FAMILY-CENTRED COMMUNITIES
The planning process

Discussion – implementing a family-centred approach in local government

Local government is encouraged, and in some cases required, to consider the impact of its decisions against a number of factors, including wellbeing, environmental sustainability, community outcomes, health and economic impact.

The Families Commission, with the assistance of Local Government New Zealand, is exploring the feasibility of increasing the focus on families in local body decision-making processes.

The literature review suggested that there are some processes which are central to ensuring local government achieves family-centred outcomes. These do not provide a simple checklist of tasks to carry out during decision-making, but rather challenge the fundamental premisses upon which decisions are made.

This section explores some of these core processes:

• developing a family wellbeing model
• gathering information on the status of families
• consulting with families
• multi-sector collaboration
• addressing inequalities
• building internal capacity.

Developing a family wellbeing model

Local government current practice

Councils have a responsibility to promote the wellbeing of their communities. The Local Government Act 2002 states:

• The purpose of local government is
• to enable democratic local decision-making and action by, and on behalf of, communities; and
• to promote the social, economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing of communities, in the present and for the future (Section 10, LGA 2002).

Under the decision-making requirements in the Act, a local authority must be able to demonstrate how a decision contributes to wellbeing (and community outcomes).

However, wellbeing is not defined in the Act. Most councils have adopted the definitions of wellbeing developed by the relevant government agencies: the Ministry of Culture and Heritage; the Ministry of Social Development; the Ministry for the Environment; and the Ministry of Economic Development.

The definitions tend to describe wellbeing from an individual or community perspective. For example, the Ministry of Social Development described the term ‘social wellbeing’ as “comprising individual happiness, quality of life, and the aspects of community, environmental, and economic functioning that are important to a person’s welfare” (Ministry of Social Development, 2004b, p. 13).

Definitions do not capture family wellbeing – that is, the wellbeing of the family, over and above the wellbeing of individual family members.

If definitions of wellbeing do not include aspects of family wellbeing, councils’ decision-making may inadvertently fail to support families. Conversely, if definitions of wellbeing include family wellbeing, councils will have a duty to consider the impact of every decision on families.

The Local Government Act 2002 also requires all councils to facilitate a process, at least once every six years, to determine community outcomes. The Act states that the purpose of community outcomes is:

• to inform and guide the setting of priorities in relation to the activities of the local authority and other organisations
• to promote better coordination and application of community resources (Section 91 (2)).

Under the decision-making requirements in the Act, a local authority must consider “…the extent to which community outcomes would be promoted or achieved in an integrated and efficient manner” (Section 77).

Councils have tended to develop outcomes frameworks on the basis of quality-of-life domain areas, such as health, safety and education.

The Department of Internal Affairs analysed the community outcomes in the draft long-term council community plans of the 85 New Zealand councils. The analysis revealed 11 themes or topics. These were: the economy; natural environment; urban environment; community; governance; safety; health; education; access to services; Māori-specific outcomes; and arts, culture and recreation. Five themes were consistently the most frequently referenced. These were the natural and urban environments, the economy, the community and arts, culture and recreation. The Department did not note any family outcomes.

A scan of council documents for this research suggests that no council currently has an outcome framework which uses a human development or ecological approach. It also appeared that councils have focused on community-wide outcomes, and not family outcomes. There are no outcomes regarding family resilience or family functioning.

Family-centred approach

The literature review found that a family-centred approach involves considering the impact (intended and unintended) decisions have on family wellbeing. Such an approach would require a wellbeing model which captured the collective wellbeing of family members and the wellbeing of the entity itself. For example, it would need to include assessments of interfamily relationships considering such factors as closeness, happiness, security and the quality of relationships between family members.[21] Milligan, Fabian, Coope, and Errington (2006) suggested that:

• …analysing wellbeing at the family level involves more than merely aggregating the individual living conditions of individual family members. It requires judgements about how the conditions of such members may affect the family unit as a whole (p. 26).

The literature also suggested that a family-centred approach would involve having explicit outcomes for families. To promote this approach, councils’ community outcome processes (COPs) should overtly seek community views on the desired outcomes for families. Community outcome frameworks should be structured to reflect outcomes and priorities for families.

The literature on other initiatives, such as healthy cities and child-friendly cities, emphasised the need for council-wide strategies focusing on the issues at hand. It argued that a strategy ensures that outcomes statements and other policies are converted into actions.

