Evaluation of the Local Activity Grants Programbeactive.dsr.wa.gov.au › assets › files ›...

Health Promotion Evaluation Unit

Evaluation of the Local Activity Grants Program

The University of Western Australia School of Sport Science Exercise and Health

October 2009

Health Promotion Evaluation Unit School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health The University of Western Australia

Michael Rosenberg MPH PhD Director - Associate Professor Renee Ferguson BHSc(Hons) Research Associate Christina Mills BA(Hons) GradDipPublHlth MPH Research Assistant Professor

Citation

The citation below should be used when referencing this work:

Rosenberg M, Ferguson R and Mills C. Local Activity Grants Program: Evaluation of the Long Term Effects. Health Promotion Evaluation Unit, School of Sport Science, Exercise and Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, 2009.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.1 Aims and objectives of the evaluation ...................................................................................... 6

2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.1 Survey Instrument ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Sample ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 9

3.0 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Effect of receiving LAG funding on different areas of local government ............................... 10

3.2 Selected physical activities resulting from the LAG ................................................................ 11

3.3 The effect of physical activity related activities resulting from receiving the LAG grant ....... 13

3.4 LAG target populations and key strategies ............................................................................. 15

3.5 LG physical activity related plans ............................................................................................ 16

3.6 Characteristics of physical activity plans ................................................................................. 18

3.7 Organisational partnerships .................................................................................................... 19

3.8 LAG partnerships maintained as part of an ongoing service delivery .................................... 19

3.9 Length of organisational partnerships for funded LGs ........................................................... 20

3.10 Internal LG partnerships developed within Local Government departments ...................... 21

3.11 Recall of LAG at the time of the survey ................................................................................ 22

3.12 Number of LG workers on the LAG grant .............................................................................. 22

3.13 Ongoing LAG related activities amongst funded and non funded LGs ................................. 23

3.14 Number of LAG activities ongoing ........................................................................................ 24

3.16 Cessation of LAG activities .................................................................................................... 25

3.17 Allocation of an annual physical activity budget .................................................................. 26

3.18 Support of the LAG by the PATF and WALGA ....................................................................... 26

3.19 LAG funding meeting LG expectations .................................................................................. 27

3.20 Non‐funded LGs engagement with the LAG scheme. ........................................................... 27

3.21 Comments about the LAG scheme from respondents from LGs in receipt of a LAG .......... 28

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 30

4

4.1 Objective 1: Promote and increase sustainable opportunities for physical activity at the community level ............................................................................................................................ 30

4.2 Objective 2: Enhance and build on existing physical activity strategies and initiatives already undertaken by Local Government ................................................................................................ 31

4.3 Objective 3: Incorporate physical activity objectives and strategies into Local Government strategic planning and budgetary processes ................................................................................ 32

4.4 Objective 4: Identify opportunities to encourage collaboration between State, Local Government, private enterprise and community organisations .................................................. 33

4.5 Objective 5: Support programs whose outcomes can be sustained beyond completion of the grant. ............................................................................................................................................. 34

4.6 Evaluation limitations ............................................................................................................. 35

4.7 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 37

APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................................... 38

1

Executive Summary

Between 2003 and 2008, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) in

partnership with the Physical Activity Taskforce (PATF; the Taskforce) and supported by Lotterywest,

offered matched grants between $5,000 and $60,000 for Local Governments and community groups

to encourage innovative approaches to increasing physical activity at the community level. The

average amount of funding allocated was $13,000 per project. In 2009, the PATF and WALGA

engaged the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit at The University of Western Australia to conduct an

evaluation of the longer term effects of the LAG on recipients of the four most recently completed

funding rounds.

The LAG evaluation comprised telephone interviews amongst representatives of Local Government

Agencies (LGs) who received funding in LAG funding rounds 4 (2005), 5 (2006), 6 (2006) and 7 (2007),

as well as representatives of LGs who did not receive funding. All LGs (n=64) who were awarded a

LAG within the selected funding rounds were considered eligible to participate in the survey, as were

the 38 LGs who did not receive a LAG.

Eighty six LG employees completed the survey on behalf of their organisation’s experience with the

LAG and physical activity promotion. They represented 88% of eligible LGs invited to complete the

survey. No significant differences in the response rate of LG representatives were observed

between the four funding rounds.

Summary of Results

• The LAG had a major effect amongst the majority of LAG‐funded LGs delivering physical

activity programs and events to the community (59%), and developing new initiatives to

improve PA of community members (59%). The effect of the LAG was particularly strong

amongst respondents from LGs funded more recently. Similarly, respondents indicated that

the LAG had a major effect on their LGs ability to engage new community members in

physical activity. While LGs were funded for a wide range of physical activity initiatives

through the LAG, there was an overall positive effect on the proportion of LGs offering

physical activity related strategies as a result of the LAG funding.

• Community physical activity events (83%), development of physical activity resources (such

as walk maps, brochures and guides, 69%), walking programs (67%) and senior’s activities

2

(63%) were typical initiatives developed with LAG funding and were not reported as

frequently by LGs without LAG funding.

• LGs funded with a LAG were significantly more likely to have targeted adults, older adults,

women and low income groups with their physical activity strategies compared with non

funded LGs, who were more likely to have targeted children 0 to 5 years of age.

• Local Parks (82%), walking paths (80%) and community centres (78%) were the most

commonly used facilities for delivering LAG related activities. Funded LGs were significantly

more likely than non funded LGs to deliver physical activity strategies through these

facilities. In contrast, non funded LGs were more likely to use local sports clubs to deliver

physical activity programs.

• LGs in receipt of a LAG typically publicised physical activity strategies through local

newspapers (100%), community centre promotions (91%), local government notice boards

(91%) and schools (76%). These avenues were not used to the same degree by LGs without

LAG funding.

• While not all LGs were required to develop physical activity plans as part of the LAG, one half

of respondents (52%) reported their LG had a physical activity plan in place at the time of

the survey. LGs in receipt of a LAG were significantly more likely to have or be in the process

of developing a physical activity plan, compared with non funded LGs, irrespective of

whether a physical activity plan was part of the LAG requirements. Amongst funded LGs

with a physical activity plan, 75% had implemented them and 19% had reviewed their plan.

• The LAG funding was reported to have encouraged partnerships between LGs and

community groups (91%), state government agencies (78%) and non government

organisations (59%) in the delivery of physical activity related activities. Partnerships with

local recreation centres (100%), community groups (94%), local sports clubs (90%) and

community centres (88%) were most frequently reported to have continued beyond the LAG

funding period as part of ongoing physical activity related service delivery. Partnerships with

GP Networks (33%) were reported to be for the short term. The majority of respondents

indicated their LG had existing partnerships with these organisations prior to LAG funding

and were for the longer term.

• Internal partnerships within funded LGs were limited largely to recreation and leisure (85%)

and community development (80%) departments.

3

• At the time of the survey, most funded respondents reported that their project was referred

to very frequently (25%) or quite frequently (42%) within their LG, although no clear pattern

of recall was evident between funding rounds.

• Increases in LGs allocating human resources to physical activity promotion was observed

across all four funding periods, with very few respondents reporting a decrease in resource

allocation. The majority (56%) of respondents from funded LGs reported no volunteers were

engaged in ongoing delivery of physical activity programs. However, on average, a

significantly greater number of volunteers were engaged in the delivery of physical activity

programs amongst funded LGs, compared with LGs not in receipt of funding.

• Community physical activity events (68%), physical activity resources (64%) and walking

programs (62%) were reported to have continued beyond the LAG funding period, relatively

consistently across the four funding periods. These activities were significantly more likely

to have been in existence compared with LGs who had not received a LAG.

• Youth physical activities (38%), training fitness leaders (35%) and circus/gym programs (9%)

were the least likely LAG activities to continue beyond the funding period. Reasons provided

for activities ceasing included LAG funding ending, dependency on LAG funding and/or the

coordinator leaving the LAG program.

• Respondents reported the LAGs were positively delivered and managed by PATF and

WALGA, with the large majority (91%) considering the overall requirements to be slightly

more than they felt were reasonable for the funding.

Overall, the results of this evaluation provided evidence to support the achievement of the LAG

objectives, particularly around enhancing and building upon existing physical activity strategies and

initiatives, encouraging collaboration and organisational partnerships and encouraging a sustained

physical activity program beyond the completion of the grant. The effect of the LAG on funded LGs

ability to deliver physical activity strategies to their community were observed to be greater than

LGs who had not received funding, further supporting the positive longer term effect of the LAG on

funded LGs.

Recommendations

• The LAG funding appeared to boost LGs ability to promote and deliver physical activity

strategies to a wide selection of their community members during the funding period, as

4

well as beyond when compared with non funded LGs. It is recommended that schemes

promoting physical activity through local governments continue to focus on local activities.

• Existing partnerships with other organisations exist in the delivery of physical activity

strategies. It is recommended these partnerships continue to be developed as part of local

government physical activity promotion.

• The evaluation found a positive effect of the LAG on funded LGs longer term commitment to

developing sustainable programs through developing physical activity plans within their

strategic framework and supporting ongoing positions to promote and deliver physical

activity. It is recommended that continued support and reinforcement of the benefits of

these activities be promoted through the PATF and WALGA to local governments.

5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Between 2003 and 2008, the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) in

partnership with the Physical Activity Taskforce (PATF; the Taskforce) and supported by Lotterywest,

offered matched grants between $5,000 and $60,000 for Local Governments and community groups

to encourage innovative approaches to increasing physical activity at the community level The

objectives of this grant program were to:

1. Promote and increase sustainable opportunities for physical activity at the community

level;

2. Enhance and build on existing physical activity strategies and initiatives already

undertaken by Local Government;

3. Incorporate physical activity objectives and strategies into Local Government strategic

planning and budgetary processes;

4. Identify opportunities to encourage collaboration between State, Local Government,

private enterprise and community organisations; and

5. Support programs whose outcomes can be sustained beyond completion of the grant.

Since 2003 the Local Activity Grants (LAG) program has distributed $2.07 million to 160 projects

across 109 Local Governments (there are 139 local governments throughout WA) through nine

rounds of funding. The average amount of funding received was $13,000 per project. Prior

evaluations of the LAG program has occurred in part through reporting by LGs on individual projects

through a reporting template (six month and twelve month reports), as well as through in‐house

impact evaluation surveys that occurred between 12 and 18 months after completion of the

projects. An internal impact evaluation of the LAG funding occurred in July 2006 (rounds one and

two) and July 2007 (rounds three and four). The results of the impact evaluation, coupled with

anecdotal evidence, indicated high levels of success amongst LAG recipients. However, there were

gaps in the data collected in regards to the level of long‐term sustainability and impacts on both the

organisations and their respective communities.

