Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The functions of evaluation research in citizen participation programs Perryman, Gavin Nicholas 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1975_A8 P47_7.pdf [ 2.72MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0093607.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093607-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093607-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093607-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093607-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093607-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093607-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

THE FUNCTIONS OF EVALUATION RESEARCHINCITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROGRAMSbyGAVIN NICHOLAS PERRYMANM.Sc., University of Edinburgh, 1970A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSin the SchoolofCommunity and Regional PlanningWe accept this thesis as conforming to therequired dard4UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMay, 1975In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements foran advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree thatthe Library shall make it freely available for reference and study.I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesisfor scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department orby his representatives. It is understood that copying or publicationof this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without mywritten permission.Department of Community and Regional PlanningThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver 8, CanadaDate ADril 6. 1975i2ABSTRACTTwo main questions form the backbone of this thesis:- What is the meaning of citizen participation?- What functions might evaluation research serve in citizenparticipation programs?Much of the thesis is an analysis of the literature in an attemptto explore the boundaries and different understandings of citizen participation. It is argued that the citizen participationphenomenon that arose in the 1960’s has its broad roots in thesocial strains and tensions brought about, or intensified, bythe change processes of modern society, and that the rationalesput forth for citizen participation are largely attempts to resolve these crises. The relationships between citizen participation as a strategy for achieving change and citizen participation as a lifestyle (or precursor of the participatory society)are explored. The thesis concludes that citizen participationis not an adequate dynamic for fundamental, structural change;although it has a key role to play through the processes of consciousness—raising and politicization.Two case studies are presented: the development of the BritanniaCommunity Services Centre and the Policy Committees of theGreater Vancouver Regional District. In each case study, thefunctions that evaluation research performed, or might have per—— iii —formed, are examined. It is argued that evaluation researchcould be a useful tool in helping specific citizen participation programs achieve their goals, and in helping to developfurther our understandings of citizen participation.Several general conclusions about effective implementation ofcitizen participation programs are drawn from the case studies.The importance of the process aspects of participation (opportunities for learning, social interaction, and making a positivecontribution) is stressed. It is argued that the issues andthe objectives of a citizen participation program need to beclearly defined early on in the process, and that the expectationsof the various groups of actors must be laid out on the table.The thesis concludes that citizen participation in planning shouldbe encouraged primarily at the regional level, and that itshould be encouraged at the neighbourhood level only when theissues involved are clearly defined and the resources needed toimplement the results of the planning process are available.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION pg. 2The Citizen Participation Phenomenon 3Aims of the Thesis 7Definitions 8Outline of the Thesis 12CHAPTER 2 EVALUATION RESEARCH AND CITIZENPARTICIPATION pg. 14Introduction 15Some Definitions 15The Commitment to Evaluation 17The Functions of Evaluation Research 20The Functions of Evaluation Research inCitizen Participation Programs 22Conceptual Frameworks for EvaluationResearch 24The Evaluator as Change Agent 30CHAPTER 3 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE pg. 34Introduction 36The Modern Change Environment 36The Roots of the Citizen ParticipationPhenomenon 42Planning in an Era of Change 47The Limits of Citizen Participation as aChange Strategy 50CHAPTER 4 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: IDEOLOGIES,RATIONALES AND GOALS pg. 56Introduction 58-vDemocratic Pluralism/Elitism versusParticipatory Democracy 58Citizen Participation and Decentralization 70A Framework for Examining CitizenParticipation Objectives 73CHAPTER 5 TWO CASE STUDIES: THE BRITANNIA COMMUNITYSERVICES CENTRE and THE GREATER VANCOUVERREGIONAL DISTRICT POLICY COMMITTEES pg. 78The Britannia Community Services Centre 79Introduction 79History 79Objectives of the Citizen ParticipationProcess 93Evaluation Research Within theBritannia Context 95Conclusions 98The Policy Committees of the GreaterVancouver Regional District 99Introduction 99History 99The Existing Evaluation Studies 107Evaluation Research Within the PolicyCommittee Context 113Conclusions 115CHAPTER 6 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: STRATEGY ANDLIFESTYLE pg. 118Introduction 119Conclusions from the Case Studies 119Orders of Change 121Theories of Social Change 123- vi -Citizen Participation and Consciousness—Raising 124Final Words 127BIBLIOGRAPHY pg. 130viiLIST OF TABLESTable I Patterns of Comparative Salience pg. 40Table II Changes in Emphasis of Social Patternsin the Transition to Post-Industrialism 41Table III The Contrast Between Democratic Pluralism/Elitism and Participatory Democracy 69Table IV Objectives of Citizen Participation in 94BritanniaV112.ACKNOWLEDGMENT SThe author would like to thank his advisors, Dr. R. Collier ofthe School of Community and Regional Planning and Dr. C. McNivenof the School of Social Work, for their advice and support inwriting this thesis. Over the past two years, the author hashad numerous conversations with a large number of people on thesubject matter of this thesis. There are too many people tomention each by name, but special thanks are due to Mr. W. Nicholsof the School of Social Work. Finally, the author is gratefulto the B.C. Telephone Company and to the Central Mortgage andHousing Corporation who provided financial support for his studiesover the past two years.E FUNCTIONS OF EVLUTION RSERCHCITiZN PARTICIPATIoN PROGRA1IS12CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION— 3—THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PHENOMENONThe 1960’s witnessed a dramatic upsurge in demands from citizensfor greater influence and control over the decisions and processesaffecting their lives. These demands have followed a myriad ofpatterns - differing in objectives, strategies, degree of political support, history, and impact. As a consequence, the phrase“citizen participation”, now reflects a wide variety of understandings, hopes, aspirations, and feelings.During the last few years of the 1960’s the word‘participation’ became part of the popular political vocabulary. This took place under theimpetus of demands, notably from students, fornew areas of participation to be opened upand of demands by various groups for the practicalimplementation of rights of participation thatwere theirs in theory. In France, ‘participation’was one of the last of De Gaulle’s rallying cries;in Britain we have seen the idea given officialblessing in the Skeffington report on planning;and in America the anti-poverty programme includeda provision for the ‘maximum feasibleparticipation’of those concerned. The widespread use of the termin the mass media has tended to mean that anyprecise, meaningful content has almost disappeared;‘participation’ is used to refer to a wide varietyof different situations by different people. (A) *Perhaps most significant, “citizen participation” became one ofthe rallying cries of the 1960’s, along with such august slogansas “the war on poverty” and “the just society”. Citizen participation became the new holy grail - the latest panacea for oursocial ills and malaise.* Bracketed numbers, eq. (23), •refer to the bibliography.Bracketed letters, eg. (A), refer to the footnotes •at the endof each chapter.—4—This is not to argue that citizen participation is somethingcompletely new. On the contrary, the literature abounds withstatements about how participation has long been an ideal inCanadian (or some other country, depending upon the author) life.For example,The aspirations for more participatory formsof government have parallels in our past. Wein Canada have had a long tradition of movements, arising generation after generation, whichaimed at improving the common man’s ability toshare power with those who governed him. In theearly 19th century, for example, attempts tomove political power away from appointed executivecouncils and Governors — the Chateau Clique in LowerCanada, and the Family Compact in Upper Canada -and into elected legislative assemblies comprisedone such movement, which reached its dramatic peakin the Rebellion of 1837. Aspirations to extendthe voting franchise in the late 19th and early20th centuries constituted another importantpolitical movement, with somewhat similar aims. (B)Whatever its roots in the past, or its connections to the traditional patterns of participation (voting, joining a politicalparty, running for office, ...), it is clear that the citizenparticipation phenomenon that arose in the 1960’s has a numberof characteristics that suggest a new trend. The phenomenon ismarked by its pervasiveness, not so much in the total numbers ofpeople involved, but in the variety of walks of life from whichthe participants have come. No longer is active participationlimited solely to the well-educated, articulate middle—class orto the major power constellations (business, land developers,and professional associations, for example). The demands for newforms of participation have come largely from the marginal groups—5_in society - the poor, Indians, the handicapped, the elderly,students, and women. Thus, a major characteristic of the citizenparticipation phenomenon, and perhaps its prime long term effect,has been the legitimation of the participation of groups of people who had not participated before. In this sense, the phenomenon is not a simple, linear extrapolation from the past - it includes elements that have shifted the meaning of participationinto new directions.The pervasity of the citizen participation phenomenon has a second dimension. The demands for greater participation have beenaddressed, not only to the formal political system, but also tothe various levels of the civil service, unions, educational administrations, prison officials, businesses, and so forth. Thiswidening of the arena of participation appears to be the resultof increased acknowledgment that other institutions besides governments make decisions which have significant public impact.Hence, it is argued that these institutions should be made moreaccountable both to the people they directly serve and to thewider community. The consumer action movement is a good exampleof this process. Vancouver’s Community Resources Boards, withtheir emphasis on participation in the administration of thesocial services and their concern for the participation of clientgroups, are another example.Three other characteristics of the citizen participation phenomenon need to be noted. First, many, if not most, of the citizenparticipation activities have arisen in response to specificissues. These situations can be divided, in principle, intothose cases where the citizens have been attempting to protecttheir present interests in the face of outside intervention (forexample, a single-family neighbourhood organizing to halt theconstruction of higher density housing in the area) and thosecases where the citizens have been attempting to change theirpresent situation (for example, a poverty group organizing forhigher welfare rates). Second, the citizen participationphenomenon has been marked by the use of conflict as an actionstrategy - perhaps the only strategy available to people whoare trying to enter the political system from the outside. Third,the citizen participation phenomenon has been coloured by distrust and rejection of existing patterns of authority, and traditional channels for participation.There are signs of a growing disenchantment with citizen participation, or at least of a growing desire to re—examine the issues involved. The blossom of early hopes has wilted around theedges. There are a variety of indicators - for example, the recent dissolution of the Neighbourhood Services Association’scommunity development program in Vancouver, Vancouver City Council’s attempts to hold back on their local area planning program,the Greater Vancouver Regional District politicians’ unhappinesswith the regional public participation program, and the disillusionment with local area planning of various citizen groups inKitsilano. As one might expect, the signs do not all point in— 7_one direction. The province’s Department of Human Resources isproceeding ahead with the Community Resources Boards and the Provincial Justice Development Commission is attempting to set upregional justice councils. The Federal Government has just initiated a public dialogue on immigration policy.A number of factors can be suggested to explain the presentstate of confusion surrounding citizen participation: the intractability of the problems being tackled; the high degree ofcomplexity and interdependency of the issues; the utopian nature of the arguments that have been presented in favour of citizen participation; the reactive and top-down nature of manycitizen participation programs; defensiveness on the part of professionals, bureaucrats, and politicians; and the tendency on thepart of citizen groups to be parochial in their concerns.It would seem, then, an appropriate time to re—examine thecitizen participation issue.AIMS OF THE THESISTwo main questions form the backbone of this thesis:— What is the meaning of citizen participation?- What functions might evaluation esearch serVe incitizen particiIation programs?The first question will be explored along two dimensions. Thefirst is concerned with the relationships between citizen participation and social change. Specifically, the thesis examines— 8—the hypothesis that the broad roots of the citizen participation phenomenon can be found in the modern change environment,and looks at the role of citizen participation in defining andachieving desired change. The second dimension is concerned withthe conflicting political ideologies that lie behind citizenparticipation. Specifically, the thesis examines the relationships between participation as a strategy for achieving some desired end and participation as an end in itself.The second question will be explored by reviewing the evaluationresearch literature, focusing particularly on the conceptualframeworks that might be important for citizen participationprograms. Two case studies will be presented in an attempt toconsider what functions evaluation research performed, ormight have performed.It needs to be noted that the two central threads are mutuallydependent. Evaluation research, without the support of atheoretical overview, is an extremely difficult task. At thesame time, a major barrier to developing a theory of citizenparticipation is the lack of evaluative and descriptive casestudies.DEFINITIONSIt is traditional, at the outset of a thesis, to provide definitions of the major concepts under study; in this case, citizenparticipation and evaluation research. A definition of evalua—9—tion research is given in the next chapter. Defining, citizenparticipation is a much more difficult, if not impossible,task.As noted earlier, it has become a confusing concept, coveringa wide range of meanings and understandings. An important factor behind this confusion has been the different groups of actors who have argued for greater opportunities for participation.Each group has certain central goals and interests in mind whichcitizen participation is supposed to serve, and their understandings of citizen participation are derived from these centralconcerns. The interest and concerns of three particular groups-citizens, professionals, and those working for a participatorysociety - will appear throughout the chapters that follow. Afourth group, the formal decision-makers (municipal politicians,school trustees, Provincial M.L.A.’s, ...), is outside the interests of the thesis. The remainder of this section presentsa summary of the perceptions of citizen participation of eachof these three groups of actors.From the point of view of many citizens and their advocates,greater opportunities for participation are a way of copingwith specific issues and problems that face them. Most of thespecific definitions of citizen participation in the literaturearise out of this perception. For example, Cunningham seescitizen participation as:a process whereby the common amateursof a community exercise power over decisionsrelated to the general affairs of thecommunity. (C)Pateman (62) makes the distinction between pseudo-participation,— 10 —partial participation, and full participation. Pseudo-participation covers those situations where an individual participatedin some group activity but has no influence over the decisionsof the group. Partial participation covers those situations wherean individual can influence the decision, but another has thefinal say. Full participation occurs when all people have equalpower in the making of decisions. Arnstein’s (3) “ladder ofcitizen participation” is similar to Pateman’s trilogy. Whatis common to all of these “definitions” is their emphasis on thedegree of power delegated to the citizens, and their focus ondecision-making as the arena for participation.A second approach to citizen participation is that of many professionals (social workers, planners, mental health workers,recreation directors, ...). They see citizen participation asa means for improving the services that they are presentlyoffering (see, for example, Burke (10)). The requirement of“maximum feasible participation” in the Office for EconomicOpportunity programs in the U.S. appears to be a reflection ofthis position. Vancouver’s Community Resources Boards are anotherexample. Further, some professionals •see citizen participationas a strategy for achieving individual or small group change,what Rein (64) has called “community sociotherapy”.Community sociotherapy has to do with thebelief system which holds that such processesas organizing groups for self-help, protest,access to community facilities, or evenrevolution can create a transformation ofthe individual personality. (D)— 1]. —A third approach to citizen participation is that of those whoseek a “participatory society” (see, for example, Friedmann (29)or Starrs & Stewart (75)). For this group, participation is notso much a strategy as a lifestyle; and the dictionary definitionof the word, “participate”, namely “sharing”, is perhaps mostappropriate. Taking off from this, one can talk about the possibilities for sharing (participating) in the wealth of the society,in the opportunities for work and individual self-development,or in the quality of life enjoyed by many in the society.Citizen participation becomes a very broad concept.Citizen involvement ..., if approachedsimply as an aspect of the decision-makingprocess in today’s world, is probably toonarrowly defined and should be expanded toembrace as well the identification of problemsand action upon them. Indeed, ‘judging’ and ‘acting’and ‘learning’ and ‘experimenting’ and ‘experiencing’ and ‘becoming’ seem likely to be muchmore integrated activities within personsand institutions than heretofore, and thecomponents of citizen involvement - whereit begins and where it ends - may well beindistinguishable. (E)The obstacles to providing a neat and tidy definition of citizenparticipation should be clear; much of the thesis is an attemptto explore the boundaries and different understandings of citizen participation. It is important to note here that manyindividuals hold more than one view of citizen participation, andthis may well raise problems for effective implementation of citizen participation programs. Although it will become clear,particularly in the final chapter, the author’s bias towards theconcept of participation as a lifestyle needs to be acknowledged.— 12 —OUTLINE OFTHE THESISChapter 2 contains an ecleOtic review of the literature on evaluation research and an initial statement of the functions thatevaluation research might perform in citizen participation programs.Chapters 3 and 4 present the attempt to re-examine citizenparticipation at a theoretical level. Both include discussionsof the implications of the theory for evaluation research incitizen participation programs. Specifically, Chapter 3 discusses the relationships between citizen participation and socialchange, while Chapter 4 looks at the goals and political ideologies surrounding citizen participation.Chapter 5 contains an exploration of the functions •that evaluation research performed, or might have performed, in two specific citizen participation programs in Vancouver: the development of the Britannia Community Services Centre and the PolicyCommittees of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.Chapter 6 provides some broad conclusions that arise out ofthe case studies. It returns to the relationshIps between citizen participation and radical, structural change and to thequestion of whether citizen participation is a strategy or alifestyle.‘3FOOTNOTES TO’ CHAPTER .1’A. Pateman, C., Participation’ and Democratic Theory,Cambridge University Press, London, 1970,pg. 1.B. Committee on Government Productivity Staff, CitizenInvolvement, Committee on Government Productivity, Government of Ontario, April, 1972,pg. 3.C. Cunningham, J.V., “Citizen Participation in PublicAffairs”, Public A&ninistrati’on’ Review, SpecialIssue, October, 1972, pg. 595. —D. Rein, M., “Social Work in Search of a RadicalProfession”, Social Work, April, 1970, pg. 23.E. Starrs, C. & Stewart, G •, Gone Today and HereTommorrow, Committee on Government Productivity,Government of Ontario, October, 1971, pg. 55.14CHAPTER 2• EVALUATION RESEARCHandCITI ZEN PARTICIPATION— 15 —INTRODUCTIONThis chapter is a review of the evaluation research literatureas it relates to citizen participation. It argues that thereare two overriding functions that evaluation research can servein citizen participation programs: helping the program and itsparticipants achieve their goals and providing case studieswhich will further our understanding of citizen participation andhow to effectively implement it.SOME DEFINITIONSSuchman has defined evaluation as:the determination (whether based on opinions,reóords, subjeótive or objective data) of theresults (whether desirable or undesirable, transient or permanent, immediate or delayed)attained by sorre activity (whether a program,part of a program, ..., an on—going or one—shot approach) designed to accomplish somevalued goal or obj;eOtive (whether ultimate,intermediate, or immediate; effort or performance; long range or short range). (A)There are numerous other definitions in the literature, theirdifferences deriving largely from the emphasis placed on quantitative versus qualitative research. It is clear, however, thatmost writers perceive evaluation as having to do with the description, analysis, and making of judgements of attempts at plannedchange.The following is a partial list of questions that an evaluationstudy might try to answer. It provides another means of defining— 16 —what evaluation research encompasses.