Currently, only Auckland City Council and Hamilton City Council have Child and Family policies. Auckland develops and reports on actions annually. While these policies tend to focus on children, they are a positive starting point. They are a statement that the Council recognises and values families in the community.

Understanding the status of families in the community

Local government current practice

Under the Local Government Act 2002 councils are required to monitor and report on progress towards community outcomes. The Act states: “A local authority must monitor and, not less than once every 3 years, report on the progress made by the community of its district or region in achieving the community outcomes for the district or region” (Section 92 (1)).[22] This requires that councils obtain data from many different sources for monitoring purposes.

To date, councils’ monitoring frameworks largely rely on statistical data (for example, census data, data gathered from residents’ surveys or quality-of-life surveys and data collected by government agencies). They describe the attributes of a district or individuals within a district. Jamieson (2005) believed that they should consist of those aspects of life that contribute to individual happiness, quality of life and welfare (Jamieson, 2005; Local Government New Zealand, 2007b; Statistics New Zealand, 2006).

Similarly, a number of government agencies have produced reports describing the wellbeing of New Zealanders, such as the Our Health Our Future and Social Report (Ministry of Health, 1999; Ministry of Social Development, 2007). Family and Community Services (Ministry of Social Development) has also produced a series on community profiles in partnership with councils (Family and Community Services, 2008).

While these reports collectively provide important information, they are limited by the fact that units of analysis are at either the individual or population level. Indicators report on the health, income, education and safety of family members as population groups – for example, children, youth, parents and older people. Little is known about the outcomes for families – that is, the wellbeing of the family itself over and above the wellbeing of individual family members. Family dynamics and transitions are not well captured in existing data (Statistics New Zealand, 2007).

Statistical data are largely based on definitions of family that relate to people who live in the same household. For example, the New Zealand Census and the Survey of Family, Income and Employment (SoFIE) both use standard classifications that assume the family is household-based or co-resident at the time of the survey, and do not provide an indication of family connections that extend beyond households (Families Commission, 2005; Hodgson & Birks, 2002; True, 2005).

These definitions do not always accord with the way people actually think about their own families. The assumption that families are co-resident households fails to reflect the reality of practical, material and emotional support arrangements within and across households. It is common for families to extend across households, as is the case with shared parenting arrangements. Separated parents, for example, typically consider their children as part of their family even if they no longer live with them. Similarly, children usually consider a non-resident parent as part of their family (Pryor, 2005). Many adult parents count their own parents and siblings as part of their family. The concept of ‘whānau’ – different from and wider than ‘family’ – is even more difficult to capture in official statistics (Families Commission, 2005; True, 2005). Current definitions assume that the members of the economic family unit have a common standard of living. Yet it is possible that the living standards of individuals, children and adults within an economic family unit could differ depending on family type and on the distribution of resources within the family (Statistics New Zealand, 2007).

Family-centred approach

The literature noted that understanding a particular community’s families is a prerequisite to a family-centred approach. The effectiveness of a family-centred process greatly depends on the information or research evidence available to the policy analyst, planner or decision-maker. It is important to know what types of families make up the community. These might include families with and without children; families living in single households; and family members spread across several households and neighbourhoods. The number of dependants (young, old or people with disabilities) in a family is also important.

Regular gathering of information on the status of the community’s families would inform decisions and provide a basis for planning. Without a sufficient information base, elected members and officers may rely solely on their own untested assumptions (True, 2005).

This suggests that a family-centred approach may require councils to put in place an indicators model which includes measures of family wellbeing. It may also require research which builds a picture of families in their communities, including their issues and priorities and how policies and programmes affect them.

Consulting with families

Local government current practice

Councils make local decisions regarding their communities’ needs and priorities. Their responsibilities involve both leading and representing their communities. This means consulting with communities and encouraging their participation in decision-making.

Local authorities have long had statutory responsibilities to consult and involve the public in certain issues, such as land-use planning. Recent legislation, such as the Local Government Act 2002, has reasserted the relationship between councils their communities, and the need to involve citizens in decision-making and implementation.

The Local Government Act 2002 requires that all councils approach their activities in accordance with some general principles, including:

• conducting their business in a clear, transparent and democratically accountable way
• making themselves aware of and having regard to the views of all their communities
• providing opportunities for Māori to contribute to council decision-making processes (Section 14).