LAG projects were tailored to meet the requirements of different LGs. A focus across a number of

different program activities was possible. Table 1 shows the distribution of broad project types

across each round of funding. Developing physical activity plans within the LG was funded as part of

several LAGs. LAG walking programs could comprise activities including, the development of

walking maps, trail signage, walking events, pedometer challenges, establishing a pedometer loan

scheme and walking groups. Fitness leader training (certificate III and IV) as part of a LAG consisted

6

of training both staff and community members, so as to be able to offer group fitness classes. LAGs

may also have comprised a range of recreation and leisure centre activities (e.g. group fitness

classes, gymnasium activities and aquatic programs). Examples of other LAG strategies included (1)

circus programs that involved training local people to be able to run local circus skills classes (2)

senior activities including carpet bowls and lifeball, and (3) cycling skills classes and cycling groups

(Table 1).

Table 1: Local Activity Grant (LAG) project types across the four funding rounds

Project Type Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Total

Percentage of total funded LAGs

n n n n n n=64

%

Developing physical activity plans 5 2 2 3 12 18.7

Walking programs 7 7 6 5 25 39.0 Fitness leader programs 1 1 3 5 10 15.6 Recreation/Leisure Centre Activities 2 0 0 0 2 3.1

Circus program 0 1 1 0 2 3.1 Seniors initiatives 0 1 0 0 1 1.5 Cycling 1 1 2 0 4 6.4 Other 2 2 0 2 6 9.4

Note: LAGs could included multiple project types

In 2009, the PATF and WALGA engaged the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit at The University of

Western Australia to conduct an evaluation of the sustainable impacts of the LAG on recipients of

the four most recently completed funding rounds.

1.1 Aims and objectives of the evaluation

The overall aim of this evaluation was to assess the long term impact of the LAG program on LGs

ability to deliver physical activity related initiatives to their community.

The specific objectives of the evaluation were to:

• Assess the level of impact LAGs have had in the community; and

• Assess the level of sustainability identified beyond the LAG investment including impact on

physical activity policy, environment, resourcing and partnerships.

7

2.0 METHODOLOGY

The evaluation comprised telephone interviews with representatives of Local Governments (LGs)

who received LAG funding in rounds 4 (2005), 5 (2006), 6 (2006) and 7 (2007), as well as LGs not in

receipt of funding. All LGs (n=64) who were awarded a LAG within the selected funding rounds were

considered eligible to participate in the survey. In addition, the 34 LGs who had not received a LAG

were invited to participate in a survey of their physical activity related initiatives. Contact details

were obtained from each LG identifying a representative able to comment on LAG funding impact

and experience.

In April 2009, identified LG representatives were mailed a letter from the Health Promotion

Evaluation Unit, informing them of the study and to expect a follow‐up phone call inviting them to

participate in a brief telephone interview. Along with background information on the purpose of the

study, the letter included several questions in advance, to encourage potential consultation with LG

colleagues. Between April and May 2009, representatives from the 64 funded LGs were contacted

via the telephone and invited to participate in the LAG telephone survey. Eligible respondents were

contacted during working hours, with up to 10 call backs to maximise response rates.

In August 2009, LGs who did not receive funding were mailed a letter from the Health Promotion

Evaluation Unit, informing them of the study. LGs without funding were then contacted via

telephone and invited to participate in the LAG telephone survey.

2.1 Survey Instrument

Two LAG survey instruments were developed. One instrument collected information from

respondents of a LG that had received a LAG. A second instrument was modified from the first and

used to collect information from LGs who had not received a LAG.

The LAG survey for LGs comprised 19 questions. The first few questions sought clarification on the

position of the respondent within their LG and their LAG related role. The next series of questions

asked respondents about the effect of the LAG on a range of physical activity programs and

strategies. Respondents were asked to distinguish between small, moderate and large increases or

decreases to a range of effects on physical activity initiatives. In addition, lists of specific effects that

could have resulted as a consequence of LAG related physical activity initiatives were presented to

respondents who were asked to indicate either ‘yes’ or ’no’ to their occurrence. The next set of

questions sought information on community target groups and facilities, as well as promotion

8

strategies used to promote LAG activities. A large component of the survey related to the

development and implementation of physical activity related plans as a result of receiving the LAG.

Questions were also asked about partnerships developed by LGs to implement the LAG activities

prior, during and following LAG funding. One question also sought information on partnerships

developed within LGs as a result of the LAG funding.

A series of questions relating to the LG at the time of the survey were included to measure any

longer term or sustained activities resulting from the LAG. This included information on changes in

the number of positions assigned to promote physical activity, identification of activities following

the end of the funding period, as well as reasons why LAG related programs/activities ceased. The

final section of the survey sought feedback from respondents on the administration of the LAG

funding and the support provided by the PATF and WALGA.

The survey of non funded LGs comprised 16 questions modified from those asked of funded LGs.

Questions related to the impact of the LAG were removed from the survey, while the questions on

physical activity plans, physical activity programs, partnerships in delivering physical activity and

target groups were retained and modified to reflect the non funded status of LGs. In addition to

removing and modifying the funded LG survey several questions were added to investigate the level

of awareness of the LAG scheme and any interaction with WALGA or the PATF the LGs may have

arisen in consideration of applying for a LAG.

2.2 Sample

Eighty six LG employees completed the survey on behalf of their organisation. They represented

88% of eligible LGs invited to complete the survey. A total of 56 LGs in receipt of a LAG and 30 LGs

who had not received a LAG were represented in the sample. No significant differences in the

response rate of LG representatives were observed between funding rounds and with the non

funded LGs. As evidenced in Table 2, the average amount of funding received was $13,400 per

round, with no significant difference in the average amount awarded between the four funding

rounds. A similar proportion of respondents represented LGs from non metropolitan areas

(between 57% and 71%), with virtually all (97%) of non funded LGs from non metropolitan areas.

The average number of years respondents had been working for their LG was approximately 5 years,

with no significant difference in length of service between funding rounds. Table 2 also shows that

38% of respondents were directors/managers/executives.

9

Table 2: Response rates and sample characteristics

Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Non-funded Total Eligible Local Governments (n) 17 17 14 16 34 98 Participating local governments (n) 17 14 11 14 30 86 Response rate per round (%) 100 82 79 88 88 88

Country LGs (%) 71 71 64 57 97 77 Metropolitan LGs 29 29 36 43 3 23

Average funding amount [$(SD)]

12,871 (8260)

13,800 (8200)

11,730 (4250)

15,000 (8500) - 13,400

(7570)

Years working at LG [years(SD)]

6.2 (4.2)

5.1 (4.3)

4.2 (3.3)

3.4 (2.4)

3.3 (3.2)

4.9 (3.8)

LG position Director/manager/executive 38.1 Community/club/economic development officer 15.5

Health project officer 19.0 Physical activity officer 16.7 LG officer 10.7

2.3 Data Analysis

All data were analysed using SPSS for Windows (version 17). Descriptive statistics were conducted

for all variables. Where the sample size permitted, cross tabulations were performed and Chi

Square statistics conducted. Comparisons between the funding rounds were explored for each

variable.

10

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 Effect of receiving LAG funding on different areas of local government

Table 3 provides evidence of the effect of LAG funding on physical activity related activities within

LGs across the four funding periods. Overall, the LAG had a positive effect on several physical

activity programs and events across all four funding rounds. For the majority of respondents (59%)

the LAG resulted in a “large increase” in their LGs ability to deliver physical activity programs and

events. This was particularly noted in the two most recent funding rounds (round 6, 64% and round

7, 71%). The LAGs also resulted in the majority of LGs (59%) increasing new initiatives to improve

the physical activity participation of community members. While not all LGs were funded as part of

their LAG to improve local facilities, the majority of respondents (76%) indicated the LAG had a

“moderate” or “little effect” in this area, while approximately one in four (17%) stated there was a

large increase. Slightly less than one half (46%) of respondents reported the LAG resulted in a

“moderate increase” of physical activity as a high priority within LGs. Just over one half of

respondents (57%) also reported the LAG resulted in a “moderate increase” in LG staff not involved

in the LAG project becoming advocates for promoting physical activity.

Table 3: Local Activity Grants effect on Local Government physical activity (PA) programs

Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Total n 17 14 11 14 56

%

Ability to deliver PA programs and events

A large increase 47 57 64 71 59 Moderate increase 53 43 36 29 41 Little or no change 0 0 0 0 0

New initiatives to improve PA of community members


Improved local facilities for PA

A large increase 20 21 27 0 17 Moderate increase 40 29 36 29 33 Little or no change 40 43 36 50 43 NA/Don’t know 0 7 0 21 7

Local community participant numbers in PA programs


11

Table 3 cont’d: Local Activity Grants effect on Local Government physical activity programs


%

Physical activity became a high priority within the LG


Staff not involved with the LAG, became advocates for promoting physical activity


LAG program was well supported within the LG


3.2 Selected physical activities resulting from the LAG

Figure 1 presents the proportion of LGs who implemented a range of activities that may have

resulted from LGs receiving a LAG, although not all the activities were required to be implemented

with every LAG. The Figure shows that as a result of LAG funding the large majority of LGs were able

to engage more community members in physical activity (96%), develop partnerships with other

agencies (89%), work in partnership with other organisations (89%), provide opportunities for staff

to acquire new skills (87%) and hold community physical activity events (83%). Slightly more than

two thirds of LGs reported that the LAG brought different community groups together to engage in

physical activity (69%), that the LAG resulted in the development of resource (e.g. maps, brochures

and guides, 69%) and the establishment of walking programs (67%). Most respondents also

reported that their LGs were able to offer new physical activity programs for seniors (63%), that they

were able to train fitness leaders (Certificate III and IV, 59%) and train staff to promote physical

activity (59%). Almost one half of respondents (46%) reported their LG was able to develop a

physical activity plan (46%) as a result of receiving a LAG, with 35% offering youth physical activity

programs or creating new positions/job for physical activity and 33% developing physical activity

websites. A small proportion of LGs offered circus or gym programs (13%) with their LAG funding.