- Is the program proceeding as planned? If not, what changeshave been made, and why?- Are the objectives being achieved? If not, •is this becausethe assumptions underlying the program (for example, thoseconnecting activities to desired outcomes) are not valid?— Is the program reaching the people it was supposed toreach?- Were the initial understandings and estimates of theproblems that the program was supposed to tackle accurate?- Is the program trying to do too much?- Are undesirable and/or unanticipated effects occurring?- Are there factors, not under the. control of the program,that are affecting the success of the program?There are a number of key concepts in evaluation research whichneed to be defined here.Effects - What changes occur as a result of the program?- Who or what is affected, •and how?Objectives- What is the program expected to accomplish?— What changes are considered desirable?Effectiveness — To what extent have the achieved effectsmatched the objectives?- Whose values are used to make these judgments?Efficiency— What are the costs (time, energy, money, ...)of the program?— 17 —THE COMMITMENT TO EVALUATIONEvaluation studies have a great tendency to run into conflictin the field. The program staff feel that the evaluator cannotpossibly understand the complexities of the problems they face,or that the evaluator’s demands on their time are too onerous.The evaluator feels that the. staff are not taking enough carein the record keeping process, or that they are so biased bytheir desire to ensure the survival of the program that he cannotrely on their judgments. The program decision-makers wish theevaluator would produce information when they need it, while theevaluator’s research design does not permit quick results.A number of technical suggestions have been made in the literature to alleviate these conflicts. The two most common are thatthe evaluator should be involved from the very beginning of theprogram - in the initial planning activities - and that theevaluator should be an internal staff person. However, the conflicts run too deep to be easily solved by technical suggestions.At their roots are two fundamental issues (Carter (13)).- the degree of commitment on the part of program staffto the need for evaluation, and on the part of theevaluator to the objectives and concerns of the programand the people involved in the program.— the degree of clarity and agreement over the purposesof the evaluation research.The question of the purposes or functions of evaluation will be— 18 —considered in the following two seOtions. The issue ofcommitment has been handled in the literature by making adistinction between on-going programs which, by their nature,do not require evaluation, action/social developmentprograms which do require evaluation. On—going programs arethose which have been initiated without anyfixed term to their duration and in which long-term administrative and policy decisions havebeen taken prior to the program’s commencement. (B)Social action/social development programs aretest, pilot, or demonstration projects. Thesemay be one-shot efforts launched withoutprejudgment as to the possibility of theirbeing repeated, or they may be projectslaunched to test their usefulness so thata decision may be reached as to thedesirability and feasibility of their wideapplication. (C)The social action/social development programs •can be dividedfurther. For example, Carter (13) suggests three types:inquiry programs designed to gather information on problems,relationships among problems, and attitudes to problems;exploration programs designed to gather information on the problems of implementing a certain strategy; and demonstration programs designed to gather information on the effectiveness of astrategy. Suchman (77) suggests another set: pilot programswhich emphasize trial and error and innovation; model programswhich demonstrate the success of a strategy under ideal conditions; and prototype programs where a strategy is put to thetest of varying environmental conditions.The usefulness of these distinctions for citizen participation— 19 —programs is questionable. Few citizen participation programsare of the on—going type. One example would be the VancouverCity Planning Commission which, although its structure has beenmodified recently, has become somewhat of an institution atCity Hall. The fact that a number of people have been unhappyabout its operations and that some changes have been made inthe last year suggests that on—going programs do need evaluationof some kind, particularly when the environment of, and theneeds for, such a program are changing rapidly.In general, most citizen participation programs are of thesocial action/social development type. Political and administrative support for them is at best ambivalent and cautious.Further, they tend to be time limited, and oriented toward aspecific task. For example, in Vancouver’s Local Area PlanningProgram, although there is a vague commitment to planning as anever ending, cyclic process, the main emphasis is on the production of a plan to be encoded in the zoning by-law. Thiswould suggest that politicians and administrators would be interested in evaluating these programs to test their effectiveness.This does not seem to be true. One factor, here, may well be alack of commitment to the basic idea of citizen participation,and a consequent fear that evaluation would prove a programto be a success. Another factor might be that evaluation research takes time and money, both of which seem to be in shortsupply, particularly at the municipal level.— 20 —On the other hand, many of the citizens involved in the participation programs feel that these programs should be on-going,and that the programs are there to meet a need (or solve apressing problem) rather than to provide an oppor.tunity to learnmore about citizen participation strategies. They are likelyto react against evaluation, as just one more sign of the lackof political and administrative commitment to citizen involvement.A basic assumption behind this thesis is that citizen participation is desirable and that we have a great deal to learn abouthow to affectively achieve it. There seems to be no reason whycitizen participation programs cannot both tackle specificproblems and provide an opportunity to learn about citizen participation itself. Evaluation research provides a tool thatshould help both of these aims.THE FUNCTIONS OF EVALUATION RESEARCHAs mentioned earlier, the degree of clarity about the purposesthat an evaluation study is meant to fulfill is closely connectedto the kinds and degrees of conflict that the study will generate. Further, in designing the evaluation study, the evaluatormust answer such questions as: “Who is the evaluation for?” and“To what use will the results be put?”. Typical examples of thepurposes of evaluation are:- to demonstrate to others that the program is worthwhile.- to justify past or projected expenditures.— 21 —— to support program continuation, expansion, or redirection.- to determine the feasibility of the objectives.— to compare several programs with similar objectives withregard to their relative effectiveness and efficiency.— to examine the reasons for the successes and failuresof the program.Two overall types of evaluation are discussed in the literature,geared to two general purposes. Outcome evaluation is aimedat making an overall decision about the program: “Should it becontinued or terminated?”, “Was it effective?”, or “Should itbe replicated elsewhere?”. This type of evaluation focuses oncomparing the final or overall outcomes of the program with thestated objectives, and commonly uses “objective” research techniques such as control groups and before and after measures.Process evaluation is an on-going activity, where information iscollected and analysed continuously, as a means to helping theday-to-day decision-making of the program. This type of evaluation concentrates on describing the various activities of theprogram, and on making relatively subjective judgments about theeffectiveness of these activities. It is often concerned withdetermining the reasons behind the successes •and failures of theprogram, and with helping to clarify and modify the program objectives.— 22 —THE FUNCTIONS OF EVALUATION RESEARCH IN CITIZEN PARTICIPATIONPROGPJMSFour functions for evaluation research in citizen participationprograms are suggested here. They are not mutually exclusive,nor are they likely to be the only functions that evaluationcould perform. It needs to be noted that, in the final analysis,the functions that evaluation research can perform need to beexamined in the light of each specific program.1. As a means of feedbackIt is extremely easy to become caught up in the day-to-dayactivities of a program, squeezed between overwhelming demandson limited resources and idealistic objectives. There islittle time for reflection about what is being achieved, orwhere the program is headed. This is particularly true in citizen participation programs since many citizens hold down full-time jobs, and have other interests that they wish to pursue.Their involvement is very much on a part—time basis.Evaluation research can be used as a tool for gathering andanalysing the information that would help people keep on topof what is happening, reflect back over what has happened, andplan for the future.2. As a means of promoting wider involvementIn many citizen participation programs, a handful of people -often termed “professional citizens” — are highly involved,— 23 —while the wider community is not involved at all, or onlyinvolved in an extremely limited fashion through such activitiesas public meetings. This gap can be reduced by keeping thewider community informed as to what is happening and why.In addition, this might promote an increased level of directparticipation on the part of some people in the wider community.Evaluation research can serve this information process.3. As a means of providing information, experience, andinsight that might be useful to other groups engagedin similar ventures.It is too often the case that the experience gathered in onecitizen participation program remains in the hands of the fewpeople involved. We lack descriptive and evaluative studiesof programs that have been tried, which would help us tomove onwards, rather than continually repeating the same mistakes.Arising out of her study of the Canadian experience in evaluating social development programs, Carter strongly recommends:That immediate attention be directed to theproblem of communicating information aboutsocial development programs •under way inother parts of the country. At present thesituation is chaotic - projects •are initiate.dand completed, often with little effort madeto inform interested groups in the sameregion. The benefits to be derived fromsharing thinking and problems in socialdevelopment programs and research arenumerous. (D)— 24 —4. As a means of determining the: future of: :t:he programThere are likely to be a wide variety of people interested inthe future of a citizen participation program: politicians,planners, administrators, program staff, community workers, thecitizens directly involved in the program, and the widercommunity. Each will have their own criteria for judging theimpact and effectiveness of the program, and each will havevarying views as to whether the program should be terminated,continued, modified, or drastically altered. One might hope,however, that all of these judgments could be based, in part,on a common understanding of what happened and why. One ofthe functions of evaluation research is to provide the information and analysis to help all of the parties involved makesound judgments. Clearly, this is a difficult task, for theinformation that is collected is, in part, a reflection of thejudgments to be made. Hence, it is important that an evaluatorconsider all of the parties involved: their perceptions of theobjectives and the program effects, their underlying assumptionsand values, and their varying needs for information. It needsto be stressed that, in the final analysis, all of the peopleinvolved will and should make their own judgments. Evaluationresearch is a tool for facilitating this process.CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWOBES FOR EVALUATION RESEARCHA conceptual framework (other similar terms are a framework ofappreciation - Vickers (87), •or a research paradigm - Kuhn (45))is a set of values, beliefs, assumptions, and ideals which guide— 25 —the researcher in defining the questions to be asked, the datato be collected, the aspects of the situation to be consideredsignificant,... Weiss & Rein comment:The conceptual frameworks function to guideattention to the sorts of events whichshould be recorded in data—gathering, to thequestions which must be answered in the analysis,and to the kinds of questions which should bedemonstrated in the report. (E)The traditional conceptual framework in evaluation researchis the experimental, scientific approach, as set forth mostclearly in the classiöal sciences. Suchman comments:we would like to make it clear that wedo not view the field of evaluation as havingany methodology different from the scientificmethod; evaluative research is, first andforemost, research and as such must adhereas closely as possible to currently acceptedstandards of research methodology. (F)It is not so much the principles of researchthat make evaluation studies difficult, butrather the practical problems of adhering tothese principles in the face of administrative considerations. (G)Within this framework, the ideal model of evaluation researchinvolves the random distribution of the people (groups,communities,...), who are to be effected by the program understudy, to control and experimental groups. The control groupfunctions to ensure that the results observed in the programunder study can in fact be attributed to the program. In addition, the various objectives (or desired changes) of the programare operationalized into a number of specific, measureable criteria which are observed prior to the commencement of the program,— 26 —and at several points in time after the program has been completed, hence providing an objective measure of the change occurring as a result of the program. In general, designing evaluationresearch consists of adapting this ideal model to the practicalities of the situation; and most designs are characterized as“slippages from the ideal” or as “quasi—experiments”.A number of difficulties in applying the experimental model canbe pointed out.- It is difficult to select satisfactory criteria to measuregoal attainment, particularly when the goals are broadand vaguely defined.— Predetermined criteria for measuring goal attainment tendto defleót the researcher’s attention away from the unanticipated consequences of the program, which may be the mostsignificant.- It may not be possible to construct control groups.— Randomization may fall apart because the number of casesis too small or because of the tendency to put the program resources into areas that have the most potential forchange.- There is conflict between the researchers and the programstaff over the former’s desire to have the program remainunchanged over the evaluation period.— The researchers may find themselves dependent on uncommittedrecord keepers.- The criteria for measuring goal attainment developed by— 27 —the researchers may become the leading goals of the program staff so that they can ensure a successful judgment.The experimental model of evaluation has been technically tunedtowards developing a compelling answer to the question: “Doesthe program achieve the stated objective or not?”. This “pass—fail” approach misses many of the subtleties involved in theprogram, and fails to provide ideas and strategies for modifyingthe program as it develops. It neglects the need to look forchange levers, and the need for program experimentation andinnovation. This is particularly true when the program is aimedat changing large—scale social systems, which is the usual situation in citizen participation programs. Given the strength ofthe resistance to change of such systems, it is almost inevitable that the programs will “fail”. The issue, then, is notwhether the program works, but what happens when it is introduced.The conclusion to be arrived at here is not that the experimentalapproach to evaluation should be rejected wholesale, but thatit should be recognized as only one conceptual framework forguiding evaluation studies. The important question, then, is:“Under what conditions is the experimental framework appropriate?”.Weiss & Rein provide one answer.When one of the aims of the program, or a singleobjection to the program, assumes an importancegreat enough to justify the colleótion of datawhich will lead to a relatively unquestionableconclusion, and when the program has the form,or can be given the form, of repeated standardized treatments within a relatively controlledsituation, then experimental design is fully— 28 —justified. (H)Given this, it is difficult to imagine situations where theexperimental framework would be useful in evaluating citizenparticipation programs. One example of where it might beimportant will be discussed in the case study of the developmentof the Britannia Community Services Centre in Chapter 5.Weiss & Rein (94) have suggested three alternative conceptualframeworks for evaluation research, which appear to be pertinentto citizen participation programs.1. A systems framework whichis useful in suggesting what events orphenomena should be included within the scopeof one’s inquiry, •in suggesting the roleswhich might be played within the situationby various actors, and in providing generalideas regarding the functioning of interrelated actors whose manifestations can belooked for in the situation studied. (I)This framework directs attention to the question of what happenswhen a program is introduced into a community or organization,and relies heavily, though not exclusively, on historical andqualitative data. The systems approach guides the researchertoward looking at the smallest set of individuals, groups, andorganizations who, in interaction, can account for most of thechange experience, and alerts the researcher to the importanceof historical events that impinge upon the system.One of the advantages of this framework over the experimentalmodel is that it permits the broadening of the basis of appraisal.Qualitative study presents quite anothersituation. Now it is possible to describe— 29 —the extent to which the program realized itsinitial objeótives, but it is also possibleto appraise the extent to which the programrealized othérgoals as well. The investigatorcan ask whether members of the target population have suffered losses ... as well asgains. He need not restrict his attention tothe target population, •but can describe whatseem to have been the consequences of theprogram for individuals in other sectors ofthe community. ... If he wishes, the investigator may evaluate the program froma radical perspective and consider the extentto which the program has patched up a destructive system rather than initiatingfundamental changes. (J)2. A dramaturgic framework which involvesthe construction of a story line involvingactors within settings, often engaged incoalitions and conflicts, the course of whoseinteractions forms plots and subplots whichmove to some resolution. (K)This approach is likely to be of most use in describing smallscale situations and events, and for exploring individualmotivations, desires, commitments, •and actions.3. A political framework which is useful for describing seriesof events that take place over a long period of time and whichinvolve large numbers of actors.The actors in this perspective are thought ofas representing interest groups, and theiractions are interpreted as expressing astrategy. ... Groups may then be seen asbargaining with each other, producing andavoiding conflict as each strives to realizeits aims, forming alliances and staking newclaims and foregoing old ones. It may be useful to assume that each group has a store ofresources it may deploy .... One of the issuesin program evaluation is how groups mobilizetheir resources in response to the program.intervention, in what way they commit themselves to affecting events, and with whatsuccesses. (L)— 30 —THE EVALUATOR AS :CHGE: AGENTEvaluation is most productive when it can becomea continuous process of program assessment andimprovement. Too often the need for evaluationis narrowly defined in terms of a one—shot‘pass-fail’ decision. Not only is this unrealistic, since very seldom are the resultsof an evaluation study so definitive as to‘prove’ a program a complete failure, norare the administrative considerations such asto permit the total termination of a program,but also an important function of the evaluation should be to improve the shortcomingsof the program in order to increase itseffectiveness. (M)The implications of viewing the evaluator as a change agent arenot necessarily within the area of data-collection - they include the questions of power, strategies, tactics, and interrelationships between the evaluator, program staff, fundingsources, and other interested groups and organizations. Manyevaluations have been required by some organization external tothe program (for example, as a condition of funding); but theliterature seems •to indicate that, in these cases, the evaluation will almost inevitably have no impact. The final reportwill be filed away in a drawer, never to be looked at or actedupon. The most fruitful situations for evaluation seem to bewhen things appear to be going wrong with a program and theiris a desire for change, or when the evaluation is built into theprogram from the very beginning with, hopefully, •a commitmentto continual change, innovation, and improvement.Following Jones (40), the role of the change agent is three-fold:helping to clarify the objectives and problems •of the clientsystem (in the case of evaluation, the program being evaluated— 31 —and the numerous actors involved in the program), developingstrategies and tactics for the client-system to solve its problems, and establishing and maintaining working relationshipsbetween the parties engaged in the change. A key question in thisprocess is the power base of the evaluator. Bennis (5) arguesthat the change agent can have five types of power: coercivepower, referent or identification power - the ability to be arole model, expert or knowledge power, legitimate power — deriving from a position in the program’s personnel hierarchy, andvalue power — based on the attractiveness of the values of thechange agent. Traditionally, the evaluator has relied only onexpert or knowledge power, assuming that most people are ‘rational” and that if a particular change is “objectively” proved tobe in their interest, they will adopt it. It needs to be notedthat this is not the only form of power that the evaluator mightuse to facilitate the implementation of his findings. Further,it is clear that many of the conflicts arising between the evaluator and program staff arise from the latter perceiving theevaluator as having other forms of power — for example, coerciveor legitimate power. The alleviation of these conflicts willnot come from the evaluator retreating to the neutral positionof the expert; but, as mentioned earlier, from the evaluatorstating clearly his commitment to the goals of the program, andconsciously seeking those forms of power that will enable himto work with the other people involved in the program in implementing the necessary changes. As Benne & Chin have commented,— 32 —As attempts are made to introduce new (changes)into (program) situations, the change problemshifts to the human problems of dealing withthe resistances, anxieties, threats to morale,conflict, disrupted interpersonal communications,and so on, which prospective changes in patternsof practice evoke in the people affected by thechange. So the change agent, even though focallyand initially concerned with modification inthe (program), finds himself in need of a moreadequate knowledge of human behaviour, individual and social, and in need of developed‘people technologies’, based on behaviouralknowledge, for dealing effectively with thehuman aspects of deliberate change. (N)tJCl)HHiHHCl)HHCl)0bCDbCDb’bC)HHHHHHC)HHC)Cl)U)••••U)•U)••CD‘LI0dt’ii-’C)’QOI—’i-h(DLI<%V•-fiJH)•I-’•OPJ.0CDU)Ht’i••••CD•O•U)‘.Q••cP’•t’i0O1U)•c•wOP)P)(“3(‘3(“3M(“3•••PJH-.3PiZ•-(D•rIiH--dtirt0a’vi-..i•C)CDU)(1)H•<••Oti••“...