1. How evaluation made a difference to planning and decision making in a small community Australasian Evaluation Society Queensland Seminar 11 July 2006 Ellen Vasiliauskas Director d-sipher pty ltd Evaluation Development Award Winner 2005 © d-sipher pty ltd Ph: 07 5471 1330 ellenv@d-sipher.com.au

2. AES Award Criteria The Noosa Community Governance & Planning Project case study: –Use of evaluation & evidence based methods –What outcomes were achieved as a result? –Who has benefited and who has not? Overview

3. Quality of the methodology that could relate to more general initiatives to promote evaluation AES Evaluation Award Criteria Usefulness and impact of the contribution Cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the contribution Consideration of ethics and social justice issues

4. Overseas trends The key elements of shifts in rural policy in OECD countries overseas are around: “ - decentralisation of policy administration and, within limits, policy design to those levels; - increased use of partnerships between public, private and voluntary sectors in the development and implementation of local and regional policies.” The Future of Rural Policy Conference in Siena, Italy July 2002 From sectoral to place-based policies in rural areas OECD 25-06-2003

5. Local context - Community participation placed on government reform agenda Changing Australian policy with framework of federal, state & local govt. microeconomic reform. 1990’s: Local government IPA specifies areas of community consultation. 2001: 2002: Who will take care of the planning at the local level across all the other sectors? – Social, Environmental and Economic. Government recognised it could not solve the increasingly complex social, economic, environmental & attitudinal factors when planning for a sustainable future. 1980’s:

6. Changing role of Local government Closer to communities than other levels of government An emphasis on local implementation of federal & state policies Changing role from roads, rates & rubbish to facilitators (1980’s). Local government:

7. Private sector business Industry groups Education The Private Sector Federal State Regional Local The Public Sector All members of the community The Community Third sector (not for profit) Voluntary organisations Local Services & Clubs The Community Sector Local government as strategic facilitators of place based initiatives

8. What is community governance? ‘Governance has to do with institutions, processes & traditions for dealing with issues of public interest.’ Understanding Community Governance 1999 Local Government NZ Conference

9. Use of evaluation & community governance – The Noosa case study

10. Some information about Noosa Small regional coastal location on Sunshine Coast in Queensland – 1.5hrs North Brisbane Population of 44,000 (2003) Main industries: tourism, construction, property & agriculture Balance of built & natural environment – high % of national park Village atmosphere

11. Council recognised: - ‘…the quality of life and wellbeing of the local Shire community relies on many sectoral interests, which are outside of Council and often driven by other competing priorities.’ Why did Noosa Council undertake community governance?

12. Develop plans for the Noosa community to achieve sustainability & acceptable quality of life in: –Social –Arts & Heritage –Environment & –Economic sectors. A vision to the year 2015 but with recommendations on actions, responsibility for action and funding for the first 2-4 year increment. Brief from Noosa Council for community governance project

13. Before the Community Governance Project Noosa Council has a history of community consultation - 20 yrs ago Council meetings opened to the community Existing consultative methods: –Limited to conventional methods – ‘eg community based workshop’ –Consultation processes for development of Noosa Plan under Integrated Planning Act relied on community meetings, which had low attendances –Multiple committees on topic based issues Main responsibility for decision-making, prioritising and action rested with Council

14. Involvement & influence of a few – the squeaky wheels, the power brokers Conflict v consultation Sectoral interest groups competing for resources, and priorities Deals done and trade-offs made Control by misinformation/selective information Conflict v consultation Sectoral interest groups competing for resources, and priorities Deals done and trade-offs made Control by misinformation/selective information What happened as a result of conventional consultative methods?

15. Little understanding or overview of local issues – information was fragmented ‘Everyone is well-off in Noosa’ ‘There are no housing/social issues’ ‘There’s more need elsewhere’ In government & outside of Noosa

16. Few facts, lots of commonly held myths ‘Rents here are high’ ‘It’s the commercial fishermen that are doing the harm’ In the Community ‘The cost of living here is high’

17. ‘We need one of those, some of this, & more of that’ We need a University Council should build a sustainable house We need a 500 seat auditorium Focus was on solutions rather than issues, resulting in ad hoc & often costly approaches

18. Limited consideration of regional or State level issues, directions and planning

19.  Limited local level data suitable for broad planning purposes Data collection: –lack of quality data –lack of timely data (1996 ABS Census) –is a significant task to collect Many datasets, reports & information held by Council & State government, & non-government sector BUT these are generally poorly used, coordinated, or applied at the local level Many datasets, reports & information held by Council & State government, & non-government sector BUT these are generally poorly used, coordinated, or applied at the local level