12

Figure 1: Range of physical activity related initiatives resulting from the LAG

13

33

35

35

46

46

48

56

57

57

59

59

63

67

69

69

83

87

89

89

96

0 20 40 60 80 100

Offering circus/gym programs

Website development related to PA

Youth physical activity programs

Creation of new positions for PA

Installation of minor works (bike racks, park seating, water fountains)

Development of a PA plan

Recreation centre activities

Community volunteers trained in delivering PA initiatives

LG budget allocated to PA

LG staff trainined in delivering PA initiatives

Staff trained to promote PA

Training fitness leaders (Cert III and IV)

New seniors physical activities

Establish walking programs

Activities brought different community groups together

Development of resources (maps,brochures, guides)

Community physical activity events

Opportunities for staff to acquire new skills

Development of partnerships with other organisations

Opportunities to work in partnership

More community members engaged in PA

Proportion of LGs

13

3.3 The effect of physical activity related activities resulting from receiving the LAG grant

When asked to reflect upon the effect of receiving a LAG on a number of physical activity related

activities, not all of which were required outcomes of every project, the majority of respondents

(64%) considered the LAG to have had a “major effect” on their LGs ability to deliver physical activity

related programs, particularly amongst LGs receiving a LAG in the two most recent funding rounds

(round 6, 82%; round 7, 86%). Engaging new community members in physical activity was also

reported by the small majority of respondents (53%) to have had a “major effect” from LAG funding,

particularly amongst respondents of round 7 (71%).

The LAG had “a major” or “some effect” on 48% of respondents in developing a physical activity plan

for Councils. The same proportion (48%) stated that the LAG had “very little” to “no overall effect”

on developing a physical activity plan, although physical activity plans were required as part of only a

small number of LAG grants. Amongst respondents from LGs who reported “no effect” (41%) on

developing a physical activity plan, 81% had not developed a physical activity plan before, during or

after the LAG funding. A “major effect” on developing physical activity plans was reported amongst

43% of LG respondents in LAG funding round 7.

Overall, the largest proportion of respondents (44%) reported the LAG had “some effect” on

ensuring ongoing support for physical activity within LGs. However, the majority of respondents of

the two most recent rounds of funding (round 6, 64%; round 7, 54%) reported the LAG had a “major

effect” on ensuring ongoing support for physical activity, compared with 13% and 36% of

respondents of the two earlier funding rounds, 4 and 5 respectively.

Overall, 42% of respondents reported the LAG had “some effect” on the installation of physical

activity related minor works, such as bike racks, park seating, water fountains, and signage with 15%

reporting a “major effect”. A greater proportion of LGs in funding round 7 (21%) reported a “major

effect” on installing minor works compared with LGs in the fourth round of funding, however round

7 saw a greater proportion of funding allocated to minor works compared with rounds 4,5 and 6.

Overall, the majority of respondents (56%) reported the LAG had some effect on generating media

publicity on physical activity programs, although a greater proportion of LGs reported a “major

effect” on media publicity in round 7 (50%) compared with round 4 (20%). In addition, no LG

reported the LAG had “very little effect” on media publicity in the most recent round of funding

compared with 20% in round 4.

14

Table 4: Effect of the LAG on LGs ability to implement physical activity related initiatives

Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Total

n 17 14 11 14 56

%

Deliver physical activity programs to the community

A major effect 40 57 82 86 64 Some effect 53 43 18 14 33 Very little effect 7 0 0 0 2 No effect at all 0 0 0 0 0

Engage new community members in physical activity


Develop a physical activity plan for your council

A major effect 27 0 27 43 24 Some effect 33 36 27 0 24 Very little effect 13 7 0 7 7 No effect at all 20 57 46 43 41 NA / Don’t know 7 0 0 7 4

Ensure ongoing support for physical activity within your local council


Install physical activity related minor works


Generate media publicity of physical activity programs


15

3.4 LAG target populations and key strategies

As evidenced in Table 5, the LAG mostly targeted adults (89%) and older adults (87%), with 76% of

funded LGs targeting young people aged 13 to 17 years of age. Most LAG projects (63%) also

targeted children aged 6 to 12 years of age. Compared with LGs who did not receive LAG funding, a

significantly greater proportion of funded LGs targeted adults and older adults in their promotion of

physical activity.

When asked about specific community groups targeted by LAG activities, the majority of

respondents reported directing physical activity strategies towards low income groups (87%) and

women (91%). A high proportion of respondents also indicated that important target groups

included groups with low education (63%), people with disabilities (63%) and remote/rural

communities (57%). The least commonly reported community groups targeted were Indigenous

people (44%) and culturally and linguistically diverse groups (48%). LGs in receipt of a LAG were

significantly more likely to have reported targeting women, low income groups and groups with low

education, compared with non funded LGs.

Table 5, shows local parks (82%), walking paths (80%), community centres (78%) and recreation

centres (74%) were the most commonly used settings for LAG activities. Compared with non funded

LGs, a significantly greater proportion of LGs used local parks, walking paths and community centres

to deliver or promote their physical activity programs. Table 5 also shows that all (100%) funded LGs

used the local newspaper as a method for promoting LAG activities. The large majority also used

community centre promotion (91%) and local government notice boards (91%). Schools were used

by 76% of LGs to promote LAG activities, with the internet used by 68% of LGs. Very few LGs used

the West Australian newspaper (2%) or television (7%) to promote LAG activities.

Table 5: LAG target populations and key strategies for promotion of PA/LAG activities

Funded LGs Non funded LGs n 56 30

% %

Age of target groups reached as a result of receiving the LAG# Children 0 -5 years* 20 47 Children 6 -12 years 63 67 Young people 13-17 76 60 Adults 18-54* 89 60 Older adults 55 years plus* 87 56

NB: “*” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.05; “**” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.01

# Multiple response question

16

Table 5 cont’d: LAG target populations and key strategies for promotion of PA/LAG activities

Funded LGs Non funded LGs n 56 30

% %

Specific community target groups# Women** 91 53 Low income groups** 87 50 People with disabilities 63 47 Groups with low education* 63 40 Remote and rural communities 57 43 Culturally and linguistically diverse groups 48 30 Indigenous people 44 43

Settings for LAG activities# Local parks* 82 57 Walking paths** 80 47 Community centre promotion* 78 47 Recreation Centres 74 63 Sports venues 61 73 Mass media** 59 30 Education and schools 52 40 Library 43 33 Workplaces 39 47 Shopping centres 11 3 Hospital 7 3

Strategies# Local newspaper** 100 70 Community centre promotion** 91 56 Local government notice board* 91 67 School 76 57 Internet* 68 47 Letter drop 52 40 Radio 43 23 Television 7 3 West Australian 2 3

NB: “*” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.05; “**” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.01 # Multiple response question

3.5 LG physical activity related plans

Respondents were asked about a range of local government plans their LG may have in place or

were currently developing. Table 6 shows that slightly more than one half of respondents (52%)

from LGs receiving a LAG had a physical activity plan, compared with significantly fewer respondents

from LGs that did not receive funding (28%). A greater proportion of respondents (60%) from LGs in

receipt of a LAG reported their LG had a sport and recreation plan, compared with respondents from

non‐funded LGs. However this difference was not significant.

17

The Table shows that a small yet higher proportion of respondents from funded (19%) compared

with non‐funded (9%) LGs were currently developing physical activity plans. The Table also shows

that a greater proportion of respondents from funded LGs were developing public open spaces,

trails/ paths and leisure plans, compared with respondents from LGs that did not receive a LAG.

Compared with funded LGs, a greater proportion of respondents from non‐funded LGs reported that

their LG was developing health and wellbeing/healthy lifestyle strategies, walking plans and cycling

plans.

Table 6: LG physical activity related plans amongst funded and non-funded LGs

Plan in place Currently developing plans

Funded (n=56)

Non-funded (n=30)

Funded (n=56)

Non-funded (n=30)

% % % %

Physical activity 52* 28 19 9 Sport and recreation 60 43 35 29 Leisure 23 23 11 4 Public open spaces 24 24 22 14 Trails and paths 46 43 29 12 Health and wellbeing/healthy lifestyle 23 17 8 12 Walking 33 17 12 16 Cycling 26 23 10 15

NB: “*” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.05

Amongst respondents reporting their LGs had physical activity plans in place at the time of the

survey, most reported having sport and recreation (71%), leisure (79%) and public open spaces

(80%) plans developed prior to receiving LAG funding. Table 7 also shows that most respondents

reported their LG had developed a health and wellbeing plan prior to the LAG (64%); one half of

respondents reported their LG had developed a trails/paths (50%) and walking (50%) plans prior to

receiving funding, with slightly less than one half of respondents reporting their LG had developed

general physical activity plans (48%) and cycling (46%) plans before receiving LAG funding. Amongst

respondents who reported their LG had a physical activity plan and/or walking plan, 44% reported

that it was developed during the LAG funding period. Some respondents also reported that their LGs

developed plans for public open spaces (36%) and cycling (38%) after the LAG funding period.

At the time of the survey, the large majority of respondents reported that physical activity plans

(93%) and sport and recreation plans (94%) were part of their LGs overall strategic plan. The Table

also shows that amongst respondents from a LG that had plans in place, the majority reported these

plans were also part of the overall LG strategic plan (Table 7).

18

Table 7: Development of physical activity related plans amongst funded LGs

Before LAG

During LAG After LAG Overall

Strategic plan Physical activity 48 44 7 93 Sport and recreation 71 23 6 94 Leisure 79 22 0 79 Public open spaces 80 10 10 70 Trails and paths 50 14 36 77 Health & wellbeing/healthy lifestyle 64 27 9 64 Walking 50 44 6 63 Cycling 46 15 38 69

3.6 Characteristics of physical activity plans

Respondents who reported their LG had a physical activity plan in place at the time of the survey

(52% funded and 28% non‐funded) were asked about the characteristics of the physical activity plan.

As evidenced in Figure 2, the majority of respondents from funded LGs (88%) and non‐funded LGs

(80%) reported the plan contained guidelines to promote physical activity. A greater proportion of

respondents from LGs with a LAG reported that their LGs physical activity plan prescribed physical

activity goals and targets (88%) compared with 60% of respondents from non‐funded LGs. Amongst

respondents whose LG received a LAG and had a physical activity plan, 75% indicated that the plan

had been implemented, with 19% reporting their LGs plan had been reviewed. While a smaller

proportion of LGs who did not receive a LAG had implemented a physical activity plan (60%), 80%

reported that it had been reviewed. Figure 2, also shows that a greater proportion of respondents

from non‐funded LGs (80%) reported that their LG’s physical activity plan included a budget

allocation for physical activity promotion compared with respondents from funded LGs (56%).

Figure 2: Characteristics of the LG’s Physical Activity Plan amongst funded and non-funded LGs

88

88

75

56

75

19

80

60

80

80

60

80

0 20 40 60 80 100

Plan provides guidelines to promote PA

Prescribes PA goals and targets

Broadly identifies PA to be included in LGA activities

Include a budget allocation for PA promotion

LGA implemented the PA plan

LGA reviewed the PA plan

Proportion of respondents

Funded Not Funded

19

Table 8 shows the large majority of respondents reported a positive short (89%) and long term (74%)

effect of the LAG on their LGs physical activity plan.

