This page is not a current Christchurch City Council document. Please read our disclaimer.
26. 2. 97
COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMITTEE
10 FEBRUARY 1997
A meeting of the Community Services Committee
was held on Monday 10 February 1997 at 4.00 pm
PRESENT: Councillor Garry Moore (Chairperson),
The Mayor,
Councillors Carole Anderton, Graham Condon,
David Cox, Anna Crighton, Ishwar Ganda,
Pat Harrow, Lesley Keast, Gail Sheriff
and Barbara Stewart.
IN ATTENDANCE: Councillor Carole Evans.
Councillor David Close was in attendance from
4.50 pm and was absent for clauses 8.3, 3 and
part of clause 1.
Councillor Denis O'Rourke was in attendance
from 4.20 pm and retired at 5.50 pm and was
present for part of clause 8.1 and clauses 1 and 2.
APOLOGIES: Apologies for lateness were received and accepted
from the Mayor, and Councillor Anna Crighton.
The Mayor arrived at 4.45 pm and retired at
5.45 pm and was absent for part of clauses 3
and 2 and clauses 8.3, 8.1, 4, 5, 6, 8.2 and 7.
Councillor Anna Crighton arrived at 4.45 pm
and retired at 5.40 pm and was absent for part of
clause 3 and clauses 8.3, 4, 5, 6, 8.1, 8.2 and 7.
Councillor David Cox retired at 4.15 pm and was
present for clause 8.3.
Councillor Ishwar Ganda was temporarily absent
from 4.30 pm to 5.00 pm and retired at 6.30 pm and
was absent for part of clause 3 and clauses 1 and 7.
Councillor Gail Sheriff retired at 5.50 pm and was
absent for clauses 8.1, 4, 5, 6, 8.2 and 7.
The Committee reports that:
PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION
1. SOCIAL COHESION PROJECT RR 4487
| Officer responsible | Author |
| Director, Policy | Joanna Campbell |
| Corporate Plan Output: Information and Advice to Council |
The purpose of this report is to provide options for the development of the Social Cohesion Project.
BACKGROUND
The development of a Social Cohesion Strategy to measure `social cohesion' and `quality of life' in Christchurch was discussed at the November 1996 meeting of Community Services Committee. In response to the Chairman's recommendations, a list of trends and issues was drawn up for each of the priority areas put forward. However, the idea of a Social Cohesion Strategy continues to receive criticism from Councillors and key officers. Critics believe a new strategy is unhelpful because it appears to duplicate work already happening in monitoring projects and policy development teams.[1] The idea is further complicated by confusion over its `fit' with funding decisions and the lack of clarity over the meaning of `social cohesion'. One very positive aspect of the discussion surrounding this project has been that it highlights the scope and quality of the `social' projects CCC is supporting.
THE PROBLEM OF MEASURING `SOCIAL COHESION' OR `QUALITY OF LIFE'
Despite the lack of clarity over the term `social cohesion', there seems to be consensus, at a most general level, over the components of social cohesion. In other parts of New Zealand, and other parts of the world, city administrators and elected members generally term the same issues `quality of life'. In addition to infrastructure, transportation and public services, the components of quality of life are usually arts and culture, health and safety, education, housing, employment, recreation and leisure, the environment and community development. Indicators are developed to monitor trends in each of these areas, goals or outcomes are set. Resources are then targeted at projects which further the outcomes specified.
There seems to be a general consensus among Christchurch Councillors that `social cohesion' should be monitored in some way and linked to funding priorities and projects. In other words, the principle motivation of Councillors supportive of the notion of social cohesion appears to be a desire to:
Outcomes have to be measured and indicators are a common way of doing it. However, there are distinct limitations to using indicators (on their own) which require careful consideration.[2] Indicators are usually statistics drawn from various sources such as household survey results and census information. There are other ways to monitor outcomes and effectiveness of interventions eg community panels, or family impact studies, or long term studies such as David Fergusson's[3]. These can be used to replace or supplement statistical indicators.
