A Meta-Analysis of Community Action Projects - Volume oneFILE/communityactionprojects-vol1.pdf ·...

A project funded by the Cross Departmental Contestable Fund through the Ministry of Health

A META-ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY ACTION PROJECTS:

VOLUME I

Alison Greenaway Dr Sharon Milne Wendy Henwood Lanuola Asiasiga

Karen Witten

Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation and Te Röpü Whäriki

Massey University PO Box 6137

Wellesley Street Auckland

Revised February 2004

Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation and Te Röpü Whäriki 2 Te Rünanga, Wänanga, Hauora me te Paekaka

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................4

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION TO THE META-ANALYSIS....................................................7 1 Overview of the meta-analysis ........................................................................................7 2 Background .....................................................................................................................9 3 Research design ...........................................................................................................12 4 Description of projects involved.....................................................................................18

SECTION B: THE LESSONS LEARNT .................................................................................23 1 Lessons learnt: activation of projects ............................................................................24 2 Lessons learnt: consolidation of projects.......................................................................37 3 Lessons learnt: transition/completion ............................................................................48 4 Conclusion: cornerstones of community action.............................................................51 5 A framework for community action projects...................................................................58

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Policy and research background to the meta-analysis ....................................64 Appendix 2: Overview of the six evaluations included in the cases studies (four

projects were not evaluated) ...........................................................................66

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................68

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1: Structure of the meta-analysis.................................................................................. 7 Figure 2: The 10 case studies ............................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: The TAIERI project in action................................................................................... 23 Figure 4: Key elements of community action......................................................................... 23 Figure 5: Students participating in the TAIERI Project .......................................................... 29 Figure 6: He Rangihou New Day Project of Opotiki Safer Communities Council .................. 31 Figure 7: Whaingaroa Environment Centre members in action............................................. 36 Figure 8: He Rangihou New Day Project of Opotiki Safer Communities Council .................. 58


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With great respect we acknowledge the hard work of all the people who have been involved with the 10 projects included in this meta-analysis. We wish to honour them and learn from their commitment, vision and knowledge. Our thanks go out to all the people who participated in this research for their time and information. It is our hope that this report may be of some assistance to their work. We are grateful for the support, input and advice of Will Allen and colleagues at Landcare Research, our colleagues at SHORE, plus Cynthia Maling and Adrian Portis at the Ministry of Health. We would also like to acknowledge the involvement of the Ministries of Health, Pacific Island Affairs, and Social Development; Te Puni Kōkiri; and the Departments of Conservation, Internal Affairs, and Child, Youth and Families, as members of the Interdepartmental Reference Group involved in the setting up of the meta-analysis project. Finally, we acknowledge Claire White and Ray Prebble for their editing assistance.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This meta-analysis provides insights into the lessons learnt from 10 very different community action projects funded by a range of government agencies in New Zealand. The analysis has been used to inform a framework for community action projects, which identifies key developmental practices that will strengthen these and similar projects. The meta-analysis research project was undertaken by the Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation and Te Ropu Whariki at Massey University. It was funded by the Interdepartmental Research Pool (now the Cross Departmental Research Fund) with the Ministry of Health as the lead Agency. The project arose within the context of an increasing social policy focus on opportunities for cross sectoral collaboration through community action projects. This interest in community action revealed the need to provide evidence of the factors that enable or inhibit effective community action. Ten community action projects in New Zealand were studied to gain insights into the practices used, lessons learnt and key relationships that shaped the projects. The cases included three projects coordinated by Pacific organisations specifically for Pacific peoples and two projects coordinated by Maori organisations specifically for Maori. The range of cases studied had a geographical spread plus a mix of rural and urban projects. The projects had been funded by various government agencies including, the Ministries of Health, Education and Environment, the Departments of Internal Affairs, Child Youth and Family, the Community Employment Group, Work and Income and the Crime Prevention Unit. Other organisations funding some of the projects included the Alcohol Advisory Council, the Christchurch Police, Christchurch City Council, Waitakere District Health Board, NZ Landcare Trust, and the University of Otago. The case studies were produced from key informant interviews and document reviews. A grounded theory approach was used to create a meta level of analysis across the case studies. This analysis examined the barriers and enhancers to community action. From the meta-analysis a framework was developed to inform future community action projects. The meta-analysis revealed that while diversity is an inherent feature of projects working to create change through community-based decision-making, there are practices and perspectives common to them all. Fundamental to all 10 projects was the importance of building relationships that are transformative − that is, relationships between individuals and organisations that enable existing understandings and ways of working to be challenged and where required new ways trialled and adopted. Related to this point was the finding that projects were enhanced when the power dynamics influencing communities and stakeholders were acknowledged and addressed throughout the course of the project. Also evident across the 10 projects were notions of developmental processes and critical reflection that build knowledge and encourage participatory decision-making.


The meta-analysis found that effective community action required: • skilled leadership • adequate resourcing • infrastructural development • committed strategic support from both government agencies and community

organisations • co-ordination • vision building • facilitation • advocacy • networking • mentoring • planning • critical reflection.

Projects benefited from the support of people with community development expertise and the skills to create the conditions for the above factors to occur. This expertise and skill could be held by people in a variety of roles including:

• community development advisors • fund contract managers • mentors from an umbrella organisation • project co-ordinators • evaluators • advisors from a fund holding organisation • trustees.

The community action projects developed knowledge and influenced practices when some form of reflective practice was incorporated in the project. Action reflection cycles were integrated into project planning in diverse ways, including:

• participatory research • formative evaluation • systematic reviews • informal review discussions • story telling.

In whatever form, practices adopted to reflect on the work being undertaken, the reasons why certain decisions were made and the gathering of information to inform future project decisions helped projects to achieve their objectives. The 10 projects each went through phases of activation, consolidation, and transition or completion. The activation phase saw the development of visions for the project based on identifying the issues and needs the project was planning to tackle and ideas for how best to do this. The consolidation phase involved identifying the skills and information required to make the desired changes, as well as continuing to build interest and participation in the project.


The transition phase of projects was a challenge, with some projects ending and most converting to another organisational form. The meta-analysis culminates in the presentation of a framework for planning and reviewing the development of community action projects. This framework is based on the three principles that were found to enhance the projects:

• projects created change through transforming relationships between individuals, groups and organisations

• projects created change through developmental practices • projects built knowledge through practices of critical reflection.

Based on these principles, the framework presents practices for creating change through community action projects, plus critical reflection points and possible activities to assist their development. The framework is a reference tool for all stakeholders in a community project. It can be used to help individuals and organisations to plan projects together and to consistently undertake critical reflection as projects develop and reach a point of completion or transition.


SECTION A: INTRODUCTION TO THE META-ANALYSIS

1 Overview of the meta-analysis

Purpose This report presents a meta-analysis of community action projects based on insights gained from 10 projects spanning the length of New Zealand. The meta-analysis synthesises barriers and enhancers to creating change in communities in order to inform a framework for community action projects. The framework presented at the end of this report is provided as a guide or tool for the planning and review of community action projects. The meta-analysis has been written for a diverse audience. We hope that this information will be useful to people working with community projects in a variety of roles. The specific aim is to help people whose task it is to co-ordinate community projects, evaluate projects, manage the funding for projects and/or create policy for funding them. The meta-analysis was funded in 2001 by the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology (MoRST) through the Interdepartmental Contestable Research Pool (now the Cross Departmental Contestable Fund), with the Ministry of Health as the lead agency. The research has been undertaken by a team of researchers working with SHORE (Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation) and Te Röpü Whäriki at Massey University.

Structure of the report

Activation of community action

Consolidation of community action

Transition of community action

Cornerstones of community action

Power analysis

Transforming relationships

Developmental roles

Developmental processes

Critical reflection/ knowledge buildling

Figure 1: Structure of the meta-analysis

The report is in two volumes. Volume I covers the background to the meta-analysis, introducing the concepts of collaboration, participation, relationship building and social change that are central to community action. The analysis is presented through a discussion of the lessons learnt during the phases of activation, consolidation, and transition or closure of community action projects.


The case studies are presented in Volume II. They reveal a diverse range of community action experiences and provide the detail from which the analysis in Volume I was developed. Each case study discusses the context in which the project was developed, the practices (activities and processes) used in its development, the relationships that shaped it, and some of the lessons learnt throughout the project�s course. For the purposes of this research the generic terms of project co-ordinator, researcher and funding official have been used to represent the various positions involving co-ordination, evaluation/research and funding/agency liaison in the 10 projects. Reflections on these roles have been highlighted in vignettes throughout the sections in Volume I on lessons learnt. Factors that connect the three phases of the project development are presented as cornerstones of community action. These cornerstones inform the principles of community action on which the framework is based (see Figure 1 above). The framework presents features that are common to community action projects across government sectors, as well as reflection points and activities that may help projects as they develop.

The case studies The case studies in Volume II provide insights into practices used, lessons learnt and key relationships that shaped the 10 community action projects. A chart providing an overview of each project is provided in the Appendix to Volume II. These projects addressed very different issues and involved a range of approaches to change and structures for creating change. The terms used for various roles in the projects varied enormously, so for the purposes of this report we have used the generic terms in the box below to distinguish between the many players in the projects.


Glossary of terms used Agency: a unit of central or local government (eg, a department or ministry)

Funder: the agency that provided the core or initial funding for the project

Fund-holding organisation: the organisation that administered the funding for the project, if not for the project itself

Umbrella organisation: an organisation that provided some form of oversight for the project

Project provider: the group or organisation that directly implemented the project

Stakeholders: individuals and organisations that have a stake in the project and have participated in its development

Formative evaluation: evaluation undertaken from the start of the project − this assists the formation of the project through strategic planning, identification of indicators, research and knowledge, and skills sharing

Process evaluation: evaluation that documents the process being used to develop the project in order to inform the development of the project and future projects

Impact evaluation: evaluation that assesses the direct impact the project has had within a short timeframe (eg, within five years)

Outcome evaluation: evaluation that assesses the wider outcomes created by the project within a longer timeframe (eg, after five years)

External evaluation: evaluation where the evaluator was contracted from an organisation not directly involved with managing the project (this includes evaluators from the funding organisation)

Internal evaluation: evaluation where the evaluator was contracted from an organisation directly involved with managing the project (eg, a project member, or the co-ordinator).

2 Background

Community action has been identified by various government agencies and social scientists in New Zealand and internationally as an important vehicle for creating sustainable social change.1 Central to these perspectives is the assertion that community-based projects encourage collaboration, multi-stakeholder participation and a focus on outcomes. Community action projects in New Zealand vary greatly in form and function. They are used as a means of tackling a variety of issues on different scales and with a range of groupings of people. Community action has the potential to create outcomes of common good across sectors and across oppositional interests in geographical locations. Whether this potential can be actualised is being debated in social policy and research fields, as well as within community organisations.

1 For examples of government funded approaches to community action in environmental management, see

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social/; in social development the stronger communities action fund http://www.cyf.govt.nz/view.cfm?pid=195. For minimising alcohol-related harm, see http://www.alcohol.org.nz/resources/publications/Action_on_Alcohol/index.html. For international references, see Sankaran et al 2001, and Casswell et al 1999).


The meta-analysis of community action projects engages with this debate by examining the barriers and enhancers to community action in 10 projects funded by a number of government agencies. The following discussion presents meta-analysis as an important means for identifying and analysing practices common to community action projects that enhance the ability of communities to create sustainable social change.

What is a meta-analysis? The meta-analysis approach has been designed to generate insights about effective project practices and processes across multiple experiences and cases studies. By examining the dynamics that go beyond individual projects, we aim to inform the practice of community action by extrapolating from lessons learnt, and to contribute to the body of knowledge about community-based change in New Zealand. The meta-analysis approach used for this research differs from more typical meta-analyses, which concentrate on the quantitative combination of many studies on similar topics (Cochrane Collaboration 2003). We also differ from meta-analyses undertaken in the field of programme evaluation, where a meta-analyst gathers evaluations of similar programmes in an effort to gain the statistical power to see whether the interventions had an effect on participants (Posavac and Carey 1992, Light and Pillemer 1984, Lipsey and Wilson 2001). In our research the task has not been to evaluate the changes the projects have made or the processes they used, or their evaluations (Rogers 2000). This meta-analysis utilises research practices of induction and interpretation to build a store of knowledge for future project development, more effective project implementation, and enlightened policy-making. This form of meta-analysis meets the challenge described by Noblit and Hare (1988:7, cited in Patton 1990) of retaining the uniqueness and holism of personal accounts even as we synthesise them through an analysis of common themes.

What is community action? Community action is an approach to creating change on a scale that is local and accessible to the participants. There is usually a very specific focus (eg, improving river water quality, or school suspension rates), and actions are aimed at changing particular behaviours, experiences and/or practices through participation and education, involving a range of stakeholders. Community action projects or programmes promote problem-solving within the affected community, and ownership of the solutions. A key feature is developing the skills and analysis within the community so there can be fundamental and long-term change to problematic systems and structures (McCreanor et al 1998). This approach to social change creates activities that are responsive to the diverse needs of community sectors and to their changing circumstances (Moewaka Barnes 2000, Casswell and Stewart 1989). Practices used in community action projects enable the development of skills and knowledge that shape broader community development agendas. Community action enables community development through its focus on processes for creating change. The core principles of empowerment, equity, collaboration and consensus inform these processes.


Why is community action important?

Community action builds social relations and community capacity Over the last two decades social science research and social policy has been giving increased attention to examining how social relations influence the wellbeing and development of societies (Coleman 1988, Putnam 1993, Kawachi et al 1997, Robinson 1997, Baum 1999, Fukuyama 1999, Labonte 1999, Pretty and Frank 2000). The term �social capital� is often used to describe the networks of relationships that facilitate changes within societies, from the level of individual projects to the level of communities and nation states. Community action is gaining increased attention due to its emphasis on building the relationships and networks required for making changes as well as for building the capacity of communities. Capacity building through community action develops and utilises the skills and knowledge of people who collectively resolve common problems (Goodman et al 1998; Casswell 2001; Chaskin et al 2001; Labonte and Laverack 2001 a&b). The notion of community capacity refers to the resources, skills, knowledge and infrastructure accessible to people for their collective development.

Community action enables greater participation in decision-making Like capacity building, participation in community action is both a means to an end and an end in itself. Research into participatory processes for decision-making and increased community participation in policy formation reveals the strengths that can be developed through social action focused on specific issues (Bracht and Tsouros 1990, Labonte 1996, Baum et al 1997, Casswell et al 1999, Saville-Smith 1999, David 2002).

Community action encourages collaboration across stakeholders Multi-stakeholder approaches are a way of ensuring the participation of key organisations and individuals who will be affected by, or benefit from, the initiative (Putnam 1993, Moewaka Barnes 2000). This approach aims to ensure that many perspectives are taken into account and planned for from the outset of a project. A key aspect of this approach is the creation of collaborative ways of working that often endure beyond the completion of a specific project. Collaboration of government and community organisations (now commonly referred to as vertical and horizontal linkages) maximises financial, knowledge and people resources, and minimises duplication. This perspective has produced a range of �joined up thinking� initiatives in both New Zealand and the UK (Chaskin et al 2001).

Community action incorporates a wider knowledge base into decision-making Community-based action and research can facilitate the building of knowledge about practices that lead to outcomes, and assist evidence-based project planning (Whyte 1991, Park et al 1993, Greenwood and Levin 1998, Casswell 2000, Cervin 2001, Reason and Bradbury 2001). Internationally and in New Zealand the social policy field is marked by strategies for building evidence-based decision-making. This term refers to the practice of policy development based on clear evidence of the issues, solutions that have worked in the past, and the implications of specific actions (Lynch et al 2000, Raphael 2000). Debates around evidence-based decision-making raise questions about whose evidence gets listened to and when. There are also challenges from the fact that evidence is constantly building and its interpretation is dependent on the context and research approaches taken (Moewaka Barnes 2000). Conway et al (2000b:339) suggest there is a range of benefits for community action projects where both the communities and researchers work together to share local and external skills and knowledge.


Why a meta-analysis of community action projects? The role of community organisations in providing social welfare and creating social change has received significant political attention in New Zealand over the last decade. Recent social policy debates2 have arisen over questions of what constitutes effective community-based practice and government responsiveness to community needs. The following are some of the questions driving social policy debates that shape the context in which the meta-analysis research has been developed.

• How can the relationship between government and community/voluntary organisations be strengthened?

• How can the state sector�s social policy-making capacity be strengthened? • How can social science knowledge be built across government sectors? • How can social policy, research and practice be connected? • How can community outcomes at the local government level be measured? • What is best practice for government-funded community projects?

In summary, community action has been identified by various government agencies as a vehicle for creating sustainable changes within communities and in localised areas. In addition, community action has the potential to create outcomes that are of common good across sectors. It is therefore important to identify and analyse the practices that can be used in any community action project to enhance the ability of a community to create the desired changes.

