session 3.1 – engaging in community governance copyright 2011 fiona caniglia

SESSION 3.1 – ENGAGING IN COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE

Copyright 2011 Fiona Caniglia

Community Engagement

“Community engagement has the potential to go beyond merely making information available or gathering opinions and attitudes. It entails a more active exchange of information and viewpoints between the sponsoring organisation and the public, however this public is defined.”

From Website “Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System – I-Plan - http://www.nswplanning.org.au/pia/engagement/index.htm

Community Engagement

“The term community engagement broadly captures public processes in which the general public and other interested parties are invited to contribute to particular proposals or policy changes. Community engagement covers many types of exchange between organisations and the public.”

From Website “Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System – I-Plan - http://www.nswplanning.org.au/pia/engagement/index.htm

• “There is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the protest” (Arnstein, 1969:219).

• Arnstein criticises so-called attempts at citizen participation that:

- Allow citizens to advise and plan almost endlessly, yet for power holders to retain “the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice” (1969:220).

- Participation is most effective “when there is an organised power base in the community to which the citizen leaders are accountable” and when the group is adequately resourced .

(1969:216)

Community Engagement

- Community engagement as “technical”

- Community engagement as consultation

Barriers to Engagement

• Lack of organisational structure in the community to support participation

• No familiarity with the process

• Inadequate information and technical information

• Insufficient time for preparation and short notice for meetings

• Lack of recognition by government of the community as partners

(Moss, 1996)

Barriers to Engagement

Community Consultation Project Report:

- “There was no transport available- “The venue wasn’t wheelchair accessible”- “There were no arrangements for child care”- “I didn’t know enough about the issues being consulted

about”- “The background material for the consultation was

confusing”

(Queensland Shelter, 1998)

Barriers to Engagement

• “women, young people, pensioners, industrial and service-sector employees and immigrants are least likely to participate while groups with a direct economic interest in land-use matters are over-represented”

Jones (1998:117-118) citing Munro-Clark (1992)

• The risk is that “those most affected by planning decisions are those least likely to participate”

(Jones 1998:118)

Barriers to Engagement

• People living alone• One parent households• People living with a disability• Young people• Part-time/casual employees• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples• People from culturally and linguistically diverse groups• People with lower levels of educational attainment• People living in disadvantaged locations

- QCOSS Budget Submission 2006:5

Community Engagement

Two main reasons for active engagement:

• Greater emphasis among development agencies on “good governance”

• Widespread disappointment with the long-term impacts of “top-down” approaches.

Dale 2004:182

Community Engagement

At a micro level, participation can be assisted by a range of techniques and activities:

• Planning committees• Advisory panels• Charettes• Visioning• Map making• Photo survey• Open house• Newspaper supplement• Awards

Wates, 2000

Community Engagement

• Search conference• Workshops• Design-in• Submission• Survey• Display• Use of media

Wendy Sarkissian 1986, 1994

Community Engagement

• Public meetings • Surveys• Focus groups• Shop fronts• Consultative committees• Policy roundtables• Impact assessment

Community Engagement

Beyond a focus on:

• Menus, templates and checklists• Techniques

Towards:

• Community planning and engagement as taking place in a philosophical and policy context• What are our assumptions about individual, collective, structural elements?

Community Development

The importance of organisation and structure for participation:

• Building an ongoing set of structures to help the community meet its needs (Jeremy McArdle – community development).• Informality - formality• Resourcing• Legitimised, accountable• Supports action initiated by government or the community• Constantly learning/improving

Dale 2004:187

Community Planning, Engagement & the Policy Context

• “the search for participatory and innovative models of community

engagement and planning requires a more discursive understanding of decision making and policy processes”

• “policy and planning should be seen as a process of interaction and negotiation based on a complex mixture of policy institutions, networks and communities entailing a diversity of groups and individual perceptions, interpretations and interests which operate from policy initiation to implementation” Tim Riddell

Community Planning, Engagement & the Policy Context

• Alternative is a “more dynamic approach to policy development and decision making based on concepts such as policy innovation, political learning and policy as process, dialogue and activism”

- Reddell based on Considine 1994 and Marsh 1995

• Policy communities and networks help to shift our thinking from government to governance

- Rod Rhodes 1997:45

Governance

• Reconfiguring the boundaries of the State which promotes interdependence between public, private and civil sectors

• Ongoing interactions between network members based on trust

• Negotiated processes and shared outcomes

• An autonomy from but connection to the State reflected in the self-organising nature of networks

Participatory governance meaning “structures and arrangements that support effective relationships across the public, private and community sectors as they collaborate in decision-making processes towards agreed objectives”.

