La Historia poco contada: de la Hacienda al Parque Chicaque

This is a common approach to engaging community participation in decision making (Evashwick & Ory, 2003). It was proposed that CFK’s advisory committee would be comprised of school and agency representatives and

community members. The intention was that this group would steer CFK while it was managed by CFK staff. It was further envisaged that it would provide staff with the opportunity to collaborate and consult with key stakeholders and ensure

community participation in decision making. An advisory group, such as this, was part of the original vision of the CFK project proposal.

A community forum was held, in May 2001, and representatives from the Shire of Murrindindi, local schools, police, sporting bodies, service providers and community members were invited. The aim of this forum was to stimulate

interest in the intervention, describe the intervention, consult with attendees about issues in the community, and encourage participation in an advisory group. The outcome of this event was the formation of an advisory committee that included representatives from these groups.

It was envisaged that this group would meet on a monthly basis and that they would steer the CFK program and in this way the community would be participating in the decision making and staff would be able to consult and collaborate with community representatives. Unfortunately, this objective was never realized. Community members did not often attend meetings and there was very little input from them when they did attend. It became a forum for program staff to report to committee members.

A series of interviews were conducted in April 2002, by the evaluators, with attending and non-attending advisory committee members. One participant described the advisory committee as “a bit like a mad woman’s breakfast”. Participants were able to offer insights into the community’s poor attendance:

“I think they’re such a diverse group of people that I think people have felt inadequate or not sure what their purpose or their role was and I think it could be more engaging in how they come together” Meredith

“I think that people in small communities tend to over commit themselves” advisory committee member (parent representative)

“It’s just that we can’t do everything and I think that the advisory group is sometimes not sure about why we’re there” advisory committee member (Murrindindi Shire representative)

“I first wondered what I needed to do and what they wanted us to be there for, and it’s coming on to make more sense, sometimes I’m not sure, I’m a bit in the dark about what’s required” advisory committee member (parent

“If they want someone like me involved, we need to be clear about why and what they want from me. I think in some ways they want people like me to be there yes as the manager of community services from council, but also as a mum and a wife … and that’s not necessarily the way I want to interact, given my role and my work” advisory committee member (Murrindindi Shire representative)

This series of interviews prompted a review of the advisory committee, which recommended that the advisory committee meet once every three months. At the same time working parties were created for each of the key programs, which met approximately one evening per month. Members of the advisory committee were asked to assign themselves to one or more of these groups. With only one program component overseen by each group there was more time available during the meetings to consider and engage in detailed discussions about program issues. It also meant that people chose the working party that was of most interest to them or most relevant to them, which in turn increased

attendance.

This change in CFK’s organizational structure to community participation through working groups rather than an advisory committee took some time to implement. The advisory committee continued to meet on a monthly basis until August, 2002, and the working parties for the ELF program and the other program components commenced in mid 2002 and early 2003, respectively. However, the change in structure was a successful one. It increased attendance and enthusiasm and was welcomed by participants. It also increased participants’ sense of ownership of the program in which they were involved.

“from my perspective it’s probably more functional for me now, there was, and this is no criticism of the committee, but there was a lot of stuff there that wasn’t relevant to where we were coming from … and I just couldn’t afford to spend lengthy amounts of time like that.” Principal

Alexandra Secondary School (August, 2003)

“I think the good part about that (the development of the working groups) was that it brought different community players together and that was important, for all groups that were represented on the committee to be aware of where the other various members of the committee are coming from, so it was just building awareness and understanding, and that’s critical” Principal Alexandra Secondary School (August, 2003)

Daniel was very aware of the importance of the terminology in relation to both the advisory group and the working parties.

“I used that name (working party) so that it would be task oriented, so that people would feel like, yes this is

something I could get in, do some work on and get out, equally I use the term responsible person from the advisory group to relate to the working party, I didn’t want to give them a title that made them superior, but equally wanted to give them onus of responsibility … I’ve seen what’s

happened in other community development projects where advisory groups have been committees of management and that sort of thing and they can easily get tied up in the petty politics and we’ve got to try and get away from that

wherever possible” Daniel (February, 2003)

When staff reflected upon the shift from the advisory committee to the working parties they lamented that it had not happened from the very beginning. However, they also recognized that it had not been possible to do this earlier as there were not any program components ready to have working parties attached to them. Daniel and Deidre felt that the advisory group had always lacked the passion and engagement necessary to guide the project. The benefit of

commencing with an advisory committee, even one lacking enthusiasm, was that it gave staff a pool of interested people from which to draw members for the working parties when they were eventually established. Daniel commented that community members were, for the most part, interested in small areas of CFK rather than the project as a whole.

“we haven’t really seen anyone come in that is really interested in the total overview, and I think conceptually it’s even too hard for a lot of people” Daniel (May, 2006) “if we hadn’t got them involved originally we wouldn’t have been able then to get them into the working parties where they’ve been a whole lot more effective than they’ve been in that bigger area” Daniel (July, 2006)

In May, 2003, Deidre reflected upon the community forum that had been held two years earlier, and the community consultation that occurred prior to this, and wondered if they were to hold a similar meeting later in the project, would they get a similar response. She questioned whether it had been too early to seek community input at that time.

“the focus groups that were done with them originally, the community wouldn’t have known what they wanted, because they hadn’t experienced, but now they’ve experienced and now they could make more informed decisions about what they might want to do” Deidre (May, 2003)

It was a logical move to go from the advisory committee to working parties as Daniel pointed out in a reflective meeting in May, 2006. “Because when we’re gone there wouldn’t be any need for the advisory group, but there would be ongoing need for those working parties.”

The working parties assisted the CFK program in a multitude of ways. It promoted community ownership and community participation in decision making, but it also provided a forum in which agencies were able to get together and discuss issues, and the management of these issues in the community. This particularly applied to the home visiting working party which included

representatives from the many agencies in the area. This group shared their experiences with each other and brainstormed ways of meeting the community’s need within the funds provided. One of the many ideas that came out of this forum was the need for a volunteer database.

The ELF-II working party was exemplary. The members of the working party were skilled and enthusiastic. The coordinator of the ELF-II program was the facilitator of this working party and she managed to carefully balance the production of a collaborative and inclusive environment while maintaining appropriate timelines and staying with the agenda. Staff attributed the success of this working party to public events such as the program launch and the ‘Reading Day’; working party members having a vested interest in the success of the program; and the nature of the program itself.

The programs had varying degrees of success with their working parties. Kerry was the project worker for both the ARC and the CYAP programs and was able to see vast differences between the two working parties.

“ARC is building that (community ownership) it’s very much owned by the school and they’ve taken that on and … that’s … happening on all those levels and there’s people from business and rotary … in the working party for ARC, so that sort of has that existence outside of … the Berry Street office … but CYAP is still a bit more airy fairy and a little bit less sort of grounded” Kerry (August, 2003)

The shift to working groups, rather than an advisory group, allowed the community to participate in the decision making regarding these programs. However, it was revealed that the final decision would actually rest with Daniel and not the working party. Rhonda spoke about a decision that the ELF working party had made not to go ahead with a particular component of the program. Daniel disagreed with their decision and intended to implement this component regardless of their decision.

“probably Daniel (makes the final decision) because I talked to Daniel after the last meeting (about an opportunity that the working party had rejected) … he said oh well we won’t worry about them (the working party) because I think it is a good idea, so … in the end we will probably go with it down the track” Rhonda (April, 2003)