20. Limited resources: financially & time

21. Relationship between Community Sector Boards, Council & its committees governance government Sector Boards identified initial issues, focused the discussion,& provided community led direction Economic Board Environment Board Social Board Arts & Heritage Board Collaborative Tourism Board Strategic Reference Group ROLE: Develop co-operative & innovative arrangements within the Community Governance Model SRG membership: Council committee reps, staff & Board reps, Project Manager & CEO Council Committee Council Nine Community Board Members plus one elected Councillor & Senior Manager ROLE: “Develop plans to guide and direct the development of Noosa and its community to 2015”

22. Evaluation methods – The Noosa case study

23. Use of multiple convergent evaluation methods. The methodology and framework developed as a result of the project provide many useful lessons with generic application to planning and community engagement in local communities and for local government. AES Award Criteria: Quality of the methodology that could relate to more general initiatives to promote evaluation

24. 1.A framework and methodology underpinned by a values-led planning process: This provided the ethical basis for Sector Boards, Council staff, Councillors, the local Shire community, as well as state government stakeholders to engage with each other. 2.For the planning element of the project: Local level data reanalysis and information summaries were complemented and strengthened with deliberative methods such as Board meetings and open community workshops. 3.For the consultative component: Issues papers developed by Sector Boards based on evidence from data Community comment on papers & content through workshops, open invitation for comment and a quantitative based survey Refinement of Sector papers & development of draft plans based on community feedback. Use of evidence based methods to inform discussion and decision making. 4.Overall evaluation of methods used: Community evaluation of the consultation methods included in survey. Overall evaluation of governance framework and outcomes by an independent consultant. AES Award Criteria: Quality of the methodology that could relate to more general initiatives to promote evaluation

25. Use values led processes Honesty, openness, equity & procedural justice Values defined & agreed up front Adherence to ethical practices Uphold procedural justice to ensure other voices are heard Use processes that reflect agreed community values Sectoral & factional interests increasingly disenfranchised Allows representation of broader community opinion & balanced discussion OUTCOMES Establish decision making processes Will it be by consensus or voting? Provides protocols & guide for all stakeholders Identify & agree on principles up front – but remain flexible Set the climate, build group identity ETHICS – part of the quadruple bottom line Limits effectiveness of power brokers AES Award Criteria - Consideration of ethics and social justice issues

26. Analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data Focus on the issue and not the myth Raised level of community debate & discussion of issues OUTCOMES Analysis of existing government, community sector & Council data Broadens discussion across issues Provides supporting evidence to government agencies for local needs Identifies where data is incomplete Use of evidence based methods Review & analysis of existing data & literature Use of evidence based methods Review & analysis of existing data & literature Literature review to scope sectors & align with current theory Councillors commented that they had never seen anything like this before about Noosa. It also helped them to understand what was going on in their area.

27. ‘It took issues out of the political arena and allowed them to be examined in a more open atmosphere and environment, which is conducive to more creative thinking.’ - Councillor

28. Data & reference sources 1.Population & Australian Bureau of Statistics data (1996 & 2001); 2.Market Facts survey of Noosa Shire residents (2000); 3.Health indicators of SE Qld (2001); 4.Housing data (rental & bonds 2002); 5.Noosa Council Reports- Demographic Report 2002, Choosing Futures Report 2002; 6.Consultation with Council staff; 7.“A guideline for integrating community wellbeing in planning” (LGAQ, Dec 2001); 8.“Just, vibrant & sustainable communities” (A framework for progressing & measuring community wellbeing) LGCSAA Townsville 2001; 9.Anecdotal information and feedback from community service providers.

29. Use of modelling Makes the discussion manageable OUTCOMES Makes communication easier & builds shared understanding Focuses, defines parameters of discussion ‘Model for progressing social cohesion & community wellbeing in Noosa Shire’ Social cohesion & community wellbeing Wellness Learning Community Governance Social Capital Provides structure & can elevate the discussion to the strategic level

30. INDICATORSINDICATORS Strategies Actions & projects Objectives Sector Values & Principles How will we get there? Sector model Where are we now? Background and discussion in each Sector Plan Shire Vision Where do we want to be in 2015? Sector Vision

31. ‘We’re not locked into Council silos and operational plans, we can think more divergently across the whole of the issue.’ - Councillor

32. Benchmarking OUTCOMES Provides a relative & ‘realistic’ picture of situation & performance Benchmark local area to broaden understanding & provide national & global context Acknowledgement of regional, national & global influences Introduced to local government community planning the concept of ‘local area benchmarking’ Broadening participants’ perspective and understanding generally

