgrade to the facility, Council has allocated $4 million in its 2007-08 proposed budget towards the redevelopment of TRAC, which will include the planning and initial development of a modern, multi-purpose health, fitness, recreation and aquatic centre (Mayor Kris Pavlidis, media release, 30 May 2007,
25 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
nearby Council and community centres. Community discussion groups Copies were made available to youth, To get community feedback about TRAC, aged care and health and wellbeing Council and consultants opted for a service providers (Appendix 1). A traditional consultation format, which covering letter (Appendix 2) and a copy comprised six discussion groups. Two of of the flyer were also sent to schools. The these were open to the general public. advertising leaflet included phone Another four were aimed at specific numbers in community languages for the audiences using or intending to use multilingual telephone line (see Appendix TRAC (see Table 1). 1). Community members and groups were A two week postcode survey, conducted invited to prepare a submission outlining as part of the consultants’ overall issues of concern to them. The evaluation of the TRAC facility had consultants also conducted telephone shown that the vast majority of users and face to face interviews with come from Thomastown and Lalor. community groups and key stakeholders. Consequently the discussion groups were held in Community Room 1&2 at The discussion groups and calls for the Thomastown library, which is directly submissions were advertised on adjacent to TRAC. Council’s website and in the local paper 2-3 weeks in advance of sessions taking The discussion groups were facilitated by place. Council also contacted schools the consultants, who at each session and leisure services staff. Flyers were gave a brief introduction summarising the posted on a notice board at TRAC and at purpose of the consultation and relevant Discussion Group Target Audience Time and Date Attendance Community Open to all members of the Monday 3 July 2006 2 discussion group 1 public 4.00-5.30 pm Community Open to all members of the Thursday 6 July 2006 0 discussion group 2 public 7.00-8.30 pm Schools All primary and secondary Monday 3 July 0 schools in the City of Whittlesea 2.00-3.30 pm Sporting clubs Sporting clubs and associations Monday 3 July 2006 22 who currently use aquatic 6.30-8.00 pm facilities or might be interested in using aquatic facilities for training or recreational purposes Youth service Thursday 6 July 2006 1 providers 4.00-5.30 pm Older adults and aged Specialist older adults and aged Thursday 6 July 2006 13 care and health and care providers; health service 2.00-3.30 pm wellbeing service providers including providers physiotherapists, doctors, sports medicine, disability service providers; children and family health specialists Table 3: Discussion groups held for TRAC consultation
26 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
issues before inviting community the consultation. This is somewhat of a feedback. Council staff from Leisure concern as TRAC is close to a number of Services were present as observers. schools. Reasons may have to do with As can be seen from Table 1, turn-out at the timing of the announcement of the discussion groups was variable. It is consultations taking place and the date of notable that no members of the ‘general the actual consultation occurring. Letters community’ attended any of the sessions. of invitation to schools were sent out on Community Group2 attracted no 13 June 2006 which was the first day of participants and only two persons the school holidays, and the discussion attended Community Group 1: the groups were held on 3 July which was coordinator of the women’s swimming the first day of the new term. This group, who had previously been unfortunate timing meant that key employed by Council, and the coordinator stakeholders were not given adequate of the Special Olympics group who use notice of the meetings. To compensate the centre on a fortnightly basis. Both for this, the consultants contacted a made valuable contributions about the number of Thomastown schools to use and management of the facility. provide feedback about TRAC over the However, they represented special phone or in face to face interviews. interest groups and cannot be seen to be As part of the case study research, representative of the ‘general public’. discussion group participants were asked The discussion group for sporting clubs to complete an evaluation form at the was well attended with 22 participants, conclusion of each session (Appendix 3). but it should be noted that all but two Among other things, participants were were members of the Thomastown asked how they had heard about the Swimming Club who train regularly at consultation. Members of the TRAC. Therefore, rather than Thomastown Swimming Club representing a diversity of users, overwhelmingly indicated that they had participants lent the weight of numbers to been informed by their coach that the their viewpoints rather than expressing a meetings were taking place. He had range of opinions. spotted the advertising leaflet on TRAC’s noticeboard by coincidence the week The consultation with older adults and prior to the consultation. Others, mainly aged care and health and wellbeing Council employees, had responded to the service providers was well attended by a invitation sent out through the Leisure diverse group of representatives – the Services email list. A few participants had only session to do so. Discussions were seen the advertisement in the local lively and varied, with many suggestions paper, while others again had heard by about how to improve management, word of mouth or had been directly communication and coordination with recruited by phone by other community centre management and people and members or Council services staff. Most agencies providing services using TRAC. participants commented on the short Only one person attended the group for notice given of the meetings and the youth service providers and notably no ‘accidental’ nature of their discovery that representatives from schools attended the consultation was taking place.