The advantages of indicators are potentially:
THE WAY FORWARD?
Having said that some Councillors and key officers think a separate social cohesion strategy or policy is unnecessary, Councillors still have a number of options. The most obvious are to a) drop the project or b) pursue it. If they decide to do the latter, it is clear that steps could be taken to streamline and publicise this sort of work for the benefit of Councillors, the Christchurch public and for officers themselves. At the very least existing work could be drawn together. The officers likely to be responsible for the project have stated that if Councillors see this work is important , it needs to receive high priority and be allocated adequate time and resources. It may not be done well if it is just `added on' to an officer's existing workload.
If a social cohesion project is to be pursued, the following approaches appear necessary:
1. The formation of a joint working party consisting of people involved in social, environmental and economic monitoring and policy implementation teams. The working party should include elected members and staff from civic offices, service centres, CDC and Employment Services as well as staff from other agencies monitoring `quality of life' or `social well-being' in the city eg the SRHA. This working party would be responsible for:
(a) Getting agreement on the components of `quality of life' and social cohesion.
(b) Selecting indicators or measures from their various performance measures which will provide a regular overview of `quality or life' for Councillors and the Christchurch public.
(c) Identifying areas where further measures were necessary and investigating alternatives or complements to indicators. (This is likely to take place this year as part of Kath Jamieson's work on Social Monitoring. Kath received a 1996 Bertelsmann award to study a Michigan approach to monitoring social well-being[5]).
(d) Seeking clarification on the relationship of `quality of life' outcomes to funding priorities.
(e) Publishing a regular newsletter or presentation that draws together and highlights this work on quality of life' in an easily understood and attractive document.
Recommendation: 1. That the Council convene a working party consisting of the Mayor, Councillors Garry Moore, Carole Anderton, Graham Condon and Barbara Stewart to draw together the work already in progress on monitoring social cohesion and quality of life and develop indicators and measures with the aim of producing a regular document which offers an overview of `quality of life' and `well-being' in the city.
2. That the working party coordinates existing approaches to social monitoring, well-being and `quality of life'.
3. That the Community Services Committee evaluate the working party findings within three months and define further activity.
2. PRIORITISING PROPOSALS - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
and social well-being policy RR 4528
| Officer responsible | Authors |
| Director, Policy | Jennifer Pitcher and Chris Kerr |
| Corporate Plan Output: Strategic Planning p.8.1.3 |
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to seek endorsement of a process for prioritising budget proposals in light of the Council's Community Development and Social Well-Being policy[6] for use as a Council decision making tool for budget allocation[7].
BACKGROUND
The Community Development and Social Well-Being Policy was adopted by the Council in October 1996. The Community Services Committee requested that proposals be put forward as a result of the policy for consideration in the 1997/98 budget round. These proposals are also considered to further the Council's drive for social cohesion.
In order to apply the policy, all officers from the Community Advisory section, CAOs and some assistants, a Community Manager representative and the Children's Advocate have been working together as a team to develop and apply a prioritising process. This process has been led by the Asset Planning Manager and the Senior Policy Analyst. In particular, the Asset Planning Manager brought his skills and knowledge of the prioritising process recently used by City Streets, which had been well received by Councillors, and which has been adapted for use with the Community Development and Social Well-Being policy.
PRIORITISING PROCESS
The Council has recognised the need to prioritise the services, facilities and programmes it supports in order to promote the maximum benefit and achievement of stated outcomes for its expenditure. Using a process to prioritise proposals provides a tool for Council. It does not offer an absolute outcome, but it can provide a consistent framework that Council can consider to assist in their decision making.
The Community Development and Social Well-Being policy provides a clear direction in regard to the outcomes sought, roles for the Council and the scope for services, facilities and programmes. Whilst proposals need to be consistent with the policy's roles and scope, it is the policy's outcomes which provide the primary means by which proposals are weighted.
Two other weighting factors are resource allocation and the value to cost ratio of proposals. The resource allocation weighting reflects the Council's preference for partnership approaches where possible, over the sole resourcing of services, facilities and programmes.
