Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Some determinants of public participation in a municipal planning process : Vancouver’s "Ready or Not!"… MacKinnon, Rosslyn Bell (Roz) 1994

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

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0511.pdf [ 2.77MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0099105.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0099105-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0099105-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0099105-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0099105-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0099105-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0099105-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

SOME DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN A MUNICIPAL PLANNING PROCESS: VANCOUVER’S “READY OR NOT!” PROJECT by ROSSLYN BELL (ROZ) MAC KINNON B.A., Daihousie University, 1979 B. S .W., Daihousie University, 1983 A THESIS SUBMITrED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF SOCIAL WORK in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Social Work We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  Signature(s) removed to protect privacy  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1994 © Rosslyn Bell MacKinnon,  1994  In presenting this thesis partial in fulfillment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Signature(s) removed to protect privacy  (Signature)  Department of  So_/,’?-  tJop/C  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date a1  AB STRACT Vancouver City Council has undertaken a project on aging titled ‘READY OR NOT!”. The intention is to provide the city with a community-developed strategic plan on urban aging and to provide a model for subsequent work on social development issues, including how to elicit public participation. In an effort to broaden public participation, on the topic of our aging population, city-wide workshops were held in twenty-two neighbourhoods and ethnic communities in April, 1992. Drawing on the assumption that public participation is a desirable aspect of government, this research establishes a participant profile and identifies some determinants of participation. Questionnaires were sent out to a random sample of 150 participants of the workshops. The response rate resulted in a sample of 66. Research included a survey and a focus group, generating descriptive statistics, process, and content data. As well interviews were undertaken to broaden the information covered. The information that emerged from this research is that participants tended to be of higher educational, occupational and social status. Overall, they had high feelings of personal and community efficacy. An attachment to neighbourhood was evident. As well as a commitment to volunteer causes. These findings are reflective of the current literature on participation. A deviation from the literature is the fact that the respondents were overwhelming of the female gender. The percentage breakdown was 71.21% female and 28.79% male. The utility of this research is that by better understanding who participates and the determinants of public participation, social workers can educate and support individuals, groups, and communities to seek empowerment through participation. As individuals, professionals and members of our own neighbourhoods we can also impress upon government the need for public participation in planning that affects the quality of life of all.  11  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  ii  Table of Contents  iii  List of  v  Figures  List of Appendices  vi  Acknowledgments  vii  Chapter One  INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Research and Literature Introduction to “READY OR NOT!”  1 1 2  Chapter Two  LITERATURE REVIEW Greek Democracy Participatory Democracy Elitist Theory Democracy Which Recognizes Differences Canadian Democracy Defining Public Participation Models of Public Participation Determinants of Public Participation Variations of Public Participation  8 9 11 13 17 20 24 25 30 34  Chapter Three  METhOD Research Design Interview with participant  36 36 42  111  Chapter Four  FINDINGS AND RESULTS The Focus Group Questionnaire Variables Participant Profile  45 45 51 66  Chapter Five  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS  69  Bibliography  75  iv  List of Figures  Figure  1.  Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation  26  2.  Connor’s New Ladder of Citizen Participation  27  3.  Focus Group Configuration  46  4.  Gender Distribution of Respondents  52  5.  Education Level of Respondents  55  6.  Individual Income of Respondents  56  7.  Voting Patterns of Respondents  61  V  Appendix 1.  Agreement Between Parties  81  2.  Poster for Workshop  82-83  3.  Planning for Workshops  84  4.  Map of Neighbourhoods  85  5.  Workshop Results  86-88  6.  Letter of Introduction to Research  89  7.  Research Covering Letter  90  8.  English Questionnaire  9 1-94  9.  Working Group Terms of Reference 95  10.  Focus Group Consent Forms  96  11.  Focus Group Format  97  12.  Chinese Covering Letters  98-99  13.  Chinese Questionnaire  100-105  14.  Punjabi Covering Letters  106-108  15.  Punjabi Questionnaire  109-113  16.  Interview Guide  114  vi  Acknowledgements  Whole hearted thanks to my husband, Daniel, for his love and support throughout this process.  Thanks to the three fs : family, friends and felines for their caring and encouragement.  