27 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
On a positive note, given there were no Alternative methods and active outreach specific efforts to include hard to reach are key to engaging these population groups, the consultation attracted a very segments. Recruitment can be done diverse range of representatives and through existing community advocates from groups that are organisations, community leaders and frequently seen to be hard to reach. This established links with the community. indicates the significance of the TRAC Information that is provided in community facility for these groups as well as an languages and at places where the eagerness of community representatives community congregates is also key to to be provided with opportunities to recruitment, and interpreters can further participate in planning and decision assist to overcome language barriers. making about Council facilities that are of Especially in an area of high significance to them. Attendees included: disadvantage, where many residents are elderly, the provision of community • The coordinator of the women’s transport to the consultation venue can swimming group also assist to boost attendance. • The coordinator of the Special Put into context, the patchy attendance at Olympics Group consultation meetings and comments • Representatives of the Whittlesea and made by participants, consultants and Thomastown Turkish women’s’ Council staff point to some major issues associations with the consultation process. • A representative from Vision Australia Consultants found it difficult to get a who made many excellent proposed programme of consultation suggestions about design approved by Council. A suggested characteristics that would make the strategy was progressively cut back until facility more accessible to visually it was the minimal consultation outlined impaired people, as well as above. Attempts by Council to involve suggesting how designers could work CALD community members by providing with Vision Australia to improve information in community languages or design of the facility using established community networks were not successful. • A number of service providers and community workers who act as liaison Ambivalence about the role and need for points with CALD communities, the community consultation from some elderly, disabled persons, persons councillors and Council staff meant that undergoing physical rehabilitation etc. the culture of consultation is not yet well established at Whittlesea. There is a Evaluation of the TRAC strategy degree of hesitation about conducting consultation community consultation and only a relatively small number of community Thomastown’s demographic profile consultations take place. This means that implies that many of its residents are the capacity of Council staff and the unlikely to participate in public community to engage in consultation consultations if traditional means of activity is not fully developed and that recruitment and communication are used. some staff and community members are
28 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
sceptical about the outcomes. This is that many of the matters raised were not demonstrated, for example, by the fact about the physical provision of the that the discussion group aimed at youth building (although this was an service providers, most of whom work for acknowledged issue), but had to do with or with Council, attracted only one the management of the facility. attendee. Many participants in the Broadly, concerns related to the cost of discussion groups commented that while using the facility, suitability of the facility they felt positively about the fact that and programs for a broad range of Council was consulting, they were very community members, and the sceptical about the impact the maintenance of equipment. consultation would have.
The consultants’ report commented on this issue: Council has not consulted with the community about TRAC for some time and it is clear that the community needs to be encouraged and educated about participating in community consultation. It would be valuable for Council to conduct similar, more detailed and more regular consultations with its various communities as these provide
invaluable information on both the success of initiatives undertaken and the most appropriate and effective actions to pursue in the future. (Prior & Cheney et al. 2006: 25) The attendance of so many advocates and representatives for hard to reach groups highlights the significance of TRAC as a place of recreation, rehabilitation and wellbeing for community members who are often under-represented in physical leisure activities and who have limited financial means. Participants made many good suggestions about redevelopment possibilities for TRAC. However, most were sceptical about the possibility of a major redevelopment of the facility and viewed this more as a long-term wish list. In light of this, it is perhaps of concern
29 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Recommendations
The consultation on the TRAC strategy participation through an ongoing must be seen in the context of a Council process of engagement. that is still in the early stages of developing its participatory processes.