3 Research design

The meta-analysis developed from discussions between evaluation researchers from the public health and environment sectors. The researchers were aware that similar approaches were being used to create community-based change in these sectors, and wanted to explore what the lessons learnt across all government sectors had in common. Parallels across projects were noted, including the barriers to communities engaging in project development, factors that contribute to their success, and the importance of building community infrastructure and capacity at a general level. It was thought that there was a great opportunity to learn from cross-sector experiences through analysing projects that had met with different levels of success. As noted, this discussion occurred in the context of growing debates about evidence-based decision-making and best practice for funding community projects. The Ministry of Health took up the researcher-initiated proposal and became the lead agency for a funding application to the Interdepartmental Contestable Research Pool, administered by the Ministry of Research Science and Technology (MoRST). The Ministry of Health then formed an interdepartmental reference group to oversee the project. In 2001 MoRST allocated funding for the meta-analysis of community action projects. The researchers� proposal submitted to the Ministry of Health was budgeted to involve mainstream and Mäori-specific projects and to develop a mainstream conceptual framework for community action research, with a discussion of ways in which the framework is consistent with or divergent from kaupapa Mäori approaches. In 2002 the reference group extended the project to include Pacific case studies.

2 For a more detailed description of these debates and references see Appendix I.


At one stage in 2001 it was suggested that the reference group would develop a second, complementary application to the Interdepartmental Contestable Research Pool to seek funding to enable parallel frameworks to be developed for �by Mäori for Mäori� community action research, and for �by Pacific for Pacific� community action research. Unfortunately, this later initiative did not eventuate. The project was originally designed to review the evaluations of the community action research projects in order to identify the factors that had enabled or impeded each project to achieve its objectives. This design was based on the assumption that a number of projects had undergone formative-type evaluations such that their processes and activities were documented and the impact of these had been measured. This assumption was found to be incorrect, and after the initial scoping the research design was modified. Another key aspect of the original design of the meta-analysis was to gather information from three perspectives:

• the highly involved members of the community action research projects � the people who do the day-to-day work of the projects

• the people who were involved in evaluating the projects • the people who were involved in funding the projects.

We intended that representatives from each of these groups would come together to form co-ordination, evaluation and funding reference groups to guide the development of the research process.

Selection of the 10 projects The following criteria were used to select seven out of the 10 projects. The criteria are listed under two tiers. First-tier criteria were the essential characteristics in terms of meeting the project and contract objectives. The second-tier criteria guided the selection process to ensure a heterogeneous mix of case studies. The first-tier criteria were as follows:

• The project is a community action research project, community-based with a research/evaluation component.

• The formative or process evaluation is well documented. • Community representatives, the researchers and funder are available, are willing to

participate and are knowledgeable about the history of the project. • Of the 10 case studies, three are to be Mäori-specific and three are to be Pacific-

specific (and meet the other first-tier criteria). The second-tier criteria were as follows:

• The case studies span sectors (funders), population groups and issues. • The case studies represent urban/rural areas and are geographically spread. • Diverse models for community action research are represented (eg, both community-

initiated and government-agency-initiated, departmental evaluation and external evaluation, single and multiple funders, projects shaped by different political and socio-environmental contexts).


Initially we envisaged that case studies would only be considered for inclusion if they met the first-tier criteria. Selection beyond this point was to be focused on selecting a diverse group of adequately documented case studies. Taking into consideration the scarcity of formatively evaluated community projects and the even greater scarcity of �by Pacific for Pacific� community projects, the meta-analysis team developed selection criteria based on the project having incorporated some type of evaluation that documented its processes. This was with the exception of the three Pacific projects and one �by Mäori for Mäori� project. The �by Mäori for Mäori� project was selected on the basis of having other forms of documented reflection on its development. The selection of projects from across locations, communities, government sectors and time periods has resulted in the inclusion of 10 diverse examples of community action. This diversity is acknowledged and remains a central element of the analysis.

Shifting the focus from community action research to community action The initial scoping of suitable projects provided a better understanding of them and some familiarity with the documentation available. As a result, the design of the meta-analysis was further revised. The team decided to implement a more developmental approach to the research project rather than the more passive document analysis and workshop approach originally planned. The diversity of evaluation approaches by funding agencies and community projects meant that the project evaluations had little in common, and therefore did not provide a consistent source of information on the barriers and enhancers the projects had experienced. Also, very few of the projects had an opportunity to use the evaluation process to develop and build knowledge, so the terms �formative� or �process� evaluation could not be equated with research, as was assumed. In the absence of this form of evaluation research, we needed to explore alternative reflective practices for most of the projects. These issues shifted the focus of the meta-analysis away from community action research and towards community action projects. We recognised that it would be beneficial to emphasise change as the central focus of the research. In doing so, the researchers were more readily able to engage with and understand the labels the participants used, rather than pre-empting the identification of these components and thereby potentially missing critical processes and actions. This focus on change identified the primary research question driving the meta-analysis, which was: How is change facilitated through community action projects? As a result, reflective practices − how groups documented their actions and questions of how change occurred − became the focus of the research. A framework was designed out of this clarification of the research process to further develop the meta-analysis.

The framework for the meta-analysis of community action

Purpose of the research To develop a conceptual framework for community action projects, guidelines and milestones for monitoring their implementation.

Research objectives The objectives were to:

• explore the dynamics of action and reflection in 10 diverse community action projects • provide insights into the barriers and enhancers to change identified across the

10 projects


• develop a conceptual framework for community action • develop guidelines and milestones for monitoring their implementation.

The boundaries of the analysis were:

• not to undertake an evaluation of the projects • not to evaluate the available evaluations • not to assess the impacts or outcomes of the projects.

Key research questions • What processes and activities did the projects utilise to create change? • What were the barriers and enhancers to creating change? • How did the relationships between evaluators, funders and community groups create

change? • What were the reflective practices utilised in the 10 selected projects? • How did these reflective practices inform the actions taken in the course of the project?

A grounded theory approach This research is based on a multiple-methods, grounded theory approach. A grounded research perspective develops theory as part of the research process and as part of �a continuous interplay between analysis and the data� (Strauss and Corbin 1994:273). Grounded theory thus enables theory to be developed out of experiences, and tests this through both inductive and deductive processes. The development of methods as part of a grounded theory approach reflects an understanding of iterative cycles of analysis based on reflection and action that are central to community action and community development. The research was designed to include layers of checking, feedback and iterative development of the analysis.

Methods We discussed with evaluators, community group members and funding officials a range of issues that were important for the meta-analysis to address in order to identify the most effective way of approaching the research questions. These issues included:

• ensuring that within each project the relationship between all stakeholders − including the funders, evaluator and the project group − were examined in order to understand the wider context of each project

• understanding the impact of the processes and activities that have (or have not) led to change (it is important to explore the relationship that funding officials have within their organisations as well as those they have with the project workers)

• recognising that the research team was not separate from this information-gathering process and relationships, the research process reflected some of the best practice notions exemplified by the research participants and derived from the team�s wider research experience.

As was later confirmed by the data, relationships were a critical component in this meta-analysis, alongside activities and processes. We also identified that each project needed to be understood in its immediate context and history, and that these factors would need to be incorporated into the meta-analysis and design.


After identifying possible projects, contact was initially made with people already in a co-ordination role. The research and what the project involved were discussed. Each project was sent an information pack with consent forms. All project sites were then visited to exchange information and access existing evaluation documentation and other relevant reports. Project members were also invited to contribute to the analysis and write-up of the final phase of the project. Once key project members had confirmed their participation in the meta-analysis, other key informants for the projects were identified and contacted for interviews. All informants were encouraged to provide feedback at various stages of the information gathering and analysis and were asked to check any project-specific information used in the final report.

Interviews and reference conversations Up to six people per project were interviewed. These people had either been directly involved as a member, evaluator or funding official attached to the project. In many cases the contract manager for the project had moved on, so it was not possible to interview many of the funding officials. To ensure the perspective of funding officials was captured, a range of officials who worked with community action projects (but were not directly associated with the selected projects) were interviewed. As noted, the meta-analysis was designed around the idea of active participation. We planned for the researchers to be in continuous contact (via reference group meetings and web site discussions) with the participants and reference group members, and for this conversation to shape the research as well as produce the findings. However, this design was based on the assumption that people would be interested in this level of participation. In reality the researchers found that participants wanted to engage with the meta-analysis on a variety of levels: some at the level of meta-analysis, but most at the level of the project�s or individual�s experiences of creating community-based change. These conversations were sporadic and generally directed by the needs of the researchers. Due to the diversity of evaluation approaches and the challenges of talking across sectors, professions, areas of interest and priorities, the research focus moved away from the idea of bringing people together for workshops. The research team realised that rather than having collective conversations with groups as part of workshops it would be more appropriate to have strategic conversations with people individually or in small groups. This would create strategic participation that reflected both people�s level of interest in the meta-analysis and what they expected to receive back from the research at a time that was right for the project and right for the participants. We also recognised that there are numerous multi-stakeholder research projects being undertaken at present, and a number of the participants commented on feeling over-researched.

Review of project documents Documents reviewed included the evaluation report for projects (where available), progress reports, mission statements, feedback forms, minutes and work plans. These documents were a means of finding out how the project members and the funders reflected on their work and processes. Information gained from these documents was examined alongside information gained from the interviews and discussions. This was essential to the grounded approach of the meta-analysis and enabled the data that had been gathered to be confirmed or challenged by data from a variety of other sources.


Summary Data collected included:

• project-specific documents, including evaluation reports • input from the initial evaluators� workshop • interviews with key stakeholders • strategic conversations across all sectors and roles that were ongoing throughout the

research (some of these people were also involved in the analysis). All the data was collated, analysed and themed. This was part of the team process and utilised the SHORE researchers, who have specific and extensive experience in the development of community action research projects.

Moerewa Community Project1. Moerewa2. He Iwi Kotahi Tātou Trust3. ALAC, CEG4. n/a5. Community development

including social, cultural and economic

6. 1995�

Peaceful Waves/Matangi Malie

1. Auckland2. Group Special Education3. Ministry of Health, Public

Health Directorate4. n/a5. Non-violence

programmes6. 1995�

Whaingaroa CatchmentManagement Project

1. Raglan2. Whaingaroa Environment3. Ministry for the Environment4. Process/impact5. Public meetings, tours of the

catchment, catchment management plan, formation of the Whaingaroa Environment Centre

6. 1995�

Rough Cut YouthDevelopment Project

1. Westport/Buller region2. Buller REAP3. Department of Internal

Affairs and Work and Income NZ

4. Process/impact5. Film-making course

including life skills training

6. 1999�2003

Waitomo PapakaingaTracker Programme

1. Kaitaia2. Waitomo Papakainga

Development Society Inc3. CYF, CPU4. Process/impact5. Youth development �

social, education, cultural6. 1998�2000

Pasifika HealthcareGardening Project

1. Waitakere City2. Pasifika Healthcare3. Waitakere DHB,

Healthlink4. n/a5. Community garden

and back garden competitions

6. 1998�

He Rangihou New Day Project1. Opotiki2. Opotiki Safer Communities

Council3. Ministries of Education and

Health4. Formative and impact5. Drug education, health

promotion, capacity building, Māori focus initiatives, policy consultation, alliance building awareness raising

6. 1998�

Christchurch Youth Project1. Christchurch2. Christchurch City Council

and Christchurch Police3. As above4. Process/impact5. Youth worker project working

Monday�Thursday with young offenders and their caregivers, referred by Police Youth Aid; street youth work on Friday nights

6. 1997� PACIFICA Governanceand Management Project1. Nationwide2. PACIFICA3. CEG4. n/a5. Governance and

management training for members

6. 2000�

TAIERI1. Otago2. TAIERI Trust3. SMF, NZ Landcare Trust, University of Otago4. Process/impact5. Development and management of a

community-based catchment management project. Activities include workshops and education in schools and community.

6. 1999�

Key1. Location2. Provider3. Funder(s)4. Type of evaluation5. Activities6. Duration

Figure 2: The 10 case studies3

3 ALAC = Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand; CEG = Community Employment Group; CPU = Crime

Prevention Unit; CYF = Department of Child, Youth and Family; DHB = District Health Board; REAP = Rural Education Activities Programme.


4 Description of projects involved

A brief description of the projects studied is provided here. Detailed case studies are provided in Volume II.

Waitomo Papakainga Tracker Programme: Kaitaia The Waitomo Papakainga Development Society is an incorporated society, formed by the Rawiri whänau and whanaunga in 1993. It was established for the specific purpose of meeting the needs of rangatahi. In 1998 the whänau obtained funding for the Waitomo Papakainga Tracker Programme. The Tracker Programme was one of many programmes the Society was involved with. Based on tikanga Mäori, whanaungatanga roles and responsibilities, and a whänau/hapü development approach, the initial Tracker Programme idea emerged from the whänau �just doing what they needed to do� to address the issues they could see in the young people around them. It was initiated as a kaitiaki structure focused on their whenua. The Tracker Programme evolved after many years of whänau working with rangatahi at risk or those with identified problems. The intensive live-in outdoor programme involved a group of mentors living and working with the young people for a three-week period with ongoing whänau support:

... just a whänau thing. We didn�t have contracts with any organisation, any agency to be funded for this kind of stuff, we were doing it because we wanted to help the kids. (Interview, project co-ordinator)

The underlying strategy behind the Tracker Programme was to give young people an experience different to their usual daily routines using the resources available to the whänau. The natural environment of an isolated whänau beach site with few amenities provided the setting to work with the young people and help them with their issues. It was quality time, 24 hours a day commitment, and the whänau regarded it as a �natural thing to do�.

Moerewa Community Project: Moerewa The town of Moerewa in Northland had a history and high profile of negative statistics that had become accepted, both locally and by wider society. Since 1995 the He Iwi Kotahi Tätou Trust has taken a lead in empowering the community to address some of the issues it faces. There have been several phases of development as the community strove to enrich and revitalise this small, predominantly Mäori, rural town. Funding was initially obtained from the Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand (ALAC) in 1998 to initiate a project to address the community�s drug and alcohol problems. The project was designed using a community development framework. The project team had lived and worked in the community and understood drugs and alcohol to be a symptom rather than a cause of the issues facing the town. They believed that change would only be effective if the broader historical issues could also be addressed. The project team initiated public meetings from which a plan emerged based around three goals:

• to initiate opportunities and activities to inspire the young people of the area • to investigate meaningful and motivational occupations • to create an environment that would foster change.


The Trust began to market Moerewa as �Tuna Town� and purchased a block of local shops for businesses to be established. The events and initiatives started to help the people of Moerewa to feel good about themselves and their town and paved the way for a community-building and rejuvenation process. They built on the uniqueness of the town and demonstrated that the town and its people had an economic value. They also focused on helping to change the �spirit� of the community by reflecting on the strong cultural heritage of the area and promoting Moerewa as a place where Mäori were succeeding and could feel proud.

Pasifika Healthcare Gardening Project: Waitakere The Gardening Project started from concerns about poverty among Pacific communities and the impact poverty was having on their nutrition. In 1998 a pilot project was set up to introduce preschoolers to vegetables. Nurses and community health workers had found that children were not eating vegetables, and it was hoped that by involving children in gardening, planting, watching the vegetables grow, then harvesting and eating them, the children would become interested in growing vegetables and gardening. To encourage adult interest, a �backyard garden� competition was set up for families. The entry criteria were to grow five different vegetables and five different flowers. This competition has been running for the past two years and last year there were 98 entries. Over the past year a community garden has been run on land made available by the Waitemata District Health Board. The vegetables harvested are given to needy families, usually those with children, in the community.

Peaceful Waves / Matangi Malie: Auckland Peaceful Waves / Matangi Malie is part of the Eliminating Violence Programme run in schools for Group Special Education. Peaceful Waves was set up as an initiative of the Auckland Samoan and Tongan communities, who were responding to the issue of family violence within Pacific communities. The project started off working with parents and families in churches and then moved into schools. Recently they have been delivering the programme to Pacific providers as another initiative to reach a different audience. The programme explores anger management in a Pacific context.

Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project: Waikato The Whaingaroa Environment group (known to many as WE) came into existence in March 1997, through a catchment management project facilitated by Environment Waikato and Landcare Research. Environment Waikato had secured funds in 1996 from the Ministry for the Environment�s Sustainable Management Fund to undertake a community-based environmental management project in the Whaingaroa catchment. The aim of this project was to undertake consultation with stakeholders in the Whaingaroa catchment area in order to develop a catchment management plan. The WE group formed as a result of the public consultation process that was facilitated by Landcare Research. WE operated as a networking group that supported the dissemination of information and ideas across environmental groups in the region. They held public meetings to raise awareness and to facilitate agreement on a range of environmental issues.


By 2002 the WE group had created an incorporated society and transformed itself to become the Whaingaroa Environment Centre. Environment Waikato had withdrawn from administering the funds for the group and the Whaingaroa Environment Centre had entered into a different funding contract (for environment centres) with the Ministry for the Environment.

He Rangihou New Day Project of Opotiki Safer Communities Council: Opotiki He Rangihou New Day Project is an innovative community action project, which takes a holistic approach to reducing drug-related harm to youth. The project is based in the Opotiki district, which has a high proportion of Mäori and unemployed people and a flourishing cannabis industry. Its target group is youth aged 10�25 years, particularly Mäori youth, and the adults who most influence them. A wide range of complementary strategies are used, most of them bicultural/bilingual or Mäori-focused. Activities involve whänau/families, grassroots community networks, schools and local organisations, as well as young people themselves. The project is under the umbrella of Opotiki Safer Communities Council and its sponsor, Opotiki District Council. It was set up in 1998 as part of Community Action on Youth and Drugs (CAYAD). This was a research initiative involving five other communities, which was co-ordinated and formatively evaluated by the Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit and Te Röpü Whäriki of the University of Auckland. CAYAD was funded by the Ministry of Education and had a primary focus on school/community activities. The He Rangihou New Day Project continued with Ministry of Health funding and adopted mainly community-based strategies.