•0HHH••PJ0<L!J(DGCD•(‘3ct•PJrt”’flF-P)ClL-hfl’‘.—••—Q(D.-..i0‘H’•_Jp)•C)•c+Øl0-•U)P)QPJH.OH••HHCDrtr1‘.QHU)r(’fr-h’H1<HOCD••HHHH..CDCflOHOCI)‘0C’-.)OHi3•0l)’rtCDC)‘CD‘.0•0I-’I-f)Ha(flWII-WO(DLOP.--.iCt(‘.3PJHU)OH(“3pijP)HI-IQ()OH<HHP)tJ‘00H•CD..Cl)p.1‘<Cl)I•-’ø)•’3OtJr1CDWctPHCDCDctLI0I-ct’d0<0HU)0H(DCD0“-...Ci)•çrcj-()HWU)(DU)CD0HHI10‘.QHOOCDC’JCDCD:0HP)frh•H‘‘CDSrtH•CDHCDflHCI)H)>.QHrtrtLICl).otIjH.PJ0frJ-.JtCD—OI-’P’.‘0t’3HCDa’LIti00OiI-I PiCDC)LQHQH•U)Cl)P)•0Ir1S—0H ‘-3 HCr) 0tTjC)C)H I:-’P.’‘-3C)J‘-3LJH C) H0 ttJ‘-335There are rare moments in history when thecrisis of institutions is closely linked toa crisis of the process by which people makesense of their life and work in society.Goals offered by that society are not attainable; when they are achieved, their promiseturns out to be empty. The most basic valueswhich undergird people’s lives lose theirpower; nothing makes sense anymore. In suchmoments, struggle for radical social changehas to do with the development of new processes by which people break the hold ofold values and ways of life, discover newreasons for living as well as a form ofstruggle to make such a life possible.- Richard Schaull— 36 —INTRODUCTIONIt has become almost a commonplace to state that our society ischaracterized by rapid (even accelerating) and extensive change;resulting in increasing complexity, interdependency, and uncertainty (see, for example, Toffler’sFutUreSho;ck). This chapterwill explore the relationships between the citizen participationphenomenon that arose in the 1960’s and the modern change environment. The hypothesis to be developed here is that the participation phenomenon has its broad roots in the system strainsand tensions brought about, or intensified, by these changes, andthat the rationales and goals put forth for citizen participation are largely attempts to resolve these crises, whetherthrough a process of adaptation or through large scale structural change.THE MODERN CH.NGE ENVIRONMENTIn a major review of mankind’s history, Gross (35) points outa number of major elements in the change processes that areoccurring. Rapidly changing technologies are resulting inunplanned social and cultural change, environmental problems,the displacement of established interests, fundamental shiftsin the texture of life, an information—ignorance explosion, anda growing faith in technology. Rapidly changing organizationalstructures are moving away from the traditional, hierarchicalmodels towards more flexible, decentralized, but centrally coordinated forms. The business system (for example, the auto—mobile-highway-petroleum-trucking complex) is the model of the— 37 —future, resulting in a blurring of the distinctions betweenpublic and private spheres of action, and in the fragmentationof responsibility. The industrialized labour force is movingtoward a professionalized salariat, resulting in increasingprofessionalism, credentialism, continuing education and retraining, and prolonged adolescence. The industrial cities have become metropolitan regions; and nationalism is giving way to anawareness of world—wide interdependencies.Out of and within these changes, Gross sees four deepeningcrises. First, there is crisis, whose backdrop isset by the fact that ours is an atomic age - for the first timewe have with us the possibility of the death of the species.More detailed elements of this crisis are damages to the ecosystems, limitations on resources, rising populations, and anincreasing lack of sufficient food. Second, there is a•.cr•is•isin aspirations. Rising levels of affluence have led to risingaspirations, particularly on the part of marginal groups (thepoor, blacks, and women, for example), for material goods, butmore important, for status, freedom, and equity. When oneconsiders the social functions that these groups perform such asthe carrying out of menial labour by the poor or the maintenanceof home environments by women (these functions benefit othersfar more than they benefit those who carry them out), the depthof this crisis becomes obvious. Gans comments:In sum, then, several of the most importantfunctions of the poor cannot be replaced withalternatives, while some could be replaced, •but— 38 —almost always only at higher costs to otherpeople, particularly more affluent ones. Consequently, a functional analysis must concludethat poverty persists not only because itsatisfies a number of functions but also because many of the functional alternatives topoverty would be quite dysfunctional for themore affluent menibers •of society. (A)Third, there is a crisis in fragmentation. Fragmentation isoccurring at all levels and in all spheres — in knowledge, inresponsibility and accountability, in social roles, in communities and families, and in individuals. Fourth, there isa crisis in authority. The traditional patterns of authority(for example, the hierarchical model of management) and traditional figures of authority (for example, parents, teachers, andthe U.S. president) are being rejected; while at the same time,elites are maintaining their power through increased flexibilityand anonymity. Thayer comments:there seems to be underway a fundamentalcultural revolution, a guiding precept ofwhich is an almost total rejection of traditional concepts of ‘authority’, as those applyto all organized human activities, includingsuch disparate structures as labour unions,corporate management overheads, and athleticteams. (B)Gross confronts us with a choice betw.een two alternative futures.The first is more of where he sees us heading now — “merican—style techno—urban fascism”.A managed society ruled by a faceless andwidely dispersed complex of Warfare-WelfareIndustrial—Communication—Police bureaucracies,caught up in developing a new-style empirebased on a technocratic ideOlogy, •a cultureof alienation, multiple scapegoats, and competing control networks. (C)— 39 —The second would involve a major reconstruction of societyalong humanist lines.Trist (82) paints a picture that is similar, though slightlymore positive. He argues that:an irreversible change process is proceedingin this world, •at an accelerating rate but withextreme unevenness, •both withIn and betweencountries, which I shall refer to as a•dri•fttowards the post-industrial society. (D)Trist first describes a number of “phase changes” that have takenplace over the past thirty years (see Table 1), and argues thatthese changes are forerunners of the post—industrial society.He goes on to develop a second theme:the absence of a culture congruent withthe needs of the post-industrial societydespite the fact that post-industrialism isstructurally present to a far greater extentthan is commonly recognized. If I ask whatare the salient cultural patterns of todaycompared with those of thirty years ago,more especially those related to our corevalues, whether personal, organizational, orpolitical, my answer can only be that they arelargely the same. It is scarcely surprisingtherefore that we are witnessing a mountingcrisis in alienation whose manifestationsincrease in variety and intensity, whetherexpressed as withdrawl or protest. (E)Table II presents the types of values and cultural shifts thatTrist feels are necessary.— 40 —Aspect Pattern Salient Pattern SalientThirty Years Ago TodayType of scienti- Empirical Theoreticalfic knowledgeType of technology Energy InformationPolitically most Financiers •and Scientists andinfluential industrialists professionalsContribution to Goods and goods Services and personGNP related services related servicesSector Market Non—marketLeading private Domestic InternationalenterprisesCosts Maretable Supporting social andCommodities urban environmentCompostion of Blue collar White collarwork forceEducational level Not completing Completing high schoolhigh schoolWork/learning Work force Learning forceratioType of career Single SerialWork/leisure More working hours More leisure hoursratioCharacter of Cyclical thOugh Permanent in disadvanunemployment large taged minoritiesBasic family type Nuclear Semi-extendedInter—generational Less extreme More extremeconflictHard goods Businesses HouseholdsinvestmentOrganizational Large single Inter—organizationalcontext organizations clustersUrban Single metropoli- Inter-metropolitanEnvironment tan areas clustersRural Quasi- Urban-linked orEnvironment Autonomous dissociatedPollution Within safety Passing safety limitlimitNatural Resources Treated as Feared asInexhaustible exhaustible.Table .1 Patterns of Comparative SalienceSource: Trist (82)— 41 —Type From TowardsCultural values Achievement Self—actualizationSelf—control Self—expressionIndependence InterdependenceEndurance of Capacity for joydistressOrganizational Mechanistic forms Organic formsphilosophies Competitive Collaborativerelations relationsSeparate Linkedobjectives objectivesOwn resources Own resourcesregarded as regarded asabsolutely owned also society’sEcological Responsive to Anticipative ofstrategies crisis crisisSpecific measures Comprehensive measuresRequiring consent Requiring participationShort planning Long planninghorizon horizonDamping conflict Confronting conflictDetailed central Generalized centralcontrol controlSmall local Large localgovn’t. units govn’t. unitsStandardized Innovativeadministration administrationSeparate services Coordinated servicesTable II Changes in Emphasis of: Social Patterns inthe Transition to Post-IndustrialismSource: Trist (82)One could go on forever reviewing recent literature that attemptsto describe and analyse the change characteristics of modernsociety; but the central aspects of the picture remain thesame. One further question needs to be raised: “Are there indications that the changes going on around and within us arepart of a radical social and cultural upheaval — a paradigmchange- or, will the present turmoil die away as society adapts— 42 —itself to new internal and external demands, without makingsignificant structural and value changes?”. It is neithernecessary nor possible to attempt an answer here, though it isof interest to note that some authors (for example, Starrs andStewart (75)) see the citizen participation phenomenon as anindication of radical upheaval.TEE ROOTS OF TUE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PHENOMENONThis issue can and needs to be raised at a number of levels.First, there are the factors lying behind an individual’sinvolvement or lack of involvement. Except for the studiesin Political Science on voting behaviour and other traditionalpolitical activities (see, for example, Almond & Verba (1),Dahl (19,20), Martin (51), and Milbrath (54)), little work hasbeen done in this area. The dramaturgic framework discussedin the last chapter might provide a useful approach to thisissue. Second, one can look at the historical development of aspecific citizen participation process (or program), for example,the Third Crossing protest movement in Vancouver or the SouthVancouver Community Resources Board. This level might be bestserved by the political framework discussed in the last chapter,and it will receive some attention in the discussion of thecase studies in Chapter 5.Finally, one can look at the conditions in the social system(the entire society, •or the Greater Vancouver urban region)which provide the environment for, •are congruent with, or have— 43 —“caused” the upsurge in demands for participation. One further introductory remark is necessary. The word, “roots”, wasselected intentionally, rather than “c.auses”, because it isfelt that not only is it not possible to find a neat and tidypackage of causes for the citizen participation phenomenon, butalso it is not possible to limit the “causes” to endogenousfactors. External events, such as the Civil Rights movementin the U.S., have played a major role in influencing the development of citizen participation in Canada. The writing of acomplete history of citizen participation in Canada is beyondthe scope of this thesis, though it would be an exciting anduseful enterprise.Returning to Gross’ four crises, the survival crisis produceswidespread anxiety about the future — in the extreme, expressedby the prophets of doom. This seems to result in at leastthree different patterns: resistance to change or attempts topreserve the present, nostalgia for the past, and cries for newforms of learning and action that will anticipate. and guide thechange processes going on around us. All three are linked tocitizen participation. There have been numerous efforts, particularly on the part of the more affluent, to preserve the present- attempts to retain the low-density character of residentialareas in the face of a housing crisis are a good example. Nostalgia is present in those who seek to restore the small—scalegeographic community of the past, through such things as decentralizätion, •local area planning, and neighbourhood government.— 44 —The third pattern - what has been called the proactive, as opposedto reactive and preactive, stance toward planning— is largelystill at the drawing board stage with regard to citizen participation (see, for example, Friedmann (29) or Thayer (80)); butelements of this pattern can be observed in the Public Participation Program of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (see,for example, Tweddell (84)).The links between the multi-levelled fragmentation crisis andcitizen participation are less clear. It seems reasonable toargue that increasing fragmentation leads to increasing alienation, feelings of powerlessness and feelings of bewilderment.The citizen participation phenomenon is, both implicitly, andexplicitly, an attempt to resolve or ameliorate this crisis,through such strategies as developing community consensus andawareness, expanding the influence that an individual has overthe decisions and processes that affect her, developing newforms of involvement that allow people to feel either that theyare doing something or, at least, that someone is doing something, and constructing new groups and organizations where peoplecan make friends and feel that they have a significant role toplay. Further, the fragmentation crisis is reflected in our lackof a clear sense of the public interest. This leads to theproblems of planning in a pluralistic environment, replete withcompeting interest groups, and, in citizen participation programs, gives rise to the question of representativeness.— 45 —The aspirations crisis links more direätly with citizen participation. At the most basic level, rising aspirations arean attempt by marginal groups to participate in the wealth andgood life offered by the society to large portions of its citizenry. Further, as •no or only limited action is forthcoming,the marginal groups begin to demand conträl over the resourcesand services that are supposed to be solving their problems,largely because they distrust the ability of professionals andpoliticians to act in the interests of a group to which theydo not belong.The crisis in authority has a number of aspects that relate tocitizen participation. In a democratic society, government isbased on the voluntary consent of the governed. Consent, however, requires meaningful choices. In a society where there isno escape from the expanding influence of government and largeorganizations, •such choices can only be based on expanding theopportunities for the individual to participate in the governingprocesses. The rise of ever larger and more complex organizations(including the governmental civil services) leads to the necessity of administrative elites to manage these organizations.These people are beyond the influence of the individual citizenor worker, are often anonymous, •and, increasingly, •are beyondthe absolute control of the politicians. Finally, the increasingcomplexity and interdependence of society, •and the expandingareas of government inte:rvention, mean that the present forms— 46 —of government cannot cope with the workload. As Thayer argues:Realizing that politicians can deal only withso many issues at a time and convinced thatinsufficient attention is being given tocertain issues, individuals and organizationstend to proliferate interest group activity;there is almost an emerging trend toward thecreation of additional political parties,‘splinter parties’ if you will, each theequivalent of a single—issue group.The point is that individuals and groups seekparticipation to insure that somebody dealswith the issues that concern them. (F)The running of candidates in the recent Vancouver civic election by the Federated Anti-Poverty Group is an example of thisprocess.The crises discussed above, •and their links with the. citizenparticipation phenomenon, need a much deeper analysis thanhas been presented in this seótion. The point here was to supportthe hypothesis that the citizen participation phenomenon has itsroots in the change characteristics of modern society, and hasas one of its goals the resolution of the problems brought aboutby the change processes. The resulting implication for the evaluation of citizen participation programs is clear, namely, thatthe evaluation must include an analysis of the effectivenessof the program in generating change, co—opting the desire forchange, or resisting change.By way of a summary for this section, Wheatcroft comments:One of the •most important and far—reachingimplications of periods •of change such as the— 47 —present is that men located in different positions in the social structure begin to perceivesocial reality so differently that the basicbonds of societal consensus are themselvesshredded and called into question. ... Themost outstanding characteristics •of periodsof rapid, extensive, uneven, and complexcultural and structu.ral change is not thestruggle to define what is right and wrongor good and bad, but the st:ruggle to definethe very nature of reality itself. (G)He goes on to argue that this process is characterized by adecline in importance of traditional forms and sources ofknowledge; a widespread perception of traditional insti.tutionsas being obsolete; a view of political insti.tutions •as beingnot only irrelevant, but also tools of the ruling elite; andan unmasking of social myths. and societal contradictions.PLANNING IN AN ERA OF CHANGEMuch has been written reäen.tly about the need to develop newstyles and philosophies of planning to enable us •to cope withrapid rate.s of change, increasing complexity. and interdependency,and widespread uncertainty (see, for example, Dror (24), Dunn(25), Friedmann (29), Michael (53), •Schon (71), Trist (83), andVickers (87)). A number of elements are common to most of thesewriters. Théré is an emphasis •on increasing the learning capacity of society, and on developing strategies for innovationand coping with uncertainty. Planning is seen as •a continuous,never—ending, process, no longer, to be directed at producing ablueprint for the future. The elements of the planned changeprocess — setting goals ‘and objectives, articulating action strategies, implementation, and evaluation - are seen to be interde— 48 —pendent, each feeding back into the others. It is no longerdesirable or possible for persons working in one area to beisolated from those working in other areas. Planning is seen tobe normative; goals and their underlying values are •not to betaken as •given, but need to be continuously explored and debated.Trist (83) captures the essence of these new planning styles.What this may mean begins to become clear assoon as we look at planning as a collaborativeundertaking between those of many kindsconcerned with social action and those, alsoof many kinds, concerned with planning. In sucha concept, the process is more important thanthe plan, the learning which takes place morecritical than the results obtained. Each freshstep, in conjunction with environmentalfactors, provides the starting point for thenext. There is no finality. The need is todevelop a capability, not a product. Thisstrengthening capability has to be brought intoexistence simultaneously at the individual,organizational, and societal levels. (H)It is important to note that changing styles •of planning haveimplications for citizen parti.cipation in planning. First,there needs to be a shift in emphasis away from a singular concern with “what should be done” and decision—making,. towardsvalue exploration and learning about the complexities and inter—dependencies of the situation at hand. Note that this shift hasbeen argued for as one means to .avoiding one of the major obstacles to citizen participation1 parochialism and over-identification with a single interest group. Both of the. case studiesto be discussed in Chapter 5 provide examples of learning-orientedcitizen parti.cipation. Sebond, the issue of uncertainty expandsthe arguments for increasing and widening the opportunities— 49 —for citizen participation in planning. As mayer. comments:Finally, there is a potential reason whichmay turn out to be the most startling of all.Participation prbably j: the ost efficientand cost_effectiVe anrer ;f; raki decisions.While conventional wisdom argues that participation slows down deóision processes, addsto the overall cost and design of implementation, and introduces a host of irrelevantfactors, participation may do preOiseIy theopposite. Most decision-making studies neverexamine the costs of overcoming consequencesnot foreseen in advance. There can be •nobetter way of discovering these unforeseenconsequences, long a major problem of administration, than by involving in the decisionprocesses those likely to be affected bythem. (I)Third, following on from the perception that all parts of theplanned change process are inter—related, comes the view thatcitizens should participate, not only in the planning and decision-making phases, but also in the implementation and evaluation phases. The development of the Britannia CommunityServices Centre (see Chapter 5) is one example of what thiscould mean. Finally, the perception of increasing complexity andinterdependency, reopens the question of who should participate.This shifts the debate about the meaning of citizen participation into a different direction. For, if we were to take seriously the view that anyone has the right (and the responsibility) to participatein all decisions that affect him, life wouldrapidly become one continuous round of meetings. Given thatthis is both undesirable and impossible, we are forced back intore-examining the bases for trust, responsibility, and accountability in political relationships, and from there into lookingat the issue of community in modern societies, (see, •for example,— 50 —Schaar (69)).THE LIMITS PARTIC RATION AS A CH2NGE: STRATEGYAny evaluator has to be concerned about the feasibility of thegoals and objectives of the program under study. It is notadequate to simply state that a program has failed to meet itsobjectives. More important is the question, “Why has it failed?”,and one possible answer is that the original goals and objectives were impossible given the resources, strategies, and environment of the program. This is a particularly crucial issuein evaluating citizen participation programs, for not only arethe objectives usually vague, they also tend to be extremelyidealistic. For example, a common goal is the redevelopment ofa sense of geographic community. The feasibility of this goalneeds to be considered, for example, in the light of recenttrends away from geographical personal ties, toward more interest—group based ties.The title of this section has an implicit assumption that needsto be spelled out. It assumes that citizen partiôipation isa strategy, a methodology, or a technique for achieving somegoal- that is, it adopts, implicitly, a task orientation.There is another side to citizen participation, what might becalled the process view, that is expressed by the statement,“Every citizen has the right (and the responsibility) to participate in the processes that affect his life.” This distinctionwill be pursued further in the next chapter. It is sufficient,— 51 —here, to state that the following comments apply only to citizenparticipation as a strategy in seeking change.In order to stress the importance of looking at the limits ofcitizen participation as a change strategy, it is useful tobriefly review Warren’s (89,90) evaluation of the Model Citiesprogram in the U.S.The study gathered data on the development of the Model Citiesprogram in nine cities, and focused on the interaction of sixorganizations: the Board of Education, the Health and WelfareCouncil, the Urban Renewal Agency, the Community Action Agency,the Mental Health Planning Board, and the Model Cities Agency.Of particular concern was agency responsiveness to the needs ofthe poor, and the degree of innovation that occurred. The keyfindings were:the amazing stability of the interorganizationalnetwork comprised of these organizations andof other similar community decision—organizations.There was a flurry of activity for a time,but with few exceptions the relations between organizations sorted themselves out with surprisingease, and the programmes became institutionalized.the end product was largely an expansion andextension of existing agency services, with relatively few exceptions and with discouragingly poorprospects of implementing the programme’s legislative mandate to improve conditions of livingin slum areas. (J)Both the community action agencies and theModel Cities agencies were able to establishand legitimate themselves within the interorganizational structure only as they loppedoff any aspects of theirprogrammes which weresufficiently innovative to pose a possibly— 52 —serious threat to existing power arrangements,existing spheres of legitimated domain, andexisting professional interventionstrategies. (K)Perhaps most paradoxical of all, the failureof these organizations to create innovativealternatives to the existing service structure,their failure to accomplish significant changein the community, was accompanied not bygrowing unrest and rebellion in the country’sslum areas, but by a gradual quiescence, asubsiding of the threat of enraged citizensdemanding changes by unconventional methodssince conventional methods would not work. (L)For the purposes of this section, a key conclusion from Warren’sstudy was that:to the extent that resident groups havegained power in the program—planning process,they almost without exception have come upwith substantially the same type of (ParadigmI - individual deficiency) programs as have themore established agencies in cases where resident groups had little power. Decision-makingpower, often hard-fought and hard—won by resident groups, seems to have made little differencein the actual programs. We have anticipated thatsince such resident groups were highly criticalof the existing programs, and since many ofthem expressed in one way or another an apparentlyclear grasp of an identification with ParadigmII (dysfunctional social structure), they woulddrastically alter the nature of the programswhen they had power. Both they and theiradvocacy planners, where they had them, slippedinadvertently into modes of response based onParadigm I, the only paradigm which offeredexplicit technologies (and supporting values,philosophies, and organizational structures)for addressing the problems. (M)Warren sees three social processes that support the stability ofthe system, or that preserve the status quo: the socializationprocess through which most people come to see proverty as a result of individual deficiencies rather than structural dysfunction,— 53 —the political bargaining process that takes place betweengroups and organizations when a new program is introduced, anda process of isolation whereby an organization which persistsin challenging the existing system is repelled from the community. He concludes:Citizen participation as a component of communitysocial programmes is desirable, I believe, butnot because it can be relied on as an adequatedynamic for change. To over simplify, slum arearesidents either become won over to essentiallyconventional service approaches to poverty,thus hving only marginal impact, or they arewritten off as hopelessly inept, nonprofessional,unrealistic, or downright revolutionary. (N)Purposive change strategies such as the antipoverty program and the Model Cities programare bound to have very little effectivenessin changing social conditions so long as theydo not help to create alternative ;institut;ion_alized thought structureS based n differentdiagnostic paradigms which are as integrallysupportive of the alternative paradigms asare the components of Paradigm I. (0)(emphasis added).Two questions need to be raised at this point.- Is it possible to talk about different levels or ordersof change, and if so, do these exist on a continuum orare they discontinuous in nature?- What are the relationships between citizen participationas a change strategy (or different models of citizenparticipation) and the various orders of change? Iscitizen participation, as a change strategy, limited toonly certain types of change?An initial attempt to examine these questions will be •presentedin Chapter 6. It is sufficient, here, to restate the importance— 54 —of looking at the feasibility of the goals and objectives inevaluating citizen participation programs.55FOOTNOTES TO CHAPTER 3A. Gans, H., “The Positive Functions of Poverty”, American J. of Sociology, V. 78, No. 2, September,1972, pg. 286/287.B. Thayer, F., Participation and Liberal: DemocraticGovernment, Committee on Government Productivity,Government of Ontario, October, 1971, pg. 1.C. Gross, B., “Planning in an Era of Social Revolution”,Public Administration: Review, May/June, 1971,pg. 286.D. Trist, E., “Urban North America- The Challenge ofthe Next Thirty Years”, Plan Canada, V. 10,No. 3, 1970, pg. 4.E. Ibid., pg. 12.F. Thayer, op.cit., pg. 15.G. Wheatcroft, L., “Some Human Problems in Social Change”,in Social and Cultural ChaPges in Canada, V. II,Mann (ed.), Copp Clark Publishing Co., 1970,pg. 338.H. Trist, E., “Planning in an Era of Change and Uncertainty” , Proceedings of the 21_st An;n:ivers:aryConference, School of Community and RegionalPlanning, Univ. of B.C., March, 1974, pg. 4.I. Thayer,’t., pg. 19.J. Warren, R., “Community Change: Some Lessons from theRecent Past”, Cmmunity Development J., V. 9,No. 1, January, 1974, pg. 3.K. Ibid., pg. 3.L. Ibid., pg. 3.M. Warren, R., “The Sociology of Knowledge and the Problems of the Inner Cities”, Social :5ciCflceQUarterly, December, 1971, pg. 482.N. Warren, (1974), op.cit., pg. 7.0. Warren, (1971), op.cit., pg. 479.I—I(1 H±j OHI:-’rot:rj0ZH0xjo)C12:x1Cl)H‘-3•I:TJHHH 0Cl)57the most important point of excellencewhich any form of government can possess isto promote the virtue and the intelligenceof the people themselves. The first questionin respect to any political institution ishow far they tend to foster in the merhbersof the community the various desirablequalities, moral and intellectual.- John Stuart Millparticipation can be neither a gift noran advantage. It is a burden, sometimes aheavy one ... To participate is to losesome of one’s freedom; it means abandoningthe normally comfortable, sheltered positionof the critic; it means running the riskof emotional commitment; it means submittingto the constraints of someone else, to thegroup or unit in whose decision—makingprocess one participates.— Michael Crozier— 58 —INTRODUCTIONWhatever its form, evaluation has to come to grips with the objectives of the program under study. The objectives provide atleast one yardstick against which the program can be judged.In many situations, the evaluator finds himself staring at amultitude of objectives, often only vaguely stated or onlyimplicit in the program activities. Citizen participation programs, coloured by rhetoric and utopian expectations, and devilledby numerous conflicting interests, are prime examples of the problem of discerning a program’s objectives. This chapter, beginning with a discussion of the major political ideologies lying behind citizen participation, will present a frameworkfor examining the objectives of citizen participation programs.DEMOCRATIC PLURALISM/ELITISM versus PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACYModern theories of democracy are grounded in three basic presuppositions. First, they are based on a distrust of the commonman. Numerous political studies (for example, Almond & Verba (1),Martin (51), and Milbrath (54)) have shown that most people arenot interested in political questions, do not participate inpolitical activities beyond voting, and have only a limitedunderstanding of the current political issues. Further , someof these studies have suggested the prevalence of authoritarian(or anti-democratic) attitudes, particularly at the lower endof the socio-economic scale. As a consequence, the fear of thetyrannical minority (the bugbear of earlier democratic theorists)— 59 —has been replaced, or at least joined, •by the fear of thecommon man.Modern theorists tend to see democracy as a neutral politicalmethod, namely,that institutional arrangement for arrivingat political decisions •in which individualsacquire the power to decide by means of acompetitive struggle for the people’s votes. (A)The characteristics of this method are universal suffrage, majority rule, freedom of discussion, and free, •periodic elections.These are the rules of the game. In addition, the political system is seen to be an arena of competing elites or interestgroups, all seeking power, •but none able to obtain absolutepower because there is a basic consensus on the rules of thegame and because people are free, at least in theory, to organize themselves and enter the fray. The different interestgroups have cross—cutting memberships which prevent drasticaction for fear of future loss or reprisal. This pattern ofchecks and balances provides the stability of the system, andprotects the society from the ascendancy of any minority groupto dominant power. Further, it provides the means for respondingto the changing needs of the society through a process of mutualadjustment, negotiation, and delaying of decisions. For the purposes of this thesis, the most crucial consequence of perceiving democracy as a neutral political method, is that it is tobe judged solely on the basis of its capacity for survival andon the basis of its outputs. Bachrach comments:— 60 —This (theory) of democracy construes the interestsof the people narrowly and the democratic elitetheorist has little difficulty in accepting it.He posits that the value of the democraticsystem for ordinary individuals should bemeasured by the degree to which the ‘outputs’of the system, in the form of security,services, and material support benefit them.On the basis of this reasoning, the less theindividual has to participate in politics onthe ‘input’ and demand side of the system inorder to gain his interests on the output side,the better off he is. With rare exception, elitesare available to represent his interest inthe decision—making process, relegating to himthe comparatively painless task of payingnominal dues and occasionally attending ameeting and casting a ballot. By assuming aone—dimensional view of political in’te:r;est, thedemocratic elitist is led to’ ‘the’ ‘conclusiOnthat there ‘iS a ‘natural divisi’o Of ‘labourwithin’ a democratic’ system between’ elite ruleand non-elite interest. (B) (emphasis added)The third presupposition of modern theorists is that citizenparticipation should play only a limited role; that is, itshould be largely restricted to periodic voting, the functionof which is theprotection of the individual from arbitrarygovernment. This is not to argue that there is no concernwith equal opportunity for seeking power, although, asGamson (30,31) has observed, the political system acts to resist the entry of new groups into the political arena. However,faced by the fact that a significant number of people do notvote, and an even larger number do not actively participatein organized political groups, the theorists do not throw uptheir arms in horror, despite the rhetoric about the importanceof voting and political activity. They accept the situation andregard it as a positive support of the stability of the system,— 61 —because of their basic distrust of the common man’s commitmentto democratic procedures. Further, they go on to explain thislack of participation either on the basis of apathy, or byreturning to the idea of democracy as a political method. Thislatter point is critical, for as Dahl (19) has pointed out,under this view there are at least three good reasons why a person will not participate.- An individual is unlikely to get involved in politics ifhe places a low priority on the rewards to be gained frompolitical involvement relative to the rewards expectedfrom other kinds of activities.- An individual is unlikely to get involved if he thinksthat the probability of his influencing the outcomeof events is low.- An individual is unlikely to get involved if he believesthat the outcome will be satisfactory without hisinvolvement.The theory of democratic pluralism/elitism does not suffer froma lack of critics. One line of criticism argues that thepresent crises of modern democratic societies are due to theslow rate of responsiveness of the pluralist model to rapidlychanging needs and environmental conditions. Another argumenthas been that there is a lack of access to the political arena —that, in fact, there is not equal opportunity in seeking power.Finally, particularly from the Marxists, (see, for example,Milliband (56)), there has come the assertion that modern dem— 62 —ocratic societies do have a ruling elite, •and that the pluralist model, therefore, does not provide a solution to theproblem of the tyrannical minority.The proponents of democratic pluralism/elitism have had toface the challenges posed by the crises discussed in Chapter 3.The crisis of rising aspirations is a direct criticism of theoutputs of the political system. The increasing demands forcitizen participation and local control, and the more generalcrisis in authority, threaten one of the basic pillars of thestability of the system - the voluntary consent of the governed.The proponents have argued that the basic model is sound, butthat the actual political system requires modification to makeit more accurately reflect the model. Two changes have beensuggested: increasing the role of the executive arm of thegovernment so that it has a greater capacity for centralizedplanning and co-ordination, and increasing the flexibility andeffectiveness of those services designed to help individualsgain entry into the mainstream of social, economic, and political life, by decentralizing these services to the neighbourhoodlevel and by involving citizens in their development (see,for example, Kaufman (41,42)). Consequently, although citizenparticipation plays only a limited role in the democratic pluralism/elitism model, the supporters of this view of democracycan be found in the ranks of those seeking expanded opportunities for citizen participation (see, for example, Dahi (20) andDavidoff (22)).— 63 —Classical theory ... is based on thesupposition that man’s dignity, and indeedhis growth and development as a functioningand responsive individual in a free society,is dependent upon an opportunity to participate actively in decisions that significantlyaffect him. ... man’s development as ahuman being is closely dependent upon hisopportunity to contribute to the solutionof problems relating to his own actions. (C)Counterposed to the theory of democratic pluralism/elitismis the notion of participatory democracy, dating back to classical writers such as Rousseau and John Stuart Mill. The basicpresuppositions of this view of democracy have found a placein recent writingsin organization theory (see, for example,Argyris (2), Bennis (5), and MacGregor (47)), and they havecome to the fore again in attempts to re—examine the politicalphilosophical basis for citizen participation (see, for example,Bachrach (4), Hart (37), Pateman (62), and Thayer (80)).The key idea in participatory democracy is that the individualin order to achieve his potential and to develop his freedom,positively as opposed to negatively, must focus on his roleas a citizen- the role of acting with others to achieve commonaims and, in the widest sense, the public interest. The function of participation, then, is not just to ensure the desiredoutput of the political system or to protect the individualfrom arbitrary government, but centres on education, in the widestsense of that word. Democracy becomes not just a means but anend in itself. As Howard comments, in a more specific context:Participation and health are inextricablylinked in two ways. First, the politicalrealities of adequate health care demand— 64 —public participation because the issues involved go far beyond technical medicalquestions into matters of public policy.Second, participation, in the sense ofreaching out to take a hand in the dte•rmination of one’s wn fate: and: that of’ others,is in itself a way of achieving health. Inboth senses, health requires participationand participation can help to bringhealth. (D) (emphasis added)Participation also serves integrative goals — the developmentof communities in which people acknowledge others’ interestsand in which consensus and co—operation dominate conflict andcompetition — and facilitates the acceptance of decisions -that is, participation is the key to ensuring the legitimacyof the political institutions and the voluntary consent of thegoverned.Participatory democracy, therefore, places participation at thecentre of its view of democracy. It assumes that individualscan and will develop to be “democratic citizens” who will- invariably participate given the opportunity,— receive their greatest satisfaction from participation,— emphasize consensus and co—operation over conflict andcompetition,- understand that their full potential can only be reachedthrough participation.This image of the individual is strikingly different from thepicture presented by the empirical studies of political attitudes,and accepted as realistic and appropriate by the supporters of— 65 —democratic pluralism/elitism. One wonders quite how this gapis to be overcome. Pateman’s (62) answer is twofold. Sheargues that one first has to look at the socialization processeswhere people learn their attitudes toward political activity.She points to the authority structures of the family, the school,the local community, and the workplace; and argues that thesewill have to be changed to a more participatory style. Secondly,she argues that participation, in its educative mode, begetsfurther partiôipation. As Thayer comments:Participation is educative. Citizens involvedin decision processes learn the skillsnecessary for continued participation. Onecannot learn to participate without doing so,and this makes it unjust to exclude citizensbecause of a lack of skills. Further, ascitizens acquire the skills, they continuallyimprove the processes themselves. (E)A major consequence of the emphasis on democracy as an end initself is that power becomes only one issue in citizen participation. Thus, Arnstein’s (3) analysis of the levels ofpower in citizen participation programs becomes only one side,albeit an important one, of the total picture. The degree ofpower delegated to the ‘citizens becomes only one criteria onwhich to judge the validity of a citizen participation program.A second major tenet of participatory democracy is that theconcept of what is political needs to be expanded to include alldecision-making processes that have a significant impact uponthe life of the society and its citizens. The conception of— 66 —politics as being limited to the activities of government andthe state is rejected as being too narrow. This quickly leadsinto the notion of industrial democracy which supporters ofparticipatory democracy argue for on the grounds that industrymakes decisions that have significant public impact and onthe grounds that individuals are more likely to be ready toparticipate in their workplace because work plays a highly significant role in their lives.At this stage, the supporters of participatory democracy havenot provided much detail as to what the institutions in sucha society might look like, or what strategies can be used tomove toward such a society. The state of the art is rather crude.For example, •Starrs and Stewart suggest that:In the process of change which is underway,the role of government seems likely toundergo a shift in emphasis from a managerialto a supportive activity. The responsibility ofthose in government would then no longer bepredominantly ‘to govern’ with some assurance,but’to nurture’ with some humility. The responsibility of the citizen -participant wouldno longer be to qualify and temper thejudgment of public policy ‘experts’ in a decision—making process that often takes on th.echaracter of a confrontation, but to developa greatly enhanced capacity for makingappropriate judgments and to act upon these.The role Of party officials, elected representatives and public servants would be tofacilitate the development of this newexpertise and to participate, on request,in the process of personal and communitydecision-making. (F)Friedmann (29) has, perhaps, gone further than most in suggestingwhat a participant, •learning society might look like. He arguesfor a “transactive” planning style that would embrace the ideas— 67 —of mutual learning and continuous dialogue among all participants:citizens, planners, and politicians. The individual participant would acquire a sense of competence in his role as part ofthe planning-acting process, and would become aware of his relationships to the larger enterprise. Conflict, and the particular interests and commitments of the participants, would beaccepted, and hopefully, the process would be designed to allowa common image of the problem to come forth. Structurally, likeThayer (80), he argues for a decentralization of power, and ahierarchical assembly of temporary, task-oriented groups whichwould be small—scale, interpersonal, self—guiding, responsible,and self-appointed.Hart (37) has pointed out a number of problems which will haveto be resolved, in moving toward a participatory society.