It is recommended that:
• Council fully develop and refine its policy for public participation. This should include processes that are inclusive of a representative range of community members. • Council continue to promote debate about the processes and use of public participation in Council planning and
decision making. • Council continue to refine its institutional processes that facilitate education about public participation; these could include planning days, organisation-wide forums and training. • Council develop a range of resources for consulting with the Whittlesea community that go beyond traditional methods and that are suited to engaging with its diverse, multi-ethnic and rapidly growing community. • A strategy for linking community consultation to decision making processes by Council officers and councillors be put in place. • The capacity of Council staff and councillors to conduct community consultation be developed through training. • The capacity of the community to participate be developed by educating about the role of public participation in Council decision making and providing opportunities for
30 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
References
Adams, D and M Hess (2001) 'Community in City of Whittlesea (2005) Community public policy: Fad or foundation?', Consultation Checklist, internal Australian Journal of Public document Administration, 60(2), pp. 13-23 City of Whittlesea (2006) Community Plan Arnstein, SR (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen 2006-2010 participation’, Journal of the American Considine, M. (2004) Community Institute of Planners, 35(4), pp. 216-24 Strengthening and the Role of Local Atkinson, R and H Flint (2001) ‘Accessing Government, Local Government Victoria, hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Melbourne Snowball research strategies’, Social Cuthill, M and J Fien (2005) 'Capacity Research Update, 33, building: Facilitating citizen participation
31 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Earthman, E, LS Richmond, DJ Peterson, Klausen, J and D Sweeting (2002) MS Marczak and SC Betts (1999) Legitimacy, Citizen Participation, and Adapting Evaluation Measures for ‘Hard Community Involvement in Governance, to Reach’ Audiences, Children, Youth paper presented to Conference on and Families Education and Research Democratic Network Governance, Network, University of Arizona, Tucson, Copenhagen, 22-23 May,
32 Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Smith, G (2006) Hard-to-Reach Groups Don't Exist, Delib, London,
33 Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Appendix 1
Advertising flyer
34
Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
The City of Whittlesea is committed to providing quality leisure facilities to the local community. Making sure the facilities fit the needs and aspirations of residents is an important aspect of this. To plan the most appropriate facilities, we need your input.
Council wants to find out:
• What aquatic leisure facilities and services are important to the local community.
• What aquatic leisure facilities are needed at the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre.
Council will also be considering how the community is likely to change over time and what needs to be undertaken at Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre to meet both the current and future aquatic leisure needs.
There are two ways you can get involved:
1. Attend a community discussion group to have input and discuss ideas for the possible future development of Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre, and / or,
2. Prepare a submission outlining issues of interest and concern to you about the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre.
Council values your input even if you do not use leisure centres. Any new or revitalised aquatic leisure facilities Council pursues may include aquatics, social, non-aquatic recreation or sporting opportunities which may be appropriate to your needs and interests in the future.
Submissions can be brought to one of Returned by post to: the community discussion groups or OR dropped off at: Vanessa Arthur Leisure Planner Civic Centre City of Whittlesea Ferres Boulevard Locked Bag 1 South Morang BUNDOORA, MDC 3083
by Friday 7 July 2006 at the latest.
Community discussion groups will be held as follows:
Community Discussion Group 1 Monday 3 July 2006 4pm - 5.30pm Community Discussion Group 2 Thursday 6 July 2006 7pm – 8.30pm
Discussion groups are open to all members of the community.
Community discussion groups for special interest groups/ and organisations focused forums will be held as follows:
Sporting Clubs Schools
Monday 3 July 2006 6.30pm - 8pm Monday 3 July 2006 2pm - 3.30pm
Sporting clubs and associations who currently
use aquatic facilities or might be interested in All primary and secondary schools in the City using aquatic facilities for training or of Whittlesea. recreational purposes.
Older Adults and Aged Care and Health and Wellbeing Service Providers Youth Service Providers
Thursday 6 July 2006 2pm - 3.30pm
Thursday 6 July 2006 4pm - 5.30pm Specialist older adults and ages care
providers and health service providers
including physiotherapists, doctors, sports medicine, disability service providers, children and family health specialists.
All community discussion groups will be held at: Thomastown Library Community Room 1 & 2 Council encourages your participation, if you have any 52 Main Street, Thomastown questions please contact Vanessa Arthur, Council’s Melways ref: 8 G7 Leisure Planner on 9217 2302, TTY 9217 2420.
Community Consultation and the Hard to Reach City of Whittlesea Case Study Report
Appendix 2
Covering letter
35
Enquiries: Vanessa Arthur
File Reference: 157451
13 June 2006
Dear
Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
The City of Whittlesea is committed to providing quality leisure facilities to the local community. Making sure the facilities fit the needs and aspirations of residents is an important aspect of this. To plan the most appropriate facilities, we need your input.