Rough Cut Youth Development Project: Westport/ Buller region Until recently the Rough Cut Youth Development Project was funded by the Department of Internal Affairs as a response to concerns about the wellbeing of young people in the Buller area. Buller is one of New Zealand�s most geographically and socially disadvantaged areas. Educational resources, employment and transport are key issues. Depression, loss of hope, low self-esteem and lack of motivation are serious concerns for some young people. The Rough Cut Youth Development Project was developed as a response to these issues. Buller Rural Education Activities Programme (REAP) in Westport acts as an umbrella for the project. Based in Westport, the Rough Cut Youth Development Project uses the services of a variety of local and national film professionals to produce a 12-week film course every year for young people. These �Rough Cutters� have access to a considerable range of skills that are essential to the film industry, but, more importantly, they can explore issues that may be acting as a barrier to their life progress and achievement of wellbeing. The project targets young people aged between 16 and 25 years. To ensure a balance of skills and maturity, and to optimise group dynamics, there are also five places open to those over 25. The project does not overtly target those at risk but links with local agencies who refer potential candidates. Criteria include social disadvantage, low socioeconomic status, family adversity and dysfunction, mental health problems, drug and alcohol problems, and adverse and stressful life events. As a result of this project community networks have been strengthened. At the end of the course the wider community were included at the presentation of all the individual film projects.


The project had limited three-year Youth Suicide Prevention Funding, and because it was unable to access continuous funding it has ended. However, other projects that arose out of the Rough Cut Youth Development Project are currently being developed, and alternative funding is currently being sought with the support of REAP.

Christchurch Youth Project: Christchurch The Christchurch Youth Project developed out of a need expressed by some young people for a service that would meet the needs of young people under stress, and address the public�s concern about the levels of offending and violence in the inner city. It is a partnership between Christchurch City Council and the Christchurch Police. The project aims to decrease violent and criminal activity involving young people throughout the city, make Christchurch a safer place, increase positive opportunities available to young people, and improve co-ordination between groups involved with youth at risk. The project is co-managed by the youth advocate of the Council and the youth aid co-ordinator for the Christchurch Police. The project also has a police youth liaison officer, who provides the day-to-day project co-ordination. The Council provides salaries for three full-time workers and the Police provide the co-ordinator. The project was restructured in 1998, resulting in management changes. It has been evaluated twice and a progress report was completed in 2002. Two Pacific youth workers will soon be appointed to a project that will share accommodation, supervision and common goals with the Council/Police project. A Pacific trust will employ them and a member of this trust will join the management team of the project.

TAIERI Trust River Catchment Project: Otago The TAIERI Trust River Catchment Project (TAIERI = Taieri Alliance for Information Exchange and River Improvement) developed as part of a health and ecology PhD research project. The research process used community-oriented participatory action research methods to facilitate the development of a multi-stakeholder project to address both environmental and related community health issues facing the Taieri Catchment. By 2001 the PhD research project (titled the Taieri Catchment and Community Health Project) had created a partnership between the University of Otago and Taieri community members, which led to the formation of the TAIERI Trust and Project. Funding from the Sustainable Management Fund was accessed from the Ministry for the Environment for three years, due for completion on 30 June 2004. The TAIERI Trust has five trustees: four represent different geographic areas of the catchment and one represents the university. There is also a wider management group involving other community members, Fish and Game and the University of Otago. The project is distinctive in its initial use of community-oriented participatory action research methods. It is an example of a multi-stakeholder project that builds understanding across both scientific and social areas. Current activities include the development of a web page, a video resource for children to be used in schools, stream restoration activities, establishing community stream-care groups, organising workshops to address current environmental issues, ongoing development of the relationships between stakeholders, and the regular publication of a newsletter.


PACIFICA Governance and Management Project: nationwide PACIFICA is a national Pacific women�s organisation set up in 1976 to advocate for Pacific women at a political level. They have branches throughout New Zealand and each branch runs its own projects. During 2001/02 PACIFICA received Community Employment Group funding to run governance and management training for its members so that women could be up-skilled to deliver services outside the organisation. It also allowed PACIFICA to review its constitution. This project has led to a new project, Mentoring for Leadership, which will support young women into leadership roles.


SECTION B: THE LESSONS LEARNT

Figure 3: The TAIERI project in action

While the 10 projects studied were highly diverse, each went through phases of activation, consolidation, and transition or completion. The activation of the projects saw the development of visions for the project, based on identifying the issues the project was planning to tackle and ideas for how to do this. The consolidation phase involved identifying the skills and information required to make the desired changes, as well as continuing to build interest and participation in the project. The transition of projects was a challenge, with some projects ending and most changing to another organisational form. There were a number of common features across the 10 projects, which interwove through each phase of the projects. These are illustrated by the box on the right in Figure 4 below.

Activation of community action

Consolidation of community action

Transition of community action

Cornerstones of community action

Power analysis

Transforming relationships

Developmental roles

Developmental processes

Critical reflection/ knowledge buildling

Figure 4: Key elements of community action

We have called these �cornerstones� of community action. These cornerstones informed the project�s approaches, processes and activities, and they were integral to the range of barriers and enhancers each project experienced. As illustrated by the four circling arrows, the movement of a project from one phase to another was not distinct for most of the projects. Project participants moved between phases as information was gained, skills developed and membership changed, and as a result of reflecting on the progress of the project. The large arrow from the transition phase back up to activation indicates that while the specific project may have ended, the members of the project typically went on to work on other community-based projects or transformed the initial project into another form (eg, a service or agency portfolio). Consequently skills, relationships and knowledge were transferred, developing the capacity of individuals and their communities.


1 Lessons learnt: activation of projects

A co-ordination perspective We believe strongly that without managing relationships we can�t manage at all. We have a good relationship with the funder, not like a phone or email relationship but a one-to-one, face-to-face relationship. We have a very good relationship with them based on the understanding that we need each other for this to work.

(Interview � project co-ordinator)

A funding perspective Communities bring huge experience, huge resources, and they bring knowledge from the community level. I see the role of agency staff is to bring the evidence base. The process of engaging the community is bringing these two strengths together. Then there will be interchange, such that both knowledge bases can intercept and visible changes are created from that process ... I think that as funders we can get a little bit divorced from the reality of what it is like trying to achieve something on the ground with real live people. It is important to be willing to apologise and work through these things. It�s like moving with your heart and your head.

(Interview � funding official)

A research perspective There was a lot of good will involved and I think it helped enormously to work with community organisations with whom we had existing (some tenuous) relationships. There needed to be a high level of trust and co-operation involved to move things as far and fast as we did. It also helped a great deal that the communities we worked with had already identified alcohol and drug issues as big in their areas so there was a real state of community readiness (even if there was some reluctance and reticence apparent in some parts of the community). It helped to have already done an extensive and relevant literature review and scoping exercise for the Ministry of Health, if we had to start from scratch it would have been an even more labour intensive exercise.

(Interview � evaluator)

Introduction The activation phase significantly influenced the future development of the 10 projects. This phase was based on relationship building and the development of a project vision, which was based on the identification of issues and strategies. The level of participation in the activation phase and the extent to which all the core stakeholders took ownership of the project varied across the projects, reflecting the relationships that had been built and the practices used to activate the project. Activities that assisted this phase were visioning sessions, the collection of data to form an evidence base about the issues being addressed (eg, needs assessments), plus a range of events that aided relationship building and raised the profile of the project (eg, tours of the catchment).


Identifying the need for a project The practice of matching community action projects to funding varied across the projects. There was whole continuum of experiences, with historical and political factors shaping these experiences. Most projects were the result of money being reallocated to new policy directives (eg, integrated catchment management, reduction of drug-related school suspensions, youth suicide prevention, kaupapa Mäori alcohol harm reduction). For the majority of projects the initial idea came from interested people within the community. When government agencies began seeking out localities in which to fund projects, these communities were poised for action. For example, in Moerewa community people were already working voluntarily to address local needs long before being approached by ALAC. A minority of projects arose from community groups approaching potential funding agencies directly. Each of the Mäori projects in the study grew from a need in the community and took a firm tino rangatiratanga stance. They determined their own issues and developed their own solutions and were accountable to the people in their community. Once issues had been raised, the community realised there was little infrastructure or capacity to deal with them. It was decided that the projects would deal with core issues and causes in a holistic way, rather than presenting issues or symptoms in isolation. Each of the Pacific projects addressed an issue that had arisen within Pacific communities, such as nutrition, family violence, and the role of governance and management in Pacific organisations.

Matching funding to projects Well, you�re best to get the right provider in the first place, have a very clear, simple process, provide the funding, and then keep out of it, unless you�re required for fire fighting, or particular issues. (Interview − funding official)

This statement represents a funding perspective that helps to build a supportive funding relationship with the key people and organisations involved in effective development. In this situation the funding official will have a good knowledge of the people working in the field and their track record of community projects. Trusting this experience and continuing the relationship are important, although problems with this stance are that newcomers to community action can be overlooked because they do not have the experience. There is a risk that certain parts of the community will be prioritised or have access to projects and not others. There is also a danger that well-established organisations may become set in their ways and not take on new challenges and information. They may continue repeating the same mistakes. Mäori providers noted that they are sometimes disadvantaged by agencies who choose to stereotype Mäori organisations just because there have been instances where there has been a lack of credibility in the past.

You�ve got policy and you�ve got appropriation. We ask projects we work with �What do you guys really want to achieve?� Because then we can discuss, �can we deliver that, honestly can we deliver that, is that something we should be in, or are we just seeking the money? Would it be better for us to go and talk to a couple of other groups in town here and say hey look, you�re better off doing this, not us, because it�s not really us�. A lot of organisations in the voluntary sector don�t have that questioning. I think we�re developing a culture now of clarity. (Interview � co-ordinator of umbrella organisation)


This statement indicates the important role an umbrella organisation can play in linking funding to appropriate community groups for projects that fit their philosophy and capacity. In the case of the Rough Cut Youth Development Project, the umbrella organisation was able to facilitate the process of matching funding to the community group. This role can be further enhanced if the umbrella organisation is able to encourage two or more groups to come together to work collaboratively on the project, and to support the development of these relationships and the infrastructural capacity that would be required. For some projects, just working out who was the right agency to approach for funding presented many difficulties. The different responses received from various parts of an organisation also presented frequent barriers to communication:

I did ask them [a government agency] if they could put something together for us to work with the preschools and they promised us that and they were going to come and meet us here and then they did not turn up. (Interview � project co-ordinator)

Building project relationships I think that the relationship between funders and organisations being funded should very much be a partnership. Partnership means several things for me. We say that we want to be really responsive to communities, and hear what communities need and what they think the solutions are. But for me partnership also means accountability and transparency around the way the funding was used. I know I don�t want to be part of a partnership that�s not like that. Face to face contact is also indispensable and that�s why I do get out and visit projects; it�s necessary. It applies with my relationships with the advisors; we all need to have confidence in each other and understand what our different agendas are. I find that that works really well. (Interview � funding official)

For all 10 projects the transformation of relationships was a central element. A critical point was reached across all the projects when relationships broke down or needed attention. For some of the projects, relationship building across stakeholders was planned for as an objective and was seen as essential for sustaining the project. In these instances activities were planned that would create tangible outputs as well as opportunities for people to learn from each other and find ways of communicating their concerns and knowledge. One example is where a project undertook a tour of the area they were working in and invited trust members, agency representatives, community members and funding representatives to join them to experience the issues first hand. The projects based on Mäori approaches placed greater emphasis on relationships and the need to accommodate their diverse realities. While focused on a specific purpose, the numerous discussion points and diversions along the way were just as important as the intended outcomes. Building Treaty-based relationships was a significant challenge for the Tracker Programme, the Moerewa and TAIERI projects, He Rangihou New Day Project, and the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project. In the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project the process of consulting with mana whenua and tängata whenua had resulted in some grievance issues. A central element of the He Rangihou New Day Project was the building of a bicultural partnership between the co-ordinators and the development of a project that was accessible to all those who had input into it.


Funders, co-ordinators and evaluators facilitate relationship building For most of the projects, relationship building involved the co-ordinator and key project members building knowledge of, and familiarity with, people and organisations in the sector and the geographical area of the project. In some cases this was enhanced by the support of an umbrella organisation, through support from an advisor from the funding organisation, or by the researcher or evaluator. The facilitation of relationship building was identified as one aspect of the funding role that could be developed further. Because funding contract managers deal with a number of projects, they can assist by making introductions between projects to enhance opportunities for networking. The creation of networking opportunities by the funding agency or evaluators was found to be an important way of enabling learning across projects and for breaking down the isolation co-ordinators felt. As part of a wider research project, the He Rangihou New Day Project found there was funding available to enable the projects to get together on a number of occasions. Recent initiatives to bring integrated catchment management projects together were also being received by project members as a much desired opportunity to learn from other community projects (New Zealand Landcare Trust 2003). Projects were enhanced by collegial relationships with other community-based organisations or projects working in a similar field. These relationships led to information sharing as well as possibilities for peer review. A frequent dilemma for project co-ordinators is how much time to spend networking and how much time to �get on with the tasks at hand�. Finding ways of balancing day-to-day tasks with the need to maintain relationships was an important lesson.

Project relationships with evaluators The relationship project members had with the evaluators varied, reflecting the style and aim of the evaluation. In most cases the evaluator�s role was external to the project and was not drawn on as a resource for relationship building across stakeholders. Where participatory evaluation processes were utilised, project relationships were strengthened. It was evident that whanaungatanga links were critical to the relationships forming the Mäori-specific projects. The projects were enhanced when these existing networks of relationships were acknowledged as legitimate communication tools that provide meaningful social interaction at both a formal and an informal level. It is clear from the Mäori-specific as well as the other projects that it is important to identify who needs to be communicated with and what the representation and mandate issues are. For Mäori, the process of engagement in a shared investment is by way of a team approach. It must be interactive and �kanohi ki te kanohi� (face to face). Such protocols provide a process to clarify the proposed roles, responsibilities and expectations between the agency and funder at the outset, foster closer links, and enhance relationships. It also appeared to be useful if common understandings about the tikanga basis of the project and strong relationships were forged prior to entering into the contractual arrangement. If the vision and control were to be with the community, then local values and evidence needed to be drawn on. The word �partnership�, although commonly used, has a range of meanings, understandings and practices and is generally not modelled well. It is clear that agencies need to acknowledge the power inequalities that may exist in �partnerships� and demonstrate true relationship building and active support so that development can be enhanced. The notion of partnership requires negotiating roles and responsibilities at the outset, as well as a commitment to regular and ongoing communication.


Project relationships with funders ... sometimes that relationship can involve frequent visits and quite a hands on involvement; maybe the advisor sits in on all board meetings and participates actively. In other cases the worker and the agency are strong and skilled enough that they don�t really need that and so the advisor takes on more of a monitoring function but the monitoring function is certainly half of the role in all cases at least, making sure the project is delivering appropriately objectives that we have funded for. (Interview − funding official)

The relationship between funding agencies and community organisations was recognised as crucial in supporting the community action project. However, all projects other than the Pacific projects acknowledged difficulties in this relationship and called for greater emphasis to be placed on establishing a good relationship between funding agencies and community organisations that would enable each to work alongside the other for the benefit of the community.

The philosophy we have as a funding team ... is focused on developing and maintaining functional working relationships. So it is relationship based. It is not really about developing clear frameworks or indicators or guidelines, that can be a bit removed from the reality of community processes ... Our key role is to get the resource to where it can best make the difference. (Interview � funding official)

A range of methods − from meetings, to surveys, to informal conversations − was used to build this relationship from the outset of the project. Time and activities were planned to assist this relationship building. Project teams found that people needed to be approached in their own spaces and in ways that connected to the work they were already doing. They also acknowledged past relationships or shared history and were realistic about what each party could offer to the project. Relationships with government agencies broke down when the project members began to feel they were not being listened to or felt there was a one-way conversation going on. Across the projects there was a growing wariness of being consulted or researched �yet again�. Consultation and research were often found to be extractive, and the agencies involved rarely informed the project members how their ideas and stories had ended up being used and why certain outcomes of the research or consultation were reached. When members of the project team had established relationships with funding officials from past work experience or projects, the relationship with the funding agency was enhanced. However, when project members did not know how best to approach agencies and what kind of support they could expect from them it presented a barrier. In some cases this lack of knowledge meant that energy was put into hosting meetings with officials whose work areas were not aligned to the projects. It was notable that the three Pacific projects perceived their relationships with their funders as positive. However, in each case there was a strong pre-existing relationship with the funder through a history of contracting for other services, or through key individuals in the Pacific organisation who had pre-existing relationships with the funding agency. Another barrier to building a supportive relationship with funding agencies was the perceived lack of interest the government officials had in the day-to-day realities of the project. A common wish was for the funding official to visit the project site and actually spend a small amount of time experiencing first hand what the project was attempting to do. Regular meetings enhanced the funding relationship. These involved members of the project team meeting with the umbrella organisation and the funding agency (and, for some projects, the evaluator) to talk about progress and to re-clarify expectations and communication lines.