Table 8: LAG effect on physical activity plans within local government

Funded

% (N=54)

Short term positive effect 89 Long term positive effect 74 No effect on physical activity within the local government 6

Negative effect on local government 0

3.7 Organisational partnerships

As evidenced in Table 9, respondents from funded and non‐funded LGs reported a wide range of

organisational partnerships developed as part of the delivery of physical activity programs. Overall,

a higher proportion of respondents from funded LGs indicated that their LGs engaged with

community groups (91%) compared with non‐funded LGs (77%). A higher proportion of respondents

from LGs with a LAG, partnered with state government agencies, NGOs and local recreation centres

to deliver physical activity programs, compared with respondents from LGs that did not receive a

LAG. A higher, but not significantly greater proportion of respondents from non‐funded LGs

reported partnerships with local sports clubs and other local governments, compared with funded

LGs.

Table 9: LAG related organisational partnerships

Funded Non-funded n 56 30

% %

Community groups 91 77 State government agencies 78 70 NGOs 59 47 Local recreation centre 56 40 Local sport clubs 54 63 Community centres 47 27 Other local governments 33 43 GP Network 29 21

3.8 LAG partnerships maintained as part of an ongoing service delivery

When asked if the partnerships developed as part of the LAG were maintained, following the grants

completion, in the delivery of ongoing services, all respondents (100%) reported this was true for

local recreation centres. As shown in Figure 3, community groups (94%), local sport clubs (90%),

20

community centres (88%) and state government agencies (86%) remained important partners in the

delivery of ongoing physical activity services. The Figure also provides evidence that the majority of

respondent LG maintained partnerships with NGOs (81%), GP networks (73%) and other local

governments (60%) as part of delivering ongoing services related to physical activity.

Figure 3: Maintenance of organisational partnerships as part of ongoing service delivery by Local Governments who received a LAG

3.9 Length of organisational partnerships for funded LGs

Respondents were asked about the nature of the partnerships developed as part of the LAG.

Overall, 70% of LAG funded respondents described their relationship with their local recreation

centre as existing/ongoing prior to the LAG; while 27% indicated that as a result of the LAG a long

term partnership had developed. Most respondents reported their LG had an existing partnership

with other local governments (65%), while 24% of respondents reported that a long term

partnership had resulted from the LAG. The establishment of a long term partnership with state

government agencies, community groups, community centres and the GP network was also evident

amongst respondent LGs (Table 9).

60

73

81

86

88

90

94

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Other local governments

GP Network

NGOs

State government agencies

Community centres

Local sport clubs

Community groups

Local recreation centre

21

Table 10, also shows the large majority of respondents from non funded LGs reported longer term

partnerships with, local recreation centres (100%), local sport clubs(90%), community centres (88%),

other local government (85%), and state government agencies (81%), in the delivery of physical

activity programs and activities. In addition, Table 10 shows that short term partnerships with

NGOs, as part of delivering physical activity programs, existed with community groups (43%), state

government agencies (19%) and other local governments were reported by respondents of non

funded LGs.

Table 10: Length of organisational partnership for funded LGs

Short term partnerships

Long term partnerships

Existing/ongoing partnership

% % %

Local recreation centre (n=30) 3 27 70 Other local governments (n=17) 12 24 65 Local sport clubs (n=29) 14 24 62 NGOs (n=32) 16 34 50 State government agencies (n=42) 7 50 43 Community groups (n=49) 10 53 37 Community centres (n=25) 20 44 36 GP Network (n=15) 33 53 13

3.10 Internal LG partnerships developed within Local Government departments

When asked to reflect upon partnerships developed within their own LG as part of the LAG, the large

majority of respondents identified recreation and leisure (85%) and community development (80%)

as internal LG partners. In the case of recreation and leisure this was significantly greater amongst

respondents from LGs with LAG funding compared with respondents from LGs that did not receive

funding. Table 11 shows internal partnerships with crime prevention and crime safety were

significantly greater amongst respondents from non funded LGs, compared with respondents from

funded LGs.

22

Table 11: Partnerships developed within local government

Funded Non Funded

n 56 30

% %

Recreation and leisure* 85* 63 Community development 80 67 Parks and Gardens 39 53 Human resources 35 27 Planning 33 53 Crime prevention and crime safety* 30 60 Engineering 28 33 Cultural services 24 37 Economic development 20 27 NB: “*” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.05;

3.11 Recall of LAG at the time of the survey

Respondents were asked to reflect upon their LG at the time of the survey and comment upon the

frequency of recall of the LAG funding. As evidenced in Table 12, the highest proportion of

respondents whose LG received funding in round 7 (i.e. the most recent round) reported the LAG

was referred to “very frequently”, compared with earlier rounds. While the highest proportion of

respondents believed the LAG was referred to “quite frequently” (42%) by their LG, no clear pattern

of recalling the LAG was observed between funding rounds. A small proportion of respondents (2%)

reported the LAG was not recalled at all by their LG.

Table 12: LG recall of the LAG funding at the time of the survey


%

Very frequently 18 29 9 43 25 Quite frequently 41 50 46 36 42 Not very frequently 35 21 36 21 29 Not at all 0 0 9 0 2

3.12 Number of LG workers on the LAG grant

Respondents reported that between 1 and 15 people worked on LAG related activities with a median

of two people, irrespective of the funding round. On average 8 ± 13 people were allocated to work

on physical activity programs within funded LGs, significantly more than the average of 2.4 ± 1

people amongst non funded LGs (P < 0.01). Overall, 54% of respondents reported their LG were not

using any volunteers to run activities, with 46% of LGs using between one and 30 volunteers in LAG

23

activities. The mean number of volunteers (3.8) involved in LAG activities did not significantly differ

between the four funding rounds.

As a result of receiving the LAG funding, 15 local governments were reported to have funded a

physical activity position within their LG. As evidenced in Figure 4, the majority of these positions

(60%) became a core position funded by the LG, with 20% ceasing to exist and 13% having the duties

of that position dispersed amongst other staff.

Figure 4: Outcome of physical activity position amongst the 15 LG who created a position during the LAG

3.13 Ongoing LAG related activities amongst funded and non funded LGs

Table 13, compares the proportion of LAG funded LGs reported to currently offer selected LAG

related physical activity programs, with LGs that did not receive LAG funding. A significantly higher

proportion of respondents from funded LGs reported the ongoing delivery of walking programs

(62%) and the development of websites to promote physical activity programs (41%), compared with

non‐funded LGs (30% and 17% respectively). However, a significantly higher proportion of non‐

funded LGs currently offered youth physical activity programs (60%) and were installing/maintaining

minor works (80%) compared with funded LGs (38% and 46% respectively).

Table 13 provides evidence for the high proportion of respondents of funded and non‐funded LGs

who reported ongoing LAG and physical activity programs were funded by their local government.

60

2013

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Became a core position funded by the LGA

Position ceased to exist Duties dispersed amongst other staff

Don't know

24

Table 13: Ongoing selected LAG related activities

Funded Non Funded n 56 30

%(n) LG funding %(n) %(n) LG funding

%(n) Community PA activities/events 68(36) 92(33) 50(15) 87(13) Physical activity related resources (maps, brochures, guides) 64(36) 97(35) 78(14) 100(0)

Walking programs** 62(34) 77(27) 30(9) 89(8) New seniors activities 62(34) 94(32) 47(14) 100(14) Installation and maintenance of minor works* 46(26) 96(25) 80(24) 100(24) Recreation centre activities 43(24) 96(23) 47(14) 86(12) Website development* 41(23) 78(18) 17(5) 100(5) Youth physical activity programs* 38(18) 100(18) 60(21) 90(19) Training fitness leaders 36(19) 84(16) 20(6) 83(5) Circus/gymnasium programs 9(5) 80(4) 23(7) 100(7)

NB: “*” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.05; “**” = significant difference between funded and non funded LGs p<0.01

3.14 Number of LAG activities ongoing

Figure 5 shows the average number of ongoing strategies reported by respondents from 10 common

LAG related physical activity strategies (Table 12). Overall, LGs funded by LAGs in round 7 reported a

significantly greater number of ongoing physical activities strategies compared with LGs in other

funding rounds and non‐funded LGs.

Figure 5: Average number of ongoing LAG activities per project in each funding round

3.15 LG staff allocated to work on physical activity

Respondents reported the median number of people currently allocated to work on physical activity

in their LG was 4, irrespective of the round of funding. Respondents from non funded LGs reported

significantly fewer people (median of 1 person) allocated to work on physical activity in their LG.

3.9

4.4 4.4

6.3

4.2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 No Funding

Average num

ber o

f con

tinuing

strategies

25

The majority of respondents (62%) reported that “about the same” number of people currently

worked on physical activity as compared with during the LAG funding period (Table 14). About one

quarter (23%) of respondents from LAG funding rounds 4, 5 and 6 reported the number of people

allocated to work on physical activity was more now, than during the LAG funding period. A smaller

proportion of respondents from round 7 (14%) reported that more people were allocated to physical

activity now compared with during the LAG funding period. Overall, compared with the LAG funded

period, few respondents (7%) reported that less people were currently working on physical activity

in their LG.

Table 14: LG physical activity staff changes: current compared to LAG funding round


%

More 24 29 27 14 23 Less 6 0 9 14 7 About the same 71 50 55 71 62

3.16 Cessation of LAG activities

When respondents were asked why LAG strategies may have stopped at the end of the LAG funding,

just over one half of all respondents reported that activities ceased because the funding was ending

(54%). Table 15 shows the dependency of strategies on LAG funding as a reason for program

cessation was not evenly spread across the four funding periods. A small proportion of respondents

(11%) reported LAG activities ceased because they were not successful, or a partner organisation

withdrew support (5%). Approximately one quarter (23%) of respondents indicated a LAG activity

ceased as the LAG coordinator was no longer involved in the program. A greater proportion of

respondents from LGs funded in rounds 6 (18%) and 7 (29%) reported a cut in local government

funding resulting in the cessation of LAG activities compared with LGs from earlier funding rounds

(6% in round 4 and 0% in round 5).

Table 15: Reasons for the cessation of LAG activities


% They were dependent upon LAG funding 60 36 54 71 55

LAG funding ended 53 36 46 79 54 Coordinator no longer involved in the program 24 14 27 29 23

Local government cut funding 6 0 18 29 12 They were not successful 12 14 0 14 11 Partner withdrew support 0 7 9 7 5

26

3.17 Allocation of an annual physical activity budget

As evidenced in Figure 6, the large majority of respondents from LGs that received a LAG reported

their LG had an annual budget allocated to physical activity, which was significantly more than the

47% of respondents from LGs that did not receive a LAG (P < 0.05).