— Participatory democracy seems to rely on a much higherlevel of consensus with regard to substantive issuessuch as values and objectives than is necessary inthe pluralism/elitism model. Is there a public interest,and will participation help to define it?- The logic of modern organizations (Michel’s Iron Law ofOligarchy) mitigates against decentralization andparticipation. What new organizational structures can bedeveloped which will further participation, and how effective will these be in achieving organizational goals?- Many individuals will not wish to participate, for variousreasons such as sloth, dissent, desire for privacy, or— 68 —greater interest in other activities. Are these peopleto be treated as deviants, in much the same way thatpeople who are demanding further participation are presently treated as deviants?- In a rapidly changing and complex society, decisions areoften taken at breakneck speed. Does citizen participationrequire a change in the tempo of society?— Will consensus breed uniformity and conformity? Is notconflict a potential source of creativity?— In a complex society, expertise and knowledge is a sourceof power. In a participant society, are all citizens tobecome experts? If not, how are the citizens to containthe power of the experts, or how are they to choosebetween opposing groups or experts?— 69 —Concepts and Democratic ParticipatoryEmpirical Pluralism/ DemocracyStatements ElitismDemocracy Political method Political method andethical endInterest Interest—as—end— Interest—as —end—resultresult and interest—as—processEquality Equality of Equality of poweropportunityPolitical Governmental Decision-making whichdecision-making significantly affectsand that which societal valuesrelates to itElite-mass Unalterable Alterablestructure ofmodern industrialsocietiesAnti—liberal pro— Reliance upon Reliance uponpensity of a elites to safe- broadening and enrichinggreat number of guard the system the democratic processnon—elitesTable III The Contrast Between Democratic Pluralism!Elitism and Participatory Democracy.Source: Bachrach (4)Table III summarizes the arguments of this section. In the shortterm, both the supporters of participatory democracy and thesupporters of democratic pluralism/elitism can be found in theranks of the citizen participation advocates, and the goals andobjectives they argue for are similar. In the long term, theirimages of the ideal society seem to be radically different, andtheir ideas as to the place of participation appear to be inconflict.— 70 —CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND DECENTRALIZATIONThe traditional organizations and institutionsdesigned to provide social services, have,increasingly, come under fire. They have beenswept along by social currents to the point oftheir being too big, too distant, and too self-serving. The traditional agency has beencriticized as formal, fragmented, impersonal,officious, and timid; as aliehating and intimidating people; as ensuring long delaysand expecting those it serves to accept itspolicy without question. But the neighbourhood centre has been championed as informal,integrated, personal, courteous, andcourageous; as making people feel that theybelong; as offering instant service and promoting the active participation of theneighbourhood in its program. Such,at anyrate, is the rhetoric of neighbourhoodcentres. (G)Decentralization (whether of a service, the administration ofa service, the resources to provide a service, or the politicalpower to make decisions about a service) is not the direct subject of this thesis. However, since citizen participation anddecentralization have become so intertwined, particularly inthe literature, it is important to consider the relationshipsbetween them,. In general, the rationales and arguments putforth on behalf of citizen participation and decentralizationare very similar, as is indicated in the quotation above(see also, Kotler (43) and Shalala (72)). Further, citizenparticipation and decentralization are considered to be synergistic, and, by many authors, to be necessary conditions foreach other.Two specific points need to be noted. First, an enhanced senseof neighbourhood identity or geographic community is a commonly— 71 —stated goal for both citizen participation and decentralization.For this goal, the two would seem to have to go hand—in-hand.Second, there is a general assumption in the literature that ina large, complex society, participation in national, or evenprovincial affairs, is impossible because of the large numbersof people involved. This assumption derives from a (in myview, excessive) concern with direct participation. Littleattention has been given to other forms of participation, orto the more general issues of legitimate authority, leadershipand trust.There are a number of compelling reasons for separating citizenparticipation from decentralization. It is of ten stated thatlocal communities tend to be parochial in their responses towider issues- they consider their own interests to be primary.This has been commonly used as a reason for denying the validityof citizen participation. By linking citizen participation todecentralization, one ends up tending to reinforce theseparochial attitudes. A further result is that, when widerissues are to be decided, there is no formal program of citizenparticipation. There is some experience to suggest that parochial attitudes can •be overcome by structuring the form of participation to encourage an overall perception of the issues.The nature of the issues under discussion is another factor influencing the tendency to be parochial.The strategies of change that the advocate— 72 —planner and his clients utilize revolve aroundthe inherent conflict in the interests ofdifferent community groups in the city andthe need to organize in their own communityto attain their own interests. There is alsothe implicit assumption that the resources theyneed can be attained in the particular community through the assertion of their powerThe problem with this commitment to ademocratic strategy at the community levelis that many of the most critical needs ofthe poor are not related to their immediatecommunity, but refleót city-wide, regional,and national power centres. Hence, the advocateplanners are attempting to perfect a politicalpluralism in a government that is increasinglycentralized and has limited its pluralism toonly certain sectors of society. (H)The significant issues that concern citizens (for example,urban growth, health care, housing, and poverty) can only bedealt with at regional and higher levels, both because of theimmensity of the issues involved and because of the increasinginterdependencies in modern society. The varying participationrates in eleótions (4% in the recent Community Resources Boardelections, 30% in Vancouver’s recent civic election, and 75%in the last Federal election) might possibly be interpreted asan indication thatmost citizens understand this. Given thatpeople tend to participate in those issues that they considerto be of most significance for their own interests, the linkingof citizen participation and decentralization may, in fact,discourage participation.A final reason for separating citizen participation from decentralization has to do with the thorny problem of geographiccommunity. Most models of decentralization are geographically— 73 —based— they assume that some sense of neighbourhood identityor community either does exist or should exist. The debate(empirical and normative) about the existence or non—existenceof neighbourhood community (see, for example, Bernard (7),Panzetta (61), Repo (66), Suttles (78), Weliman (95) orZablocki (97)) will probably go on forever. However, it doesseem that the linking of decentralization to citizen participation, and the directing of both towards neighbourhood community development, is too restrictive. Other forms of communityor interest groups (for example, women, Indians, and the poor)exist, and it is important to find ways of allowing these groupsto participate in the decisions that affect them, particularlygiven the fact that their aspirations will not be resolved atthe neighbourhood level.A FRAMEWORK FOR EXAMINING CITIZEN PARTICIPATION OBJECTIVESA number of dimensions appear to be relevant in examining theobjectives of citizen paiticipation programs.1. Task and ProcessA distinction needs to be made between perceiving citizen participation as a strategy or technique for achieving certainend results (change in individuals, groups, communities, organizations,...) and believing in citizen participation asa political right or as a necessary condition for human development. This corresponds to the distinction made by Bachrach (4)between two overall interests in democracy: interest—as—end—results and interest-as-process.— 74 —The statement, “Everyone has the right to participate in thosedecisions which will affect their interests”, is not, at firstglance, a goal statement. However, it would appear that anyonemaking this statement may (and perhaps, should) have an imagein mind of the type of society where this statement would befully actualized. The earlier discussion of democratic elitismand participatory democracy suggests two such images. Thus,although the belief in the right to participate is not explicitly goal-oriented, it may have implications for longer termgoals such as building a society where such a right is manifested. Further, it seems reasonable to evaluate citizenparticipation programs, not only on the basis of the explicitlystated end or task goals, but also on the degree to whichthe program actualizes, in a microcosm, the ideal society, andthe degree to which the program allows us to learn more aboutthe nature of the participant society.2. Exte:r:naI and InternalA second aspect of the task-process distinction is concerned withthose activities which are aimed at developing the program itself: for example, finding ways to make the program enjoyableas a learning experience or as an opportunity for encounteringnew people. One can argue that these goals are internal, inuned—iate steps in the process of seeking the external, long termgoals; but it seems important to also recognise them as validin their own right, as part of the educative or developmentalmodes of participation. The external-internal distinction also— 75 —corresponds to the recognition that any organization has atleast three functions: procuring the necessary resources, maintaining its internal relationships, and achieving its overallgoals.3. Orders of ChangeThis dimension was mentioned in the last section of Chapter 3,and will be pursued further in Chapter 6. To preview thatdiscussion, change is not a monolithic concept, and there seemsto be at least three orders of change that can be sought: incremental (or continuous) adaptation and preservation of thepresent system, readjustment within the system, and structuralor paradigm change.4. Levels of InterventionPlanned change efforts are directed at altering some target.The nature of the target provides one dimension for examiningthe objectives of citizen participation. A simple classification system would be: individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and the entire society. Jones (40) has given a moredetailed taxonomy.5. Immediate, Intermediate, UltimateThe breaking down of the objectives into immediate, intermediate, and ultimate goals (particularly along a time dimension),and the exploring of the relationships between these threelevels to produce a hierarchy or lattice of objectives, is an— 76 —important strategy in planned change efforts, though it isseldom done in citizen participation programs. The strategyis useful for examining the feasibility of the objectives, fordeveloping ideas as to the what, when, and how of the programactivities, and for providing a means for internal evaluation.6. Whose GoalsLast, but by no means least, it is important to recognize thatmost citizen participation programs involve a wide collectionof actors: individuals, groups, private organizations, andgovernment agencies — citizens, professionals, and politicians.Each set of actors is likely to have its own set of goals,and the degree of consensus or dissensus will be critical tothe development of the program. Consequently, the evaluatornot only needs to understand the different sets of goals inorder to make sense of the overall program, he will likely haveto carry out a number of evaluations depending on who is to usethe results. Further, an important tool in evaluating citizenparticipation programs is likely to be exploration of the differences among the various subjective opinions and judgments thatpeople hold concerning the program.00cii-HW-ct0bp3,p.-•o0t-‘<P3jI-’.I-ICDII•IICDU)frc.iP3<-(flCD0-’.-‘00rt0’F-OF--00.(DP3d‘-i0I’i(D0-’<C0<rH’<<.i0•CDH”.CD.-H-.•H•(D.0i--biOpi‘-tO•(DOI-’-cth.‘0f-tJ0co.Q.•I-1H-Co-‘0C4(DOCrri-CD(DPi00•1i.ct•tl(D.DI-0iLii•<•rt-ctCD0On-ri-Cr)H-cH-•I:-(D<“HHCDWH0OOP)0CDHCD0,•HiOi-1f-’-P)ri-nt--i-0--0Cr)nl-•PJHIIctI-Q-.I-’ri-PJH(DP3.I—’(DO(1)ri-—ctctOHH-H--OH-Pic-i-•s—...WCr)Nci-ç-l-OP3CDl-1CDHCP(DP3Wçt‘-3PiH-CDCoi-rP110OCD11100•CD<H-0i-hi-bDP3-..--oci-00Oi-0:0CDQ(D.D0(D•00OCflP3ci-Lri-O3ci-WOP3OH000Q00-‘‘.<DCr)b(DPCfl11OHCD(D11PJctP3OCD11Li-i-<11H-Or-11P3bri-H•0tTH-CDP3I-H-00I-i00HH-N0CDLLflC’CDori-P..O0CDLiiOci-•0CiH-b0.‘dOOCD11(DctCfl0OH011P3H-111111‘-<11H-•‘d(DdH-I1U)-.OP)0P3‘-Qci-‘dci0C)CD•0•H-H-•‘HHCD11c1Cfl0•‘.D00<(JIH-(tHci-CliiHIiliP)•H-—.1P3L.T1I.<rI-•rt-‘‘-<078CHAPTER 5TWO CASE STUDIES:THE BRITANNIA COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTREandTHE GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONAL DISTRICT POLICY COMMITTEES— 79 —THE BRIThNNIA COMMUNITY SERVICES CENTREINTRODUCTIONAs pointed out in Chapter 1, the objective of this case study,and of the one following, is to explore the ways in whichevaluation research was used in the citizen participation process, and the ways in which it might have been used. Neithercase study aims at a complete description of what happened, andneither is an evaluation study itself.The information for this study was gathered by reading theavailable reports and committee minutes, and by interviewing anumber of the people involved. The study is presented in threeparts: a description of the history of the project, a discussionof the objectives of the citizen participation program, and anexploration of the functions of evaluation research.HISTORYThe Britannia Community Services Centre is an integrated complex serving the sub—areas of Vancouver: Strathcona and Grand—view/Woodlands, a population of some 30,000 people. When completed, it will contain a high school, an elementary school,a combined school and public library, an information centre, anda recreation complex (swimming pool, ice rink, playing fields,cafeteria,...). The Centre will be managed by a Board of Management consisting of five agency representatives (one each fromthe high school, the elementary school, the library, the recreation complex, and other services) and ten community represen— 80 —tatives elected by the citizens in the Britannia area. TheBoard is a sovereign body which will manage the Centre throughannual operating agreements with Vancouver City Council, theVancouver School Board, and the Vancouver Parks Board. Theagreements will cover such matters as operating funds, responsibilities, and staff supervision.The history of the Britannia Centre starts in 1967 with two setsof actors. In that year, a group of young people, studentsand graduates from Britannia High School, formed the Associationto Tackle Adverse Conditions (ATTAC). This group, out of theirconcern for developing programs and facilities for young people,started looking around their community and pinpointing the lackof facilities and services (for example, the lack of a publiclibrary, a community centre, and sufficient park space.) ATTAC’sactivities served to bring these perceptions to the level ofconscious community awareness, hence developing the base forcommunity support of the Britannia Centre idea. ATTAC went onto develop a number of programs for youth in the area, andspearheaded the community effort to obtain political approvalof the Britannia Centre. It is important to note the constructive and positive approach of ATTAC, compared to the general negativism of student groups at that time. This was probablya major factor in ATTAC’s success in generating community awareness and activity, and was a forerunner of the general approachtaken to citizen participation in the development of the BritanniaCentre.— 81 —In the same year, a number of professionals in the Britanniaarea, particularly those in the social and health services,were becoming increasingly concerned about the level of services and resources in the area, and were becoming increasinglyfrustrated with the structure of their own agencies. Theywanted some measure of decentralization of these services, andsaw the citizens as allies in this process.Arising out of the concerns of the community, led by ATTAC, andof the local professionals, a sub-committee of the StrathconaArea Council and the Woodland Park Area Council (at that time,area councils were typically bodies of professionals, concernedwith coordinating services and resolving common problems) wasformed to develop a set of ideas for improving the services andthe facilities in the area. This committee was chaired by MajorHalsey of the Salvation Army, and had the blessing ofSelwyn Miller, then Director of Planning and Evaluation forthe Vancouver School Board. Miller had previously been ateacher at Britannia High School, and he became a major figurein obtaining political approval for the Britannia Centre proposal. The committee’s report, called the Halsey Report, suggesteda comprehensive community centre focusing on the existing Britannia High School, and a smaller neighbourhood centre basedat the existing Strathöona Elementary School. The neighbourhoodcentre was completed in September, 1972. The ‘Halsey Re•otwas presented to City Council by the School Board and the ParksBoard in late 1967. Council agreed to assess the feasibility of— 82 —the proposal. Over one year later, in March, l969, City Councilhad approved the idea of the Britannia Centre and had agreed toinclude funds for the •Centre in the 1970-75 Capital Plan. Anexplanation of this lengthly delay is necessary. The basicissue was capital financing of the Centre. In the past, cornmun—ity centres had been financed under local improvement taxation;and this method appeared to be unfeasible in the Britanniaarea— the communities to be served were just not rich enough.In the Spring of l97O, a city-wide referendum was held on the1970-75 Capital Plan. It is interesting to note that this wasthe first time that a money by-law received majority approvalin the East end of Vancouver. General support for the BritanniaCentre, and a good deal of organizing by ATTAC, seem to havebeen major factors in generating this positive vote. By thistime, it looked very much as if the Britannia idea was fastturning into an expensive white elephant. An enormous shoppinglist of services to be included had been developed as well asa preliminary set of site drawings that covered four more blocksthan does the final plan. The community saw it as a rallyingpoint for a neglected area; and the local professionals sawit as a way of getting more resources into the area. TheSchool Board had turned lukewarm to the idea, and the Parks Boardwas now opposed. As a consequence, it appeared necessary tore—examine the services that would be included, and to set somepriorities. If the Centre was •to be adapted to local needs anddesires, this would require some form of community involvement.— 83 —In addition, it was clear that the three key agencies (CityCouncil, the School Board, and the Parks Board) would have tobe involved in the planning process so as to obtain their finalapproval of the designs.Proposals for the planning process were developed by the City’sSocial and Physical Planning Departments, in partnership withthe community groups in Strathcona and Grandview/Woodlands. Thebasic idea was a small, joint committee (the Britannia PlanningAdvisory Committee - BPAC) consisting of four agency representatives (one each from the School Board, the Parks Board, thePlanning Department, and the Social Planning Department) andsix citizens. Each person had the responsibility of communicating with his constituency, and all final plans and reports hadto be approved by City Council, the School Board, and the ParksBoard. It is important to note that this was the first timea joint committee of professionals and citizens had been triedin Vancouver. The six citizens were chosen on a geographicalbasis (three from Strathcona and three from Grandview/Woodlands),on their ability to represent particular constituencies in thecommunity (for example, the major ethnic groups, public housingtenants, and organized citizen groups), and on the basis oftheir individual level of involvement in community activities.The citizens were elected at a public meeting of the Grandview/Woodlands Area Council (a citizen’s group) in November, 1970.It is important to note that, unlike the case with many citizenparticipation programs, the issue of representativeness has not— 84 —appeared in the Britannia case.Two sets of consultants were to be hired: an architecturalprogramming group (the group eventually selected was a firmcreated for the purpose - Britannia Design) to develop the profile of services to be included in the Centre and to completethe schematic designs, and an administrative group (JohnRoberts of the B.C. Research Institute was eventually hired)to develop proposals for the long term management of the Centre.It is interesting to speculate why the three key agencies (CityCouncil, the School Board, and the Parks Board) agreed to thisintense citizen participation process. In the early study byCity Council concerning the feasibility of the Britannia Centreproposal, the citizens’ role in initiating the ideas was acknowledged, and the need for further community involvement wascasually mentioned. This, plus the need to obtain communityinput to decide on the services to be included, gave the community and City staff the toehold they needed to lobby for the process they thought most desirable. In addition, it appears thatthe three agencies may have seen Britannia as a trial run forcitizen participation. Perhaps most critical, the basic idea ofthe Centre had received wide support, and the financial commitments had already been made. Thus, the decisions to be made bythe BPAC were more implementation decisions than basic politicaland financial decisions.