Funder participation in project meetings We want the flow of information from agencies ... to have a dedicated time to hear what the agencies are doing, just focus on that and not the other intercommunity stuff. Although then that cuts the agencies out of hearing what is going on there ... They stopped coming, they got sick of coming because it wasn�t focused enough for them. They didn�t want to hear community debating and the other stuff [discussions round the purpose and identity of the group]. (Interview − project member)

The participation of agency officials in project meetings was encouraged in many of the projects and was found to be a useful way of keeping up to date with agency personnel as well as the work the agencies were engaged with. Issues arose with this because the officials found the meetings required a lot of after work time and were not always productive for them. This meant that attendance from officials dropped off. Official participation appeared to be a useful strategy at the beginning of the project, but later other ways of maintaining communication needed to be found. The direct involvement of agency officials in the project meetings also raised questions about the role of the officials, and the level of independence the project needed from the stakeholder organisations. Creating an opportunity for the funding official to see the project in operation was identified as a key stepping stone towards building a relationship of trust and creating strong grounds for the project members to be able to explain their work and negotiate ways of measuring success. It is clear that government departments require a certain level of capacity in order to be able to engage adequately in relationship building. Often the work demands on the officials meant that they did not have the time to travel and meet the project members on a regular basis.

So [the government official] was really pushed I think. She had all of her other clients, plus she had to pick up the [X] clients as well ... The best help that [the government official] could give us was to make suggestions about what our [funding application] should look like; she gave some examples to go off. She couldn�t give us three days of her time to sit down and explain what the policies were. (Interview � project member)

Building participation in the project

Figure 5: Students participating in the TAIERI Project


Transparent structures It is desirable to have structures that enable participation and transparent communication across the evaluators, funders and community group members as well as with other community organisations and projects. This was particularly important when the project involved significant leadership from one government agency. Transparent structures and practices that encouraged participation were necessary to ensure ownership of the project by other stakeholders. It was also seen to be important to ensure a diversity of perspectives and levels of participation.

Philosophies of participation Community participation was enhanced when there were high levels of accountability to the community. In these cases the aim of community participation was not that it would be �good for the community�, but because the project was accountable to the community. It was obliged, therefore, to find ways of communicating with various people and organisations what it was doing and why, and to attempt to involve these people as strategically as possible in the development of the project. It was also evident that when the project members remained consistent in their focus on community accountability, the funding organisation eventually understood the importance of that perspective. For some of the projects, enhancing the voice of the community was a specific objective. The structures and practices all had the aim of building participation as well as creating communication avenues to increase dialogue and debate, especially with sectors not usually heard. Stipulating this as an objective was an important first step in ensuring it occurred. These projects utilised a variety of methods for communication. In the Pacific projects, community participation was simply a given as the project workers perceived themselves as part of the communities they were working with. One of the challenges in Pacific projects, however, is to engage Pacific people across the different Pacific communities. Having workers representative of the different Pacific groups within a single organisation enhances a project�s potential to reach across the different communities. The success of the Gardening Project�s gardening competition is worth highlighting as it drew people from all Pacific ethnic groups, although the community garden was less inclusive. Individuals with the capacity to work across and be acceptable to the different Pacific communities are rare, which poses an enormous challenge for Pacific projects funded as pan-Pacific projects.

Consultation Often projects can take a while ... to get a foundation. With some of the projects, we�ve supported them to do a full community consultation and I think it�s an excellent model. But all you�ve got to show for it six months later is that you�ve talked to people and figured out what they want for their community. (Interview � funding official)

A number of projects were enhanced by the practice of continuous consultation with various stakeholders, as when the consultation was undertaken by both the funder and the provider. One-off consultation was found to be inadequate for identifying community needs and did not build the necessary relationships to sustain a community action project. In some instances initial consultation by the funder with the community took place, but this was not followed up by further consultation as the project developed. The quality of consultation became an issue when the government agencies involved in establishing the project withdrew. In these


cases, project members without other avenues and links to agencies struggled to find ways to access the agencies again. Ongoing communication with whänau and the wider community was seen as the prime accountability mechanism for Mäori projects. In addition to acknowledging what was perceived as working well, community feedback identified what was not working and provided information on which to base strategy changes. These were often the �hard calls� that required people to think more strategically about long-term benefits. There was a high level of expectation. Communities expected to see some tangible change, and this had to be balanced with the many intangible aspects of community development.

Figure 6: He Rangihou New Day Project of Opotiki Safer Communities Council

Networking Projects were enhanced when the development and use of effective networking opportunities and skills were planned as an integral part of the project. Networking was often used as a way of seeking information and support, as well as a means to raise the profile of the project and tell the story of the project. In some cases the networking or consultation relationship was formalised by establishing formal partnerships with advisory or umbrella organisations. This enhanced projects when the roles and responsibilities were clarified and each party understood the vision of the project and how they could contribute. Participation in the consultation processes of various government sectors helped to build knowledge of various government agencies, but was often found to be a frustrating exercise due to little follow-up or information sharing received back from the government agencies involved. The multi-stakeholder nature of some of the projects presented challenges for the project members, who had to deal with a number of government agencies and their different agendas, reporting requirements and organisational structures.


Creating the project structure It takes a lot of time to get the right people excited about the project and part of a management structure. It takes an equally long time to get consensus about how that structure might operate and how it relates to the co-ordinator and how it relates to the contract holder, how it relates to community and how it represents community, and so on ... I think in some ways some of the projects that have taken the longest amount of time have ended up being the best, which might suggest that that is a key part of the development. (Interview � funding official)

The 10 projects provide a broad range of examples of possible project structures for community action projects. The Moerewa Project and Tracker Programme were developed by a pre-existing trust. The TAIERI Project involved the creation of a trust, and the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project led to the creation of an incorporated society. The Rough Cut Project, Pasifika Healthcare Gardening Project and the He Rangihou New Day Project were all overseen by an umbrella organisation. A community organisation provided this role for the Rough Cut and Gardening projects. For the He Rangihou New Day Project, the Opotiki Safer Communities Council (a semi-autonomous body linked to the district council) provided the umbrella structure. The Peaceful Waves and the Christchurch Youth projects were both overseen by a central or local government agency, while the PACIFICA project was an internal project for PACIFICA members.

Committees Before there was even any funding application there were representatives elected from each of the stakeholder groups to try and figure out how they could get a wider partnership with the University, so that information sharing could happen ... There are trustees and then there is a management group ... So everyone works together to help me with implementing work plans and [in] deciding our direction. So it just widens it out a bit. (Interview − project co-ordinator)

Some form of advisory or steering committee (involving representatives from various stakeholder organisations) was established for the Rough Cut, He Rangihou New Day, Christchurch Youth, Whaingaroa Catchment Management and TAIERI projects. Notably, both the Rough Cut and Christchurch Youth projects undertook a rethinking of the role of the advisory or steering committee and resolved to remove this layer in the structure. In each of these cases the roles and responsibilities of the committees had not been clearly established, and the resulting boundary crossing into the management (as opposed to governance) of the project had created difficulties for the project staff. In these two cases the dissolving of the advisory/steering committees raised issues about what community representative participation there should be in the project structure. In the Christchurch case, the dissolution of the steering committee led to the formation of a formal partnership between the Council and the Police, which was a major developmental step that shaped the philosophy, administration, structure and direction of the project.

Paid co-ordinators Almost all the projects saw paid project co-ordinators as critically important in building the project and establishing its continuity across the complex network of relationships. This role included administration, as well as giving the project a face and profile. The relationships the co-ordinator formed with project participants, other community organisations, the evaluator and funding officials was seen to have a significant impact on the project�s development. Whenever the position was not filled, the members experienced difficulty sustaining the project, as volunteers, communication and work processes broke down and the project


suffered. Difficulties were also experienced when the project co-ordinator changed. Some projects had begun to develop ways of managing this transition, but most regarded it as a challenge they were yet to find adequate ways of addressing. The skills the project co-ordinator brought to the project were important, as was the support structure for supervising and training the co-ordinator. Few projects were able to offer clear professional development opportunities for their co-ordinators, but most provided some form of advisory or supervisory support. In some cases the evaluation researcher played an important role, supporting the development of the co-ordinator�s skills. For the Tracker Programme the decision not to have a paid co-ordinator reflected the fact that it was a whänau-based project, to which all whänau members were contributing, so it was deemed inappropriate to have one paid worker.

Umbrella or fund-holding organisations For some of the projects, skilled leadership from an umbrella organisation was an important asset. It was beneficial to the projects to have people with broad experience and good networks. For the Whaingaroa Catchment Management and Rough Cut projects the umbrella or fund-holding organisation was in place as a developmental step to help the project to get off the ground, with the aim of dissolving the relationship once the project had established the capacity to manage the funds and administration itself.

You�ve just got to deal with integrity and honesty and be up front and just have to be open all the way through. Transference to bureaucracy, that�s a problem I think, because it� s public money; there is some accountability and as I mentioned before the group didn�t want to get involved in becoming a trust first off and employing a co-ordinator themselves and that is why we have taken on that role ... It is definitely multiple accountability, because the way I see it, accountability for the administration of the funds is with us here... but the governance of the work that is done, is [with] a group of stakeholders. (Interview − fund-holding representative)

The umbrella organisation enhanced projects when it provided mentoring and links to other community organisations. This role enabled the creation of continuity of knowledge and support throughout the course of the project. Where this relationship was formed through formal partnerships between local government and central government agencies, a medium-term (three to five years) funding commitment to the project was more likely, as well as clear structures for communication and accountability. The Gardening Project operated from within Pasifika Healthcare, which was critical to its survival because of the resources it could draw on and the support of the community team members from the different Pacific communities. The health-promoting aspects of the Gardening Project − such as nutrition, exercise and children�s wellbeing − complemented other community programmes undertaken by the Community Health Team, thereby justifying innovative approaches in the provision of ongoing organisation support for the project. Issues arose when the roles, responsibilities and boundaries for each organisation were not clear. There was particular concern when issues of representation, governance and management were not clarified, resulting in the umbrella or fund-holding organisation either becoming non-productive or, in the other extreme, too involved in the day-to-day running of the project.


Negotiating visions and planning You can�t as a funder be prescriptive ... apart from the process. I think it is OK in terms of accountability to have clear process guidelines or objectives, time frames ... you tend to have to be prepared to give it a bit of slack if there is slippage and there inevitably is slippage. So you can�t be prescriptive, you have to be patient and just trust the process. (Interview − funding official)

A critical factor in the success of the project was the way in which funding organisations engaged with community groups through a community action project and the way they operated in this relationship. Concerns were raised that sometimes it was the funding that dictated project direction rather than the need, relevance or aspirations of the community. Without a negotiated process, this changed the focus of what the group had set out to do and could be seen as having set the project up to fail. The fear of moving away from the kaupapa of an organisation based on strong tikanga Mäori systems is a tension that groups grapple with constantly, and it is difficult to reconcile. For example, the isolated �issue� approach generally taken to address community concerns does not fit well with Mäori who work from a holistic perspective on collective issues. The funding relationship and the project were enhanced when the funding organisation could engage right from the outset through processes of clear and organised communication. An initial hurdle for almost all the projects was to reconcile being granted less money than originally expected to do the work planned. This was in part due to unrealistic expectations. In addition, many of the projects found there was little opportunity for negotiating − or they did not have the skills to negotiate effectively − the terms and conditions of the contract that spelt out exactly what work would be undertaken. However, the presence and ability of a funding official to act as an intermediary and provide support and information led to the creation of more realistic and successful contracts. Honesty about expectations and the resources available to be committed to the project were found to be critical factors in the negotiation process. A common experience across projects initiated by a government agency was that the community�s expectations of the role the government officials would play were not met. In other projects the government officials involved recognised that there were unrealistic expectations in the community about what the agency could support and its level of participation.

A shared vision across all stakeholders For anybody looking in the window who was of a more actionary frame of mind it [creating a mission statement] would have been unthinkable. At the time I was feeling fairly tortured about it myself, but in hindsight I have to admit begrudgingly that it has made the group a strong group in terms of knowing who it is and what it is about, when its niche is really not that well defined. So that was probably necessary. (Interview � project member)

Developing a shared vision early in the project enabled some of the groups to establish the boundaries of their work and identify the type of funding relationship they were prepared to take on. For some, this position only developed later in the project once challenges had arisen, as when the original vision was lost or when the workload became unmanageable. In one instance, differing visions for the project were overcome with an action that drew on the power and authority of the funding stakeholders and excluded the dissonant voices. While this action clarified the purpose of the project, it had a detrimental effect on community relationships. However, the long-term efficacy of the project vindicated the changes to some extent. Projects that continued operating (even at a reduced level) between funding


contracts had a strong long-term vision as well as people who were fully committed to creating and maintaining the vision.

Negotiating funding timeframes Another element that was seen to be critical to community action projects was the length of time the funding is offered and opportunities for funding to be continued. Comments were consistently made that social change takes a long time, and the Government needs to be able to commit to projects beyond a three-year political cycle. Funding agencies being able to commit to medium- and long-term funding timeframes was seen as a key factor in enhancing community action projects. The nature of the community issues being addressed entails a realistic timeframe for outcomes from interventions to become apparent.

Planning Planning was another area that projects either identified as being an enhancer or a barrier. Some projects acknowledged that opportunities needed to be created at the outset for discussions to identify clear boundaries for work and the involvement of stakeholders, and to clarify visions and expectations of roles and responsibilities. However, some informants noted that their project continually tried to balance just getting on with the work, taking action and stopping to reflect and plan. Others discussed how important it was to plan tangible outputs relatively quickly, alongside the slower, more long-term strategies, so that people could gain some sense of achievement early in the project. For the research-focused projects it was important to develop a culture of setting measurable objectives for change. Planning processes also helped Mäori providers with change. For example, the projects in Mäori communities began informally with whänau helping whänau to make change, but as planning processes developed and were eventually implemented in a staged way, the projects had a clearly identified kaupapa and became more manageable. When the funding organisation developed the project plans alongside community organisations (and in some cases the evaluator), a shared vision of the project could be built. There was commitment across all the stakeholders to the plans and communication processes. Projects were enhanced when funding was set aside for the start-up stage of scoping the project, consulting widely and creating participation in the project�s long-term planning. One barrier identified was when the initial planning did not address how the completion of the project would be managed when funding ceased or was transferred to another source. The participation of funding agencies in planning, reflection and evaluation processes enabled projects to establish common understanding across stakeholders. It is clear that the projects that developed structured reflection practices were better able to instigate well-planned actions and undertake a degree of organisational learning.

Creating activities I think that in the first year you have to be very clear that it was nothing but just serving people. Serving is not a very trendy word any more, but it was nothing but just mahi and talk with kids and just basically there is no political stuff, there is just hard out work with families, work with young people. (Interview − project co-ordinator)


Finding a balance between getting on with doing the work versus strategic planning was identified as a challenge in some of the projects. In one project, onlookers thought members spent too much time meeting and discussing issues and not enough �doing�. In another project they were challenged that they had not planned their work carefully enough. In another, the workload rapidly increased beyond the capacity of the project and members soon faced burnout. Ensuring there was some visibility of the project was a concern for some, and this was addressed by planning tangible outputs that could be realised early in the project�s development.

Figure 7: Whaingaroa Environment Centre members in action

Summary Projects were enhanced when the funding organisation acted as a partner committed to achieving the outcomes of the project. Opportunities to negotiate the funding contract and objectives enabled closer matching of community organisation philosophies and practices with those of the funding organisation. The presence of an umbrella or fund-holding organisation, a community development worker or a researcher/evaluator often enabled the translation of knowledge between the funding organisation and the project members. It also enhanced networking and collegial support of the project. Projects were limited by short-term funding, and by reporting mechanisms that did not enable critical reflection or the telling of the project�s story. An additional challenge projects faced was that of balancing long-term planning and strategy development with short-term action to give a project a profile within the community.


2 Lessons learnt: consolidation of projects

A co-ordination perspective It is about a group of people, nothing else, a group of committed people with integrity, with honesty, with kaupapa, that are able to go there, do the job and still be standing. Honestly, you see a lot of places where arguments go down, a lot of groups and organisations where everybody splits up and they fall apart. When you go into an environment where people are passionate about this stuff, but are willing to stay at the table to see the process through, that is the goal. That will be a community that will change; that will be an organisation that will go somewhere.


A perspective on the role of research A I think one of the other things that perhaps we haven�t touched on specifically, is your

[the researcher�s] role in all of this. And on the survey − it has provided a focal point and some co-ordination. I can�t say that I feel that we would have all have got together like this, without such a project going on. Do you think that?

B Oh, I think it�s brilliant.

C I just don�t think it would have happened. We might have talked around it, but to have someone come on from outside with an overview has been a positive thing in my view.

B And for their point of view to be neutral.

A Yup.

B I think if anyone had come to our group from the area it wouldn�t have been really good.

D That was the point I was trying to make. We were headed down the track where the strongest group was going to take ownership of that, and to a large degree that has been broken down by this whole exercise.

(CRG evaluation, Upper Catchment meeting, June 2001) From Parkes, 2003:16 (participant codes adapted with author�s permission).