Figure 6: Annual physical activity budget

3.18 Support of the LAG by the PATF and WALGA

Table 16 provides evidence for how respondents rated the level of support received from the PATF

and WALGA. Overall the majority of respondents felt the funding guidelines (52%), information

sessions (54%), level of feedback (52%), application turnaround (52%), PATF and WALGA support

during implementation (50%) and reporting requirements (62%) were “good”. One half (50%) of

respondents rated the PATF and WALGA support during the proposal development of the LAG as

“excellent”. The table also shows very few respondents considered the support of WALGA and the

PATF to be marginally adequate or poor.

8279

91 93

47

74

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Round 4 Round 5 Round 6 Round 7 Non Funded Total

Prop

ortion

of respo

nden

ts

27

Table 16: Select support by the PATF and WALGA

Outstanding Excellent Good Marginally adequate Poor Don’t

know n = 56 % % % % % %

LAG funding guidelines 4 40 52 0 0 5 Information sessions 7 27 54 0 0 13 PATF proposal development support 12 50 29 2 0 6

Clarity of LGs responsibilities 5 46 46 0 0 2 Level of feedback about LAG 4 36 52 5 0 4 Application turnaround 5 30 52 0 0 13 Support of PATF and WALGA during implementation 11 38 50 0 0 2

Reporting requirements 2 27 62 2 0 7 Receiving funds timely 7 39 46 2 0 5

3.19 LAG funding meeting LG expectations

When asked if the LAG meet their expectations, the majority of respondents (84%) considered the

documentation required to apply for funding to be “reasonable”. Table 17 shows the large majority

of respondents reported that the overall requirements (91%), financial accountability (93%) and

reporting requirements (91%) exceeded what is reasonable for the LAG funding.

Table 17: LAG funding meeting LG expectations

Substantially exceed

reasonable

Exceed what is

reasonable Expectations reasonable

Lower than reasonable

Substantially lower than reasonable

Don’t know

n=56 % % % % % % Documentation required applying for funding 2 9 84 0 0 4

Overall requirements 5 91 0 0 0 4 Financial accountability 4 93 0 0 0 4 Reporting requirements 2 91 0 0 0 4

3.20 Non‐funded LGs engagement with the LAG scheme.

Amongst respondents from LGs that had not received a LAG, 60% reported their LG had heard of the

LAG initiative offered by WALGA and the PATF. However, no respondent’s LG applied for a LAG

during the funding period. When asked to provide reasons why their LG did not apply for funding,

one third reported a lack of time to prepare the application (33%), with a further 11% believing the

application process was too involved and 10% reporting that they felt their town was too small for

the grant (Table 18). Other reasons provided for not applying for a grant included the grant was too

restrictive for the LGs requirements, inadequate resources or local support, and access to other

funds.

28

Table 18: Non Funded LGs reasons for not applying for a LAG

Non funded n 30

%

No time to prepare application 33 Other 33 Don’t know 17 Application process too involved 11 Small town 10 Funding has been sought elsewhere 6 Unable to match funding 0 Addressing physical activity already and don’t need external funds 0

3.21 Comments about the LAG scheme from respondents from LGs in receipt of a LAG

Table 19, provides unsolicited responses about the LAG scheme from respondents from LGs in receipt of a LAG.

Table 19: Comments from respondents from LGs in receipt of a LAG

Overall comments from respondents of LGs in receipt of a LAG

Basically I think it’s a worthwhile program to run / its encouraged us to do some different programs instead of just the team sports that

not everyone is interested in. its enabled us to reach other people and do different things that we may not have assumed they were

interested in before

I found it very hard to generate sustained community interest with formal walking groups. People wouldn't commit to the same time

every week. It wasn't as successful as we hoped it would be.

I think first of all the PATF who I dealt with more than WALGA they were enthusiastic about the program and a great help. The program

wouldn't have run if we didn't receive the grant and it is now ongoing. They gave us the opportunity to do the program which is great

I think it's a very valuable project. It's a very appreciated service by the people and the local authority in being able to present the

programs

I think the grants have supported a cultural change within local governments and how they do things. Its given the ability to actually

work with the community and implement the find 30 message

I think this is one of the best grants that I've ever been involved in. They are very supportive and the information was outstanding

I thought PATF were flexible with deadlines given circumstances. There was a change of staff and the position was unattended for a

while during the LAG project period which was understood by PATF and the deadline was extended accordingly

I would like to say that I'm aware that now we are no longer a recipient of the grant we miss it, as in we realise what an impact it made.

it brought the community together and we had a page in the newspaper it was a great focus to have and a great focus for the

community

I'll just say that the staff at PATF are very helpful

29

I'm sorry that I couldn't help much its just that I wasn't here when the grant was given and nobody here was. I've been here for 2 years

and I have broken the record for longevity / we just have such a high turnover for staff here because its so remote

It has helped us improve our delivery of physical activity within our shire. Has helped create sustainability of the project and eased

reliance of the shire of delivering those activities due to the volunteers

Just that as far as I'm concerned these guys are fantastic. The support is fantastic and if all external funding resources were like this

group I would be happy they are really switched on focused

Just that it was a fantastic initiative and there should be more of it

No just that it was a great benefit to the community

Of all the different types of grant that are available the LAG grants fill a gap within all the grants available and without it there would be a

loss of availability for grassroots programs being delivered so they are extremely important

Our project was rather large and the funding accounted about 5% of the project costs / with larger funding from PTAF more partnerships

could have been created

The funding is 50-50 and its very hard to get funding because we are a small local government

The only thing I was disappointed with is we didn't get the level of funding we applied for.

They tried to make it a relatively simple process because there are some processes out there that are difficult to deal with. The variety

of funding is good and there was a broad scope for what you could ask for regarding funds. The only down side is that there are

unreasonable expectations on you

We are grateful to PATF and WALGA because as a result of their funding we are able to deliver more programmes, train staff and

volunteers which will lead to the sustainability of these programmes within the community

We hope to get more funding

We value the funding very highly and it certainly assisted us to implement some highly successful programs which we wouldn't be able

to do. It also gave my staff a chance to train - a very positive feeling indeed

What we ended up doing was varied compared to the original application, and the flexibility with the use of funding was greatly

appreciated

Without WALGA funding our organisation would have been hard pushed to survive as a community entity and we found the process of

application was not too off putting and all staff that we dealt with have been as helpful as possible

30

4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of this evaluation suggest the LAG scheme was used by LGs to deliver a wide range of

physical activity related strategies that may not have otherwise occurred. The results provided

evidence for the LAG scheme delivering in line with the aims and objectives of the LAG funding. The

following summary details these findings against each of the LAG program objectives.

4.1 Objective 1: Promote and increase sustainable opportunities for physical activity at the community level

The results of this evaluation suggest the LAG increased LGs ability to deliver new and existing

physical activity programs and events during the funding period, with a greater proportion in the

more recent round 7 compared with LGs who were funded in round 4. The results also suggest that

compared with LGs not in receipt of a LAG, funded LGs delivered more opportunities for the

community to engage in physical activity.

The LAG funding appeared to enable LGs to deliver new and/or a greater number of community

physical activity events, develop resources (walking maps, brochures and guides) and offer programs

for key target groups. The LAG also enabled the majority of funded LGs to offer staff training

(Certificate III and IV) and allocate funding towards the promotion of physical activity. These types

of activities, typically associated with short term funding opportunities, can often cease at the end of

programs. However, respondents indicated the continuation of many of these activities beyond the

LAG funding period and significantly more current activities than amongst LGs that did not receive a

LAG. This may reflect some physical activity strategies becoming embedded as part of LG business,

suggesting positive longer term effects of the LAG. Alternatively, these types of activities may have

occurred before the LAG, which further increased their occurrence during and following the LAG.

However, differences observed in the type of physical activity strategies in place at the time of the

survey amongst funded LGs compared with LGs who had not received a LAG support the finding that

the LAG scheme was influential in increasing physical activities for community members that may

not have otherwise developed.

The results of this evaluation suggest that LAG funding provided a boost in the delivery of physical

activity initiatives by funded LGs. This was reflected in the high proportion of respondents from LGs

funded more recently reporting a major effect on implementing physical activities, compared with a

lower proportion of respondents from earlier rounds. The results also suggest that compared with

non funded LAGs only LGs in the recent round 7 funding were offering significantly more LAG related

physical activity programs.

31

The LAG funding also appeared to enable LGs to provide more physical activity opportunities to most

of the population, particularly women and community members with low income compared with

LGs not funded with a LAG. While remote, rural and indigenous groups were less frequently

reported as key target groups amongst LAG funded LGs, and may reflect their community’s

demographic profile, it remained higher compared with non‐funded LGs who were more typically

regional.

4.2 Objective 2: Enhance and build on existing physical activity strategies and initiatives already undertaken by Local Government

The results of this evaluation suggest that LAG activities predominately used local parks, walking

paths and community centres as facilities to deliver physical activity programs and activities. The

use of these facilities by funded LGs was significantly greater than that reported by the proportion of

respondents from LGs not in receipt of a LAG. These local facilities were complemented with

activities offered by LAG funded LGs through recreation centres. The use of these local facilities may

in part explain the finding that community physical activity events and walking programs remained

operational at the time of the survey, irrespective of the round of LAG funding and these activities

were more prevalent compared with non funded LGs. These findings were further supported by the

main reasons provided for LAG activities ceasing; the end of available funding or the end of

involvement of the program coordinator. In part, whether the LAG funded LGs established new

programs using local facilities or strengthened existing programs, there was evidence from this

evaluation of long term commitment to accessing local facilities, and this was greater than amongst

LGs who did not receive LAG funding.

In promoting physical activity strategies to the community, LAG funded LGs used local media, such as

radio and the local newspapers significantly more than used by non funded LGs to promote physical

activity. Local community centres, schools and the internet were also used more often to promote

activities amongst LAG funded LGs compared with non funded LGs. In addition, targeted marketing

through letterbox drops was also common. LGs were unlikely to use any mass media (TV, radio, or

print) promotion of their events, supporting the engagement of the local community and local

facilities. Some of these findings may be explained by differences in the LGs and the types of

activities promoted in their LAG, although overall funded LGs were promoting physical activity

strategies more widely than non funded LGs.