— 85 —The Britannia Planning Advisory Committee (BPAC) first met inMarch, 1971, and continued meeting until October, 1974, when theinterim Board of Management was formed. The work of thecommittee divides into three parts: development of a profileof services to be included in the Centre and development ofschematic designs, overseeing the production of final designsand working drawings, and development of an administrativestructure for the Centre. The third phase overlapped in timewith the first two.During the summer of 1971, Britannia Design- the architeôturalprogramming consultants — conducted 50 taped, in-depth interviewswith residents and local workers. This led to the developmentof an 8—page questionnaire designed to determine areas of consensus around community needs and desires. The questionnairewas given to 800 adults, 500 high school students, and 200 elementary students, and was delivered and picked up on a block-by-block basis by community volunteers. In addition, an information sheet and short questionnaire was made available to everybody in the Strathcona and Grandview/Woodlands areas. Simultaneously, Britannia Design was working with the BPAC, gatheringtheir aspirations for the Centre, feeding back the results ofthe interviews and the questionnaires, •and developing hundredsof design principles using the pattern language approach.This process resulted in the production of a service profileand schematic designs by January, 1972. These were presented tothe Grandview/Woodlands and Strathcona communities for approval— 86 —in public meetings in February and March. The. designs werepresented to City Council, the School Board, and the ParksBoard in March.In April, .1972, the architectural firm of Downs and Archiinbaultwere hired to work with Britannia Design on the final designsand working drawings. These were completed by May, l972 Atthis stage, a technical steering committee was set up, consisting of representatives from the School Board, the Parks Board,the School Board Building Department, the Planning Department,the Social Planning Department,. and the archItects. The roleof this committee was to expedite the construction process.The citizens on the BPAC were sent all minutes of the steeringcommittee, and had an open invitation to attend its. meetings.All major policy decisions were referred back to the BPAC.The development of the administrative str.uc.ture. for the Britannia Centre was the touchiest, and probably the. most important task undertaken by the BPAC. The question of who wouldcontrol the Centre is critical to whether the Centre will remainflexible and suited to local needs and desires. From the outset, the citizens on the BPAC wanted the community to have amajor role in the management of the Centre, and some of them,responding to negative attitudes towards the three key agencies,particularly the Parks Board, wanted total community control.However, it was one thing for the three agencies to agree tocitizen involvement in the time-limited design process, but quite— 87 —another for them to consider long-term public participation inthe operation of the Centre. The latter would mean giving upsome of their power. Throughout the existence of the BPAC,there were constant struggles with the three agencies. The details of these struggles are beyond the direct interest of thisthesis, though it should be noted that they played a key role inthe citizen’s learning experiences. It is also interesting tonote that City Council was the prime supporter of the BPAC.The School Board was lukewarm, but not opposed, probably because they wereprimarily interested in the school facilitieswhich were not a key concern for the BPAC. The Parks Board, whohad most to lose, were the most opposed.The administrative structure that was adopted is an integratedone, based on a partnership arrangement involving the SchoolBoard, the Parks Board, the Library Board, City Council, andthe community (represented by the Britannia Community ServicesSociety). This structure was facilitated by the fact that thecapital funds (from City Council, the School Board, and theFederal Government) were treated as a single consolidated resource. In addition, the physical design was developed so thatthe Centre would almost require an integrated management arrangement.So much for the “factual” history of the development of theBritannia Community Services Centre. Before proceeding to adiscussion of the objeótives of the citizen participation program,— 88 —a number of more general observations need to be made.It is clear that the six citizens on the BPAC were highly involved in the planning process. These people were responsiblefor communicating with their constituencies, and with a set ofcommunity groups and organizations. It appears •that this wascarried out well in the initial and final phases, and not sowell in the middle phase. Every person interviewed was satisfiedthat the various community groups in Grandview/Wo.odlands andStrathcona were kept well informed of what was happening andwere able to have their views taken into consideration. Thiswas particularly true •for the development of the service profileand for the physical design process, and perhaps less true forthe development of the administrative structure.The six citizens, and the groups they represented, do not,however, cover the whole community. The wider community waskept informed through articles in the Highland Echo (the localpaper in Grandview /Woodlands - there is no local paper inStrathcona) and through leaflets in three languages (English,Italian, •and Chinese) passed out through the elementary schools.Great care was •taken to make sure that information concerningthe process was widely published, to ensure easy access tofurther information for thOse who wanted it, •to provide adequatenotice of public meetings, and to document all opinions expressedby the community. This allowed the BPAC to defend itself againstany last minute cries that people were not given the chance to— 89 —express their opinions. In addition to the information process,public meetings were held to gain approval of the schematicdesigns and the constitution of the Britannia Community ServicesSociety. The questionnaire process promoted wider communityinvolvement, and, finally, around particular crunch issues(for example, whether Britannia was to have a swimming pool)widespread support was organized to lobby the politicians.The financial resources and the time available played a majorrole in limiting the scope of wider community involvement. Theissue here is not whether wider community involvement wouldhave produced a better design or a better administrativestructure. Rather, the question is whether wider community involvement in the planning phase would have facilitated theprocess of future community use of the Centre, and community involvement in the administration and program development for theCentre. In that the Centre is supposed to become a focalpoint for the community, this question is of some interest evenif, at this late stage, it is purely speculative. It is important to note, however, that the nature of the community involvement is changing, now that the Centre is into the programmingphase. Program committees are being set up, and these shouldserve to spark the interest of a different, if not a larger,group of people, •because the issues involved are different fromthe earlier phase.Following on from the task/process distinction made in the last— 90 —chapter, it is important to make some comments about the natureof the process itself. During the initial stages of the BPAC,there was a fair degree of distrust between the citizens and theagency representatives. However, this quickly changed to asituation where the committee worked as a whole, on a consensusmodel, in an atmosphere of trust and friendship. After interviewing a number of people involved in the BPAC, it became veryclear that the level of positive feelings and sati.sfactions wasand remains very high. Some highlights that may help to describe this are:— on major issues, the entire committee encouraged thecitizens to caucus separately to sort out their views,- the BPAC held over 60 meetings, over a period of 4 years,and membership in the committee has remained basicallythe same over that time,— several committee members have moved out of the area, •butthey remained involved and committed to seeing the jobthrough. (One might wonder whether this led into questions concerning the representativeness of the BPAC, butno evidence was found to support this).The committee proved to be a major learning experience for everybody, promoted social interaction and friendship, •and gaveeveryone a feeling that they were contributing to somethingworthwhile.It is interesting to speculate why this happened. A number offactors can be suggested.— 91 —- the citizens had their own staff support person in theperson of the community development worker in Grandview/Woodlands, who attended all of the meetings of the BPAC.This person was eventually selected to be the first executive director of the Britannia Centre.- the ways in which the consultants worked facilitatedconsensus and trust — that is, the consultants, themselves,were committed to citizen participation.- the fact that all people, both citizens and agency representatives were new to the pattern language approach meantthat everyone was •starting off at the same •point, andthus had some common ground on which to interact.— the process helped to separate the citizens from theirusual reactive role by focusing on a positive, clearlydefined issue.- the fact that the agency representatives were separatedoff from their agencies (by the continual nature of thecommittee and by hOlding meetings in the. community.)allowed them to leave their agency—oriented perceptionsbehind.- the fact that there was prior community and politicalapproval, and financial support, gave the committee adegree of legitimacy that many citizen participationprograms are never able to achieve.— the existence of strong, well—organized citizen groupsin the Grandview/Woodlands and Strathcona communities(ATTAC, the Grandview/Woodlands Area Council, and the— 92 —Strathcona Tenants and Property Owners Association)provided the citizens with the back up support theyneeded.A final set of observations needs. to be made concerning the outcomes of this citizen participation program. The. most obviousoutcome will be the completion of the Centre itself, and thefuture patterns of use that are generated. Whether this willprove to be what was originally desired has to remain an openquestion at this point in time.From another perspeótive, one can ask about the effects of theprocess on the three city agencies. At one level, the. .staffwho participated on the BPAC gained a great deal of respeótfor the intelligence of the citizens, and a number of their mythsabout the ability of citizens to participate were. dispelled.Presumably, what they learned through this experience will havesome impact on the ways in which they work with. other groups.At another level, the effects on the agencies themselves aremuch less clear. It appears that they are now ready to consultwith the Strathóona and Grandview/Woodlands communities more thanthey would have in the past, and there is some .ev.idence thatthe experience with Britannia has been one factor in the SchoolBoard’s shift toward a community school policy. However,whether Britannia experience will have an impact on the waysin which the three agencies operate. in other parts of the Cityin the future remains an open question.— 93 —Finally, one can ask about the effects of the process on thecitizens involved, and on the Strathäona and Grandview/Woodlandscommunities. The citizens on the BPAC gained a great deal ofknowledge and experience, especially in regard to how the cityoperates and to the values of positive participation. Theygained confidence in speaking to City officials and politicians,and their involvement gave them visibility in the community,thus strengthening their role as local leaders. According tothe people interviewed, the strength of the community groups hasbeen increased, local leadership has been improved, and thegeneral levels of involvement have been expanded.OBJECTIVES: OF THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESSIt is extremely difficult after the whole process has taken placeto determine what the original objectives of the various actorswere, and how they were modified over time. The objectivesbecome intertwined with the outcomes, and it is not easy to pullthem apart. In addition, it is difficult to discover the negative impacts of the process, particularly when the overalljudgment of all involved is that it was a great success. It isclear that, if evaluation is desirable, it has to begin at thebeginning.Table IV presents a first attempt to delineate the objectives.It is likely not complete, but will serve •as an example of themultiple objeótives found in citizen participation programs.— 94 —Ultimate Intermediate ImmediateObjectives Obj ectives Obj ectivesTask_OrientedDevelop a centrewhich suits theneeds of thecommunity, isflexible, andserves as afocus for thecommunity.Process—OrientedReinforce thegrowth of political awarenessand involvementin the Strathconaand Grandview/Woodlandscommunities.Shift the threecity agencies toa position ofstronger supportfor citizenparticipation.- Develop a physicaldesign which facilitates the servicesto be provided andcitizen involvementin the Centre.- Develop an administrative structurewhich includes community involvementand promotes flexibility.— Encourage communityinterest in the development of the Centreas a basis for encouraging future use.- Strengthen alreadyexisting citizengroups.- Strengthen localleadership.— Provide an experienceof positive participation which willencourage an optimistic attitude toward participation.- Encourage the agencyrepresentatives tofeedback their experience to theiragencies.— Use Britannia as aprecedent and a trialrun for citizenparticipation.- Dispel myths aboutcitizens’ abilitiesto participate.- Develop a statement of needsand desires forthe Centre.- Develop áitizensupport so thatpolitical supportis maintained.- Help the citizenson the BPAC learnto work with thebureaucracies andprofessionals.— Have a representative fromeach agency whois committed tothe process andto Britannia.Table IV Objectives for Citizen Participation in Britannia— 95 —EVALUATION RESEARCH: WITHIN T:HE .BRIThNNIA CONTEXTFour functions that evaluation research might serve in citizenparticipation programs were outlined in Chapter 2.1. As a means offeedbackThe Britannia Planning Advisory Committee was small, and, overtime, able to develop close and effective working relationships.It would appear, therefore, that this function of evaluation wascarried out by the use of minutes, regular meetings, a singlechairperson, •and having a number of staff people (for example,the community development worker and the architeótural programming consultants) who were directly concerned with the processand making sure that the objectives were achieved. Some of thecitizens on the BPAC were highly skilled organizers, and theirexperience and efforts helped to keep the committee on track.As a more general observation, the task—Objeôtives of the citizenparticipation program were clearly defined, making it much easierfor all involved to be aware of what was happening and why.2. As••a means of promoting w:ider involvementThis issue has already been discussed. The BPAC kept the widercommunity informed through a variety of strategies: newspaperarticles, leaflets, questionnaires, public meetings, and directcommunications with organized citizen groups.3. As: •a: means of: :p:rovj:d:j:n:g :i:nfo:rma:tj:n’, :exp:er:i’enc:e:,: and :in:sightthat might be useful to other groups engaged in similar— 96 —Ventures.This function has not been carried out, except at the, •notinsignificant, personal level of those involved with the BPACcarrying their experience forward to other activities. At onestage, the community development worker in Grandview/Woodlandsattempted to procure the resources •that would have allowed himto write up his •experiences in the area; and some thought hasbeen given to writing a book and producing an audio—visualpresentation on Britannia in time for Habitat ‘76. One canonly hope that this will be done, •as the experience developedthrough the Britannia process would be highly useful to othergroups.Two gr.oups might have been interested in this •function at theoutset of the citizen participati.on process. The citizens onthe BPAC, and the community groups in Grandview/Woodlands andStrathcona, might have been concerned that their experiences,successes, and failures be passed on to other citizen groups inVanco.uver to aid them in their attempts to develop citizenparticipation programs and to demand political approval forsuch programs. That the citizens did not do so is probablydue mare to the lack of the necessary resources (money, time,staff,...) than to feelings that their experience would notbe useful to other people. In addition, it appears that theBPAC was not able to cope with outside observers during theinitial phases of its activities, and the introduction of anoutside evaluator might well have damaged the process.— 97 —The politicians (from City Council, the School Board, or theParks Board) might have been interested in this function ofevaluation. Why they have not attempted to carry out any formof descriptive or evaluative study of Britannia is an openquestion.4. As a meãnsof determining the future’ of the. programAt various stages along the path toward developing the finalworking drawings and the administrative structure, the reportsand designs had to be approved by City Council, the SchoolBoard, and the Parks Board. This can be seen as one form ofevaluation of the effectiveness of the BPAC.More generally, the BPAC was given a time—limited task to accomplish, and so the question of its future existence is •notparticularly relevant. However, the BPAC was able to develop anadministrative structure which facilitates further citizen involvement in the ‘Britannia Centre and hence, in some sense, thecitizen participation process will continue on. The annualoperating agreements and the Board of Management will providechannels for future evaluation of the Centre.The four conceptual frameworks suggeste.d in Chapter 2 are allrelevant to the Britannia case. The overall goal of developinga Centre that would suit the needs of the community, be flexible,and serve as a focal point for community life, is •so. compellingthat a case can be made for using the experimental framework— 98 —to evaluate the success of the planning program in achievingit. The systems framework would be a useful approach for describing and assessing the impact of theprogram on the Grand-view/Woodlands and Strathcona communities, •and on the City as awhole. The dramaturgic framework could be used to approachthe workings of the BPAC itself, while the political frameworkwould be essential to exploring the various sets of actors andtheir interactions.CONCLUSIONSBy way of a conclusion to this case study, it seems fair toargue that the success •of the planning program was due, inpart, to the internal functions of evaluation having been carriedout. Further, the process-oriented objeOtives of reinforcingthe political awareness and involvement of the Grandview/Wood—lands and Strathcona communities and shifting the three cityagencies toward a stronger position of support for citize—participation could be served by an overall evaluation of theBritannia experience: what happened, why, and with what effects.This has not yet been done.— 99 —THE POLICY COMMITTEES’ OF THE GREATER VANCOUVER REGIONALDISTRICTINTRODUCTIONThis case study will be presented in a slightly different fashionfrom the previous one. The Policy Committees are a much morecomplicated situation than the Britannia projeót, involvingmany more people. Consequently, because of time limitations,fewer details as to quite what happened will be presented. Theinteresting point about this case is that three evaluationstudies have already been conducted.The study is divided into three parts: a brief description ofthe history of the Policy Committees, a review of the existingevaluation studies, and a discussion of the functions ofevaluation research. The material for this study was collectedprimarily from the available •reports •and sets of minutes. Inaddition, the author participated in one of the Policy Committees.HISTORYThe Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) - Vancouver’slow—profile form of metropolitan government — was establishedby the Provincial government in 1967. In 1969, it was giventhe mandatory function of regional planning, which, at thatstage, entailed managing the existing Official Regional Planthat had been developed earlier by the •Lower Mainland RegionalPlanning Board. During 1969 and 1970, the GVRD went through a— 100 —debate about the role of regional planning, culminating in adecision to develop a new type of regional plan under the overall goal of improving the “livability” of the region. The newplan was to be explicit in its goals, flexible to changing needs,problem and action oriented, and of an on-going, never finalized,nature. The plan was to be developed by 1975 through a LivableRegion Program.In 1971, a Public Participation Program was started which,initially, was to focus on developing public awareness of theimportance of setting regional goals and on giving interestedgroups and persons a more complete knowledge of the LivableRegion Program. It is interesting to note that even at thisstage, political support for the Public Participation Programwas at best ambivalent (Tweddell (84)).Before proceeding further, it might be useful to inject apersonal observation. The GVRJD has evolved slowly over timetaking on new responsibilities with the agreement of themember municipalities, unlike the instantaneous creation ofother regional governments (for example, Greater Winnipegand Metropolitan Toronto). Hence, the tensions between themunicipal and regional levels of government are less than onemight expect. They do seem, however, to exist, and one wonderswhether this was not a major background factor in the ambival—ences expressed by the politici:ans towards citizen participation in the Livable Region Program. As Smith comments:— 101 —it is important to note that changesin the pattern of citizen participationare guaranteed to produce tension andpotential conflict. As long as thingsremain as they are, that is, as long asthe ways of participating do not changevery much, everyone is happy. But ifthe patterns change there will be tensionand there are many forces at work inour society producing change. The GVRDitself is a product of these forces,charged with responsibility fordeveloping new patterns. (A)Any full scale evaluation of the Policy Committees will have toexplore the historical development of the GVRD, its presentpowers and relationships with the municipalities, and the impactof these on the Public Participation Program.Throughout 1971 and 1972, the staff of the Livable RegionProgram held 40-50 meetings with citizen groups in the region todiscuss the program and the Livable Region Plan. In the Fallof 1972, a report (‘Report on: Li:v:ab.i:l:i:ty) was published detailing the progress to date and outlining 30 objectives/policiesstatements. At about the sante time, the GVRD Board decidedthat the new