A funding perspective Well my relationship with projects is through the advisors and the best case would be that I don�t contact the project directly, that I work through the advisor. I might visit the project with the advisor and together work out new objectives that seem consistent with the scheme, whichever scheme the project�s funded under and then I will make recommendations to the General Manager. It�s not without problems in itself because sometimes it has been known for projects to play the advisor off against the department.



Introduction Projects began to consolidate once people had started working together and formed some sort of process and structure. The consolidation phase involved identifying skills and information that was required to make the desired changes, as well as continuing to build interest and participation in the project. Through the visioning sessions and by working out how people wanted to work together, a project culture evolved. In addition to accessing adequate resources to undertake the work required, it was the commitment and passion of the project people that appeared to be critical to the project�s sustainability. A core aspect of building project culture was the management of conflict. Crises were most often catalysts for adaptation and acted to strengthen project relationships as well as providing opportunities to bring in external expertise.

Developing skills A few of the projects had access to people who were knowledgeable about community development. This greatly enhanced the projects, particularly where knowledge and skills were transferred and critical reflection was implemented. The other projects relied on the passion and gut feelings of their members who, over time, created their own understanding of community-based work through trial and error. Few of the projects had funding available for project members to undertake training and professional development. Some accessed mentoring through umbrella organisations, and this was seen to be an important way of understanding the relationship between the project and other community projects as well as adding to the historical significance of the project. Developing the skills of the advisory committee was a priority for some projects, while others drew on a committee structure for upskilling the project workers.

Access to people with community development knowledge and skills There is evidence across the projects that those who had access to people with community development expertise were better able to find ways of asserting the importance and legitimacy of their projects, both to the wider community and to government agencies. In particular, the presence of a committed and skilled advocate for the project within the funding organisation was highly beneficial. These officials were experienced in community-based work and made the time to share their knowledge. Often this person sat in a policy or advisory role and kept in touch with the project members throughout the course of the project, and acted as a communication link to those that made the funding decisions. They had the ability to translate between the culture of the funding agency and the community organisations involved in the project. Projects also benefited from the consistency of the relationship, and the knowledge and understanding that were maintained within the funding organisation. In other projects community development expertise was accessed from an umbrella organisation or the evaluator.

Developing project culture The development of a clear kaupapa and/or philosophical/value basis for decision-making was a key component that influenced the course of all the projects in this study. For Mäori- and Pacific-specific projects there was a common approach taken that culture is more than a given − it is a strength and an important part of the identity of the project.


The development of project culture was assisted by focused planning sessions that clarified the objectives of the project and developed strategies for implementation. In the TAIERI Project and the He Rangihou New Day Project the researcher provided important data from which to identify needs and best practices for achieving the project�s objectives. Documented planning processes enabled the project members to clearly communicate the development of the project with the funder and provided an opportunity to involve the funder in the process. The creation of documented strategic plans also enabled some of the projects to raise their profile and access additional resources from other government agencies.

Sharing project experiences A significant point in the life of the groups was when they realised the importance of sharing their strategies with each other. The groups identified similar points of change when they shared ideas and developed ways of working together effectively. This involved a range of tools within and across the groups, such as story telling, reviews and tours of the area. This sharing enabled some of the groups to develop analysis and understanding of cultural and ethnicity factors they were working with, and for all the groups this sharing helped to build identity and relationships. To varying degrees this sharing and identity-forming process involved negotiating the right time to take action, building trust in the members and in the group process. Lines of communication were established and assumptions that everyone had the same agenda or understanding of the issues were also broken down.

Formalising the culture through policies The development of policies and protocols was an important step towards creating ways of operating and forming the project culture for the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project, PACIFICA, the Tracker Programme, the TAIERI Project and the Moerewa Project. For the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project it was a transitional time, because the Whaingaroa Environment group made the decision to formalise and move away from being the informal network some members had envisioned. For PACIFICA it was a necessary step to get them out of a crisis situation. For the Tracker Programme the catalyst for policy development came from a challenge from their funder, although the group already had processes in place based on tikanga:

We talk about policies keeping us on the straight and narrow and that, tikanga actually does that for us, it is built into us our policy mechanism. Our policies reflect what we know ... (Interview � project co-ordinator)

For two of the projects, a key lesson was the need to develop organisational procedures at the start that identified risks and safety issues in the project, as well as planning for the management of these. Both of these projects had been running for a couple of years before project co-ordinators realised the importance of establishing ways of dealing with issues of conflict or safety. These projects were formed around the passions and skills of people in an attempt to help the young people in their communities. They experienced hurdles that could have been reduced if greater support had been offered from their funding organisations at the preparation stage. In effect, this would have supported the capacity building of the project team in order to be able to meet the organisational requirements of the funders to be both accountable and operate safely.


Developing a shared vision was particularly important for Peaceful Waves / Matangi Malie, as inclusion in the team required a commitment to �no hitting�. This policy arose after an attempt to collaborate with another Pacific non-violence project only to discover they supported smacking and were therefore not an appropriate project partner. Having worked through the �no hitting� issue, developing a policy was seen to define and give strength to the project team�s vision. Team membership implied a strong commitment to this vision.

Managing conflict In all of our funding agreements there are a few clauses about conflict. They say something like in the event of a conflict we�ll attempt to resolve the issue between us and in the event that we are not able to resolve the conflict then an independent mediator will be brought in and failing any resolution the General Manager makes the final decision. (Interview � funding official)

Another significant moment in the life of the projects was when groups found ways to manage conflict and collectively deal with challenges. Times of challenge and crisis could potentially have ended the projects. In the cases where the challenges were overcome the result was a strengthening and refocusing of the project. Most often crises led to a strengthening of the identity and purpose of the project and the commitment of its members. Where major areas of conflict remained unresolved, the profile of the project suffered because potential opportunities for learning and project development were not grasped. In such cases sometimes it was useful to bring in an external person with a commitment to the vision of the project to help facilitate a process of resolution. In this way times of crisis and conflict also became opportunities for building the project�s support base.

Accessing resources Resource issues were raised regarding the extent to which the funding covered the core administration costs and/or the costs for specific activities. Assumptions were made in funding some of the projects that there was an existing level of infrastructure, whereas the reality for some groups was that there were virtually no available resources, because prior to funding groups had been functioning in a voluntary capacity. It was evident that lack of transparency about how funding resources were allocated and administered inhibited some of the projects from building wider participation in the project. This included the need for clarification about how funding for evaluation related to the core project funding. Forming collaborative arrangements enabled some projects to access resources �in kind�. In some cases when stakeholder organisations did not have direct funding available for the project they assisted by providing administrative assistance or free rent for the project office. This was particularly useful in the start-up phase of the projects. Understandably, significant developmental changes occurred across all the projects when resources either increased or decreased. Support from an umbrella organisation or evaluator was found to enhance the opportunities for projects to access funding in addition to the core grant, and also to secure a second round of funding when the first ended. The projects that had developed a clear structure and planning process as well as identified ways of measuring change appeared to have less of a struggle accessing funds.


For some of the projects, creating employment opportunities for community members was an important aspect and opportunities were sought to up-skill a local person to do the work, over and above contracting in someone from outside the area. Another practice was to renegotiate funding contracts when the original purpose was seen to be no longer the best way of using the funds. Having the time to build the resource base from the start − including people, skills, information and funding, plus identifying early on where additional resources might be needed during project development − was acknowledged across the projects to be desirable. This was especially important for projects developing from a �voluntary� status. It was also noted across the projects that there was a reliance on whänau in a voluntary capacity. Operating with transparency was identified as important for all the projects. Transparency allowed for enhanced communication and the building of trust, as well as enabling opportunities for participation and engagement with the project.

Developing knowledge Developing the knowledge base of the project members and the wider group of stakeholders about community development practices, historical, cultural and contextual issues, research practices as well as the people and resources available was seen to be a critical part of all the projects. Developing the skills of volunteers who were then able to train others was another strategy used. Understanding the importance of process and evolving strategies was a key lesson for some of the projects, although it was considered to be a barrier in the development of others. For the Moerewa Project, creating their own model of community development was a critical aspect. A key aspect of this was an emphasis on upskilling the wider community as well as the core members of the project. The importance of developing a historical understanding of the issues and their relevance to their community was significant. Some of the projects were enhanced by developing conflict resolution skills. Peaceful Waves / Matangi Malie reframed mainstream knowledge in a Pacific context when they developed their programme from other non-violence education programmes. By contrast, the Gardening Project reactivated old knowledge by encouraging Pacific people to transfer their skills and experience of gardening into a new urban context.

Evaluation Six of the projects in this meta-analysis (Rough Cut Project, Christchurch Youth Project, TAIERI Project, Tracker Programme, Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project and He Rangihou New Day Project) used evaluation as a means of gathering information and building knowledge about the project (see Appendix 2 for an overview of evaluations). The evaluations range from highly participatory to non-participatory. Participation refers to the extent of involvement the stakeholders of the project had in designing and implementing the evaluation. All but two of the evaluations were undertaken by an evaluator who was external to the project (ie, was not a project member or involved with the direct operations of the project).

How do you evaluate a change of attitude, how do you get it to the government thing, how do you measure it in their sense? We just know as Mäori, as whänau that these kids were changing, and changing for the better. (Interview − project member)


Purpose of the evaluation Five of the projects used evaluations to examine the processes used to develop the project as well as the impacts of the project on the wider community. The evaluation for the He Rangihou New Day Project was used to assist the development of the project from the outset through the provision of research and planning. Evaluation in the TAIERI Project (or, more appropriately, its foundation Taieri Catchment and Community Health [TC&CH] project) was ongoing through the reflection practices of the community-oriented participatory action research (COPAR) process. A specific process and impact evaluation was undertaken by the lead researcher to examine the transition of the TC&CH project from a research-led project to the community-led TAIERI Project.

In a lot of cases all you can look at is process. The outcomes take 20 or 30 years before we know whether they�re going to work. A lot of people say, hey what have you done, but it is only when you look back 10 years, and you realise what it was like, or 20 years, you think, hey we�ve come a long way. But it is big time scales, when we�re talking environmental stuff. So really when you�re reviewing it, you can only look at it as �are things set in process are they on the way?� (Interview − funding official)

Contracting the evaluation External evaluators were used for the Tracker Programme and Christchurch Project. In the case of the Rough Cut Project, the evaluator was external but employed by the funding agency. The evaluator for the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project had participated as a representative from a stakeholder organisation and then took on the role of evaluator. The TAIERI Project (in its foundational form as the TC&CH project) incorporated research as a central element. The He Rangihou New Day Project was one of several linked projects. The evaluator, employed by an academic institution, was external but through a formative evaluation process played a central role in the project�s establishment and planning phases. For these latter projects the incorporation of research and evaluation as central elements meant that the negotiation of the evaluation objectives and processes occurred as part of the ongoing discussion on the project�s objectives and processes. There was less negotiation of the evaluation process with participants in the other projects. This reflects the purpose for which the evaluation was contracted, and also the funding allocated to the evaluation. In some of the projects concern was expressed about the ownership of evaluations and information gathered through the evaluation process. It is apparent that a number of the groups did not respect the evaluation process as set by their funding agency and did not feel able to negotiate a process that could meet both the funder�s needs and the information needs of the project. Where negotiation did occur, a major point of tension was an assumption that the evaluation would be owned exclusively by the agency that funded it. This raised issues of intellectual property rights for the community organisations involved in the negotiations in terms of retaining control over the resources they had developed. They expected to have some input into how the practices and knowledge they had developed were shared beyond the project. Where the community organisations participated in the contracting process for the evaluation, the extent to which they had developed their autonomy greatly influenced the contracting process − and the eventual evaluation. Community organisations required negotiation skills, an understanding of what was possible, and an ability to communicate their philosophical basis. Participating in discussions about the evaluation approach and objectives appeared to increase the potential for the project to view the evaluation as helpful to the project, and for the findings to influence project processes and planning procedures.


Methods of evaluation As discussed earlier, the evaluation approaches and data-gathering methods used varied widely in the seven projects that had been formally evaluated. The evaluation approach, purpose and methods adopted for the projects is summarised in Appendix 2. The TC&CH project (the foundation of the TAIERI Project) undertook a range of formal evaluative activities throughout the course of the project. These included a systematic appraisal of the COPAR methodology using participatory monitoring and evaluation criteria, a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) of the transitional period, and a community reference group evaluation. The Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project used group discussions and individual semi-structured interviews to examine the process of developing the project and to monitor the extent to which objectives had been achieved. An internal evaluation was also undertaken by the fund-holding organisation for the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project, as well as an external evaluation of the community engagement process. The Rough Cut Project used an evaluator from the funding organisation, who collated yearly funding reports and undertook face-to-face interviews as part of a broader review of the Community Based Youth Development Fund evaluation. The evaluation of the Christchurch Youth Project was undertaken by an independent evaluation contractor external to the project. Evaluative data was gathered through interviews with staff and key stakeholders. The He Rangihou New Day Project�s formative evaluation involved regular contact with the project through organised planning and networking hui, as well as individual contact with the project workers. A web site was used for discussion, information dissemination and report writing. The impact evaluation involved interviews with project workers and other key stakeholders. The Tracker Programme evaluators visited the project five times over two years, spending two full days there each time. These visits were used to undertake interviews with staff and to become familiar with the project. Stakeholders from government agencies were also interviewed. The evaluation processes were influenced by the wide range of understanding about what the evaluation would or could achieve, which meant that people engaged with the evaluations from a number of positions. In some cases the community project members did not participate in setting the evaluation objectives, and were evaluated against prescribed indicators which they did not believe fitted their kaupapa or project philosophy. This resulted in a resistance to openly sharing information or engaging in constructive reflection on the project. This was also the case when evaluations were not designed to examine the intangible as well as the tangible benefits. Few of the evaluations provided a means of reflecting on the development of the project and planning future actions. Issues arose in one of the projects when the major group of people the project was working with changed, making the pre-measures gathered as a baseline for the evaluation no longer valid. The evaluator managed this change by reframing the evaluation as snapshots of the project at two different time periods. A number of the projects were located in rural areas some distance from where the evaluators were located. Of necessity, in these situations the evaluations were undertaken through more intermittent contact between the evaluators and the project workers.


Roles of the evaluators As far as [the project] was concerned I was their face of [the funder]. This made it very difficult because individuals expected me to influence [the funder]. While I was able to do this it compromised the integrity of the evaluation to some degree as I was effectively impacting on the process and outcomes involved. On the other hand, if I did not help, trust between myself and the project staff was compromised and this affected the evaluation in other ways. I think that the main lesson was to specify roles from the outset and to ensure that both agencies were committed to fulfilling their responsibilities to each other. (Interview − evaluator)

As revealed in this quote, the evaluator had significant influence on the development of some of the projects. The role of the evaluator/researcher in the He Rangihou New Day Project and the TC&CH project was of critical friend, enabling critical reflection of the activities being planned as well as of the processes being used. These researchers/evaluators also took on the role of disseminating relevant information to project participants to inform the decision-making. They helped design the research required to evaluate the changes the projects were making, and assisted in raising the profile of the project by legitimating the work of the project and communicating it to a wider audience, including policy officials. The Department of Internal Affairs evaluator for the Rough Cut Project was seen by community representatives as playing a supportive role, particularly in liaising between the funding organisation and the project co-ordinators over issues faced by the project. A challenge mentioned by a number of evaluators was managing the initial suspicion project workers and community people had about the purpose of the evaluation. In some instances the evaluator was seen as a watchdog from the funding agency:

I think that evaluations will suffer if the same person who hands out the money is the one who collects the data. The evaluation highlighted the fact that many of the problems faced by the agency were due to a lack of support at the [funder] end. I doubt that someone who is responsible for that support will be as realistically critical of their own performance. (Interview − evaluator)

Evaluation work that built understandings across all stakeholders greatly enhanced the project. This included taking into account the context in which each organisation was working, limitations and expectations, and the philosophies each brought to the issues at hand. This practice was possible when the evaluator was brought into the project early enough to support the relationship-building process:

I want to see people heading off in the right direction, with the right information and understanding and support. So formative evaluation to me is just critical, absolutely critical, particularly for new projects, and for community action and community development projects. Why bother measuring the impact of something if you haven�t set it up to be successful to begin with? (Interview− funding official)

The project was also enhanced when the evaluator and project participants were able to talk openly and frankly about the role of the evaluator, the purpose of the evaluation and the possible implications of the evaluation process. A key aspect of relationship building through evaluation was to ensure that the project would be enhanced by the evaluation and that it was not an extractive exercise. Thus the evaluators needed to be able to identify what would assist the project as well as meet the funder�s need for an evaluative account of the project�s progress and impacts.