The value to cost ratio provides a weighting according to the perceived direct benefit for numbers of people in relation to the cost of the project. More work is being done on this part of the process to make it more accurate, building on current research in NZ. In the meantime, a broad banding approach has been used.
The prioritisation process that has been used for the Community Development and Social Well-Being policy is:
Project Priority = Outcome Score x Resource Allocation Score x Value/Cost Score.[8]
WEIGHTINGS
The weightings given to the outcomes and the scoring methodology are as follows:
| OUTCOME | WEIGHT | SCORE | TOTAL |
| Basic needs met | 2.0 | ||
| Development of local community identities and pride | 1.0 | ||
| Equitable access to opportunities, community resources and clean living environments | 1.5 | ||
| Improving the position of the least advantaged | 2.0 | ||
| Residents receiving their entitlements | 1.0 | ||
| High self esteem | 1.5 | ||
| Participation in personal and political decision making | 1.5 | ||
| Participation and a sense of belonging in communities | 1.5 | ||
| Respect for cultural diversity | 1.5 | ||
| Self determination and empowerment | 1.5 | ||
| TOTAL | |||
| WEIGHTING |
The highest weightings are applied to `Basic Needs Met' and `Improving the Position of the Least Advantaged'. This recognises that meeting basic needs is a pre-requisite to achieving the remaining outcomes and the weighting applied to people on limited incomes in the objectives of the policy. The outcome of `Nurturing Communities' was seen as an outcome intrinsic to all the others and was therefore not separated out. Proposals are scored against each outcome as follows:
1.0 - Neutral
1.5 - Mildly Supports
2.0 - Supports
2.5 - Strongly Supports
3.0 - Totally Supports
The weightings for Resource Allocation are: Partnership 1.5
CCC only 1.0
The weighting's for Value/Cost are: Low 1.0
Medium 1.5
High 2.0
EXAMPLE
PROPOSALS
| Community Development Facilitators (CCC) |
Community Development Facilitators (Partnership) |
||
| OUTCOME | OUTCOME WEIGHT | PROJECT WEIGHT* | PROJECT WEIGHT* |
| Basic needs met | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Development of identities and pride | 1.0 | 3 | 3 |
| Equitable access | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Improving position least advantaged | 2.0 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Residents receiving entitlements | 1.0 | 2 | 2 |
| High self esteem | 1.5 | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| Participation - personal, political | 1.5 | 3 | 3 |
| Participation, sense of belonging | 1.5 | 3 | 3 |
| Respect for cultural diversity | 1.5 | 2 | 2 |
| Self determination, empowerment | 1.5 | 3 | 3 |
| OUTCOME SCORE | 3.78 | 3.78 | |
| RESOURCE WEIGHTING* | 1 | 1.5 | |
| VALUE/COST WEIGHTING* | 2 | 2 | |
| TOTAL SCORE | 7.8 | 11.7 |
The above example demonstrates how proposals that are equal in every other way can vary in their overall weighting score on the basis of whether or not they are partnerships. The implications of this will be that partnership approaches will be pro-actively encouraged.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
The team of officers that have been using this process are very excited about the potential implications. There has been significant relief that at last there is a process that provides for a co-ordinated and sound approach to the development and prioritising of proposals, based on the pro-active achievement of the Council's desired outcomes. It is considered that the continued application of the framework will result in a process of continuous improvement, both of the framework itself, and the resulting proposals.
The application of the framework here is recommended as follows:
1. An annual review of the priorities given to the Community Development and Social Well-Being Policy Outcomes by the Council.
2. The establishment of a multi-stakeholder team of experts comprising Councillor, Community Board, officer and external service provider representatives to apply the prioritising process to proposals. This team would need to be available to attend to proposals that are forwarded throughout the year.
The framework should also be open to agencies externally to assist with their funding applications, thus making our processes transparent, accountable, equitable and tailored to meet the Council's desired priority outcomes.