Livable Region Plan would be completed by March,1974, one year earlier than anticipated originally.The increased time pressures meant that the Livable RegionProgram had to be accelerated and that a number of lines ofdevelopment would have to proceed simultaneously. Four strategies were adopted. The Public Program consisting of meetingswith citizen groups would continue, the Federal and ProvincialGovernments were asked to carry out a number of technical— 102 —studies pertaining to their special interests, the plannerswere to prepare a draft Livable Region Plan, and nine PolicyCommittees were to be set up to review thern 30 objectives!policies statements developed to date.This case study is concerned solely with the Policy Committees.The initial conception of these committees was to gather together a wide range of “experts” (Federal politicians and officials, Provincial politicians and officials, municipal politiciansand officials, academics, and representatives of the variousinterest groups in the region) whose combined expertise andadvice would become an important input into the Livable RegionProgram. Each committee was to focus on a particular urbansystem: transportation, residential living, •recreation, educationand research, social services,health and public protection,economic production and distribution, environmental management,and government and society. Their task was three—fold: toreview the initial 30 objectives/policies statements from theperspective of their particular urban system, to produce a finalreport by October, 1973, and to review, when it was ready, thedraft Livable Region Plan. The final report was to cover:livability objectives, regional responsibilities, livabilityindicators, policy statements, immediate action steps, and financial implications - a rather tall order. Following the completion of their reports, the committees were to meet with thePlanning Committee of the GVRD Board, and with the Board itself, to review the committees’ recommendations. The staff— 103 —of the Livable Region Program were to provide the secretarial,administrative, and technical support for the committees, andeach committee had a budget of $2000.In the Spring of 1973, the members of the Policy Committeeswere “selected” on a principle of open membership. Invitationswere sent directly to a number of people and groups, and theexistence of the committees was advertised in the mass mediaso as to encourage the participation of people who were notmembers of groups. It was at this stage that a fundamentalconflict began to arise which appears to have coloured the development of the Policy Committees from start to finish.It appears, from looking at the terms of reference of thecommittees, that they were not designed as a process of publicparticipation in the Livable Region Program. On the other hand,the selection process encouraged citizens •to appear, andsuggested that the committees were an attempt to provide forfurther citizen involvement, beyond the existing pattern ofmeetings with organized citizen groups that had started in 1971.This conflict led into a major issue of the representativenessof the Policy Committees. At least initially, there were toomany professionals to permit one to say that the committeeswere a form of public participation, and there were too manypeople for the committees to appear as task-oriented groupsof experts. Further, there was almost a complete absence ofpoliticians and municipal officials. The lack of representative-— 104 —ness of the Policy Committees appears to have been a majorfactor behind a large number of people dropping out of theprocess (for example, the Residential Living Policy Committeestarted with 80 odd people in April, 1973, while only 15 people were involved in writing the final report in October,1973). It has also been used by some of the regional politicians to deny the validity of the work of the committees. Bythe time that the membership of each committee had stabilized,each group consisted of an odd mixture of professionals,academics, and “amateur” citizens (people with a general interest in the subject matter rather than a specialized interest).It is not known how well these groups were able to meld themselves together, but all except two produced their finalreports within a month of the deadline. Further, the onecommittee with which this author had direct experience - theResidential Living Policy Committee- was able to build afriendly, consensus—oriented, working atmosphere, where thedistinction between those with specialized interests and knowledge and those with generalized interest and knowledge became of little significance.The Policy Committees started operation in April, 1973. Thefirst meetings were confusing, with large numbers of peopleand a constantly changing membership. They focused primarilyon the functions of the committees- what they were supposedto be about, how they were supposed to relate to the plannersand the GVRD politicians, and what power they had. A good deal— 105 —of rhetoric was loosely tossed around, particularly by theLivable Region Program staff responsible for the Policy Committees, as to the importance of the committees and the willingness of the planners and the politicians to listen to theirviews and recommendations. In hindsight, it appears that theinitial concerns and anxieties of the citizens were never reallycleared up; a situation that continued to plague the PolicyCommittees all of the way through. Most of the committees threwout their explicit terms of reference with which they had beenprovided (though their final reports covered most of the material expected from them), and elected to re—examine their particular urban system from beginning to end. This decisionwas critical since it shifted the role of the committees clearlyaway from the “expert” advisory groups that were to be partnersin the coordinated thrust of the Livable Region Program,into a position where the role was no longer clear and thecommittees’ relationship to the Livable Region Program undefined.Throughout the Spring, Summer, •and Fall of 1973, the committeesmet regularly, holding about 550 hours of meetings involvingjust over 200 people, producing something of the order of110,000 person/hours of time and effort. Final reports wereproduced by the late Fall, and each committee held a briefmeeting with the Planning Committee of the GVRD Board to reviewtheir report. In addition, most of the reports were given tothe press, some before and some after the meetings with thepoliticians.— 106 —In February, 1974, a GVRD seminar on the management of urbangrowth (a major concern of all of the Policy Committees) washeld at which representatives of the Policy Committees werepresent. The hope was that this would provide a furtheropportunity for the committee members to interact with the regional and municipal politicians and officials. This occurred,though only at a minimal level. The agenda of the seminar wasfocused on the interests of the Livable Region Program staffand the GVRD politicians, rather than on the concerns and recommendations of the Policy Committees. In May, 1974, thePolicy Committees presented a formal report to the GVRD Board.The report was referred to the Planning Committee of the GVRDBoard where it still sits, awaiting some form of response andpositive action.A second growth seminar was held in May, 1974, at which therewas no public or Policy Committee participation. In June, 1974,the coordinator of the Public Participation Program was releasedfrom his job, and the planned program of 50 public meetingswas cancelled. Although the issue will not be pursued here,it needs to be acknowledged that the conflict strategies of thecoordinator had a major impact on the successes and failures ofthe Policy Committees. Effectively, the Public ParticipationProgram was put into abeyance. It appears now that some effortwill be made to revive it, though the form it will take is verymuch up in the air. At the time of writing, the Livable RegionPlan is expected to be made public in late March, 1975.— 107 —THE EXISTING EVALUATION STUDIES1. Tweddell’ s (84) study of the degree of participantsatisfactionTweddell’s concern was to investigate the degree to whichFriedmann’s (29) model of transactive planning describes theplanning style of the •GVRD and its Public Participation Program,and to examine the extent of participation within thePolicy Committees. The study is in two parts: atheoretical analysis of the GVRD planning style, including thePublic Participation Program and the Policy Committees, forevidence of the transactive planning style, and an analysis ofthe results of a questionnaire that was sent to all participantsin the Policy Committees. The questionnaire was designed totest Friedmann’s ideas about citizen participation. The resultssuggest considerable dissatisfaction with the dialogue (or lackof it, to be precise) among the citizens, planners, and politicians; with the willingness of the planners and politicians toact as mutual learners with the citizens; with the degree ofinvolvement of the Policy Committees in the overall planningprocess; with the GVRD’s attempts to explain the role of thePolicy Committees; with the degree of representativeness of thecommittees; and with the levels of communication between thedifferent committees and between the committees and outside resource people and the Public. Satisfaction was expressed onlywith the increased competence of the participants in their subject area, and with the secretarial and administrative staffingarrangements.— 108 —Tweddell concludes that the GVRD was, in fact, using elementsof Friedinann’s transactive planning style, but that, in thePolicy Committees, it attempted too much in too short a time.He argues that the high degree of participant dissatisfactioncan be traced to this latter fact. He recommends that:- there needs to be a high degree of agency and politicalcommitment to the ideals of citizen participation, ifcitizen participation programs are to be effective.— one should be careful to not underestimate the resourcesneeded to achieve participant satisfaction.- there needs to be a flexible strategy in citizen participation programs.Two observations need to be made about this study.— The questionnaire makes no attempt to investigate the impactof individual motives and expeOtations, political and plan-fling decisions, •and intra—coinmittee dynamics on participantsatisfaction although these were acknowledged as beingimportant variables.— The questionnaire focused almost totally on the processaspects of the Policy Committees. The study, therefore,is weak in its assessment of the objectives (intended,actual, or latent) of the Policy Committees, the impact ofthe work of the committees on the planning process, and theeffectiveness of the Policy Committees in achieving theirobjectives. Although it is useful to make a distinctionbetween task and process, this does not mean that one— 109 —can properly assess one without looking at the other.Thus, the overall conclusion that the GVRD attmpted toomuch in too short a time is only one aspect of an extremelycomplex picture. The lack of observable impact on theplanning process and the power conflicts between theregional and municipal levels of government are equallyimportant factors in determining the high degree of participant dissatisfaction.It is important to note that Tweddell was not a participant inthe Policy Committee process, and that his study was not conducted at the request of any of the actors in the process. Thispure research approach means that the study has limited impacton the future of citizen participation in the GVRD, and it runsinto the problem of depending upon uncommitted respondents. Theimportance of the position of the evaluator in the program understudy needs to be stressed, for it is a critical factor indetermining whether or not the results will be acted upon.2. Smith’s (74) monitoring report on the Public ParticipationProgram, including the Policy CommitteesA portion of the resources for the Public Participation Program,were provided by the Federal Ministry of State for Urban Affairs.During the Fall, of 1974, David Smith came out from Ottawa toreview the program. His study was an attempt to discover “wherethe Public Participation Program was at” and to make some suggestions for the future of the program. The report makes no— 110 —attempt to examine the history of the program or to assess itseffectiveness.Smith’s methodology was to interview a nunther of representatives of the three principal groups of actors: citizens, planners and politicians. He assumed that each group would havecommon and different perceptions of what the Public ParticipationProgram and the Policy Committees were all about, and thatfuture programs would have to be based on the areas of consensus.The interviews were concerned with eliciting people’s perceptions of others in their own group, persons in the other twogroups, the issue of representativeness, the Public Partioip&tion Program, the nature of planning, and the nature of decision-making. The results suggest that:- both citizens and staff see the staff role as supportingand facilitating citizen input.- all three groups feel that citizen committees should berepresentative.- citizens and politicians have very different, typicallynegative, perceptions of each other.— citizens and politicians seem to support the idea ofplanning, but have only limited understanding of whatplanning means.- all three groups agree that decision—making power needsto rest with the politicians.Smith makes a number of suggestions for the future.— 111 —— a small advisory committee of citizens, staff, andpoliticians should be set up to review the situation andto develop a new Public Participation Program format.- The Public Participation Program should function for theGVRD as a whole and not just for the Planning Department,and possibly should play a role in supporting citizenparticipation at the municipal level.- The Policy Committees should probably be continued insome form because they seemed to have provided a goodmeans for channeling citizen energy and effort, because thereports appear to have been useful, particularly to theplanners, and because the Committees help to maintain abalance between dealing with immediate issues and policydevelopment.- A partnership model should be used as a basis for theinteractions between the committees and the planners.- A committee of politicians, citizens, and staff should beset up to monitor the Public Program for two reasons.One, if the work is genuinely innovative, noone at this time knows how it will develop andit is, therefore, important to establish guidelines, to keep to them, and to be in a positionto modify them as the work develops. Two,genuinely innovative programs require continuing discussion and interpretation if theyare to succeed in their purposes and to becomean on-going part of the institution. Itshould also be recognized, as one of the citizenspointed out, that innovation is never neat andtidy and will produce tension and possiblyconflict. However, skillful monitoring willreduce the potential for destructive conflict,and increase the possibilities of constructiveresolution of tension. (B)— 112 —It is clear that Smith’s studydoes not attempt or achieve afull description or evaluation of the Public Participation Program and the Policy Committees. It is extremely positive in itstone, in contrast to the air of negativism that runs throughthe interview statements. This is an important point, for ifthe study is to be effective - that is, if its recommendationsare to be acted upon—it has to work from the common ground sharedby the citizens, planners, and politicians. It is an interestingexample of a report written by an evaluator who seems to seehimself as a change agent, as well as a researcher.3. Tyhurst’s participant observation studyDr. J. Tyhurst, a psychiatrist, has been conducting a personalstudy of citizen participation over the past few years, usingthe participant-observer methodology, supplemented by in-depthinterviews with the key actors involved in the programs. Tyhurstattended the initial meetings of all of the Policy Committees,and stayed with three of the committees throughout most oftheir development. He was involved in the February, 1974, seminar on the management of urban growth, and presented the finalreport from the Policy Committees to the GVRD Board in May,1974. (Tyhurst (85)).Tyhurst has yet to publish the results of his study, and hencelittle can be said of the efficacy of his methods at this pointin time. It appears, however, that his approach, despite itsopenness to personal biases, will produce a report that fully— 113 —describes what happened and that will be of use to other groupsinvolved in similar ventures.EVALUATION RESEARCH WITHIN THE POLICY COMMITTEE CONTEXTThe Tweddell, Smith, and Tyhurst studies cover two of the functions that evaluation research might serve: as a means of providing information, insight, and experience that might beuseful to other groups engaged in similar ventures and as ameans for determining the future of the program. Two otherfunctions for evaluation research were suggested in Chapter 2and their discussion will round out the presentation of thiscase study.1. As a means of feedbackApart from the initial confusion over the terms of referencefor the Policy Committees, each committee seems to have hadgood control over its own work— producing a final report withina given deadline. The circumscribed nature of this task probably played a major role in helping the committees keep on topof what they were doing. Intra—committee communication andfeedback seems to have been strong, helped by regular minutesand strong leadership from within the committees themselves.Outside of the internal dynamics of each of the committees,the picture is one of confusion, lack of communication, mis—communication, and a general lack of an overall thrust towardsome set of objectives. It would appear that an evaluation teamcould have played a major role in helping the committees work to-— 114 —gether, and in forestalling the ultimately negative clashesbetween the citizens, the planners, and the politicians. Theseclashes arose principally because the citizens felt that theirwork was not having, and would not have, an impact on the planning and decision—making processes of the Livable Region Program.Specifically, the evaluation team might have been able to pointout the need for more regular, active communications between thePolicy Committees, the planners, and the politicians. Input intoa planning or decision-making process is difficult to appraiseat the best of times, but when there is little active communication among the groups involved, there is no way in which to pickup the necessarily subjective clues for making such a judgment.This overall “management” role was supposed to be performed bythe staff of the Livable Region Program, •but they were not ableto do so, possibly because they were too caught up in the program themselves. A number of people have suggested that thePublic Participation Program should be separated off from theGVRD entirely, •with its own resources and staff. It is difficult to see what change levers the citizens would have if thishappened. An evaluation team, not tied to the Planning Department, could likely achieve the same result, without divorcingthe citizens from the other actors in the planning process.2. As a means of promoting wider involvementAlthough membership in the Policy Committees was open to allpeople in the region, and the existence of the committees was— 115 —well advertised, only 400 people turned up at the beginning,and only 200 stayed the entire route. A number of the committees produced one—hour television programs on their work, andone committee held a public conference, in order to promotewider involvement and to elicit the public’s views. Inaddition, all of the committees released their reports to thepress, though this was done primarily to encourage politicalresponse to the committee’s recommendations.A basic issue here is the lack of awareness of the GVRD andits responsibilities among the people of the region. The Public Participation Program, since its inception in 1971, has triedto overcome this. Its limited impact in doing so is probably areflection of the low-profile nature of the GVRD, and of itsevolutionary pattern of growth. It is doubtful, therefore,that further reporting of the Policy Committees and their workwould have achieved wider awareness of the GVRD and its PublicParticipation Program.CONCLUSIONSBy way of a conclusion to this case study, it seems fair toargue that evaluation research could have played a major rolein helping the Policy Committees determine their objectives,their role in the planning process, and their relationships tothe other actors involved in the process; and in helping thecommittees pursue these objectives.— 116 —This case provides excellent support for the argument thatevaluation research, if it is to have an impact, needs to bestarted at the very beginnings of a citizen participation program. Further, at least in this case, there seems to be a definite place for the outside, non-aligned, evaluator.HCi H rifJ•d.OP)-_i1•I-ti•rt0 0 ‘-3t”)P-’-OZ•I-JI0 ‘-3(DctcttElOHO0.1-1cJ izt1I-‘t•Jplo1-3 tEl(-I0 H-ICI)1rt (D CD H-Or)0 ri 0 CD II[H EnQzC.)HLiC)HHPnJH HLi Cl)i-3‘-3H‘-c:0I:-’ Li— 119 —INTRODUCT IONThis chapter has two purposes. The next section will presentseveral personal conclusions concerning citizen participationthat arise out of the case studies in Chapter 5. The remainderof the chapter returns to the issues of participation as astrategy for social change (particularly radical, structuralchange) and participation as a lifestyle.CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CASE STUDIESThe functions that evaluation research might serve in citizenparticipation programs was discussed in Chapters 2 and 5. Fourfunctions were suggested, and their application in the twocase studies examined. It appears that evaluation researchcould be a useful tool in helping specific citizen participation programs achieve their goals, and in helping us developfurther our understandings of citizen participation.Both case studies point up the importance of the processaspects of participation as a key factor ieadin to theachievement of the program’s objectives and to the overallsatisfactio f the participants. The opportunities forlearning about the issues being debated, for social interaction,and for making apositive contribution need to be stressed. Itneeds to be pointed out that the contributions made by theparticipants must be observable. In the Britannia situation,political approval of the physical designs and of the proposedadministrative structure, the final completion of the Centre,— 120 —and the beginning of the Board of Management provided important clues to the citizens that they were having an impact.In the GVRD Policy Committees, the lack of these clues led topolarization with the citizens on one side and the planners andpoliticians on the other.The success of the citizen participation program in the development of the Britannia Community Services Centre was due inpart to the issues for discussion being well-defined, to theclear role given to the Britannia Planning Advisory Committee,and to the prior political support given to both the idea ofthe Centre and to the design process. In the case of the GVRDPolicy Committees, the issues for discussion were not well-defined, the role of the committees was obscure, and the degreeof political support was unclear. This had an important impacton how well the Policy Committee’s were able to coordinate theirefforts with each other, and with the activities of the plannersand the politicians. One can conclude that the issues andthe objectives of a citizen participation program need to bemade clear very early on, and that the expectations of the various groups of actors involved in the process must :be laid outon the table.Both case studies suggest••that ‘citizen participation ‘in ‘localarea planning (and in the Corn Unity Resources: Boards) ‘is goingto be a difficult ‘road to fo:l’low. The Britannia case, althoughoperating at the neighbourhood level, involved participation— 121 —in a well-defined, politically approved project. Further, theimportance of the Centre was widely acknowledged in the community. The GVRD Policy Committees, by focusing on a regional perspective, escaped the tendency to parochialism that is socommon at the neighbourhood level. Further, it appeared as ifthe necessary implementation capacity was present through theGVRD’s links to the municipalities and to the senior levels ofgovernment. Local area planning (and the Community ResourcesBoards) typically has none of these positive aspects. The issuestend to be fuzzy; parochial interests and conflicting groups arecommon; there is no clear feeling that the results of the planningprocess will be approved by the politicians; and there is a lackof implementation capacity to solve some of the most urgentproblems. This author is inclined toward the position that citizen participation in planning should be encouraged primarilyat the regional level. At the neighbourhood level, citizenparticipation should be encouraged only when the issues involved are clearly defined and the resources needed to implementthe results of the planning process are available.ORDERS OF CHNGETwo questions were raised at the end of Chapter 3,- Is it possible to talk about different levels or ordersof change, and if so, do they exist on a continuumor are they discontinuous in nature?