Transcript Engaging with Indigenous Australia – Exploring effective

The evidence on engaging with
Indigenous communities and
improving community governance
Seminar agenda
Time
9.30
Agenda
Introduction and welcome—Mr Russell Taylor
Welcome to Country from Aunty Agnes Shea
9.40
Engaging with Indigenous Australia—exploring effective engagement with Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander communities
Dr Janet Hunt, Australian National University
10.10
Morning tea
10.25
Improving Indigenous community governance through strengthening Indigenous and government
organisational capacity
Dr Roxanne Bainbridge, James Cook University
11.55
Panel question and answer session
11.25
Seminar closes
Engaging with Indigenous Australia –
Exploring effective engagement with
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities
Dr Janet Hunt
Fellow, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research
Research School of Social Sciences
Australian National University
What evidence did I look for?
•
Literature in Australia – especially around regional engagement (16 studies
from 12 diverse regions)
•
And in sectors: health, natural resource management, early childhood
•
With NGOs and companies, not only governments
•
Indigenous engagement in other settler countries (Canada, USA, New
Zealand)
•
Engagement with marginalised people and placed–based approaches
What is ‘engagement’?
• ‘Engagement’ is a sustained relationship
between groups of people working towards
shared goals
• There is a spectrum of engagement – from low
to high
The spectrum of engagement
Aboriginal community:
• Has control – defines problem, goals & means
• Has delegated decisions
• Plans jointly
• Advises
• Is consulted
• Receives information
Factors in engagement
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
History, culture and language
Indigenous ‘communities’
Scale of engagement – multilayered?
Governance & capacity
Engaging with organisations
Purpose
Timeframes & media
Policy Context
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National policy
National mechanisms
Guidelines
Recent Commonwealth approaches
States & Territories
Remote Australia
Native Title and land rights
UN Declaration on Rights of
Indigenous Peoples
•
Article 18: Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision
making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives
chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as
to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision making institutions.
•
Article 19: States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the
Indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions
in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and
implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them
(UN General Assembly 2007:8).
Australia: Regional studies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
COAG trials (one in each jurisdiction - 7)
Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly (5 studies)
Ngaanyatjarra Regional Partnership (Sullivan)
Noongar – 3 approaches (Barcham)
Fitzroy Futures Forum (ATSI SJC)
Lockhart River Qld (Hagan)
Groote Eylandt & Bickerton Island RPA (Tempo)
What worked
•
•
•
•
Leadership
Resources
Participatory processes
Governance & capacity building
Leadership
• High-level government engagement; clear, adaptable
policy framework for WOG, place-based approach.
• Regionally based senior people with decision making
authority & high-level negotiation skills; staff building
trust and respectful relationships.
• Leadership across all levels, governments and
communities. People on the ground willing to try new
approaches and make things work; ‘one size doesn’t fit
all’ communities.
Resources
• Partnership processes themselves resourced: staff to
manage the engagement & follow up decisions made
• Resources available to build partner capacities & to
undertake the programs jointly agreed.
• Having flexible funds for all these purposes
contributes to success.
Participatory Processes
•
Communities were setting the agenda
•
Planning started from community level upwards to regions.
•
There was identification of Aboriginal strengths, assets and
positives; leadership being developed
•
‘Less monitoring and more mentoring’ (Hagan 2009:27)
•
Clarity about processes and effective communication.
•
Clarity and agreement about desired outcomes and indicators, and
well-developed plans to achieve them
•
long time frames: people ‘work at their pace and in their spaces’
(Hagan 2009:25); ‘change is chaotic and emergent’ (Hagan 2009:31)
not a linear process.
Governance & capacity building
• Built on existing Indigenous governance structures,
mechanisms and processes wherever possible
• Support and capacity building for communities and
community representatives for engagement with
governments
• Ongoing governance development; processes and
structures designed by Aboriginal people - viewed by
them as legitimate.
• Cultural legitimacy and government funding for regional
governance body for engagement.
Groote Eylandt RPA
•
•
•
•
Ministerial support
Community driven partnership
ALC – strategic approach
Community $ and leverage,
plus other funds
• Collaboration & trust
• Vision & high level leadership
• Effective implementation
Groote Eylandt RPA
• Needs more integrated plans
and pooled funding
• Better alignment across govts
• More streamlined &
collaborative processes at local
level
Replicable? Key success factors
•
•
•
•
•
Equality between partners & authority to proceed
Community needs, aspirations the driving force
Objectives, priorities shared by all parties
Detailed planning & negotiation from outset
Principles of operation - touchstone for
partnership operations
• Adequate resourcing & long time frame
• Responsive & efficient management
What didn’t work
• Government arrangements
• Communities’ capacities
• Relationships
Government arrangements
• Different jurisdictions and departments with
differences never resolved.