32

4.3 Objective 3: Incorporate physical activity objectives and strategies into Local Government strategic planning and budgetary processes

A key objective of the LAG funding related to the long term impact on LG physical activity promotion

within the strategic planning of LGs. The development and implementation of LG plans related to

physical activity was one strategy aimed at embedding physical activity into local government

strategic planning. Approximately one third of LGs were funded as part of the LAG to develop

physical activity plans. Evidence from this evaluation suggests that one half (52%) of respondent’s

LGs with a LAG had a physical activity plan, which was significantly greater than the 28% of

respondents from non funded LGs. Furthermore, a significantly greater proportion of respondents

from funded LGs were in the process of developing physical activity plans compared with

respondents from non funded LGs. Amongst respondents whose LG received a LAG and had a

physical activity plan, 75% indicated that the plan had been implemented, with 19% reporting their

LGs plan had been reviewed. While a smaller proportion of LGs who did not receive a LAG had

implemented a physical activity plan (60%), 80% reported that it had been reviewed. The results

suggest that the LAGs had a positive effect on physical activity plans, although they may not have

been a major focus of all rounds and all grants within the LAG scheme.

Some LGs may have incorporated physical activity plans within sport and recreation (57%), leisure

plans or another LG plan, although it was not possible to determine this from the data collected as

part of this evaluation. In addition to the proportion of LGs with a specific physical activity plan, one

half of funded LGs reported the existence of their physical activity plan prior to funding. The results

suggest that across the four funding periods, approximately one quarter of LGs developed specific

physical activity plans.

Plans of funded LGs were most likely to prescribe goals and targets more than LGs not in receipt of

funding, who were more likely to have included a budget allocation for physical activity promotion.

If developed, physical activity plans were likely to be incorporated into overall LG strategic plans

amongst LAG funded LGs. Even though developing physical activity plans was not part of the

majority of LAG projects, the scheme appeared to have a positive effect on LGs developing and

implementing physical activity plans and incorporating them as part of overall strategic plans.

Overall, the results of this evaluation suggested the LAG program had a positive effect on the short

and long term physical activity programs amongst funded local governments.

The LAG also had a positive effect on creating new physical activity positions (35%). There was

evidence in this study that created physical activity appointments were retained following the LAG

funding. This further supports the longer term commitment of LGs in this area.

33

The results also suggest that overall more people were allocated to work on physical activity at the

time of the survey, compared with before the LAG funding. This was consistent across the four

funding periods, with few respondents indicating a decline in people allocated to physical activity.

Whether the increase in staff allocated to physical activity matched a broader trend in LG’s more

widely over the same period is unknown and the change may reflect a broader role of LG’s servicing

their communities.

The results also suggest that physical activity becoming a high priority within LGs was linked closely

to the time since the LAG funding, with decay towards a moderate effect in this area over time. The

results further support at least a moderate increase in the number of staff not involved in the LAG

becoming advocates for promoting physical activity, a finding not influenced by the funding period.

There was also consistency between funding rounds amongst respondents reporting staff were

trained with new skills to deliver physical activity programs and the LAGs brought different

community groups together.

4.4 Objective 4: Identify opportunities to encourage collaboration between State, Local Government, private enterprise and community organisations

External partnerships

The results of this evaluation support the LAG’s positive influence on developing and strengthening

external organisational partnerships in the delivery of physical activity programs and activities during

and following the funding period. Partnerships were strongest with community groups and other

state government agencies for each of the four funding rounds. However, while a greater proportion

of respondents from LAG funded LGs reported external partnerships in delivering physical activity

programs, this level was not significantly greater than the proportion of respondents from non LAG

funded LGs who engaged a range of external organisations in partnership to deliver physical activity

strategies.

Amongst LAG funded LGs, NGOs were commonly engaged in the delivery of physical activity

strategies, as were local recreation centres and sporting clubs. GP networks were also engaged

during the LAG, although this was likely to be for a short period. Importantly, there was evidence of

a high level of maintenance for all partnerships, particularly amongst local groups, supporting earlier

findings relating to the local nature of physical activity programs offered during and following the

LAG. External organisational partnerships with other local governments remained amongst 60% of

LGs following LAG funding, although LGs not funded with a LAG were more commonly partnered

with local government to deliver physical activity strategies.

34

Partnerships with local organisations appeared to have existed prior to the LAG funding, although

evidence from the evaluation suggested these relationships strengthened during the LAG period.

State government and GP networks were newer partnerships developed during the LAG, and were

likely to have been for a short period, rather than longer term.

Internal partnerships

One intention of the LAG funding was to encourage a whole of Local Government approach. The

results of this evaluation suggested a modest effect on partnerships to deliver physical activity

initiatives. Recreation and leisure (85%) and community development (80%) were the most

common internal partnerships developed, with less than 40% of respondents indicating a

partnership developed with other areas of their LG in delivering LAG activities. Partnerships within

LGs may already have existed at some level, particularly with people working in recreation and

leisure, as evidenced by the greater internal partnership amongst funded compared with non‐

funded LGs. These results may not reflect the response of different groups within LGs to respond to

request to support LAG or physical activity promotion. It may in part reflect the historical separation

of LG activities and may not be unique to physical activity. However, the LAG appeared to have a

limited effect on internal partnerships when compared with the internal partnerships that exist in

the delivery of physical activity amongst non funded LGs.

4.5 Objective 5: Support programs whose outcomes can be sustained beyond completion of the grant.

This evaluation attempted to capture the effect of the LAG funding on LG activities at the time of the

survey to measure any longer term effect on physical activity promotion. Recall of receiving a LAG

related to the proximity of the funding period to the survey, although overall a high proportion

indicated the LAG project was referred to frequently with only a few respondents indicating the LAG

was not referred at all.

The results of this evaluation suggest that compared with LGs that did not receive a LAG, a greater

proportion of LGs who had LAG funding continue to offer physical activity strategies related to the

LAG funding. Those activities that appeared to be most likely to be sustained beyond the funding

period were walking programs community physical activity events, the development of physical

activity related resources and new senior activities. Those that were less likely to be sustained

beyond the grant were circus/gymnastics programs, training fitness leaders, youth physical activity

programs and website development. Although with the exception of the circus/gymnastics

programs, over one third of all LAG activities were still ongoing. Amongst LGs in receipt of a LAG, the

35

over half (56%) had no volunteers engaged in the delivery of ongoing physical activity programs.

However, compared with non funded LGs, funded LGs reported a significantly greater number of

volunteers involved in delivering physical activity programs.

Sustainability of LAG related activities appeared related directly to the funding and in this evaluation

the cessation of physical activity programs was linked to funds, or the coordinator no longer being

involved and not the failure of the program. Differences in ongoing program delivery may be related

to funded LGs referring to LAG funded activities, whereas non funded LGs were asked about

activities they offer. It is possible funded LGs offered similar activities outside of the LAG funding,

although it was beyond the scope of this study to explore this possibility. Therefore, the results

should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the results reflect LG support for programs being

sustained beyond the LAG and while not necessarily offering on average more programs than non

funded LGs, the programs were directly related to their LAG activities.

Grant Administration

A final component of the LAG evaluation was to assess the PATF and WALGA’s role in their

administration. The results suggest that recipients were happy with the overall process, particularly

the guidelines and information sessions. The results also suggest that recipients were happy with

the manner in which the grants were delivered, supported and acquitted. In addition, most

respondents thought the application process was reasonable, however it was reported that the

overall requirements, financial accounting and reporting requirements exceeded a reasonable

amount. Amongst LGs that were not funded with a LAG, 60% had heard of the LAG scheme,

although none had chosen to apply for funding, with one fifth indicating this was due to a lack of

time.

4.6 Evaluation limitations

The results of this evaluation should be viewed with consideration for their limitations. In particular

response bias can threaten the results. In this study a response rate of 88% was achieved and

therefore this bias was minimal. However, the high response rate does not necessarily reflect the

representativeness of the target population. In this evaluation a high proportion of management or

executive officers agreed to complete the survey on their organisations behalf. Their role in

delivering the grant was not explored and their experience may have differed from the person or

people who originally delivered the grant. In part, the evaluation aimed to recruit people from the

LG even if they had not been involved to measure the sustainability of any LAG related activities. The

consequence may have been the accuracy of reported LAG effects. Respondents from non funded

36

LGs were primarily from regional Western Australia. Differences between the metropolitan LGs and

other regional LGs funded by a LAG may reflect the suitability of LAG program for non funded LGs, as

well as the overall needs of their communities. However, it was beyond the scope of the evaluation

to explore this further.

Data collected from non funded LGs occurred three months after the data collected from funded

LGs. This may have affected direct comparisons, although we believe it was unlikely to affect the

overall comparison between funded and non funded LAG LGs.

This evaluation sought feedback from LGs who received LAG funding at different time periods. The

recall of respondents may have varied depending on the proximity of the LAG funding to the

completion of the survey. It was beyond the scope of the evaluation to explore the magnitude of

response bias, although it should be acknowledged in the interpretation of results.

Non funded local government respondents were asked to report on current physical activity

programs and events, while respondents from funded LGs were reporting on LAG related activities

past and present. It is possible, differences between reported physical activity programs between

funded and non funded local governments reflect the framing of the questions.

The instrument developed for this evaluation attempted to capture information that occurred

several years ago, as well as current practises. The instrument also attempted to classify a range of

benefits of the LAG into closed ended responses. This commonly results in misclassification bias,

where respondents indicated a response that may not match their exact experience. Furthermore,

no attempt to validate responses was undertaken as part of this evaluation.

Conclusion

Overall, the results of this evaluation provided evidence to support the achievement of the LAG

objectives, particularly around enhancing and building existing physical activity strategies and

initiatives, encouraging collaboration and organisational partnerships and encouraging a sustained

physical activity program beyond the completion of the grant. As the LAG scheme has concluded the

following three recommendations focus upon key areas that could remain a focus of physical activity

promotion through local governments.

37

4.7 Recommendations

• The LAG funding appeared to boost LGs ability to promote and deliver physical activity

strategies to a wide selection of their community members during the funding period, as

well as beyond when compared with non funded LGs. It is recommended that schemes

promoting physical activity through local government continue to focus on local activities.

• Existing partnerships with other organisations exist in the delivery of physical activity

strategies. It is recommended these partnership continue to be developed as part of local

government physical activity promotion

• The evaluation found a positive effect of the LAG on funded LGs longer term commitment to

developing sustainable programs through developing physical activity plans within their

strategic framework and supporting ongoing positions to promote and deliver physical

activity. It is recommended that continued support and reinforcement of the benefits of

these activities be promoted through the PATF and WALGA to local governments

38

APPENDIX

14 March 2008 HPEU Local Activity Grant Questionnaire Good […], my name is [...] from […]. I’m calling on behalf of the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit at The University of Western Australia who are surveying organisations who have received a Local Activity Grant. You should have recently received a letter from Dr Michael Rosenberg, the Director of the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit, indicating that we would be contacting you to ask you to participate in a telephone interview. The interview is designed to collect information on the impact of the LAG grants on your organisation. Your name was provided by the LAG grant program as the appropriate person to speak with regarding the LAG grants impact on [… state name of organisation]. We would very much appreciate your co-operation. Are you prepared to participate in a telephone interview? The survey will take approximately [..] minutes. Do you have time to complete it now or would you like to make an appointment for me to call you back over the next few days. [Make appointment] Along with your letter from the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit, you should have received, an outline of some of the questions I am are going to ask you about your organisation. Having this in front of you while we speak may make some questions easier to answer. [terminate if appointment made] [reintroduce on call back at appointment time] All your responses are confidential and the results of the survey will be aggregated in a report to Healthway. No single organisations answers will be identified. Please answer the questions as a representative of your entire organisation. If any questions are not applicable to your organisation simply state ‘not applicable’. 1. What is your position or role in this organisation?