- What are the relationships between citizen participationas a change strategy and the various orders of change?— 122 —A number of authors have attempted to dilineate different ordersof change, or change processes. For example, Nisbet (59) describes three: cultural persistency, readjustment, and changeof type (structure, pattern, or paradigm). Cultural persistencyis that set of processes whereby a society (or individual,group, organization, or community) maintains its present structure (the roles and functions played by the various parts ofthe society and the patterns of interaction among these parts),its theories (values, beliefs, myths, and perceptions of reality),and its technologies (social and physical). The process is notstatic- Schon (71) has termed it “dynamic conservatism”; itoperates through cumulative, incremental adapatations to changing internal and external demands. Readjustment covers changesin the parts of the society which are compatible with the overall stability of the society; that is, they do not requirechanges in the social structure, in the society’s understandingsof itself, or in the society’s technology. Most of these changesare movements toward goals that are offered (at least officially) by the society. The third process of change, change oftype, covers those, much rarer, times when the society shifts toa different pattern. Fundamental changes take place in the structure, theories, and technologies of the society, that reverberate through all levels and parts of the society.Other authors use different names. For example, Watzlawicket al (91) talks about first-order and second-order change;Schon (71) uses the terms “dynamic conservatism” and change of— 123 —state; and Kuhn (45) has developed the concepts of normal andrevolutionary science. The point here is not to outline inany detailed fashion, the various orders of change; but ratherto suggest that change is not a monolithic concept, and thatit can and needs to be broken down into, various types, if weare to proceed with our search for change strategies and levers.THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGEIt is not within the scope of this thesis to delve into thesociological debate (see, for example, McLeish (48), Moore(57), Nisbet (59), and Smith (73)) about social change and its“causes”. The central questions in that debate seem to be:— What emphasis should be given to the stresses and strainswithin a society as “causes” of change, and what emphasisshould be given to changing environmental conditions?— Are historical events the key to understanding socialchange, or is the social structure a more significantfactor?— Are changes of type the result of an accumulation ofincremental adaptations, or are they discontinuousj untp 5?— Is there such a thing as a “law of progress”, or doeseach society change in its own way?The sociological theories of change are descriptive and explanatory only in hindsight. They are not predictive, andthey do little to suggest how one goes about changing a society— 124 —(or individuals, groups, communities, and organizations). Mostof the literature about planned change (see, for example,Bennis (5), Bennis et al (6), Freire (26,27), Jones (40), andZaitman et al (98)) seems to have been derived primarily frompeoples’ experiences. At this stage, planned change is an art,not a science. Thus, it is important that people’s experiences with citizen participation as a change strategy be documented, evaluated, and made readily available. Only in thisway can we move toward a better understanding of the relationships between citizen participation and social change.CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISINGWarren’s evaluation of the Model Cities Program in the U.S.(discussed in Chapter 3) suggests that citizen participation,at least as we know it to date, is not an adequate dynamic forachieving fundamental structural change. The dominant conception of citizen participation stresses the gaining of powerand a place in the decision—making processes. This conceptiondeflects attention away from developing a critical understandingand examination of the underlying values, beliefs, myths,and perceptions of reality, that guide the ways in which wedefine and recognize problems, and the tools we considerappropriate for solving them. In many cases, citizen participation has revolved around a group wanting to maintain itsplace in the sun, or wanting to gain a place in the sun. Thequestion of whether the sun is worth having at all is rarelyraised. The deeply internalized images of “what the good life— 125 —is all about”, that we have learnt through the. various socialization processes (the family, schools, the structure ofwork, ...), are a major factor limiting the adequacy of citizenparticipation as a strategy for fundamental change. As Freirehas argued, in his analysis of the oppressor—oppressed relationship,during the initial stage of the struggle,the oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become oppressors, or‘sub-oppressors’. The very structure of theirthought has been conditioned by the contradictions of the concrete, existential si.tuationby which they were shaped. Their ideal is tobe men; but for them, to be men is to beoppressors. This is theIr model of humanity. (A)Consciousness—raising or conscientization appears to. be animportant approach for citizen participation. As articulatedby Freire (26,2.7) out of his, and others’, experiences with literacy programs in Brazil and Chile, conscientization is notprimarily a strategy for change. Freire sees each person ashaving a vocation, the indivdual and collective struggle forthe humanization of the world. This is a continuous process,involving creation and re—creation of history and culture - itdoes not end with any specific revolution. It is the task ofthe oppressed to liberate both themselves and their oppressors,through a constant process of critical refleOtion and action,pushing back the limits of what seems to be possible or to begiven. The oppressors do not have the power to seek this transformation. Only the oppressed, working out of their weakness,despair, and anger, have this power. For Freire, the central— 126 —problem confronting those seeking structural or revolutionarychange is:How can the oppressed, as divided, unauthenticbeings, participate in developing the pedagogyof their liberation? Only as they discoverthemselves to be the ‘hosts’ of the oppressorcan they contribute to the midwifery of theirliberating pedagogy. As long as they live inthe duality in which to be is to be like, andto be like is to be like the oppressor, thiscontribution is impossible. The pedagogy ofthe oppressed is an instrument for theIrcritical discovery that both they and theiroppressors are manifestations of dehumanization. (B)Conscientization seeks critical understanding of oneself, one’splace in the social structure, and one’s relationships andinteractions with others. It aims not only at knowledge, butat action that proceeds from knowledge, which in turn generatesgreater awareness and knowledge. Education becomes a key element in this process, particularly since oppression (or,more generally, any limiting situation) is not only a politicaland economic reality, •but also a cultural reality — a way oflife in which oppressor and oppressed are immersed together.Structural or revolutionary change demands change in the waysin which we view reality itself, in what we take to be the limitsof our situation. For Freire, education is a process of dialoguebetween teachers—students and students—teachers, based on faithin the capacities of all people to become Subjects in participating in the transformation of their individual and collectiverealities.— 127 —There are striking similarities between conscientization andthe participatory approach to democracy (see Chapter 4). Bothstress education; the capacity of all people to act, individuallyand collectively, to change their situation; and the responsibility of all people to participate in the transformation oftheir society. The image of the “democratic man” is similarto the image of the “critically conscious man”. It becomesclear that participation does not simply mean the power to influence decisions. All activities and occupations can be perceived within a participant framework- working with othersto bring forth the goods and services necessary for a healthyand satisfying existence. At the same time, all activities andoccupations become situations that have to be changed in thepursuit of structural or revolutionary change. Thus, seen asan approach toward citizen participation, conscientizationdirects our attention to the educative and process aspects ofparticipation- the development of a critical questioning andunderstanding of social realities, which provides the groundswell that leads into transformation.FINAL WORDSEvery author has his own biases and particular interests. Thisthesis has focused on some of the interconnections betweencitizen participation, social change, and views of democracy.Hopefully, it has raised more questions than it has providedanswers- that, at least, was the intention. The problem withcitizen participation is not its desirability, but our limited— 128 —conceptions of it. If we are to develop meaningful citizenparticipation, we will have to cast our thought more broadly.We need to look more deeply into the structure of our society —its institutions, patterns of work, opportunities for a healthyexistence, ways of caring, technologies We will have togo beyond these to exploring our common images of what it meansto be human, how we come to know and define reality, and howour common languages bind and liberate us. Community, authority, and freedom are other issues. These are some of the otherdimensions which will have to be examined, and re—examined,as we pursue our notions of citizen participation.HII CD CDIt,—tci-iiLCDhrj•U).0Cl)-0—CA)•i—’CD0 Lxi C’)-o‘e<0.0C-HI-h‘-9 Lxio .0 I-I CD Cl) U) CD CD p., I-1130BIBLIOGRAPHY1. Almond, G.A. & Verba, S., The Civic Culture, Little &Brown, Boston, 1965.2. Argyris, C., Integrating the Individual and theOrganization, John Wiley & Sons, 1964.3. Arnstein, S., “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”, J. ofthe 1merican Institute of Planners, July, 1969.4. Bachrach, P., The Theory of Democratic Elitism: ACritique, Little & Brown, Boston, 1967.5. Bennis, W.G., Changing Organizations, McGraw—Hill, 1966.6. Bennis, W.G, Benne, K.D., & Chin, R., The Planning ofChange, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 2nd. ed., 1969.7. Bernard, J., The Sociology of Community, Scott, Foresman,& Co., 1973.8. Britannia Planning Advisory Committee, Minutes, October,1970 — October, 1974.9. Brody, S.J., “Maximum Participation of the Poor: AnotherHoly Grail”, Social Work, V. 15, No. 1, January,1970.10. Burke, E., “Citizen Participation Strategies”, J. of theAmerican Institute of Planners, September, 1968.11. Carniol, B., “A Framework for Community OrganizationPractice”, The• Social Worker, V. 42, No. 2,Summer, 1974.12. Caro, F.G,, Readings in Evaluation Research, RussellSage Foundation, N.Y., 1971.13. Carter, N., Evaluating Social Development Programs,Canadian Council on Social Development, 1973.14. Chin, R. & Benne, K.D., “General Strategies for EffectingChange in Human Systems”, in The Planning of Change,Bennis, Benne, & Chin (eds.), Holt, Rinehart, &Winston, 2nd. ed., 1969.15. Committee on Govermuent Productivity Staff, CitizenInvolvement, Committee on Government Productivity,Government of Ontario, April, 1972.16. Cooley, N., An Introduction to the Britannia CommunityServices Centre, Social Planning Department,Vancouver, 1973.— 131 —17. Crozier, M., The Stalled Society, Viking Press, N.Y., 1973.18. Cunningham, J.V., “Citizen Participation in Public Affairs”,Public Administration Review, Special Issue,October, 1972.19. Dahi, R., “Political Man”, in Power, Participation, andIdeology, Larson & Washburn (eds.), David McKay Co.,N.Y., 1969.20.________,After the Revolution?, Yale University Press,New Haven, 1970.21. D’Amore, L.J., “Changing a City: Project for HumanDevelopment”, The Business Quarterly, Summer, 1971.22. Davidoff, P., “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning”, J. ofthe American Institute of Planners, November, 1965.23. Draper, J.A. (ed.), Citizen Participation: Canada, NewPress, Toronto, 1971.24. Dror, Y., Design for Policy Sciences, American ElsevierPublishing Co., N.Y., 1971.25. Dunn, E.S. Jr., Economic and Social Development: A Processof Social Learning, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1971.26. Freire, P., Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Seabury Press, 1973.27.__,Education for Critical Consciousness, SeaburyPress, 19.73.28. Friedmann, J., “The Public Interest and CommunityParticipation”, J. of the American Institute ofPlanners, January, 1973.29.___,Re-Tracking America, Anchor Press/Doubleday,N.Y., 1973.30. Gamson, W.A., “Stable Unrepresentation in American Society”,American Behavioural Scientist, V. 12, No. 2,November/December, 1968.31.,“Violence and Political Power: The MeekDon’t Make It”, Psychology Today, July, 1974.32. Gans, H., “The Positive Functions of Poverty”, AmericanJ. of Sociology, V. 78, No. 2, September, 1972.33. Greater Vancouver Regional District, Report on Livability,November, 1972.0)0)0)0)0)0100122t-’0000P3P30P300P3I-I20IIH-CtiiU)0H-CD0Ci)U)I—’f-hCDP3CtU)I-’-II0CtCDU)IIH-U)CDU)CD0I-3-•ZF—LQP3i—f-3f-f--IxjC)1-lC)U)f)’H-ti<I:-”CD’•‘.00iCDP3..00I-CDç1iN.0CD<U)aF1PC)--JH-CI)ci-2bbH—P3.P3CDP3P3!’b.CDdC)•C.o’•o<.CDH•I-’IIZ000f-.H-rI-•rQ•I-e.I-4C-i•CD..‘H-Q...H-c-IH-’I-’LiH-CD00ti)•II(IOP30’CDP3H-0<.0‘dCL)F-’•CDU)U)2I-i—..:U):H-U)‘.0’.3o:RH-tYt:CDX’:<CD:tiOCDCfltiCt‘-32CDCDQI—’ri-CD‘tiH-Q.’-3U)HCDCDI-iP30P3HP3‘.OCD‘-30‘<CD:çiDliP3CD.U)l0P3CD••P3Cl)CI)0H-CDa,P3—U)<CT)çtQjOOI--‘—3CDCl)OctCDb‘.oH-ob1’H-H-III-’U)f-’p31-hilI-0H-ti•HCD0CD0ct0()H-I-•iC0.iCDH-ci-Cl)H-‘.0H-00CDII1-CDU)‘.Q0flO::f-I-Iri-I-I•bU)U)cP3U)P3ri-U)CiCDci-I-IP3’irl-P3DI-CDI-’ri-QU)f-IO:I-:lH-P3I-II-IH•‘.3P3<F-’-‘F—’0P301-1-IlI-IrI0H-CDNOHP3CDCDH”’0I-lH-0cl-ri-0P3H-(I-N<CDHci-I-II10P3CDI-’NH-H-ci’OP3i—IC)OJP3H-PiP’H-P30)I-hCl)‘.0P300‘H-‘.oH-bri-CD0OU)coIIH-.00cri-01Q-’<cl-H--..iCDbHuJO‘<Cl)O()I-hODH-0CDNF-’P3IIF-’OW<Li0i’JP3<0CD•.0<0H-CDPJ•rl-H-I-lCD•<I-i-i•O0P3I-Cl21CDCDH-,ri-0C)Cl)ctI-1I—’0CDP3H-0‘<—CD0I-I<H-CD‘.H-I-II-’p3‘-dH‘.000<P3I-hCDU)H-H-,H-OU)0CD0‘-<‘.0CDQ-...JH,P3H-0CDU)CD0CDI-lc-i-CDOH-CDF--f0CDH,I-hP3ri-Li0U)I-iCDt-‘P3tiH-’•Q’<CDP3C)ci-P3Pin-I—’CD•H-C)P3P3c-I-iiCl)’ci-ri-PI0(DP3CDHiC.4H-H-P3CDC)0H-ctH-XJ00I-I2H-HP3N0F10U)H-F-IOCD0P3H-00C)‘d•00ci-tl—P3H-P3P3I-Iri-NU)I-‘b‘<P3CDI—’CDI-I‘-<0.P3“30‘-<ci-NP3I-lCDU)P3U)ti--‘FH-•b’‘H-P30P3‘Ct‘4CDq0U)CDOCD‘b’‘0CDCt‘-CD‘<ci-CD•CD0Cl)CDIIU)<H-P3..0CDCDH-0F—0‘-3IPJH-CH-,0P3H-C)CD<bfl0f-‘.0t’31—’2‘0-Obri-P3I-10tIC02CDCDU)I-Ici-0F-’Oc+P3I—’P300‘P3IIri-tiP3Cl)H-CtHI-10I-’l::P3Cl)i0.I-i.H‘-11<CtC)CD0OOti‘<‘<‘.Dci-I-IH0CDIICtCH-0P3<H-bCD—JH-‘<n0P3H-CDbI•—’F-IF-P3Q.iH-’dCD0t—’OrC)U)I—aI—’‘.0‘-‘<P3CDP3I-ICD•CDP3WIH-•H-’--JCt0‘-‘—3CD0Z0WH-3_aH-P3‘-H-ci-U)I-’0H-P3I-’•0IIH-0I-’I-ICDH-I—’ci-‘..0‘<Ct‘.0P30U)I—’H-o‘H-—iI-’0‘.0IH-t’JIØi01(71010101010101VI01H0(D01H0...III....oCDP)-I-•Cl)0H•I-’-H-l-i-i-tCl)H0HHH0I-iIICDN0bCnHHci-HCDCD0CDI-’-CDII))QCDci-Iici-P.)CDP.)HitI)Ek<(C)C)ci-CD‘C)WPC)(Thct-HhJ<C)clH0.P.).CDOH-P.)OHOp)Q.CDOP.)PJF-’•H0ri-F-’P.).OjCflF-’-’p.)i-’•<PJCnI-’-l-’-bC)OH’••Li‘c’F-’-.C)I-joCD‘.c-i-.F—ci-I--i)):C).I-I.0)ij.COP)P)-:iQF-.)I--CDHCII-’-’F-’-’1H-—.•CD‘i-F--•‘ZPJ•HH-I-F-’0dF-ci-i.CDE‘•‘<Cfl•CO’I-’0Pidcl-•)-C.•H’‘-CtQ’.C-ci-icCD2flh1j:OH-H(D(DPi<0’r.•.oI-’ji-0F-’-:(.)‘.CJ)çtC)QBCfltIP.)IIH-itIO—J-3(DP)HCOO•H-H-I-’-•COOHOCct-t-:02’!(DOWbcl-CDCflPiCflOci-QP.)I-no-‘-H-CDci--.CDF-F--’-i-’-aoCDII‘H-biI-h<CDHillH-C)LC/)C02ctO1HI<-lcuP)H-N•.IIOPip)<H-CDtCDCD0H-CiP.)’•F--lCD)aJ)CDdlll-’-OCDP.)H0H-Oc-i-II:ci-P’H-CD0HI-IIlIP)-F--flct-HF-’•CD.p.’F—’-PilllIOH-I-’-U)COn-CD(DOH-P.)‘.‘)Ici-‘•C)COtI)U)0HH-‘HHH-(D<H.CDP.)COHOU)H-OP.)c-tP)CDHCOri-0COCDct-C)ci-P.)HH0n-HlCDHO.H-<•PJP.)(DC)0H—.I-’-b’:F-P.)<<ci-ll.I-’-(D<HCI)‘.OHHdCD’I—’CDo-.,—-’QP.)H-U)P)CD—.JCOPJ‘ci-ci-H-P.)C)‘.ciI--P.)Pibc-l-HQiOI-hlIOci-ct—.IP.)H’IU)C).QIIHOH-iH-H-HC)oil•CD••CD0Z•ci-H.P.)ci-ci-H-C)0DF-t’iCD•00CO0P.)Hib’CDC)-‘F--H-U)OWOP)‘-JHCOHCI2H0H-00HP)lIU)ctOCDHci-‘CDcl-On-C)Cfl—ici-SF-’-i-’-•oc--nOp.’oz-Olla)c•p.’i-cl-criOIIH-P.)I-hII0F-’-tlP-ICDHP).)U)CDH-OI—’-00P.)0.<1II‘P.)I-’-H-ci-ci-‘I‘H-U)H-0••:ctH-P.)0I-iI—’H00H-U)U)H-1-’-()c1I-’-‘ciP.)<0CDci-rt00HP)<P.)<0Hp)p.)Or-i-CDCDH-CDIIF-’-I-‘.D•ci-C)Ic-i-CIHP.’CDH-0n-C)Cl)P.)’‘-.-.JH-Q)’COo:l1F--P-i‘0P.)cl-CD<CDCDCO0c-i-iOt-OOCOH-P.’llH-CD00H-•.)t‘Q-i0Cl)OIIHi-tOni-cl-HH-H-00P.)HCOctp)P)P.)ci-cCJs-3llH-0CDp.)H:b0llHIICI)H-.--.ICD(D<ci-CDP.’I-’-CDCD00P)CD-‘CD-‘P.)Cl)<-..IP)’.PHO•llH-I-iII0-‘(Dcl-H-‘H-On-IlCOHIIci-<p,CI)<H00<1<0•CD0Oct-CD0HH-.F-’-tO1-4-’C)bci-Hi00P.)—JP.)CDP.)P.)IICDH<CDH-,U)CDIICDi-.)HP.’P)Hci-HOCDU)ct-P.)c-I-OP.’•HIIH00P)U)00•‘-.Dc-i-P-i‘<I—’‘tiU)P’H-ct-Cl)-CD0COP-iO‘H0ci-.Q00•F—’-H-C)P.)P.)HH-.1--)-J_JNUICl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)Cl)NC)C)C)0HCDC)PJHcn(ciIICt-ctH09)Cl)0HHII9)9)9)CD.0CD9)Ci)HII•HOC)flcicnWI--ocmrt-09)HW’iCJ)Cl)QHCf)S’•HiOt1OH.‘DctCDH9i.‘dorHC)Cl)C)0.CD.•.4C.CDO.bC.49)CD0P)H-H-<0OCI)(D•LiO.LiH’HH”CflLPH.Oct.OH--‘-N”CD.OPJH-IIH’i.ct••I-’-CD”Cflt..H•’XI-’-:I-’-9):Hrt(DOh”ctrt.’9)CD”zLittt0.-‘9)0•O’-39)HOçt.0Cl)H-C)H9)rtOP.CDC.4“I-’-HCD-‘CD•H-I-sW9)‘.otiIICDCI)H--•cn1>OdCDCl)0CDHI”ctOHLia<HCDc-l-Of-flCDç1-00.P.”‘CD••.P:CnP.’H(D(D<CI)Cl)“<-J9)0CDH-,rl-HCD9)1-h1<H-C)CDct’iU)t.cti9)•H“O020>CDP.,H-:H•2HI-’H-09)Cl)<rt<OOCl)OC)H-HP)c+.C)H-Hrt.WHH-I-1CDF-’TH-,0ct9)0II1H-P)OCDPctI-’-9)0CDH-H-H-O<HCDOP)0<H0H•9)l-OOcl-CD.CDHl-U)ctHOP)CflN09)“CDHbOCDI-’oF-’-OtictH-cl-O”P‘PH•oI-’-bCDri-F--‘<H-c-i-CD‘sC)Cl)HCD<0P-H4H<0<0P)Cl)CD00I-jO“0I’<Cl)I-1U)(D”<0i-j(D(T)H-H‘.D9)0CDbCD0<Zict’d9)1:;Cl)P)H-k”‘“9)WC)—.J9HCDI-ji(Dci-“1-ici-ri-’dHCI)•ç-I-’00ci-i-i-Hri-9)0)l•j‘d‘I-39)HP).0I-NP)HC)H,O’CJHHI-‘0•P.’P)I-hCD““09)0‘0bOH—301.0t.‘DI-ib0‘cCDHCD0c+0U)(DOIICDH,0HP)1--J9)-CDbCnLii-’-’iCcit-’o-t.HOCDP-’CDLi•C)H-HC)0)i-jF-’‘tin-P.’9)‘Drt.H-IICl)I-ICDx’-t.--..o•‘<ori-C)I-jI-jII—1CDO‘<0HOCl)(DC)HCDCDHCDC)C)H’CDC)00ci-<CDri-OP.i<‘tF-hHP.CDP)Cl)C)9)9J•I-iI-0001-’-P)<9)H-CDCflH-P)OII0Cflç-I-rI-Oct.00“i-I-9)CDci-(Dc-i-0“.CDc-l-l-j:P.’C)O0<I-H-r1.)P.’P.’HI-ICDIIiiH-H-H-001-’-9)OCD0(l)C.i-9)H-9)”“0(Thrt•Hcta.C)OflCD9).Hc-i-Ii9)k<C)CDCl)c-i-ç1•Cl)H-‘<P.’Li••H-Nni-lIP.’I-’-O0)U)HP)OHP)HO•‘dN:<9)P)()U)CDHC)-nCD<bb’PCflCDCDP)“9)‘<P.’Ort.<sri-9)CDtHHH-P.’CDH•OctOH<PHCDflHOci-H(llIH-—..iCD-‘-H-HC1c-i-“ctct-CD00CflH-‘<“C)0)••(Z9)0CDHPJI-iri-P)‘<ctCl)“CD•09)0Hctri-CflOH-ti9)-‘1H9)3’ctII••H-H-CDHOct00HCDQCD.D9.IH--HC)“9)OfrhU)‘D(DCI)CD0-‘PC)H-O0U)’Cl)iIi:.0OCl)-JH-P...0<ci-CDtiri-U)CDHP.’<OH-ct•I—h‘iCDO•H-H-ri-P)IICl)‘-DH-(DdDb•H-‘—0tI0nI-(DH‘CDOH-(1)0-.CflH-<9)CD“(DliH-H-CD•<0(DC)CDP)HCl)P)<O‘di.P‘tIC)CD9)H-•9)—CDHCDlI9)I-I0HP)HCD(DHc-l-HH-H9)ci-CDHO•<HH-P.’ci-OH-DL.J.H-9)ci-ci-”k<9)H-00—JCDCDIiH0Wni-0HiHOCDOHiH-.rI-•:Cl)i-liQ’0“COCOCocoCoCOcoCOI-’0co-Ui1..tio0SS•SI0•I••IE<<‘-a‘-a‘-a‘-a‘-aCD(1)CDP3P3H-P3‘.<I-0ci-IIC)(DH-I-hP3CDCDCDNIICDH-CDCDCDI-’CDCD‘-aiiçtI-’CDP3H-CDCDCDI-IhjcO(.WCD<CI)I-(Thcl-WOI—’Cl)Zii00’I-C)C)‘.D(ThOH-PJ(DCDI-h0•O”OI-IHH-I--C)<c-i-H-0(DQH-’l-CD(Dci-C)•QI-’H-C-ict()P3<OC)’,—l(D(D.0.•It”P3P)CD.-.iP3•H-.H0b0CDOCD•P31ctbCD‘.1-’c-l-CDf-’cl-.Ff-(D:‘-a:P3P3-<:CD:Q-3‘ci-CD”CDç3ctCDCDP)PtP3ct.‘tiC)i-H2<(DOCD0Hf-H11‘iCDCDP3H-..H-I-I-’HP30CD•P300<CDh()J’tI-hP)l-bOCDF-CDCDI-’<—‘•I-’P3CDCDOHCD‘<ctP)ci-cl-cl-c-lCDt)”P3P’ci-‘DctI—CD•wH--.P3—-i-Q()CD‘<Hticci-J:‘.DlCl)Gi0CDC)ci-f—Li00H-II0C)HiH-H-P3PJ-..i0c‘<‘-aCDOH-<hO‘-CDHiflHh.0F-’•H-I—’(ThC)•—‘Cl)..i—’-i-i-b1P3oP3CD0OdH-H”’C).Oct•H-H-<H-I—’H-i‘<F-’WP3frCl)0P3C)P3.O’<c-tOøCD(D<P3I1c-l-H-ctH-I-’H-cod-ct-0P3i—flP3H-I--CD‘0rI-HI-’Lif-’’-2F-a-C)CDCDCD0c-i-•CDCDCl)P30ctcl-cl-CDC)P3ct0I-’:4ctoctCDCDp3CDIICD•C)CDP-H-’<P3‘t--i-P3H-CDH-CD0P3:‘-<CD0P3Qç)CDr.i-‘H•CDU-iF-’CD0,I—H-H-LiP3HI-‘CDOCDP3CDctLQ0P3I-=‘<<0l-ci-CDLiF—I1P3.<C)cl-CDC)H-,‘.D(ThCD0cl-0flcti-P3H-P30ctH-P3i—’hlH-..0-H-III—’P3iCDH,0P3C)IiH-1F..i-I1OC)cOdl-CDixiiP3dl-C)-1‘<0CDH-CDCl)•H-,I--‘-.jP3‘CD0flP3ctQI-QLiP3]“-‘H-<Cl)P300N—JCDdP3P31O0bI-II—’(DOI—’H-C)c-i-CD1v-iC•F—-’OH-H-b<CDQP)I-’C)l-I—’C)H-•H-P3FctH-0<(ThP3.’-3WCDCDI-iC)(DO‘-<•H-0(DCfl(DP3P3CD0cl-H-P3CD0I-ll1P3ctFlWCD‘dC)I—’.HC)P3l-IP)p3CD0F-’H-P3•.•I—’I-’-()P3P3H->0H-I-’CDIiO.O.C)CD(DCT)CDCD‘<i-ii-•dP3C)CDi—’CDCDh0CDCDP3C)ci-P3P3’l-CD<CDW0cl-CDC)P30I—H--‘3OI-F-”-<•P3ci-WP3P31100C)(DC)H-H-clC)P3P3I—’HI-’O11P3l-SC)cl-I-hCCD:H-CDCICDC)01-’••JC)O.F-’OWH-00•CD10CDci-WclCl)Qj(DI-<P30C)CDP3fIP3H-•OpJh1)ICDLIII-hP3ZCDtic-i-H<CDCDci-F-t-hC2ciP3CDIcl-CDQ’O<i-I11CDP3Cl)OH-C)CDHOCD0W•0ci-I-’-C)0ci-II0CD11C)•I-’C)C)CDH-H-H-0C)fJ(D’I-’H-CDCi)<hh.r-CDCDWOcoci••Q-‘CDOCDtill‘-<P3H-C)P3•11t-h--IH-ci-•ci-I-’OP3F-’H-0c-i-C)C)clI-Cl)0CDI-’‘<0ci-CDP3l-’ci-•H-P.’‘o00CDI—’H-H-0H--.H-ci—C)-‘Z•CDC)IiC)OF-’01—JCD•I—’0.‘<I-hci-0.p3-<CDP3I—’•I—’CD CD— 136 —Readings in Social Action and Education, Weiss(ed.), Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 1972.95. Weilman, B., “Who Needs Neighbourhoods?”, in The City:Attacking Moderh Myths, Powell (ed.), McClelland& Stewart, 1972.96. Wheatcroft, L., “Some Human Problems in Social Change”,in Social •and Cultural Changes in Canada, Vol.11,Mann (ed.), Copp Clark Publishing co., 1970.97. Zablocki, B., TheJoyful Community, Penguin Books,Baltimore, 17l.98. Zaltman, G., Kotler, P., & Kaufman, I. (eds.), CreatingSocial Change, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1972.


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items