• High-level government goals not adequately
translated into specific plans and actions
• Organisational cultures discouraged flexibility
and risk taking
• Insufficient focus on relationship building.
• No streamlined, flexible funding.
Communities’capacities
•
•
Communities with weaker capacity to engage with
government, or cynical about the ability of
governments to change; little government support
for community learning/capacity building.
Community-level governance problems impeded
their leaders’ ability to engage effectively with
governments.
Relationships
•
•
•
•
Insufficient participation, sense of shared ownership
by Indigenous people in decision-making
No genuinely shared objectives, performance
indicators or benchmarks, or data for M & E
Government agencies weren’t clear about roles and
responsibilities in the partnership arrangements
Government limitations not made clear to
Indigenous partners from the outset
What works: sectoral findings
• Long term relationships based on trust
• Working within a framework of Aboriginal-driven
decision making
• Power inequalities are addressed – strong
mutual accountabilities
• Culturally competent staff
• Shared responsibility and accountability for
shared objectives
What didn’t work? Example from Coastal
zone decision-making (Rockloff & Lockie 2006)
- Aboriginal people’s lack of financial & technical resources
- Inequity re participation in meetings unpaid
- Aboriginal people expected to attend bureaucratic meetings,
with set agendas, & discuss issues through a ‘western’ lens
- Little confidence that listened to & knowledge respected
- Govt agencies & others failed to acknowledge considerable
diversity among Aboriginal people (3 distinct cultural groups
with own languages, customs, aspirations etc.)
Solutions?
• Indigenous people agenda-setting
• Capacity building – support (financial & other) for
Aboriginal involvement; modification of processes &
structures
• Cultural awareness training for government
• Ensuring Aboriginal specific views are respected,
recorded; investing in relationships and communication
based on equality, openness, & respect for each other’s
values
• Supporting the development of Aboriginal governance
structures (starts to challenge the power inequalities)
What works: Relationships
• Responding to Indigenous history, cultures and
social dynamics
• Valuing skills and knowledge of community
organisations and Indigenous people
• Clarity about purpose and relevant scale for
engagement
• Engagement needs to relate to Indigenous
concepts of wellbeing (not just COAG targets)
What works: Relationships
• Long-term relationships of trust, respect and
honesty
• Accessible, ongoing communication and
information
• Effective governance and capacity - Indigenous
& among governments
• Appropriate timeframes
What works: Participatory processes
• Indigenous agency & decision-making from the
outset
• an Indigenous-driven process with government
as facilitator/enabler
• builds on existing community governance
structures and Indigenous strengths and assets
• an empowering process - small achievements
towards mutually agreed longer term goals
What works: Participatory Processes
• Recognition of power inequalities - sincere attempts to
share power, through agreements
• Transparency of decision making processes and agreed
conflict resolution mechanisms
• Strong mutual accountability relationships in agreements
• A high degree of clarity about desired outcomes,
indicators
• Clearly defined roles and responsibilities in agreements
and partnerships, some continuity of personnel
• Parties engage in joint planning of monitoring and
evaluation to meet rights and needs of each.
What works: Governance & leadership
• Effective and legitimate Indigenous governance
arrangements
• Strong and strategic Indigenous leadership
• Indigenous leadership resourced & supported for
engagement
• Very high level leadership, flexibility, and secure,
adequate resources within governments
• Honesty about resource (or other) limitations; set
achievable goals
• Culturally competent staff able to build trusting
relationships.
What works: Governance & leadership
• Investment in strengthening the governance of both
Indigenous and government partners for effective
partnership working
• Building on existing community organisations and
governance structures
• Governments have capacity to respond to Indigenous
priorities with pooled and flexible funding arrangements.
Improving Indigenous community governance
through strengthening Indigenous and
government organisational capacity
Roxanne Bainbridge
Four Points
The importance of evaluation research;
Capacity strengthening two-ways – that is strengthening the capacity of
both Indigenous organisations and governments – really about exploring
some practical ways of working together;
Governance operates at multiple levels which are interrelated ; AND
The importance of strengthening soft capacities alongside hard capacities.