While there were examples of evaluators facilitating links between the project they were evaluating and other like projects, it was not common. Contact with other projects that were part of the same programme was specifically budgeted for as part of the evaluation for the He Rangihou New Day Project. Such contacts were perceived positively by all parties. They were seen to provide support, knowledge of successful and unsuccessful strategies, as well as opportunities to tell the project�s story to wider audiences. Projects were enhanced when the evaluator was able to act as a conduit for translating knowledge between stakeholders. In some cases the evaluator was able to mediate demands from funding agencies with those from the project members to ensure developmental processes were utilised and organisational learning undertaken across the stakeholders. In one case the evaluator found him/herself in the difficult position of being the only person who had an overview of the project due to a lack of communication between the various stakeholders with an interest in the project. This meant people were seeking information from the evaluator about what the other stakeholders were doing. In most cases where the evaluation had not been designed to inform the development of the project it was seen by project members to be an external activity that had no relevance to the work of the project:

... it was just something that was going along in parallel, even the workers, the people involved in delivering the services weren�t that interested because they had so many other things to worry about, they probably realised that nobody was paying attention to what was in the evaluation anyway ... I think the key factor was that the evaluation wasn�t owned by the people who actually could�ve used it. (Interview � evaluator)

Research Building knowledge of the issues at hand and strategies for addressing them through formal research practices was a central element for the TAIERI Project, the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project, the He Rangihou New Day Project and the Moerewa Project. The extent to which this component was funded varied, and therefore the role it played in the project varied too. Undertaking preliminary research and an assessment of needs in the community was identified across the projects as a factor that enhanced the project, or, where assessment was lacking, came to be a barrier. Assessment of the issues the project was being formed to address enabled some projects to develop a common understanding and ways of describing the issues. This stage also enabled some project groups to identify the political, historical and resource constraints that would impact on them. The assessment stage was important for developing an awareness of other community projects in the area. It was an opportunity to think through the implications of the planned work on the wider community and what it would mean in terms of expectations and community resources. Further research was undertaken to produce a baseline against which interventions could be measured and to increase understanding of the issues at hand. In the TAIERI Project, extensive scoping was undertaken at the start of the project to determine the most appropriate types of participants and types of participation (Parkes 2003). Community meetings generated visions, provided information and initiated a survey of residents. The survey gathered information about people�s experiences of the issues being addressed, and this information was used by the community reference group to develop strategies to address the issues. The research process also involved opportunities for stakeholder organisations to critically reflect on their roles in relation to the issues identified through the survey.


When funding was not received for the baseline research component, the researcher for the Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project incorporated some baseline research into the development of a catchment management plan. The development of the plan was not seen as a central activity of the project by some of the community group members but was the primary objective of the fund-holding organisation. As a result, participation of community members in the process of creating the plan was limited and presents a challenge for the future use of the plan by the community. The researcher fulfilled a number of roles in these projects, acting as a liaison person with government organisations, translating between stakeholder perspectives, raising the profile and legitimacy of the project with organisations and community members, and facilitating communication and project relationships. At times the researcher was a supervisor to the project co-ordinator, enabling the development of reflective practices.

Critical reflection It is clear that diverse practices were used in the projects to reflect on the activities and strategies adopted and the changes being made, as well as to inform future decision-making. Few projects specifically focused on building organised reflective practices. However, when there were reflective practices involved in the project it led to formalised documentation. Reflection processes in almost all of the projects were not necessarily planned from the outset but were informal and gained momentum and importance as the project developed. One of these more informal reflection practices was telling the story of the project. When project members had the opportunity to tell the story of the project to people outside their community they found they were forced to reflect on what they had been doing and what their motivations and analysis were. This telling of the story occurred in workshops with other community organisations, at conferences, or when funding agencies asked them to talk to other groups or agencies. This process also enabled the project members to get fresh ideas, feedback and critique from sources wider than their own community, which they could then incorporate into their work where appropriate. This was an area that some of the funding organisations and evaluators facilitated, particularly when the project was one of a number funded as part of a common programme. The networking and support opportunities gained as a result were highly valued. Another tool used by one project was a staff member keeping a journal on project activities and processes and using this as a basis for reflecting on the project:

One of the main strengths of the Rough Cut Project was its ability to learn and develop. As part of the evaluation process, the co-ordinator maintained a diary documenting group processes and progress, and the degree to which her role impacted on or was affected by these. From these records, she was able to gain an overview of the project and this contributed to the annual formation of recommendations for the next year�s course. (Department of Internal Affairs 2002:35)

Some of the more formal practices included using project meetings or meetings with wider stakeholders as a way of reflecting on the work they had been doing, and seeking feedback and suggestions for future work. Most of the projects used the reporting requirements of the funding agency as an opportunity to reflect on the progress of the project. For some, the challenge of communicating their story to a funding organisation that project members felt did not value the same aspects of the project became an opportunity to develop a project language and a way of justifying the project�s practices. In doing so the identity of the project became stronger.


The building of a project story was found to be critically important in the development of community action projects. The opportunity to name the dynamics and put a story together assisted the formation of strong relationships as well as creating an identity and profile for the project. Creating regular opportunities for telling the story allowed critical reflection to occur and the opportunity to hear feedback from people not directly involved in the project. These opportunities arose in milestone reporting, making presentations at workshops and conferences, networking opportunities and at informal gatherings and meetings. Peaceful Waves retold their story each time they ran a workshop. In a sense this helped develop their story as at each workshop participants challenged the team. This in turn precipitated reflection and refinement of the project.

Notions of success Oh we have always had difficulties with the measurement stuff ... when we had to do the six month milestone reports I would get in touch with key people who had been involved and say �just tell me about what happened ... what changes have you seen?�... and they would tell me stories about changes they had observed in attitudes and behaviour ... a lot of the changes at whänau level are harder to measure ... you have to have local measures of success. Just certain hard-core people having the project worker in their house or turning up for courses is a measure of success ... or smoking dak out of sight of the kids and taking the party outside the house into the garage. (Interview � project co-ordinator)

In every instance the task of measuring and communicating the success of a project was a challenge. There were difficulties in finding ways to express the success that project members identified and found motivating in a manner that would be understood by, and meet the needs of, the funding agency. For the funding agencies the challenge was to find ways of measuring success that went beyond the experiences of individuals to wider community impacts. The Mäori projects drew on Mäori models measured in a holistic manner that included acknowledgement of the input of whänau, hapü, iwi and marae. It was difficult to measure the intangible aspects of people�s potential being realised through positive development. Techniques used in the evaluations to assess the success of the projects included:

• assessing project performance against objectives • assessing the achievements, risks, positive and negative impacts of the project • documenting the activities and issues addressed by the project • identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the project • assessing the changes people had witnessed or experienced as a result of the project.

Few quantitative measures were used for the evaluations, and these were mainly statistics about the participants of the project or numbers of activities created. The majority of evaluations were based on project records, interviews with informants and observations of the project at work. Qualitative sources used in the evaluations included informants� narratives of the project, media coverage of the project, questionnaires, feed-back sessions and focus groups.


Summary The consolidation of projects involved a range of activities and processes that enabled the development of skills and a project culture, and managed the challenges and conflict that arose when passionate people work together to make change in their communities. Building a resource and knowledge base on matters pertinent to the various projects� objectives was critical to this phase. It is clear that projects benefited from incorporating some form of critical reflection that identified how best to address the issues at hand and how best to work together. A clear focus on building knowledge and skills for sustainable community-based work also enabled some of the projects to operate on more than a day-to-day basis and ensured stakeholder organisations could sustain their activities beyond the completion of the initial funding term. Opportunities to meet and share experiences with other community action projects were highly valued. Such meetings were seen to provide support, motivation, the chance to reflect on the project by telling the project�s story to others, and the opportunity to learn new strategies.

3 Lessons learnt: transition/completion

A research perspective At a planning hui in our last year of the evaluation, I was challenged by a highly respected kaumatua and academic that in our partner/broker role we were just hierarchical gatekeepers and shouldn�t be there but should be letting Mäori work directly with the Crown, thus being true to the Treaty of Waitangi. As the only Pakeha present at the hui it was extremely difficult for me and a very emotional time, as we (the evaluation team) felt we had really done our darndest to work according to Treaty principles. But his contention was that the structure and power dynamics of our project relationships were fatally flawed. I think the Mäori process that unfolded over the night and next day gave me a lot of confidence in the integrity of the project, [forming] bonds between the project partners and basically it brought people closer. They spoke of what the project meant to them in terms of opportunities, their ownership of what they were doing and that despite the structural flaws it was too important to try to change at that point. The ends justified the means ... on later reflection I feel even more impressed and realised it was a watershed in the maturity and development of the project overall. It epitomised sustainability. People said even if they didn�t get paid they would continue doing what they were doing. They were very committed. TRUST THE PROCESS was the catch cry of this evaluation in every way. It didn�t mean to say there wasn�t a lot of questioning and debate but working in this way as respectful partners increased everyone�s learning and capabilities. It was a very positive place to work from.

(Interview − evaluator)


A funding perspective We wouldn�t have the outcomes if they [community groups] weren�t out there doing it. But I think the Government will never be able to provide enough money for community groups nationally to deal with all the social issues. I think communities have to find voluntary capacity within themselves to deal with their own issues. We�ll never be able to support it all. With a project like [X] they had three years� funding, they did hands on work, it made a real difference to the people involved with the project. Funding stops, the project ends, two years later you would never know it was there. Maybe the participants have moved on to do great things. But for the people coming behind them the environment is still the same. So with our new model it�s about environmental change. Projects might not even work directly with the people we are targeting at all; they might just be working with other organisations to address the underlying causes of the problems we are trying to fix.


A co-ordination perspective We�re looking to develop our own kind of training, our Pacific training, and it will take time and resources as well. I think the future for us, and it�s always been on our minds, is to develop a �by Pacific for Pacific� kind of delivery. The Ministry is aware of that. However, the timeframe for funding is always for two years, 24 months. So the programme will be delivered for the next two years, and we�ll look at it after that.


Introduction In every case, continuing the project beyond the completion of its first funding round was a challenge. While financial resourcing was a primary factor, other resource issues such as energy levels of the volunteers or access to a skilled co-ordinator were also key determinants. At the completion of the funding term some of the stakeholder government agencies undertook reviews of their organisation�s participation in the project in order to assess their involvement with the project and to plan future initiatives.

Completion of the funding term In three out of the 10 cases, funding for the work ceased while the project was still seen by project participants to be in the implementation phase. This resulted in the freezing of the project until other sources of funding could be investigated, and/or restructuring the project or returning to work as volunteers. For other projects, when the term of funding concluded other sources of funding were found to see them through another two to three years. The completion of funding placed a number of the projects in the position of seeking short-term transitional funding from other stakeholder organisations. Where this did not exist, it meant relying on volunteer capacity to continue operating. In some cases evaluators and advisors from the original funding organisation helped the project members to apply for funding from other sources. It was noted that when an umbrella organisation was used as the fund holder for a project, the community�s perceptions of the withdrawal of funding needed to be managed. Careful communication was required to ensure the umbrella organisation�s wider work was not negatively implicated in the withdrawal.


Funding terms were consistently raised as a barrier to the development of projects. A three-year funding term for projects was not considered long enough to create visible social change: project members typically described the initial three years as the seeding years. Hope was expressed by most informants that community action projects in the future would be funded for a period of between five and ten years. It is important to note that not one of the four projects established as a pilot received substantial renewed funding from the agency that initiated the project after the first round of funding was completed. In some cases, additional funding was provided for a transition year. Members of these four projects (including agency staff) expressed concern that there appeared to be no commitment to planning the follow-up of the pilots. A need was identified for agencies to strategically plan long-term funding and staff support for community action projects that would extend beyond seeding or pilot projects. In order to create longer-term sustainability, some projects found ways to incorporate the work of the project into the strategic plans of the stakeholder organisations. One funder described the importance of understanding a community action project as a catalyst for building relationships and knowledge, and not necessarily as a new entity that required an indefinite period of funding. Another noted that sustainability could be created when community action projects focused on changing environments as opposed to changing individual behaviour.

Organisational change and sustainability Organisational readiness to engage collaboratively had a direct effect on the development of the community action projects. One informant reported:

I�ve got concerns about where this stands in your project. If you�re looking purely from a community development point of view and you�re one of those grassroots people who think community development is the only way to go, which some people are like, then they would see this project as a disaster. Yet I can see that it�s a success but it just happens that it has reinvented itself and become something different to what they started with, and it�s not a community action project, but that doesn�t mean that it�s not a good project in itself ... If it hadn�t started with that approach, I can�t see how the project as it stands now would ever have happened. I don�t think that they would�ve worked the way they do now, they�ve moved forward heaps, in terms of working with the community ... Maybe if something like the old project came along in a year or two, then maybe it would work now because they have moved. (Interview- evaluator)

In the case above, one of the government agencies involved as a key stakeholder did not initially operate from a community development perspective, but their worker�s involvement with the project helped to build knowledge of how developmental practices could help to address the issues at hand. As a result, the organisation was prepared to consider a more collaborative project in the future. As previously discussed, relationships and knowledge building between people and organisations were fundamental to these community action projects. In order to sustain the social changes attained through the projects, the relationships formed and knowledge built needed to be embedded in the operations of stakeholder organisations. This embedding of new forms of relationships, new practices, skills and knowledge was recognised by numerous informants as necessary, although there were few examples of this actually occurring.


Summary It was not clear in any of the projects what sustainability of the project would mean in real terms. It was evident from all the projects that organisations and individuals involved with the projects had changed, and had developed new ways of relating and/or new skills and knowledge for addressing the issues at hand. A few of the projects had been able to influence the policy agendas of participating government agencies. The projects that had prioritised and planned for multi-stakeholder collaboration had created opportunities for combined resourcing of initiatives, which opened pathways for sustaining the work of the project. It was also evident in a number of the projects that the knowledge and skills had been developed were extending beyond the project to inform the development of other community initiatives. In many cases, the relationships formed through the project were maintained through interaction on other community initiatives. Consequently, the capacity of the community had been developed beyond the individual community action project.

4 Conclusion: cornerstones of community action

The previous three sections have identified the lessons learnt in the three phases of developing community action projects. A number of other themes intersecting with these phases have also been identified. Grouped as cornerstones of community action, these themes include:

• power analysis • transforming relationships • developmental roles • developmental processes • critical reflection/knowledge building.

These cornerstone themes are used in the next section to inform the framework for community action that concludes this report.

Analysis of power dynamics It is apparent from the 10 projects that a fundamental aspect of working with communities is the ability to understand the power dynamics that operate between organisations and the people in them. The context in which the issues that projects were addressing had arisen needed to be understood and strategically accounted for in the planning of the projects. Critical reflection enabled questions to be asked throughout the life of the project about who will benefit and who will be disadvantaged by the actions taken. Open negotiation was required to ensure there were opportunities for stakeholders to set realistic expectations for the projects. Participants of a community action project needed to have the ability to negotiate, challenge and build relationships. This sometimes involved transforming the very relationships, organisational practices and structures that had constructed the project in the first place. In some instances, members of community organisations rejected funding or strongly stated their terms of engagement with a project in order to ensure their kaupapa or vision was honoured.


In other cases the project members struggled with notions of accountability when the project�s governing body comprised people with very different perspectives on the issues being addressed than they held themselves. Many of the projects had multiple levels of accountability and also drew on multiple forms and notions of community, and were constantly negotiating the power imbalances between groups or people, within and across organisations.

Something I have a real difficulty with is around community accountability − how we keep faith with the grassroots people we work with while satisfying the people in positions of power that we are also accountable to. It�s not such an issue with our major funders as with the local authority which sponsors our umbrella organisation. Some of the councillors believe strongly that ratepayers� money should not be spent on social issues, so they don�t support our work ... they also believe we�re doing nothing because they don�t understand what we�re doing or see that it�s making any change. They are wealthier Pakeha living in very different worlds to most of the Mäori people we work with. So there�s a really interesting issue about �community accountability�, when within a local geographical community there are so many different communities with different cultures and subcultures, different and conflicting interests and different degrees of power ... (Interview − project co-ordinator)

Issues of power arise as soon as people gather to talk about matters of community concern. The selection of people to work together, community representation, decisions about who the community is and what the issues are all require a level of power analysis in order to reflect on who is included and who is excluded from the process. There was tension in some of the projects around notions of community and who would represent the community. The funding agency appeared to perceive the community organisation undertaking the project as �the community�, while the project members saw the project participants as �the community�. This had implications for consultation processes where the project co-ordinators did not consider themselves adequate as the voice of the community, but preferred to play a facilitation role with the project participants. Inadequate community consultation and communication processes highlighted the multiple layers of community voice. Each layer required translation and contextualisation of the issues at hand and limits on the level of input into decision-making. �Community� is always a fluid group, with many participants coming and going at various times with varying levels of interest. It is unrealistic to think there could ever be full community involvement, or that this would be useful or even desirable.

Transforming relationships Relationships were frequently pointed to as being critically important to community action. Building and transforming existing relationships enabled the collaboration and sharing of skills and resources that characterise community action projects. This examination of the 10 projects supports the view that the development of community capacity requires changing the dynamics of relationships between and across governmental and non-governmental organisations. Where government agencies had strong and effective relationships and worked together on particular issues, there was evidence of major enhancement for the community action projects. The co-ordinated and collaborative approach taken by some of the projects appears to have reduced the duplication of consultation, resource use and infrastructural demands.


Developmental roles Projects were enhanced by the presence of people with knowledge of community development processes, information to share about the experiences of other projects, skills in visioning, planning and negotiation with key stakeholders, strong leadership, and effective relationship-building practices. Knowledge and skill levels varied. However, there were key roles that appeared to be important, including the evaluator or researcher, a mentor in an umbrella organisation, and the funding advisor or project co-ordinator. Projects struggled when there was not ready access to skilled people. Lack of advocacy and support for the project by funding or government advisory officials was seen to be a barrier to the project�s development. In situations where the project had an advocate, the project members could access transitional funding more readily as well as build greater understanding about the way the funding organisation operated. In other cases the funding official was employed to work purely as a contract manager and was not expected to build a relationship with the project.