Council has initiated a strategy into future aquatic and leisure service provision for the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre. Your school/organisation is invited to take part into the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre strategy to determine how it can best meet the community’s aquatic leisure needs.
Council wants to find out:
• What aquatic and leisure facilities and services are important to you and your community.
• What aquatic and leisure facilities are needed at the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre.
Council will also be considering other information such as trends in aquatics and leisure provision, programs and services and how the community is likely to change over time and what needs to be done at Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre to meet both the current and future aquatic leisure needs.
There are two ways your (school)/( organisation) can get involved. You can either
1. Send a representative of your school/organisation to a community discussion group to have input and discuss ideas for the possible future development of Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre and / or,
2. Prepare a submission outlining issues of interest and concern to your school/organisation about aquatic leisure facilities and services in the City of Whittlesea.
If you or members of your staff, colleagues, associated groups or members in the wider community wish to provide personal input please prepare a submission or attend one of the community discussion groups.
Council values your school/organisation’s input, even if it does not currently use leisure centres. Any new or revitalised aquatic leisure facilities developed by Council may include aquatics, social, non-aquatic recreation or sporting opportunities which may meet your school/organisations needs and interests in the future.
A timetable outlining the community discussion groups which will be held in early July 2006 is attached. You are invited to attend the discussion group for (name of forum) on (date) at (time) or another of the groups if you are unable to make this date and time.
RSVP by: Friday 30 June 2006 Phone: Vanessa Arthur on 9217 2302 E-mail: [email protected]
Submissions can be brought to one of the community discussion groups or dropped off at: Civic Centre Ferres Boulevard South Morang
Or returned by post to: Vanessa Arthur Leisure Project Officer City of Whittlesea Locked Bag 1 BUNDOORA, MDC 3083 by Friday 7 July 2006 at the latest.
Council encourages your participation, if you have any questions about the information enclosed with this letter, please contact Vanessa Arthur, Council’s Leisure Planner on 9217 2302.
Yours sincerely
Paul Reading Manager Leisure Services and Planning
Consultation on the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Appendix 3
Participant evaluation
36 Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre Strategy
Participant Evaluation of the Consultation Process
The City of Whittlesea invites your feedback on the meeting you attended today. This is part of an independent evaluation of the consultation process by Swinburne University and your responses will be treated strictly confidential.
Below are some statements about the consultation process. Please circle your preferred response, from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).
Neither Strongly agree Dis- Strongly Agree agree nor agree disagree disagree A) I am clear about the purpose of the ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... meeting. B) I am clear about my role in the ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... consultation process. C) Information at the meeting was presented in a clear and understandable ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... way. D) At the meeting there was enough time ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... for everyone to have their say today. E) At the meeting I was given enough opportunity to make a contribution and ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... voice my concerns today. F) I thought the meeting was well run...... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... G) I think everyone affected by the issue consulted upon has a fair opportunity to ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... participate in the consultation. H) The meeting was run in an unbiased ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... way. I) The information / suggestions that came out of the meeting reflected the ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... discussion. J) I think Council will listen to community ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... views. K) The location of the meeting was convenient for me (eg public transport ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... available, disability access, safety, parking etc). L) The timing of the meeting made it easy ..... 1 ...... 2 ...... 3 ...... 4 ...... 5 .... for me to attend.
1 M) How did you hear about the meeting? ......
N) I know of others who would have liked to attend the meeting but were not able to for the following reasons …
......
O) Is there anything else you would like to say about today’s meeting? ......
Please tell us a little bit about yourself.
P) I am male female
Q) My age group is: R) I mainly work ... (you can choose more than one response) under 18 Full time 18-24 Part time / casual 25-34 Unemployed 35-44 Retired 45-54 Student 55-64 Full time parent / carer over 65 Other
S) Do you speak a language other than English at home? Yes No
If yes, please specify the MAIN language you speak at home.
......
T) What is your suburb / postcode? ......
Thank you for completing this evaluation form.
2
FOLLOW UP INTERVIEW
As part of the project evaluation, researchers from Swinburne may want to contact you to ask some follow up questions, either in person or on the phone. If you are willing to answer some follow up questions, please provide your contact details below.
All responses will be confidential.
Name:
Address:
Email:
Phone:
3