POINT 1
The importance of evaluation research
Poor evidence-base
Good at describing problems, and what needs to happen - few evaluations
Messages:
- a balance of descriptive research; measurement research (are things
getting better); and intervention research (evaluation)
- account for rigorous evaluations in conducting their business
- systematic literature reviews - cost-efficient way of bridging the evidence
gap
Background
1970s - national policies > empowerment of community-level organisations
1990s - the term “community capacity building” emerged
1996 – Australian policy arena > concern for reducing welfare-dependency,
fostering local participation and decision-making, and trialing new
approaches to partnerships and coordination across government
Intercultural phenomenon
Balance - operational autonomy, political support, performance and
accountability
POINT 2
Capacity strengthening two-ways through
partnerships
Governance: “the evolving processes, relationships, institutions and structures
by which a group of people, community or society organize themselves
collectively to achieve the things that matter to them (Hunt et al., 2008)
Strengthening decision-making and control over their organisations and
building on people’s personal and collective contributions, and shared
commitment to a an organisation’s chosen governance processes, goals and
identity (Hunt & Smith, 2006)
Challenges - lack of agreed understandings
Government to work through partnerships to enable governance processes >
communities to be better supported to improve their own situations
POINT 2
Partnership Strategies
Participatory Action Research Processes (PAR)
Oriented toward action - cyclic process that diagnose the situation; act to
improve it; measure or evaluate the effectiveness of action; reflect on
learnings; and plan next steps
-
how are we going – what’s happening;
what is working,
what is not;
are we getting our fair share resources relative to need;
who is benefiting; who is missing out; what can be done to reach those
people; and
how can we improve our situation.
POINT 2
A Framework for Transdisciplinary Teamwork (Whiteside, Tsey & Cadet-James, 2011)
Domain
Empowerment Attributes
Societal
Acknowledge the challenges of history and the social environment
Work with community strengths, for example, any form of social support
Enable local control and involvement
Seek to facilitate community development or change
Individual/
client
Promote autonomy and individual responsibility
Acknowledge and build on people’s existing strengths
Encourage personal and skill development
Respect people’s religious and spiritual beliefs (these can be a source of
strength)
Team
Clarify team values
Ensure workers have well-defined roles
Facilitate cross-cultural understanding
Provide forums for reflective practice
Be aware of and deal with power differences between workers
Have some separate reflective spaces/support for Indigenous workers
Organisational
Employ local people and build capacity
Be transparent and listen to workers
Ensure client needs are primary
Ensure fair and safe conditions for workers
Promote training and professional development
Address organisational conflict as it arises
Adapt to change
Adopt evidence-based approach as to what works through research
Point 3
Strengthening soft capacities alongside hard
capacities
Capacity Strengthening: Accessing opportunities and processes to
enhance an organisation’s abilities to perform specific functions, solve
problems, and set and achieve goals; that is, to get things done (Hunt &
Smith, 2006).
Hard capacities - resources, technical skills, functions, structures,
equipment
Soft capacities - values, morale, engagement, motivation, incentives and
staff wellbeing
Social and emotional empowerment
http://mapsof.net/map/australia-states-blank#.UfWuzKxmyrM
Point 3
Horn Island
Thursday Island
JCU
Cairns
Port Hedland
BATCHELOR/
TANGENTYERE
Alice Springs
Normanton
Townsville
Doomadgee
Rockhampton
Pitjatjanjara Lands
Coober Pedy
Brisbane
Berri
Ceduna
TAFE SA
Adelaide
FAMILY
WELLBEING
PROGRAM
Sydney
Melbourne
TAFESA Sites
TANGENTYERE/BATCHELOR Sites
ERP Sites
Take Home Messages
Importance of evidence - we are so good at describing extent of the
problems, and what needs to happen, but there are so few evaluations of
what actually works.
The need for two-way capacity enhancement - for government to work
through partnership and for communities to be better supported to improve
their own social and emotional wellbeing because of the wider benefits for
education, employment, child safety.
Governance works at different levels which are interrelated.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander empowerment and social and emotional
wellbeing as critically important to capacity strengthening, but poorly
supported.
Prof Komla Tsey
Dr Janya McCalman
Ms Cath Brown
THANK YOU TO THE CLOSING THE GAP
CLEARINGHOUSE