INDICATORS: A TOOL FOR CHANGE

1
INDICATORS A TOOL FOR CHANGE
2
WHY INDICATORS

• The Lower Mainland of British Columbia has 24
  different municipalities
• There are geographical, social, economic, size
  and cultural differences between them and within
  the municipalities
• Rapid growth in 1/3 of the communities
• Distinct differences exist in the infrastructure
  and capacity to address social concerns

3

• United Way and the communities themselves lacked
  a clear picture of the factors related to the key
  determinants of health and for sustainable
  communities at a municipal and regional level

4
CONTEXT FOR UWLM

• UWLM exploring ways to work with communities in a
  different way
• several communities were lacking the capacity to
  keep pace with the growth and change
• Needing to find community based solutions and
  community driven strategies to respond to the
  diversity of needs

5

• The key to a successful change process is a shift
  in thinking.
• From Each individual or organization acts alone
  based on personal interests to support a
  particular cause
• To Each individual/organization is asked to
  unite efforts with those of their neighbours so
  the whole community can have collective impact on
  the issues it cares the most about.

6

• Communities must find ways to
• A) set their own human care agendas
• B) work together to carry them out

7
Where to start?

• Who else was doing this work locally, nationally
  or internationally ?
• What seems to be working?
• Who is seeing long term results?
• What can we learn from them?

8

• Change begins with an accurate picture of the
  community
• Information needs to show trends over time and
  have a context with similar communities
• One source can provide all the information
• Factual and reliable information leads to better
  understanding, setting priorities, implementing
  community goals and mobilizing to action
• Community leaders need to be committed and
  supportive of the process
• Assists in mobilizing communities to action to
  change

9

• UWLM made use of indicators as basis of community
  change in 2 different programs
• Communities in Action Program in 5 areas
• Mapping and Mobilizing supported two communities
  begin to work on Poverty Report Cards

10
Process Phase One

• Concept was presented to existing coalition of
  organizations seen as representative of the
  community
• Examples
• Child Youth and Family Networks
• Municipal Social Planning Advisory Committee
• Child and Youth Committee
• Organizations whose key role is to support and
  lead community development and/or social planning
  in the community

11

• Community group agrees to take on initiative and
  determines host organization
• Begins to build a steering committee that will
  guide the process
• Steering committees were to be multi- sectoral
  including business, labour and the public sector
• The selection of social indicators is seen as a
  key step in the community building process. The
  community is asking itself Why is this
  important to us?
• Analysis of the information includes a comparison
  with other communities and over different time
  periods

12
Key Questions for Communities

• What is this saying about our community? To us?
  To others?
• How does this compare to public perception?
• What should we be concerned about?
• Where do we go from here?

13

• Parallel process of
• Analysis and discussion of data
• Building of new relationships finding out who
  has the information and how we can ge them
  involved
• Sharing of the information

14
Process - Phase Two

• Community based steering committee continues
• Creating a vision of the community
• Bringing on new partners
• Looking for connections and new learnings
• Inventory of existing resources
• Mapping of resources
• Bringing in additional resources (, people,
  expertise)

15
Process - Phase Three

• Steering Committee develops and shifts
• Action Monitoring data
• Putting strategies in place that are manageable
  and have a chance for success
• Compare data for change
• Determine impact if possible

16
Two Examples

• Regional 2 small municipalities and First
  Nations Band Council
• Strong history of community development among
  leaders and as a culture in the community
• Consistent leadership from municipality
• Interest in cross-sectoral collaboration
• Open process for participation
• Numbers and picture confirm concerns
• Began a parallel process of citizen engagement
  while existing committees carried on work and
  developed immediate responses

17

• Process of indicators selection seen as an
  opportunity for building relationships and shared
  learning with new sectors/partners
• Creation of a housing society successful at
  obtaining funding to study homelessness and
  related drug concerns
• Community education process
• Creation of relationships with youth youth safe
  house in place with broad community support

18
Poverty Report Card

• Committed people in the field
• Clear indication of a community in transition and
  emerging issues
• Phase 2 moved to mapping of resources
• Strong commitment from municipality
• Process very slow

19

• Committee struggling to gain focus
• Finding small gains
• Community changing so fast, data cannot keep up,
  and strategies need to be in place long-term to
  see impact

20
Learnings

• Community needs to be ready to begin the process.
• Experience and trust in community development
• Perceived issues are of concern to community
  leaders
• Community culture needs to support and feed the
  process

21

• Selection of indicator process needs to be open,
  inclusive, community driven
• Leadership needs to be consistent yet open to
  change and must allow for community process
• Multi-sectoral tables can build new and strong
  relationships that go beyond process

22

• Citizen engagement can lead to innovative and
  meaningful solutions
• Needs patient funding to succeed
• Funders need to work together to leverage
  resources and to sit at the table as equal
  community partners
• Change can be slow - results are not immediate or
  obvious

23

• The conversation that happens around the table in
  the process of the selection of indicators and
  the analysis of information is as important as
  the data itself
• Who is at the table and who chooses not to be at
  the table is critical to any possible long-term
  impact in the community

24
Community Status Reports and Target Community
Interventions Key Distinguishing Characteristics
25
Community Status Reports and Target Community
Interventions Key Distinguishing Characteristics
(cont.)