[do not read out] [select one or specify ‘other’] Director/Manager/Executive Director/Officer 1 Community development 2 Club development 3 Development Officer 5 Project Officer 6 Health promotion officer 7 Environmental health 8 Travelsmart 9 Recreation/leisure officer 10 Community safety/crime prevention 11 Economic development 12 Grants officer 13 Be active coordinator 14 PA project officer 15 Director of Community Services 16 Private Consultant 17 Health professional 18 Co-coordinator 20 Other; please specify 21

2. How many years have you been working at the local government? 3. Which of the following best describes your involvement in the LAG? a. Coordinator b. Project officer c. Have assumed responsibility for the LAG activities d. no involvement GOTO Q12

Thinking back to when your organization had the grant The first series of questions are about the effects of the LAG on your organisation. Please base your answers on your knowledge of your organisation. 4(a) I am going to ask you about the effect of receiving the LAG on different areas of your

organisation.

Thinking about when your organization had a LAG, what effect did receiving a LAG have on … [questions 1(a)1 – 1(a)9 with responses listed below]

4(a).1 … your organisation's ability to deliver physical activity programs and events 4(a).2 … The introduction of new initiatives to improve the level of physical activity of community

members 4(a).3 … Improving local facilities for physical activity 4(a).4 … your local community participant numbers in physical activity programs 4(a).5 … Having physical activity as a high priority within the council 4 (a).6 …Staff in your organisation who are not directly involved in the LAG program have

become advocates for promoting physical activity. 4(a).7 The LAG program was well supported in your organisation

[responses for 1(a).1 to 1(a).10]

A large increase …1 A moderate increase …2 Little or no change …3 A moderate decrease …4 A large decrease …5 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

4(b) Which, if any, of the following resulted from your organisation receiving a LAG grant [ROTATE ORDER]

4(b).1 More community members engaged in physical activity 4(b).2 establishing walking programs 4(b).3 Staff trained in promoting physical activity 4(b).4 Training fitness leaders (Cert III and IV) who then run fitness classes 4(b).5 youth physical activity programs 4(b).6 Your organisation ran activities that brought different groups of the community together

4(b).7 Development of partnerships with other organisations 4(b).8 Greater opportunity to work in partnership with other agencies 4(b).9 Opportunities for staff to acquire skills (e.g practical experience, workshops, seminars,

accreditation) 4(b).10 offering circus/gymnastics programs. 4(b).11 New Seniors activities, such as life ball, walking, carpet bowls, fitness classes 4(b).12 local government budget allocated to physical activity 4(b).13 development of resources (maps, brochures, guides) 4(b).14 Rec centre activities (sports, roller-skating, dance) 4(b). 15 Website development related to physical activity 4(b). 16 Community physical activity events e.g. come and try days, walk/bike events 4(b). 17 Installation of minor works, such as bike racks, park seating, water fountains, and signage 4(b). 18 Creation of new positions for physical activity 4(b). 19 Development of a physical activity plan 4(b). 20 Community volunteers trained in delivering PA initiatives 4(b). 21 Staff trained in delivering PA initiatives

[responses for 1(b).1 to 1(b).12] Yes …1 No …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

Walking programs (walk groups, walk maps, signage, pedometer challenges, pedometer loans) (NB: not all will do all of these strategies, though most do) 5. What effect did receiving LAG funding have on your organisation's ability to …

5(a) Deliver physical activity programs to the community 5(b) Engage new community members in physical activity 5(c) Develop a physical activity plan for your council 5(d) Ensure ongoing support for physical activity within your local government 5(e) Install physical activity related minor works 5(f) Genrate media publicity of physical activity programs

[responses for 2(a) to 2(e)]

A major effect …1 Some effect …2 Very little effect …3 No effect at all …4 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

6(a) Which, if any, of the following target groups was your organisation able to reach as a result of

receiving a LAG?

[read out] [accept multiple responses] 6(a).1 Children early years 0 -5 years 1 6(a).2 Children 6 -12 years 2 6(a).3 Young People 13-17 years 3

6(a).4 Adults 18-54 years 4 6(a).5 Older adults 55 years plus 5 6(a).6 Indigenous people 6 6(a).7 Remote and rural communities 7 6(a).8 People with disabilities 8 6(a).9 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Groups 9 6(a).10 Low income groups 10 6(a).11 Groups with low education 11 6(a).12 Women 12 6(a).13 [Others. Specify]

6(b) In which, if any, of the following settings has your organisation run activities or programs as a result of receiving LAG? [read out] [accept multiple responses] 6(b).1 Hospital 1 6(b).2 Recreation Centres 2 6(b).3 Sports venues 3 6(b).4 Shopping Centres 3 6(b).5 Local parks 5 6(b).6 Community 6 6(b).7 Walking paths 7 6(b).8 Education & schools 8 6(b).9 Workplaces 9 6(b).10 Mass Media such as TV, radio or print 10 6(b).11 Library 11 6(b).12 [Others. Specify]

6(c) Which, if any, of the following Promotional Strategies did your organisation use to promote

physical activity programs to the community as a result of receiving LAG? [read out] [accept multiple responses] 6(b).1 school 1 6(b).2 Local newspaper 2 6(b).3 West Australian 3 6(b).4 television advertising 4 6(b).5 radio 5 6(b).6 Community centre promotion 6 6(b).7 Local government notice boards 7 6(b).8 Internet 8 6(b).9 letter drop 9 6(b).12 [Others. Specify] 10

The next section covers physical activity related changes that your organisation may be trying to implement. It includes development and changes to physical activity related plans, practices and the built environment. 7(a) Does your local government have any of the following physical activity-related plans…?

a. Physical activity b. Sport and recreation c. Leisure d. Public open spaces e. Trails and paths f. Health and wellbeing/healthy lifestyle g. Walking h. Cycling i. Other [please specify

Yes …1 [skip to 7(c)] No …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

7(b) if no… Is your organization currently developing a [7a code] related plan?

1 Yes 2 No Skip to 7h

7(c) If yes, which of the following best reflects your [q7a code] plan 1. Your organization developed the [q7a code] plan before receiving the LAG 2. Your organization developed the [q7a code] plan after the LAG had been completed 3. During the LAG funding period 7(d) Is the [q7a code] plan included as part of the local government overall strategic plan? 1 Yes 2 No

[SKIP to 7(h) for all except 7a (g) = Yes 7(e) which of the following statements are true or false for your LAG physical activity plan 1 The plan provides guidelines for promoting physical activity 2 The plan prescribes physical activity goals and targets 3 The plan prescribes a level of physical activity promotion with the council activities 4 The plan broadly identifies physical activity to be included in council activities 5 The plan includes a budget allocation for the promotion of physical activity

[responses for 5(e)] True …1 False …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

7f. Has your local government implemented the physical activity plan

1 Yes 2 No

7g. Has the physical activity plan been reviewed

1 Yes 2 No

7h. From your organisations experience did the LAG have a…

1. Short term positive effect on physical activity plan within the LG 2. Long term positive effect on physical activity plan within the LG

3. No effect on physical activity within the LG 4. Negative effect on LG

The next questions ask about your organizations partnerships with other groups 8. Did the local government develop partnerships as part of delivery LAG activities with? 1. Other local governments 2. Community groups 3. Community centers 4. Local sport clubs 5. Local recreation centre 6. GP Network 7. Non Government Organisations such as the Heart Foundation, Cancer Council 8. State government agencies/schools 9. Other

[responses for 6]

True …1 False …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

Where True … [FOR EACH OF QUESTION 6 ask q9 and q10] 9. Has the partnership with [q6] been maintained as part of an ongoing service delivery

program for physical activity?

[responses for 7] Yes …1 No …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

10. Did the partnership with [q6] develop…

1. For a short period during the LAG only 2. For a longer term since the LAG 3. There was already an existing partnership

11. Did the LAG grant result in partnerships within your local government with?

1. Parks and Gardens 2. Planning 3. Engineering 4. Crime Prevention and Crime Safety 5. Human Resources 6. Economic Development 7. Community Development 8. Recreation and Leisure 9. Cultural Services

The next few questions ask you to think about your local government organization today… 12. How frequently would the LAG grant be referred to when your organization plans physical

activity?

[responses for [9] Very frequently …1 Quite frequently …2 Not very frequently …3 Not at all …4 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

13. a. How many people who were involved in delivering the LAG are still working at the LG 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7….. b. How many volunteers are still engaged in running activities from the LAG 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7…..

c. Did the LAG fund a position within the LG? Yes No GO TO q14 From the position/s funded by the LAG… has it or have they…

Become a core position funded by the LG 1 Ceased to exist 2 Duties dispersed amongst other staff members 3

14. Are there any physical activities programs developed during the LAG that are ongoing? 14(b).1 walking programs 14(b).2 Training fitness leaders (Cert III and IV) who then run fitness classes 14(b).3 youth physical activity programs 14(b).4 Circus/gymnastics programs. 14(b).5 New Seniors activities, such as life ball, walking, carpet bowls, fitness classes 14(b).6 Resources (maps, brochures, guides) 14(b).7 Recreation centre activities (sports, roller-skating, dance) 14(b). 8 Website development related to physical activity 14(b). 9 Community physical activity events e.g. come and try days, walk/bike events 14(b). 10 Installation and maintenance of minor works, such as bike racks, park seating, water

fountains, and signage 14(b) 11 Other [Please specify]

[responses for q11]

Yes …1 go to question 11a No …2 go to question 12 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

14c. For each ‘YES’ response to Q14b. Is the LG resourcing this initiative? Yes 1 No 2 15. Thinking about LAG activities that ended at the completion of the LAG, would you say this

was mainly because 1. The LAG funding ended 2. They were dependent upon LAG funding 3. They were not successful 4. The person coordinating the activity was no longer involved in the program 5. A partner for the activity withdrew support 6. local government cut funding 6. Other reasons

[responses for q12] Yes …1 No …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

16. How many people are allocated to work on physical activity in your LG? 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7….. 13a. Is that […] as during the LAG

[responses for q13a] More …1 Less …2 About the same …3 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

17. Does your local government have an annual budget for physical activity?

[responses for q14] Yes …1 go to question 14a No …2 go to question 15 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

17a. is this level increased each year – more/less/same as during the LAG

Next I will ask you about your dealings with the PATF and WALGA. 18(a) Based on your LGs dealings with the LAG, how would your LG rate the LAG process on each of

the following?