Developmental processes One of the things that I�ve understood is that it takes an awful lot of time to get from the starting point to the strategic action plan ... The first lesson is patience, trust the process, people get there in the end if the right people are involved, but there are no shortcuts. (Interview � funding official)

Two common statements from various informants were, �You have to trust the process� and �You�ve got to know when the timing is right�. Almost all of the meta-analysis participants approached community action as a developmental process. However, some of the funding officials acknowledged that this perspective often sits uncomfortably alongside their focus on outcomes tailored to the three-year political cycle. �Trusting the process� implies a need to understand significant moments that occur in the development of a community action project and the lead-up to those points, in contrast to prescribing particular actions and timeframes. Knowing when the timing is right implies having a good understanding of the developmental processes required.

So what I started to understand ... when you�re funding community development, is you are actually purchasing a process, you�re not purchasing any specific content. Those contracts were always fairly light on content. They were just focused on process goals or process timelines. (Interview � funding official)

To build and operate on a basis of trust was seen as an ideal to be aimed for in all projects. Many of the project members interviewed appealed for funding agencies to engage from a position of trust in community organisations. This included trusting developmental processes, accountability mechanisms that community organisations already have in place, and respecting and acknowledging their skills and professionalism. The call for trust was connected to the notion of community action being a developmental process. Projects able to negotiate their contract openly with the funding agency slowly and thoroughly developed a far more realistic and meaningful funding contract. Effective relationships with the funder were extremely important. There was evidence that funding representatives who negotiated openly were instrumental in effecting well-thought-out funding contracts and processes for progressing the project.


Mäori community development perspectives We knew that if we did paint the town it wouldn�t stop the graffiti. We�d be wasting our time. The first thing that needed to happen was to change the mindsets of the people. The spirits of the people had taken a pounding over the last 10 or 12 years. They have been made powerless by the decisions of companies owned by people who lived far from our town. We were in a place of powerlessness ... The three years we spent self-esteem building, raising the spirit and consciousness of the community was critical. (Interview − project co-ordinator)

Even though Mäori may share common views, they are still diverse and there is no unified Mäori perspective. Mäori come from a variety of backgrounds, crossing urban, rural, traditional and contemporary values. While many aspects of the two Mäori-specific community action projects can be seen as issues faced by all groups, there were differences evident in processes and approaches that appear to be Mäori-specific. In particular, concepts and actions were expressed and interpreted differently. Just as Mäori interventions emerge from a Mäori world view and reflect these values and relevance, Mäori participants indicated that outcomes also needed to be interpreted and defined by Mäori. Mäori development is regarded as a bench mark for community change, and there is a range of ideas about what this means and how it fits with community action. However, in the context of the Mäori-specific projects in this study it was clearly about collective orientation and decision-making, and the development of �for Mäori by Mäori� strategies to build on to existing community strengths and aspirations in a sustainable way. Mäori models and creativity were used to work through a wide range of issues of concern requiring both short- and long-term strategies. Increasing participation was a catalyst for the ongoing development of the projects. Sometimes it was a slow process actively engaging with and involving those who had been labelled as a problem. However, once people�s aspirations began to be heard and valued and their potential acknowledged, the approach caught the interest of many who would not normally become involved. It was observed that as the Mäori projects in the meta-analysis gained strength they increasingly based their practice around the richness of their culture and their familiarity with Mäori processes. Strategies drew on the local context, experiences, cultural values and tikanga in order to reinforce identity and provide a strong and consistent sense of purpose. Tikanga is about protocol and process and is paramount in a Mäori approach to community development. Working from a tikanga base takes time, sometimes more than the actual perceived content of an activity planned, so resource and timeframe implications need to be considered. Cultural practice underpinned all aspects of how the projects were conceptualised and implemented, and this was not regarded as a separate dimension of the projects. The projects demonstrated the use of their own skills and knowledge in implementing whänau structures for collective decision-making, rather than continuing to struggle with unfamiliar or imposed models. Visionary leadership, which grasped not only the focus of the project but more importantly the continued reflection of Mäori solutions as defined by Mäori, ensured decisions were based on tikanga and positive development. These elements appear to have made the projects more acceptable to the community and also contributed to their sustainability.


Whakapapa links are seen as a strength in community-based projects. In addition to contributing to the ownership of projects and community issues, the kinship connections and experience provide project workers with access to and buy-in from sectors of the community that are not usually involved. Hand in hand with whakapapa connections are whänau responsibilities, and it was noted that this may become a burden when small community initiatives are relied upon to �fix� problems. Mäori project representatives indicated that they had felt under pressure to �fix� problems in isolation from other sectors, in isolation from other issues, and without considering the long-term development process required to tackle inter-generational problems. For example, although funding in one case was for an alcohol project, it was apparent to the project team that any inroads into the issue of alcohol abuse were unlikely without first addressing the broader contributing issues and having sufficient resourcing over a realistic period. Rather than strategies to change individual behaviours, the project teams took a local environment-oriented approach and worked on issues of identity, racism, power and control, capacity building, and the potential and aspirations of people within the community. A turning point for one project was reaching the understanding that they did not have to take all the blame for the situation in their town. Instead they identified and worked with the issues created locally and no longer accepted responsibility for issues beyond the control of the community. This clarity of community context and project direction also strengthened the group�s ability and conviction to decline funding where it seemed likely to compromise their approach. Project energy and resources were refocused into areas that could make a difference. Each group expressed the need to factor social, economic and cultural components into community action projects in order to achieve any level of sustainable community change. These three components were seen as inextricably linked and are regarded as essential components of Mäori development. The linkages involved in developing a staged process were also crucial. This was described by one project as moving beyond the initial state of dependency, to where the community started to take charge of its own affairs and become more independent as a group, to eventually reach a position of interdependence where people were working together for the common good of the community:

... the power that comes from interdependence here has been phenomenal. It is the catalyst for change. But a lot of our people are stuck in independent, which is a very western model; it is about the individual. (Interview � project co-ordinator)

Expressions of Mäori knowledge have often been regarded at the policy level as anecdotal and have not been recognised as legitimate knowledge. The Mäori projects all emphasised the importance of intangible outcomes and the difficulty of showing validity where stakeholders do not understand the significance of these outcomes, which are regarded as too difficult to measure. The project groups were keen to challenge such ideas within their practice as they promote the development of a �Mäori from a Mäori� perspective.

Pacific community development perspectives The word �community� is creeping into our Tongan language and the Samoan people use a phonetic word �komuniti�. If ever there was a culture that would have words for �community� and �community development� it�s our Pacific languages. Because we say we are not an individual based kind of culture but we�re communally based. We do have and we should use those terminologies. We have words that come with all the community dynamics that the discipline of community studies has. (Interview − project co-ordinator)


In the above comment the respondent was referring to the way transliterations of English words appear in Pacific languages as if there was no appropriate word in each Pacific language. The respondent wanted Pacific people to examine the concept of community within their own frame of reference. Traditionally the frame of reference for Pacific people is their kinship group. Helu (1999) points out that in Tongan and other Polynesian societies, �social customs are all based on group interests� and that �society is not made up of individuals but interacting groups of people� with �established ways of working�. Pacific communities are diverse. The concept of being Pacific exists only within Aotearoa New Zealand and mostly within government policies and the media. Pacific people categorise themselves according to which island group they belong to, such as Tonga, Samoa, Fiji and Niue. Furthermore, groups from the Cook Islands tend to categorise themselves according to the island or atoll within the Cooks that they come from, such as Rarotonga, Aitutaki or Manihiki. Pacific cultures in Aotearoa New Zealand are minority cultures. Many people from a Pacific background are attempting not to be defined and interpreted solely by the dominant culture as a fixed ethnic entity. With Pacific people living all over the world there are many different ways of being a Cook Islander or Tongan or Samoan, and calls are being made for this to be recognised at a government level rather than the �one size fits all� perception. Assertions are being made that to be a Samoan who is born and raised in Aotearoa New Zealand is different from being a Samoan who is born and raised in Samoa, and the expression of that identity will differ. To look at the way community action might work within a Pacific setting we need to examine the way a Pacific community is structured. Key community leaders such as church ministers and people of acknowledged rank and status have to be included from the beginning to give guidance and advice about involvement in the project, and then to provide kudos to the project. As migrants, Pacific communities expect their leaders to be protectors, to filter out harm and to protect them from negative media coverage generated by poor statistics in health, education, employment and social welfare. The people involved in the three Pacific projects are leaders within their own communities and so were able to engage with the community. Traditionally, decision-making in villages in the Pacific Islands happened in a variety of ways but most often has included reaching consensus through discussion. In an Aotearoa New Zealand setting similar events take place, whether within a church or an organisation. PACIFICA�s move to change its constitution resulted in a lengthy but necessary process to gain consensus and therefore support from all its members. Members of the Gardening Project realised they had not communicated well with their community and did not have consensus about the purpose of the community garden, particularly when there was a feeling of disgruntlement about non-participating families receiving the vegetables. However, members communicated exceedingly well about the purpose of the backyard garden competition, as evidenced by the number of families who participated and by the positive spin-offs such as improved relationships between neighbours and the eagerness of preschools to be involved. In the Peaceful Waves / Matangi Malie project men took a key role in all phases of the project�s establishment and implementation. Given that the project addresses issues of non-violence, the involvement of men in prominent roles within the project was in itself a powerful statement within the Pacific community.


Critical reflection and knowledge building There are a lot of motives to do anything, so until we could step back, and trust, and learn to trust other people, and bring other people on board ... then it became survivable. That is how we can get to understand about interdependence. I think that every group goes through that sort of process, but if you are really looking and you�re honest and you go there, you�ll discover this stuff. A lot of people sometimes don�t want to look at it, they just want to survive. So that has been some of the key stuff that has come out of that about being able to just evaluate, spend a lot of time evaluating what we�re doing, asking the questions. Not just run a programme, it doesn�t work. (Interview � project co-ordinator)

A core component of action is reflective practice − the creation and maintenance of practices that reflect on both the activities and the processes the project develops. Reflective practice is the constant questioning of the dynamics that influence the problem the group is addressing as well as the dynamics that influence the group process being used. Reflective practice has been shown to be instrumental in both assisting the development of community action projects and in building knowledge in the communities and organisations involved. This in turn feeds into the development of future action projects. Reflective practice fulfils a number of functions in community action projects, including day-to-day problem-solving, planning, gathering of information for decision-making, review of the work already undertaken, documenting how the work is being done, and why certain decisions are made. In some of the community projects an action research model was used whereby problem-solving incorporated the deliberate practice of moving through cycles of reflection informed by action, and action informed by reflection (Lewin 1952). Other projects incorporate a clear research strand that helps to inform the decision-making and planning of the project. Some projects have over time developed their own culture of reflection, leading to action through less formalised means. When groups of people develop their reflective practices together and use this as a basis for their planning and actions, it is often described as �action learning�. It is a form of experiential learning grounded in the philosophy that action is informed by intuitive theories and critical review, and that planning is informed by conscious theories and assumptions. By engaging with both of these in a cyclical process, action learning practices are utilised at an organisational level to develop processes and to support change (Sankaran et al 2001). For the Mäori-specific projects, reflective practice was driven by a holistic world view consistent with concepts of connection between the past, present and future, and the interdependence of spiritual, cultural, mental and physical aspects. Story telling encompasses these concepts and was often used to reflect on project progress and direction. The story-telling process located project issues clearly in the context of the community and also helped to identify, prepare for and address the impact of these issues on the community. The Mäori-based projects in the study consistently reflected on dealing with the effects of colonisation on a culture and people, the results of powerlessness, and general alienation from inherent cultural strengths.


Summary The above discussion reveals the overarching principles that were critical to the development of effective community action projects through their absence or presence. These principles can be summarised as:

• creating transforming relationships between individuals, groups and organisations • creating change through developmental practices • building knowledge through critical reflection.

These principles influenced every phase of the community action projects. When adequately addressed, the potential of a project for sustainable community-based change can be recognised.

5 A framework for community action projects

The following framework for community action in Aotearoa New Zealand is presented as a tool to assist people in the roles of research, funding and co-ordination of community action projects. It can be used for both the planning and review of projects. This framework is informed by the Community Project Indicators Framework (CPIF) (Ministry of Health 2003). The CPIF indicators echo the key themes raised as lessons learnt by meta-analysis participants. Rather than duplicate the indicators, additions were made to them and insights about points and activities for critical reflection gained from the meta-analysis process were included. The critical reflection points are for all participants and organisations in the project to reflect on and use as a basis to plan their future actions. This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of possible reflection points. The attempt has been made to provide prompts based on the points identified from the 10 projects studied, with the aim of stimulating critical reflection processes in community action projects undertaken across all government sectors.

Figure 8: He Rangihou New Day Project of Opotiki Safer Communities Council


Guiding Principles

Create transforming relationships between individuals, groups and organisations − relationships that enable communication and collaborative working, reform relations of power, and increase participation in decision-making.

Create change through developmental practices that enable the development of skills, create organisations that learn from their experiences, build effective relationships, and sustain community wellbeing.

Build knowledge through critical reflection on decisions being made, activities undertaken and planned, processes and philosophies being drawn upon, in order to build knowledge within and through the project.

Table 1: Phase 1: Activation of community action projects

Practice Description Critical reflection points Possible activities

Identification of needs/issues and project planning

• Assessment of community needs; design, plan, and review the project

• How has the need been identified?

• Who by? • Whose voice has not been

heard? • What planning processes

should be used? • How will regular reviews be

organised? • What is currently under way to

address the issues? • What do people already

know/think about/the issue? • What strategies are

appropriate?

• Stakeholder analysis • Collate relevant local data • Community profile • Use of visioning, hui, fono

and other strategic planning processes

• Develop a project plan

Collaboration and relationship building

• Building appropriate collaborative relationships to ensure that all relevant sectors, both within the community and relevant outside sectors, that can work together are working together.

• Identify and form appropriate relationships with tangata and mana whenua

• What relationships are important for achieving the objectives of this project?

• Are relationships being transformed through the project?

• What involvement do tangata whenua organisations want to have with the project?

• Are there barriers to collaboration that need to be addressed?

• Are changes of personnel in stakeholder organisations managed?

• Create formal protocols and informal activities to build relationships with tangata/mana whenua

• Consider strategies of inclusion (eg, provide free room space or computer support to fledgling community groups)

• Establish formal or informal partnerships with other key stakeholder organisations



Project infrastructure and project culture

• Creating a well-administered, managed and sustainable project

• Planning for and monitoring varying levels of resource requirements throughout the phases of the project

• Forming a project group that has a clear understanding of its roles, community development processes or awareness of the need to gain these

• Forming a group identity and establishing regular practices that create a project culture

• Is there a clear project culture being developed?

• Is this culture influencing people outside of the project?

• Who will drive the project? Is this role funded?

• What resources are required (eg, administration, supervision)?

• Does the project structure represent and shape the relationships between stakeholders?

• What mechanisms are used to let the wider community know about what the project is doing? How is communication being monitored to ensure transparency is created?

• Will the project be evaluated? How will the evaluators be selected?

• Who will administer funds and what relationship will this group have with the project? How will the project report to the funders?

• Is the group maintaining or growing its passion for and commitment to the project?

• What decision-making processes are being used?

• Appoint a co-ordinator in the early stages of the project

• Create an employment policy/job description

• Ensure supervision for project staff

• Seek guidance from previously established groups, funders and researchers on governance and management practices

• Create memorandums of understanding between parties

• Develop project policies, reporting processes and budget reviews

• Ensure there is at least one person whose role is to keep an overview of the project

• Seek and negotiate additional project funding if needed for planned activities

• Establish common values and hold regular team-building activities

• Hold regular gatherings to tell the story of the project reflecting on people�s experiences of their involvement


Table 2: Phase 2: Consolidation of community action projects


Community participation

• Enabling and monitoring the appropriate involvement of key community members

• Creating ownership and accountability back to local communities

• What mechanisms can be used to bring stakeholders together? How will regular reviews be organised?

• Who is involved? • Are there any groups

missing (eg, young people, Pacific people)? Are all players engaged and committed to the kaupapa of the project? If not, what activities will create involvement in and ownership of the project?

• Are different practices being used to enable various levels of participation in the project?

• Shoulder tap �movers and shakers� to increase representation

• Create a range of communication strategies to ensure that the wider community is informed about opportunities to get involved in the project

• Create opportunities for sub-groups to generate their own initiatives

• Allocate tasks • Involve the funder in ongoing

planning • Network beyond the project • Piggyback on other activities/

newsletters/iwi radio • Raise profile through murals

and public displays

Enhanced community �voices�

• Increasing the extent to which the views of the community are discussed in the community and made known to outside stakeholders

• What communication channels are locally available?

• What barriers are there to communication? How can these be addressed?

• What novel approaches could be used to reach different groups?