Recommendation: The Committee recognises that using a process to prioritise proposals provides a tool for the Council. It does not offer an absolute outcome, but it can provide a consistent framework that the Council can consider to assist in its decision-making. It therefore recommends:
1. That with the above qualification the Council endorse the process for prioritising budget proposals in light of the Council's Community Development and Social Well-Being policy, for use as a Council decision-making tool for funding allocation.
2. The priorities given to the community development and social well-being outcomes in the report but recommends that the weighting given to "equitable access to opportunities, community resources and cleaner living environments" be increased from 1.5 to 2.
3. That proposals to achieve the Community Development and Social Well-Being Outcomes be weighted according to the endorsed process on the basis of the priority Outcomes of the Community Services Committee, for consideration at the Budget meeting on 18 February 1997.
4. That the Council review the priorities given to the Community Development and Social Well-Being Outcomes on an annual basis.
5. That the framework be made available to agencies externally to assist with their funding applications to the Council.
PART B - ITEMS DEALT WITH BY THE COMMITTEE AND
REPORTED FOR INFORMATION ONLY
3. DEPUTATIONS BY APPOINTMENT
PARAFED CANTERBURY
Councillor Graham Condon and Mr Mark Prain addressed the Committee on the work undertaken by PARAFED Canterbury and its efforts to obtain funding in order to continue these activities. The advantages of Christchurch as a tourist destination for paraplegics and the opportunities presented by events such as the Para-Olympics were also mentioned and both speakers emphasised their wish to join with the City Council in a partnership arrangement and indicated they would be seeking ongoing funding and assistance from the Council.
It was suggested that Councillor Condon and Mr Prain discuss the matter further with the Director of Policy and appropriate staff to ascertain what Council assistance could be available and that the Councillor Gordon Freeman, Chairman, Parks and Recreation Committee, could also be involved. A report on this matter should be brought to the March meeting of the Committee.
CANTERBURY CAMPAIGN FOR REAL WORLD ECONOMICS
Ms Deirdre Kent and Mr Gordon Hamblyn spoke to the paper previously circulated to the Committee concerning the development of alternative economic indicators. They expressed the concern of their organisation that existing orthodox economic indicators, such as GDP, because of its nature, automatically included a number of undesirable social outcomes.
They suggested a range of new indicators covering employment, education, health, housing etc be established at a local level and sought the assistance of the Council in initiating this. They saw these indicators as measuring the gap between "rich and poor" with a broad range of indicators established with public participation and published on a regular basis.
It was resolved that the representations from the deputation should be considered in conjunction with clause 7 on the social cohesion project.
4. BEQUEST OF MRS MARGRET ANNE PANA RR 4490
The Committee considered a report from the Libraries Manager on a recent bequest to the Library from Mrs Margret Anne Pana of $3,000 for the benefit of staff at the Fendalton Community Library.
Staff have indicated their request that this be spent on an art work or special piece of furniture in the new library as an appropriate way to recognise the gift.
The Committee resolved that the information be received and that an appropriate public acknowledgement of the gift be made.
5. CANTERBURY PUBLIC LIBRARY TRUST BANK PROJECT RR 4489
The Committee considered a report from Mr John Truesdale, Manager, Information Technology Services, Library, on progress on the project funded by Trustbank Community Trust to improve access to multimedia resources, particularly children's resources, and to make available public access to the Internet.
Details of the scope of the project, staffing, funding and progress to date were advised to the Committee together with planned further work. It is intended that a large part of this additional extra work will be initiated early in 1997 with the development continuing throughout the year.
The Committee resolved that the information be received and that Trustbank Community Trust be thanked for their vision in supporting this project.
6. TENANTS SATISFACTION SURVEY -
christchurch city council housing RR 4495
The Housing Manager, Mr Errol Waller, and Mr Gavin Cross reported on the results of the first part of a survey of Council tenants to ascertain levels of satisfaction with their physical accommodation as well as of the service provided.