These general principles are supported by more specific principles, which guide the decisions and actions of the councils, including decision-making processes (Sections 76-81). These provisions require that councils consider community views at each stage of decision-making:
Principles of consultation require that local authorities provide reasonable access to relevant information in an appropriate manner and format, and provide clear information about the purpose and scope of the consultation. Councils are expected to encourage members of the community to present their views and provide them with reasonable opportunity to do so. Those who do take part in the consultation process can expect to have their views received with an open mind and be given due consideration, and then be provided with information on the decision and reasons for those decisions (Local Futures, 2005). The Local Government Act 2002 also expanded the requirement to undertake formalised consultation (known as the Special Consultative Procedure).

There is a considerable body of knowledge and experience on good consultation processes in the local government sector. Not only are local authorities using traditional methods, such as public meetings and consultation documents, to engage with the public, but many are increasingly using ‘consumerist’ approaches such as service satisfaction surveys, and complaints or suggestions schemes.

There are examples throughout New Zealand of innovative approaches that are being utilised to engage communities, particularly less accessible cohorts; an example is the use of artists and musicians to facilitate community engagement where poor literacy could block the contribution of views. The techniques and strategies use the skills and creativity of artists (often local) as part of broader community development strategies to ensure diverse community representation. Other examples include the use of interactive websites, visioning exercises and expos. Interactive websites, in particular, are becoming increasingly common and tend to be driven by local factors.

More recently local authorities in New Zealand have developed new ways of consulting with traditionally hard-to-reach groups, such as young people, Māori, minority ethnic groups and those with disabilities (Broadwater, 2001; Burke, 2004; Department of Internal Affairs, 2003; Local Government New Zealand, 2004, 2006; ODPM, 2002; Victoria University of Wellington, 2006). Some councils have developed policies for consultation with these population groups.

There is no evidence that councils have directly targeted families or consulted them about what is important for families and family functioning in their communities.

Family-centred approach

The literature stated that a core component of a family-centred approach is consultation with families. Each community’s population, history, troubles, resources, goals and expectations are unique. Therefore, it is important to consult with the families in each community to gain their perspectives and ensure that policies and initiatives are tailored to their strengths, aspirations and needs.

Families come in many forms and configurations. The literature noted that when using a family-centred approach, it is important to take into account the varying views of different types of families and the varying abilities of families to participate in decision-making processes.

The literature argued that families should be involved in formulating and implementing goals – that is, setting priorities and turning their goals into reality. This suggests engagement rather than simple consultation.

Consultation has a once-and-for-all quality: participation only at a particular moment, on confined terms and often only after fundamental parameters have been established. Consultation elicits only particular kinds of information. It is primarily used to obtain public feedback on options for decision-making. Engagement tends to involve a more sustained and continuing process where families are involved in different ways at all stages of decision-making and planning. It tends to be narrower and deeper to ensure that the views are consistently understood and considered.

Many councils have extensive experience in public consultation and community engagement. A family-centred approach would involve applying these skills and efforts to target families.

The increasing organisation of citizens into interest groups has tended to turn politics into a competition of narrowly defined interests. It can involve a clash of paradigms and confrontation between fiercely held beliefs. A family-centred approach could introduce a different kind of voice into local government. Families would be asked to consider what is good for them, including their young and old members, those with disabilities or those not in the workforce.

Multi-sector collaboration

Local government current practice

Local authorities do not (and cannot) achieve their objectives alone. They work closely with other organisations including central government, public bodies, businesses, iwi, the voluntary sector and citizens to help achieve community wellbeing.

The Local Government Act 2002 promotes co-operation between local authorities, and between local authorities, communities and other agencies, including central government. The “principles relating to local authorities” (Section 14(e) of Local Government Act 2002) state that “a local authority should collaborate and co-operate with other local authorities and bodies as it considers appropriate to promote or achieve its priorities and its desired outcomes, and make efficient use of resources”.

Collaboration was further advanced by Section 91, which set out the process for determining community outcomes. This section included a requirement that a council must “identify, so far as practicable, the other organisations and groups capable of influencing either the identification or the promotion of community outcomes, and to secure, if practicable, the agreement of those organisations and groups to the process” (Local Government Act 2002, Clause 91 (3)(a)).