• Ensure there is an advocate for the project (eg, funding adviser, evaluator, or mentor from umbrella organisation)

• Facilitate/attend network meetings for agencies and community groups

• Facilitate the formation of sub-projects

• Create mechanisms for constant and broad consultation

• Create a communications plan and develop skills for this

Leadership and key players up-skilled, knowledge building

• Creating opportunities for key players in the project to further develop and use relevant skills; try out different roles, and plan for succession into leadership roles

• Where can community development skills and knowledge be accessed?

• Could the group benefit from training in this area?

• Who could provide training or support?

• Are various sources of knowledge and information being used to inform the development of the project?

• Is knowledge being developed through the project?

• How are knowledge needs and sources being identified?

• Identify what stakeholders can offer

• Identify mentors • Identify training opportunities • Create a plan for the training

needs of key project members, identifying costs and sources of training and funding

• Approach training organisations and negotiate discounts

• Identify useful forums to participate in (eg, conferences, hui, fono or workshops)



Managing conflict

• Anticipating controversy both inside and outside a project and working with it constructively to achieve project objectives

• Are challenges and conflict being managed, and how is this shaping the development of the project?

• Bring in an external person to facilitate conflict resolution

• Use �talking cards� in a big meeting so that people cannot dominate

Increased resources and sustainability

• Increased access to resources, whether information, financial, material or people, both within the community and from outside

• How could the project become sustainable in the long term?

• What useful partnerships are available to support the further development of the project?

• Plan regular scans for resourcing opportunities; involve agency representatives

Regular reassessment

• Critical reflection to reassess community needs as the project develops, to inform regular planning, review the project and document the processes used to develop the project

• What internal and external opportunities are available to critically reflect on the development, and tell the story, of the project?

• What are participants� perspectives on the awareness, relevance, satisfaction, and involvement with the project?

• What are the measures of success for the project?

• Create activities to allow reflection on progress (eg, community tours, focus groups, milestone reports, media stories, and presentation at workshops)


Table 3: Phase 3: Transition or completion of community action projects


Completion or transition

• Manage the transition from an action project to a development project (or vice versa), or completion of the project, in order to build wellbeing in the community

• How will the project members know when the original objectives have been achieved?

• What new directions or opportunities are there for the project and its members?

• Has the completion or transition of the project been planned?

• What more could happen to improve the situation?

• Invite all stakeholders to discuss possible transition scenarios

• Organise an event to commemorate the transition of the project

• Ensure all wider stakeholder organisations are aware of the changes proposed for the project and the reasons for this

Changed organisations

• Organisations operating in empowering ways that support positive health and social and environmental outcomes

• Have the stakeholder organisations involved in the project changed through their involvement with the project?

• What are the policy implications arising from this project?

• What future partnerships can be developed?

• How will stakeholders know if the project has made a difference?

• How will these new forms of relationship and organisation be sustained beyond the life of the project?

• Plan internal reviews for all organisations participating in the project to reflect on their involvement and changes that can be made to enhance involvement with the project

• Brainstorm possible future collaborative projects

• Refresh the stakeholder analysis and needs assessment


Appendix 1: Policy and research background to the meta-analysis

[Note websites regularly change so these may become out of date]

Collaborative Learning for Environmental Management: Landcare Research This covers social research aiming to improve the quality of environmental management decision making. The site provides an extensive range of resources, including discussion on social capital, stakeholder analysis, monitoring and evaluation, as well as participatory learning-based approaches for environmental management. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/social.

Community Project Indicators Framework (CPIF) This has been developed to help those who are funding or undertaking a community project in the health sector to assess the progress of their project. The guide will be particularly useful for both funders and community providers during funding negotiations. www.moh.govt.nz (search publications by title)

CommunityNet Aotearoa This web site is provided to help all New Zealand community organisations by providing access to relevant, high-quality information, raising the profile of the community sector, and encouraging information sharing between organisations. http://www.community.net.nz/default.htm.

Community/voluntary sector � Government relationship project Community and Government: Building Strong and Respectful Relationships. Rebuilding and strengthening the relationship with community, voluntary, iwi and Mäori organisations has been a key goal of Government. http://www.msd.govt.nz/work-areas/communities-hapü-iwi/community-and-government/index.html.

Involving children in decision-making The Ministry of Social Development has recently published Involving Children: A guide to engaging children in decision making. The guide covers areas of relevance to local government, such as barriers to children�s participation, principles, ethics and confidentiality, and practical suggestions on how to do it. The guide is one of a number of publications developed within the Government�s overall Agenda for Children, and has been written for organisations, government departments and community groups who want to engage children under the age of 18 in effective decision-making. http://www.lgnz.co.nz/news/pr1057102309.html.


Local Government New Zealand Know How Project He puka arahi mo ngä whakarerekētanga kāwanatanga ā-rohe. Local Government KnowHow is to provide councils with guidance, templates, �best practice� advice, and ongoing training that will enable them to implement the new Local Government and Rating Acts successfully. http://www.lgnz.co.nz/lgknowhow.

Local Partnerships and Governance Research Project Strengthening Communities through Local Partnerships is a research project that aims to examine and document the overall range, scope and effectiveness of local partnerships, with particular reference to New Zealand. This in turn will underpin opportunities to strengthen local partnerships in New Zealand. www.lpg.org.nz

Ministry of Social Development Conference: Connecting Policy, Research and Practice The Social Policy Research and Evaluation Conference, Wellington Convention Centre, 29−30 April 2003. http://www.msd.govt.nz/work-areas/cross-sectoral-work/conference/conference-index.html

Review of the Centre In 2001 the Government established the Review of the Centre Advisory Committee to review the state sector. A strong theme implicit in the Committee�s terms of reference was the need for a more �citizen focused� view of New Zealand�s public management system. The report and recommendations of the Committee were released in December 2001. The Committee identified four priority areas for change: better integrated service delivery, addressing fragmentation and improving alignment in the state sector, enhancing people and culture, and improving central agency leadership. A work programme has now been developed, divided into these four areas. http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?NavID=177

SPEaR The Social Policy Evaluation and Research Committee, or SPEaR, is an inter-agency committee of New Zealand government agencies with an interest in social policy research and evaluation. Focusing on co-ordination of agency evaluation and research effort, SPEaR�s key role is to oversee the Government�s social policy research purchase. www.spear.govt.nz

Stronger Communities Action Fund (SCAF) For more information, contact the Department of Child Youth and Family. See http://www.msp.govt.nz/keyinitiatives/conference/abstracts/2.8.html for a conference presentation on one of the SCAF sites.


Appendix 2: Overview of the six evaluations included in the cases studies (four projects were not evaluated)

Project (reference)

Type SHORE definition

Purpose (page numbers refer to the evaluation

document sited in column 1)

Method (page numbers refer to the evaluation document

sited in column 1)

Findings (page numbers refer to the evaluation


Waitomo Papakainga Tracker Project (Oliver and Spee 2000)

Process and impact (external)

To assess the structure activities, personnel arrangements, developments, achievements, success factors, impacts, issues and risks, suggestions for programme development (page 2)

Two evaluators, for two days on five visits over two years; interviews with programme personnel and agency representatives (page 2)

Successful programme chronically under-funded. Potential to work successfully with even larger numbers. Success due substantially to degree of one-to-one mentoring and transitional programmes (page 1).

Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project (Kilvington 1998)


Documents the approach used; review the completion of the objectives of the project and the effectiveness of the process in addressing the project objectives; comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the approach, factors contributing to success or failure and recommendations for future adaptation (page 5)

Goal free and participatory; group discussions with WE members, interviews with agency staff and key project members; review of documents (page 5)

Some successes primarily in the participatory nature of the process, raising awareness and interest in environmental management and securing involvement of skilled and committed community members. A community-based steering group had been formed. The group had not produced an environmental strategy (page 5).

Taieri Catchment and Community Health Project (Parkes 2003)

Process and impact of the transition from research to community-based project (internal)

Evaluates the process of COPAR, and specific outcomes of the COPAR approach (page 3)

Researcher�s review; summary of background to COPAR project, systematic appraisal of COPAR process, SWOT analysis of transition of project (page 4)

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats from the transition process were identified. The health focus was influential in engaging and motivating participants. The overall community orientation was affirmed and valued, and mobilised existing community knowledge. There was a need for knowledge brokering. Transition was administratively intensive. University engagement provided for opportunities, and knowledge generation was occurring (page 16).

Christchurch Youth Project (Wylie, 1998)


Documents the background and implementation of project; examines how the project was delivered, its efficacy, and project performance against objectives (page 8)

Face-to-face interviews in April/May 1998 (page 8)

There was some progress towards enhancing safety and reducing youth crime and violence, and enhanced co-ordination between relevant agencies, producing some new services and activities. There was a need for clearer roles, job descriptions and accountability requirements, more transparent decision making; and a need to learn from the mistakes of the past (page 6).


Project (reference)

Type SHORE definition

Purpose (page numbers refer to the evaluation


Method (page numbers refer to the evaluation document

sited in column 1)

Findings (page numbers refer to the evaluation


He Rangihou New Day Project of Opotiki Safer Communities Council (Conway et al 2000a)

Formative and impact (external)

Collects and feeds back relevant information to assist programme planning, implementation and ongoing development to assist the community action process

One evaluator working as a core member informing development over 3 years. The role was to hold regular national and regional hui with workers to plan, prioritise and network on project objectives and activities; to provide culturally appropriate consultation and support; to develop project worker skills; and to disseminate and promote information gained through the different phases and processes of the project helpful to others working in the same field.

The project had a profound impact on the community. It was achieving excellent progress in the short timeframe available. The project developed excellent and innovative initiatives with young people and their whänau. Their catalyst role and community development skills enabled a fresh approach to dealing with alcohol and drug issues.

Rough Cut Youth Development Project (Department of Internal Affairs 2002)


Assesses how effective the project was in facilitating robust outcomes using a youth development approach.; examined the process by which projects were facilitated; provided a review of yearly process, output and outcome evaluations (page 11)

Collation of yearly DIA evaluation reports; review of client records and feedback; co-ordinator observations and activity records; researcher visits to the project (page 11)

Successfully meeting objectives; provides valuable support for young people; recommendations made for the project to be reworked if funding is continued (pages 35−37).


REFERENCES Baum F. 1999. Food, social capital and public health: exploring the links. Eating into the Future. The First Australian Conference on Food, Health and the Environment Adelaide: 11�13 April.

Baum F, Sanderson C, Jolley G. 1997. Community participation in action: an analysis of the South Australian Health and Social Welfare Councils. Health Promotion International 12: 125−34.

Bracht N, Tsouros A. 1990. Principles and strategies of effective community participation. Health Promotion International 5: 199−208.

Casswell S. 2000. A decade of community action research. Substance Use and Abuse 35: 55�74.

Casswell S. 2001. Community capacity building and social policy: what can be achieved? Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 17: 22−35.

Casswell S, Holder H, Holmila M, et al (eds). 1999. Kettil Bruun Society Thematic Meeting: Fourth Symposium on Community Action Research and the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems. Auckland: Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland.

Casswell S, Stewart L. 1989. A community action project on alcohol: community organisation and its evaluation. Community Health Studies 13: 39−48.

Cervin C. 2001. Action Research, Power and Responsibility: The predicament and potential of New Zealand community groups. Auckland: Social Policy, Massey University.

Chaskin RJ, Brown P, Venkatesh S, et al. 2001. Building Community Capacity. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Coleman JS. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95−120.

Conway K, Megan T, Henwood W, et al. 2000. Milestone Six Report to the Ministry of Education: Community Action on Youth and Drugs Project. Auckland: Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit.

Conway K, Tunks M, Henwood W, et al. 2000. Te whänau cadillac: a waka for change. Health Education and Behaviour 27: 339−50.

David M. 2002. Problems of participation: the limits of action research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 5: 11−17.

Department of Internal Affairs. 2002. Community Based Youth Development Fund: Youth development projects evaluation report. Wellington: Research Services, Department of Internal Affairs.

Fukuyama F. 1999. The great disruption: human nature and the reconstitution of social order. Atlantic Monthly 283: 55−80.

Goodman R, Speers M, McLeroy K, et al. 1998. Identifying and defining the dimensions of community capacity to provide a basis for measurement. Health Education and Behaviour 25: 258−78.

Hand J, Elizabeth V, Martin B, et al. 2002. Family violence: a Pacific perspective. In: Free from Abuse: What women say and what can be done. Auckland: Public Health Promotion, Auckland District Health Board.

Helu I. 1999. Critical Essays: Cultural perspectives from the South Seas. Canberra: Journal of Pacific History.

Kawachi I, Kennedy BP, Lochner K, et al. 1997. Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health 87: 1491−8.

Kilvington M. 1998. The Whaingaroa Catchment Management Project: A multi-stakeholder approach to sustainable catchment management. Contract report LC9899/021. Lincoln: Landcare Research.

Labonte R. 1996. The language of community development for evaluating participation in community development: future directions. Paper presented at Evaluating Participation in Community Development: Future Directions, Kingston, Ontario, 4−6 October 1996.


Labonte R. 1999. Social capital and community development: practioner emptor. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 23: 430−3.

Labonte R, Laverack G. 2001a. Capacity building in health promotion, Part 1: For whom? And for what purpose? Critical Public Health 11: 111−27.

Labonte R, Laverack G. 2001b. Capacity building in health promotion, Part 2: Whose use? And with what measurement? Critical Public Health 11: 129−37.

Lewin K. 1952. Field Theory in Social Science: Selected theoretical papers. Edited by Dorwin Cartwright. London: Tavistock.

Liepins R. 2000. New energies for an old idea: reworking approaches to �community� in contemporary rural studies. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 23−35.

Light R, Pillemer D. 1984. Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lipsey M, Wilson D. 2001. Practical Meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lynch J, Due P, Muntaner C, et al. 2000. Social capital: is it a good investment strategy for public health? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54: 404−8.

McCreanor T, Moewaka Barnes H, Mathews T. 1998. Limited Impact Evaluation for the Waikato Rural Drink Drive Project. Auckland: Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland.

Ministry of Education. 2001. Final Report for the Evaluation of the Drugs Education Development Project. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Health. 2003. Community Project Indicators Framework (CPIF): Its use in community projects (working draft). Wellington: Ministry of Health.

Moewaka Barnes H. 2000. Collaboration in community action: a successful partnership between indigenous communities and researchers. Health Promotion International 15: 17−25.

New Zealand Landcare Trust. 2003. An Integrated Catchment Management Project Managed by NZ Landcare Trust. http://www.landcare.co.nz/hot.asp? PublicationID=1766532954.

Oliver P, Spee K. 2000. Evaluation of Mäori Community Initiatives for Youth at Risk Offending: Report on the Tracker Programme, Waitomo Papakainga, Kaitaia. Unpublished report prepared for CYFS, Auckland.

Park P, Brydon-Miller M, Hall B, Jackson T (eds). 1993. Voices of Change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Parkes M. 2003. �Taieri Catchment & Community Health Project� to �Taieri Trust�: a community oriented participatory action research (COPAR) evaluation. In: Linking Ecosystems and Social Systems for Health and Sustainability: Public health lessons from the Taieri River Catchment, PhD thesis. Dunedin: Department of Public Health and Department of Geography, University of Otago.

Patton M. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Posavac E, Carey R. 1992. Program Evaluation: Methods and case studies. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Pretty J, Frank B. 2000. Participation and social capital formation in natural resource management: achievements and lessons. International Landcare 2000 Conference, Melbourne, Australia: 2�5 March.

Putnam RD. 1993. The prosperous community: social capital and public life. The American Prospect 4: 13.

Raphael D. 2000. The question of evidence in health promotion. Health Promotion International 15: 355−67.

Reason P, Bradbury H. 2001. Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Robinson D. 1997. Social Capital and Policy Development. Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.


Rogers P. 2000. Meta-evaluation Bibliography. Action Research Resources. http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/meta-eval-bib.html

Sankaran S, Dick B, Passfield R, et al (eds). 2001. Effective Change Management Using Action Learning and Action Research: Concepts, frameworks, processes, applications. Lismore: Southern Cross University Press.

Saville-Smith K. 1999. Sustainable cities: the social drivers. In: Royal Society of New Zealand (ed) Urban Sustainability in New Zealand: Miscellaneous Series 53. Wellington: Royal Society of New Zealand, pp. 25−28.

Strauss A, Corbin J. 1994. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: NK Denzin, YS Lincoln (eds). Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications.

Strauss A, Corbin J. 1998. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: NK Denzin, YS Lincoln (eds). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. London: Sage, pp. 158−83.

Stringer ET. 1996. Action Research. California: Sage Publications Ltd.

Cochrane Collaboration, The. 2003. Preparing, Maintaining and Promoting the Accessibility of Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care Interventions. http://www.cochrane.org

Whyte WF. 1991. Participatory Action Research. California: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Williams T, Robinson D. 2002. Social capital-based partnerships: a Mäori perspective and a comparative approach. In: D Robinson (ed) Building Social Capital. Wellington: Milne Print Ltd.

Wylie S. 1998. Evaluation of Phase One of the Christchurch Youth Worker Project. Prepared for Canterbury Development Corporation, Christchurch City Council, Christchurch.

A Meta-Analysis of Community Action Projects - Volume oneFILE/communityactionprojects-vol1.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of A Meta-Analysis of Community Action Projects - Volume oneFILE/communityactionprojects-vol1.pdf ·...