18(a).1 LAG funding guidelines 18(a).2 Information sessions at beginning of grant round 18(a).3 The PATF support in developing your proposal 18(a).3 The clarity of your LGs responsibilities outlined by the PATF and WALGA 18(a).4 Level of feedback about your LAG activities undertaken by the PATF 18(a).5 Time taken by PATF to respond to your application 18(a).6 support by PATF and WALGA during the implementation of the LAG 18(a).7 Reporting requirements of the LAG 18(a).8 Receiving funds in a timely manner [responses for 18(a).1 – 8(a)] [read out] [select one only] Outstanding: Substantially exceeded your LG expectations 1 Excellent: Exceeded your LGs expectations 2 Good: Met your LGs expectations 3 Marginally adequate: Fell short of your LGs expectations 4 Poor: Fell well short of your LGs expectations 5 Unacceptable 6 (Not applicable) 97

19(b) Based on your local governments dealings with the PATF and WALGA, how would you describe expectations of your LG on each of the following?

19(b).1 Documentation required applying for funding 19(b).2 overall requirements of you as a fund recipient group 19(b).3 Level of financial accountability required 19(b).4 reporting requirements [responses for 19(b).1 – 5] [read out] [select one only] PATF and WALGA expectations substantially exceed what is reasonable 1 PATF and WALGA expectations exceed what is reasonable 2 PATF and WALGA expectations are reasonable 3 PATF and WALGA expectations are lower than what is reasonable 4 PATF and WALGA expectations are substantially lower than what is reasonable 5

Do you have any comments you would like to make? Thank you again for you time. The information you have provided us with is very important to Healthway.

August 13, 2009 Local Activity Grant Questionnaire no participants Good […], my name is [...] from […]. I’m calling on behalf of the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit at The Edith Cowan University who are surveying local government organisations about their engagement in promoting physical activity. You should have recently received a letter from Dr Michael Rosenberg, the Director of the Health Promotion Evaluation Unit, indicating that we would be contacting you to ask you to participate in a telephone interview. Your LG details were provided by the Physical activity taskforce and WALGA who are funding this research. Participation in the study involves completing a 10 minute telephone survey. We would very much appreciate your participation. Are you prepared to participate in a telephone interview? The survey will take approximately [10.] minutes. Do you have time to complete it now or would you like to make an appointment for me to call you back over the next few days. [Make appointment] [terminate if appointment made] [reintroduce on call back at appointment time] All your responses are confidential and the results of the survey will be aggregated in a report to PATF and WALGA. No single organisations answers will be identified. Please answer the questions as a representative of your entire organisation. If any questions are not applicable to your organisation simply state ‘not applicable’. 1. What is your position or role in this organisation?

[do not read out] [select one or specify ‘other’] Director/Manager/Executive Director/Officer 1 Community development 2 Club development 3 Development Officer 5 Project Officer 6 Health promotion officer 7 Environmental health 8 Travelsmart 9 Recreation/leisure officer 10 Community safety/crime prevention 11 Economic development 12 Grants officer 13 Be active coordinator 14 PA project officer 15 Director of Community Services 16 Private Consultant 17 Health professional 18 Co-coordinator 20 Other; please specify 21 2. How many years have you been working at the local government?

6(a) Which, if any, of the following target groups does your organisation focus on promoting physical

activity

[read out] [accept multiple responses] 6(a).1 Children early years 0 -5 years 1 6(a).2 Children 6 -12 years 2 6(a).3 Young People 13-17 years 3 6(a).4 Adults 18-54 years 4 6(a).5 Older adults 55 years plus 5 6(a).6 Indigenous people 6 6(a).7 Remote and rural communities 7 6(a).8 People with disabilities 8 6(a).9 Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Groups 9 6(a).10 Low income groups 10 6(a).11 Groups with low education 11 6(a).12 Women 12 6(a).14 Do not address or focus on physical activity 14 6(a).13 [Others. Specify]

6(b) In which, if any, of the following settings has your organisation run physical activity related activities or programs? [read out] [accept multiple responses] 6(b).1 Hospital 1 6(b).2 Recreation Centres 2 6(b).3 Sports venues 3 6(b).4 Shopping Centres 3 6(b).5 Local parks 5 6(b).6 Community 6 6(b).7 Walking paths 7 6(b).8 Education & schools 8 6(b).9 Workplaces 9 6(b).10 Mass Media such as TV, radio or print 10 6(b).11 Library 11 6(b).12 [Others. Specify]

6(c) Which, if any, of the following Promotional Strategies did your organisation use to promote

physical activity programs to the community? [read out] [accept multiple responses] 6(c).1 school 1 6(c).2 Local newspaper 2 6(c).3 West Australian 3 6(c).4 television advertising 4 6(c).5 radio 5 6(c).6 Community centre promotion 6 6(c).7 Local government notice boards 7 6(c).8 Internet 8

6(c).9 letter drop 9 6(c).12 [Others. Specify] 10

The next section covers physical activity related changes that your organisation may be trying to implement. It includes development and changes to physical activity related plans, practices and the built environment. 7(a) Does your local government have any of the following physical activity-related plans…?

a. Physical activity b. Sport and recreation c. Leisure d. Public open spaces e. Trails and paths f. Health and wellbeing/healthy lifestyle g. Walking h. Cycling i. Other [please specify

Yes …1 [skip to 7(d)] No …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

7(b) if no… Is your organization currently developing a [7a code] related plan?

1 Yes 2 No Skip to 8

7(d) Is the [q7a code] plan included as part of the local government overall strategic plan? 1 Yes 2 No

[SKIP to 8 for all except 7a (g) = Yes 7(e) which of the following statements are true or false for your physical activity plan 1 The plan provides guidelines for promoting physical activity 2 The plan prescribes physical activity goals and targets 3 The plan prescribes a level of physical activity promotion with the council activities 4 The plan broadly identifies physical activity to be included in council activities 5 The plan includes a budget allocation for the promotion of physical activity

[responses for 7(e)] True …1 False …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

7f. Has your local government implemented the physical activity plan

1 Yes 2 No

7g. Has the physical activity plan been reviewed

1 Yes 2 No

The next questions ask about your organizations partnerships with other groups 8. Does your local government have partnerships as part of delivery physical activity

activities or programs with? 1. Other local governments 2. Community groups 3. Community centers 4. Local sport clubs 5. Local recreation centre 6. GP Network 7. Non Government Organisations such as the Heart Foundation, Cancer Council 8. State government agencies/schools 9. Other

[responses for 8]

Yes …1 No …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

Where True … [FOR EACH OF QUESTION 8 ask q10]

10. Is the partnership with [q8] …

1. For a short period only 2. For the longer term 3.

11. Which of the following areas within your local government do you partner to promote physical activity?

1. Parks and Gardens 2. Planning 3. Engineering 4. Crime Prevention and Crime Safety 5. Human Resources 6. Economic Development 7. Community Development 8. Recreation and Leisure 9. Cultural Services [responses for 11]

Yes …1 No …2 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

14. I am going to read a list of activities your LG may offer. For each one can you tell me whether your LG currently offers these activities?

14(b).1 walking programs 14(b).2 Training fitness leaders (Cert III and IV) who then run fitness classes 14(b).3 youth physical activity programs 14(b).4 Circus/gymnastics programs. 14(b).5 New Seniors activities, such as life ball, walking, carpet bowls, fitness classes 14(b).6 Resources (maps, brochures, guides) 14(b).7 Recreation centre activities (sports, roller-skating, dance) 14(b). 8 Website development related to physical activity 14(b). 9 Community physical activity events e.g. come and try days, walk/bike events 14(b). 10 Installation and maintenance of minor works, such as bike racks, park seating, water

fountains, and signage 14(b) 11 Other [Please specify]

[responses for q14] Yes …1 go to question 14c No …2 go to question 16 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

14c. For each ‘YES’ response to Q14b. Is the LG resourcing this initiative? Yes 1 No 2 16. How many people are allocated to work on physical activity in your LG? 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7….. 17. Does your local government have an annual budget for physical activity?

[responses for q17] Yes …1 go to question 14a No …2 go to question 15 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

17a. is this level increased each year – more/less/same as previous years

30. Have you heard of the Local Activity Grant initiative, offered by WALGA and the PATF?

Yes …1 go to question 31 No …2 go to question 33 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

31. Did your local government apply for a LAG grant?

Yes …1 go to 18a No …2 go to q32… (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

18(a) Based on your LGs dealings with the LAG application, how would your LG rate the LAG process on each of the following?

18(a).1 LAG funding guidelines 18(a).2 Information sessions at beginning of grant round 18(a).3 The PATF support in developing your proposal 18(a).3 The clarity of your LGs responsibilities outlined by the PATF and WALGA 18(a).5 Time taken by PATF to respond to your application [responses for 18(a).1 – 8(a)] [read out] [select one only] Outstanding: Substantially exceeded your LG expectations 1 Excellent: Exceeded your LGs expectations 2 Good: Met your LGs expectations 3 Marginally adequate: Fell short of your LGs expectations 4 Poor: Fell well short of your LGs expectations 5 Unacceptable 6 (Not applicable) 97

19(b) Based on your local governments dealings with the PATF and WALGA, how would you describe

expectations of your LG on each of the following?

19(b).1 Documentation required applying for funding [responses for 19(b).1 – 5] [read out] [select one only] PATF and WALGA expectations substantially exceed what is reasonable 1 PATF and WALGA expectations exceed what is reasonable 2 PATF and WALGA expectations are reasonable 3 PATF and WALGA expectations are lower than what is reasonable 4 PATF and WALGA expectations are substantially lower than what is reasonable 5

32. Can you briefly explain any reasons why your LG did not end up submitting an application? [Do not read out]

Unable to match funding …1 No time to prepare application …2 Application process too involved …3 Addressing PA already and don require external funds …4 Funding has been sought elsewhere …5 (Not applicable) …97 (Refused) …98 (Don’t know) …99

33. Do you have any comments you would like to make? Thank you again for you time.

Evaluation of the Local Activity Grants Programbeactive.dsr.wa.gov.au › assets › files ›...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the Local Activity Grants Programbeactive.dsr.wa.gov.au › assets › files ›...