There has been increasing awareness that there are many problems and issues that cannot be contained within any single organisation. Since the 1990s, ‘community governance’ has entered the lexicon of local government policy discourse. Community governance challenged the traditional concept of local government as the provider of a discrete set of services, suggesting that the primary role should be to enhance the wellbeing of its citizens. Inherent in the concept was a commitment to working in a partnership style with other players in its community, such as businesses, iwi, third-sector organisations and, most importantly, local offices of government departments (Reid, 2002).

Today, councils have various collaborative arrangements in almost every sphere of their activities. The focus of the current central/local government relationship has been on finding ways to work collaboratively on issues of common concern. These include collaboration on regional strategies such as the New Zealand Sustainable Development Programme of Action, involving the Auckland region’s seven local councils, the regional council and a number of government agencies. It also includes collaborations on local operational matters, such as partnership with the police to develop closed-circuit television as a surveillance tool, enforce liquor bans in the central city areas and improve road safety and crime prevention through environmental design initiatives.

Family-centred approach

Communities and families are typically beset with multiple and interrelated challenges. Ultimately, if any form of community development is to succeed, it must address the full range of these challenges comprehensively and in an interconnected way. The literature argued that family-centred community development is no different. It requires work by all sectors and by families, community-based organisations, businesses, schools, religious institutions, iwi and Māori agencies and government agencies.

The literature suggested that a family-centred approach would not only require collaboration between councils and other external parties but also collaboration across council function areas.

Traditionally, council efforts have tended to separate the ‘bricks and mortar’ projects from those that help families and develop social and human capital. However, the literature suggested that a family-centred approach would involve the integration of asset and urban planning with social service planning. It would involve collaboration between professional groupings within councils. This might have implications for work streams and the organisational structures of councils.

Targeting resources to address inequality

Local government current practice

In general, council services are universally provided. For example, libraries, parks (including sports fields), swimming pools, art galleries, museums and festivals are available to everybody, with concessions sometimes available to particular groups (for example, children, in general, get free library services).

These services can be seen to perform a socially integrative function by underpinning rights of citizenship (Audunson, 2005; Cox, Swinbourne, Pip, & Laing, 2000; Varheim, 2006). They also remain politically sustainable because of the wide spread of beneficiaries.

However, universal provision is not always considered financially viable, fair or the best way to promote wellbeing. Targeting is sometimes considered a cost-effective way to use scarce resources by directing interventions at those most likely to benefit or those in greatest need; for example, council housing is often targeted at lower socio-economic groups or older residents.

Family-centred approach

The literature on a family-centred approach argued that resources should be targeted at those families in greatest need. Similarly, models such as healthy cities, child-friendly cities and age-friendly cities suggested that resources should be targeted to address inequalities.

The literature recommended local and central government actions to negate the effects of social exclusion. It also advocated that local and central governments have a vital role in providing large-scale responses to widespread social need, and services for those unable to purchase their own.

This suggests that a family-centred approach may result in councils directing additional efforts towards vulnerable families and addressing issues of exclusion.

Building internal capacity

Local government current practice

Local government employs staff from a range of professions, including engineers, urban planners, lawyers, policy analysts, community development practitioners and communication specialists.

Many of these disciplines have established practices and theoretical underpinnings. However, the literature suggested that these disciplines do not always have a good understanding of theories of family functioning and resilience. It advocated that staff and programme leaders need skill-development and mentoring. The literature also suggested that external expertise and advice was often beneficial.

Family-centred approach

The literature suggested that councils would need to develop internal capacity and skills in family-centred planning and development. The Families Commission has an obvious role in providing advice and support in this process.

Some literature suggests that councils may need internal ‘experts’ or advocates. The experience of some councils in New Zealand has demonstrated the advantages of dedicated advocates (for example, Christchurch City Council’s Child Advocate role). The advantages of internal advocates were confirmed by the findings of the international network Cities of Tomorrow (network of cities and districts in Europe, the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Japan) (Cities of Tomorrow Network, 2000).

Footnotes

[21]

Methods for assessing these factors are outlined in a report by the Ministry of Social Development, Stepfamilies and Resilience (Pryor, 2004). [Return to reference]

[22]

Schedule 10, Part 1 of the Act requires that, amongst other things, local authorities state what measures they will use to assess progress towards the achievement of community outcomes in their Long-term Council Community Plan. [Return to reference]