Edwards 2001:2

“Interactive and negotiated governance”

- Thomas (1996:257) and Amin and Hausner (1997:19)

Governance is concerned with the concept of “capacity building”

- Reidar Dale (2004:187)

Capacity building may be in relation to:• People• Organisations• Institutional and structural arrangements

In relation to people, capacity building may mean:- “to augment people’s resources and other abilities to improve their life situation through their own efforts”

These resources can include: • Money• Land• Assets• Health• Working ability• Vocational skills• Understanding of the issues• Negotiating power

(Dale 2004:187)

Institution building:

• Important in building capacity• May be unpredictable and change prone• Creates capacity to achieve change that is beyond the boundary of the organisation – including laws, new procedures• There is a level of uncertainty that doesn’t lend itself to “blueprint” planning and linear processes

- Adapted from Dale 2004

There are shifts in Europe for example where the following is highlighted:

1. Strengthening the capacity of the State, local and community institutions to address local, social and economic issues

2. Improved local coordination between sectors and spheres of government

3. The promotion of public, private and community partnerships

Participatory Governance Frameworks

• Innovation• Negotiation• Transformative partnerships• Policy learning• The reinvention of government• Knowledge transfer• Democratisation• Decentralisation of decision making• Inter-institutional dialogue

(Considine 1994 and 2001; Marsh 1995; Amin and Thomas 1996; Mayo 1997).

Practice: Beyond Menus & Checklists

A focus on implementation:

- What implementation arrangements will promote more participatory policy processes involving a range of state and non-state actors?

Practice: Beyond Menus & Checklists

International development practice:

- The role of strategic alliances between disadvantaged communities and more resourceful external networks and institutions – leading to improved social and economic outcomes for local communities

(Woolcock 1999; Woolcock and Narayan 2000).

Practice: Beyond Menus & Checklists

OECD studies:

- Argue for formalised agreements between State and non-State actors and clearer processes for policy learning, monitoring and evaluation including incorporation of local community based strategies as sources of innovation and ideas to inform national policy

(OECD 1998:101-114)

Practice: Beyond Menus & Checklists

• A form of planning and engagement that that reinforces the interdependent relationships between an active State and with civil society

• Emphasise the role of democratic organisations that are participatory and effective (and their creation)

(Fung and Wright 2001; Smith 2000)

• A capacity for embracing and managing uncertainty (Dale 2004:183-184)

• A capacity to work with and harness embedded tensions without resorting to binary frameworks

• A capacity to build ongoing governance arrangements beyond the time frame of one project/intervention.

ReferencesAmin A and Thomas D (1996) “The negotiated economy: state and civic institutions in Denmark” Economy and Society Vol 35 No 2 May pp 255-281

Amin A (1999) “Än institutionalist perspective on regional economic development”International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23 pp 365-378

Amin, A & N Thrift (2002), Cities: Re-imagining the Urban, Polity, Cambridge.

Arnstein S (1969) “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” in Journal of the American Institute of Planners Vol 35, No 4

Considine M (2001) Enterprising State: Public Management of Welfare to Work Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press

Considine M (2002) “Joined at the Hip? What can network research tell us about governance?” Paper presented to the international Political Science Association Research Conference: Networks and Joined Up Government. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. June.

Dale, R. 2004, Development Planning – Concepts and Tools for Planners, Managers and Facilitators, Zed Books, London and New York.Fung

Smith G (2000) “Towards Deliberative Institutions”in M. Saward (ed) Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association London Rourledge.

References

Mayo M (1997) “Partnerships for regeneration and community development: some opportunities, challenges and contraints” Critical Social Policy No 52 Vol 17(3) pp 3-26

Sue Maywald (1988) Consulting with Your Community: A guide to effective and equitable community consultation techniques for local government and associated organisations. Local Government Community Services Association of South Australia.

OECD (1998) Integrating distressed urban areas Paris

W. Sarkissian et al (1986) The Community Participation Handbook Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Perth. W. Sarkissian (1994) “Community Participation in Theory and Practice” in Community Participation in Practice Casebook, Institute for Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, Perth.

Wates, N. (2000) The Community Planning Handbook. Earthscan Publications: London

Woolcock M (1999) Managing Risk, Shocks and Opportunity in Developing Economies: The role of social capital A research note: www.worldbank.org

Woolcock M and Narayan D (2000) “Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory, Research and Policy” The World Bank Research Observer Vol 15 No 2 August pp 225-249A and Wright E O (2001) Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance” in Politics in Society29(1)5-41

Design a strategy to address possible community conflict over the development of a new 6 storey - multi-purpose community facility that will include: Shop fronts from where community organisations will provide

direct support services to members of the public (housing, homelessness, mental health, addiction)

A street-level space where people can drop in (Open House, hospitality, welcome)

Additional office space for community organisations for various administrative functions (financial, production of publications, governance)

Some office space for lease to a businesses (legal, psychology etc)

4 levels of affordable housing targeting people on low and low-middle incomes (1 and 2 bedroom units) (a total of 30 units).

The broader community is an inner urban environment with medium-high density development and various mixed uses. The population is projected to grow by 5000 residents and consists of incoming residents with higher incomes and an existing resident population of people on low fixed incomes who traditionally relied on boarding house accommodation and who are vulnerable to homelessness.

What might be some of the concerns of residents opposing this development? How might they be addressed?

What networks could be developed in a situation like this, to support constructive dialogue across the issues?

Which key stakeholders should be engaged in the process? How might they be linked with residents who both support and challenge the development?

Development strategies and actions that might help to proactively manage a situation like this.

***Work towards a more cohesive community and think beyond a marketing framework***