It is intended that all tenants be surveyed in four stages. For the first stage a total of 634 questionnaires were delivered in mid-November 1996 by Housing staff to every fourth unit in each complex. By close-off time a return rate of 63.3% had been returned which was considered to be extremely high. An extensive report on the information obtained from this initial survey was provided by Opinions Market Research Limited, engaged to conduct the pilot survey, and the survey revealed generally a very high level of satisfaction with the respondent's individual units with 94% of EPH and 96% of PR tenants being very or quite satisfied. Very few respondents felt their units were not good value for money.
The areas in which some concern was expressed by respondents related to such things as heating, cooking facilities, condensation, storage, safety and security and these are to receive specific attention. In addition the second stage of the survey will also canvass information on the number of tenants likely to require additional help in future in order to live independently.
It was resolved that a report be brought to the next meeting of the Committee on the proposal to deal with the concerns expressed by tenants.
7. SISTER CITIES NEW ZEALAND ANNUAL CONVENTION RR 4498
The Committee considered a report from Julie Battersby, Communications and Promotions Unit, on the forthcoming Annual New Zealand Sister Cities Convention which will be held in the weekend of 21-23 March 1997 in Nelson.
The Committee resolved that Councillor David Buist plus one other Councillor represent the Christchurch City Council at the 1997 Sister Cities New Zealand Conference to be held in Nelson on 21-23 March.
8. ITEMS RECEIVED
The Committee received the following reports:
8.1 Visit to the Centre for the Child, Birmingham RR 4497
Mr Bill Nagelkerke, Children and Young Adult Services Co-ordinator, reported on his visit to Birmingham on the G T Alley Fellowship in May 1996. The report provided details on Mr Nagelkerke's visit to the Birmingham Central Library and to the Centre for the Child and provided details of the initiatives undertaken by them together with possible actions for the Canterbury Public Library and the Christchurch City Council.
8.2 International Christmas Tree RR 4484
The report informed members of the promotion undertaken together with the Canterbury Crippled Children's Society Christmas Tree Festival which took place from 30 November to 8 December 1996 in Cashel Plaza with some 53 trees sponsored and decorated by local businesses and organisations. Decorations for an international tree in the festival were provided by a number of schools and individuals associated with Christchurch's sister cities and a similar event is intended for Christmas 1997.
8.3 Christchurch England Sister City Update RR 4531
Councillor David Cox updated members on the current initiatives undertaken with our sister city, Christchurch England.
The meeting concluded at 6.30 pm
CONSIDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1997
MAYOR
[1] For example, Kath Jamieson (LACSU) has almost completed a pilot project aimed at monitoring poverty and well-being in Christchurch. This project incorporates 1200 survey questionnaires and 200 interviews with people contacted through community agencies, as well as community agency staff, teachers, students and their families. Her results will be available from March or April 1997. These will provide the most comprehensive and up to date `snapshot' of poverty and well-being in Christchurch that we have ever had access to. Terry Moody and his team as well as other officers from the data and analysis section of EPPU are monitoring the environment and City Plan. Chris Pickrill (CDC) and Bridget Lenihan (Employment Services) are developing a wide range of indicators to monitor the economic and social issues impacting on their areas. Their indicators will be published in a quarterly newsletter and The Press. The Community Development and Social Well-being policy implementation team have begun work on performance measures for that policy which will be developed this year. While these projects were not developed with the explicit purpose of monitoring social cohesion, it could be argued they each provide a measure of components of `social cohesion' or `quality of life'.
[2] See Kath Jamieson's report in the Appendix "Social Cohesion Discussion Paper", December 1996
[3] Fergusson, D. Christchurch Health & Development Study, Christchurch School of Medicine
[4] Most current CCC monitoring projects and policies have taken 12-18 months to develop good indicators and collect baseline information.
[5] The Michigan study is series of panel studies looking at the reasons people move in and out of poverty. This study covers 55,000 people and has been running for 30 years. It is acknowledged as the largest and most comprehensive study of its kind in the world.
[6] ATTACHMENT 1: Community Development and Social Well Being Policy.
[7] Including the allocation of the Councils Community Development Grants
[8] Where the proposal is judged to be consistent with the roles and scope of the policy.