33. Noosa Overall Noosa Hinterland Noosa Coastal Noosa- Noosaville Tewantin Sunshine-Peregian Cooroy Cooran Pomona/ Boreen Pt. Kin Compared with national, regional & other similar local government areas Internally benchmarked & compared with national & regional profiles How Noosa’s indicators were benchmarked

34. Growth rates - Benchmarked Localities selected on basis of similarities in terms of lifestyle, population, & physical location

35. Average annual income - 1999 Brisbane = $32,406 Gold Coast= $28,375 Sunshine Coast= $26,251 Sunshine Coast avge NOOSA LOCATIONS OESR, 2001

36. Age distribution profile Noosa Shire Segments Vs Australian Average ABS 1996 Census, Community Profiles

37. Development of indicators OUTCOMES Provides initial benchmarks from existing or other routine data sources (eg ABS Census) to measure comparative performance over time Initially limited as based on available data Reflected key themes in model or main strategy areas

38. Social Component Initial indicators Wellness Age of population Community health index Hospitalisation rates Welfare index Average annual income Social capital Population mix, growth & stability (length of residence) Housing affordability Number of volunteer groups Crime rates Infrastructure Community governance Participation in Council elections Community perceptions of Council Evaluation of participant satisfaction with community governance Learning Dropout rates in schools Levels of literacy Council staff survey Cultural change – how would we measure this?

39. Local media drew on issues raised by governance process to encourage a balanced discussion on the population cap, housing, the knowledge economy etc.

40. Community consultations held as workshop discussions OUTCOMES Boards developed issues papers for informed community discussion Partnered with Arts QLD policy consultations – used Minister as drawcard, attracting >200 local participants & significant media attention Synchronising with other projects made best use of limited resources Focused discussion, built on existing knowledge Community added, affirmed/rejected issues & directions Raised community awareness of project

41. Evaluation used to provide Boards with community feedback on issues papers OUTCOMES Community formally evaluated each Sector Board’s issues paper through a tick the box survey (quantitative) Builds community trust & confidence in process Sectoral interests increasingly disenfranchised Identifies & highlights broader community opinion & enables balanced discussion Community consultation workshops stimulated discussion of each Sector Board’s issues paper (qualitative) Builds transparency, limits ‘personalised opinions’ Builds accountability

42. Relevance & coverage of Sector Board proposals goodpooraverage good poor average very good good average very good good average Average results

43. “It has enabled us to work outside of the political arena and to work with people who look at the evidence without bringing personalities to the table.” - Councillor

44. Structure provided free access to local expertise: –community representatives with planning expertise as Board Members –senior academics from local university and consultants –Council only paid for one consultant plus admin support to project manage the whole project. Review and reanalysis of existing data-sets and sources: –provided a fresh local level information without need for costly additional research Built on past knowledge, findings and consultation outcomes where possible: –To avoid re-inventing the wheel –Avoided community exhaustion from over-consultation –Acknowledgement of the contribution of previous evaluations, consultations, and planning activities undertaken by the various departments in Council. Synchronisation with other projects and consultations: –Arts sector consultations conducted in conjunction with Arts Queensland (AQ) policy consultations Strategies and outcomes developed were generally considered to be more sustainable and hence more cost effective in the medium and long term. Since 2001, creative local area solutions with strong community contribution and support continue to be developed. AES Award Criteria - Cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the contribution

45. Arnstein’s Ladder (Arnstein, Sherry 1969) Level 1Manipulation Level 2 Education Passive audience: information given, but partial or constructed Level 3 Information People told what is going to happen, is happening or has happened Level 4Consultation People given a voice & consulted but no power to ensure views are heeded Level 5Involvement Some people's views have influence, but traditional power holders still make decisions Level 6Partnership Beginnings of negotiation with traditional power holders (agreeing roles, responsibilities & levels of control) Level 7 Delegated power Some power is delegated Level 8Citizen Control Full delegation of all decision-making & action Noosa’s community governance

46. Over time, it has become evident that the evaluation and community governance process has built community capacity to participate in more informed debate and discussion. Evaluation & evidence based methods provide powerful tools for use in community engagement & planning processes. They are a sound complement to deliberative methods such as committees & workshops, providing a sound foundation for ethical, values- led planning, policy and economic development. Conclusion

47. How evaluation made a difference to planning and decision making in a small community Australasian Evaluation Society Queensland Seminar 11 July 2006 Ellen Vasiliauskas Director d-sipher pty ltd Evaluation Development Award Winner 2005 © d-sipher pty ltd Ph: 07 5471 1330 ellenv@d-sipher.com.au THANK YOU