A special note of gratitude to Fran.  Thanks to Chris, Mario, Marcel and the “READY OR NOT!” participants.  In recognition of the amount of paper used to generate this thesis and complete my course work a donation has been made to the Western Wilderness Committee Adopt-a-Tree program in aid of the campaign to save Clayoquot Sound.  vii  1  CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Research and Literature When considering a research project and subject for this thesis there were four goals. That the research contribute to an existing project, that the project be of a co-operative nature, that the research be unobtrusive and that it be in the social development stream. A project, concerned with planning for Vancouver’s aging population was underway by the city of Vancouver Social Planning Department. This project and survey research met the above criteria. The project was the “READY OR NOT!” project. The topic was Vancouver’s aging population and the title for the project was selected by a public contest. Who was participating in this project is the main interest of this research. The project was divided into three phases. Phase one included such activities as setting goals and objectives for the project, beginning to co-ordinate city departments around the issue and training staff and volunteers to deliver phases two and three. Phase two was city-wide workshops. These workshops conducted in April 1992 were held in twenty-two neighbourhoods and ethnic communities. It was the participants of these workshops who were the focus of the survey research. Phase three, still in progress, was to co-ordinate, interpret  and act on information form phase one and two. The final aspect of phase three  2 will be a staff-community generated strategic plan regarding coping with Vancouver’s aging population. For reasons of economy and efficiency only this aspect of the project was researched. The researcher was provided with background information on the project and access to a random sample of participants who attended the one day city wide workshops. It was agreed that the research would be a survey and that in return for access to data the survey would include questions posed by both the researcher and the social planners. Mail costs were shared and planners had on going input into the questionnaire development. The relationship between the researcher and planners is further discussed in Chapters Four and Five.  Introduction to The “READY OR NOT!” Project In June 1990, Vancouver city council approved a series of recommendations regarding corporate planning. Seven priorities for planning were identified. They were as follows: 1. Urban structure 2. Environment 3. Social development 4. Aging  5. Physical services 6. Emergency Preparedness 7. Information management (Council minutes). Social planners were to find a model which could become the blueprint for future social planning exercises. On March 7, 1991, council approved six statements of principle to “provide a format for formulating corporate social development policy”  3 (Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, Oct 1, 1991, 1). These six statements are as follows: “1. That social goals are an integral part of our quality of life; they must be fully integrated into the corporate system in the city’s roles as provider of services, regulator and employer. 2. That people affected by city decisions should be involved in the process of reaching these decisions. 3. That the city should strive for equity of outcome among neighbourhoods. 4. That, where possible, the city should act to improve the situation of the disadvantaged. 5. The departments of the city administration should co-operate and collaborate in the planning and delivery of social policies, programs and services. 6. The city should attempt to anticipate social change so that potential negative impacts can be mitigated and positive impacts enhanced” (Social Planning Department Memo February 14, 1991, 3-4). Taking the above into consideration and combining social development and aging, social planners proposed a project on aging for the pilot project. After receiving further consideration by staff and city council in October 1991, the “READY OR NOT!” project was approved. The intention of the project was to provide the basis of Vancouver’s response to issues which arise from the aging population, to co-ordinate city departments around the issue of aging and to provide a model for subsequent work on other social development issues (Policy Report, Oct. 1, 1991). The essence of this was projected as being a community developed strategic plan with stated goals to: “assist, encourage and promote community-based actions and networks which will strengthen community and city responsibility for problem-solving; and help prepare the city administration for the attitudinal, program and structural changes required to serve a population undergoing a major demographic shift” (Project Report , Oct. 1992).  4 The topic of aging, unlike the environment for example, was an inclusive (everyone ages) and non-confrontational topic. An October 1, 1991, social planning policy report, titled, Social Development, Aging, outlines the planning department’s rationale for choosing aging as the topic for this communitygovernment project. In discussing aging as a topic for the pilot project, seven reasons were identified. In summary, they are as follows: 1. low birth rate, increased life expectancy and aging baby-boomers (thirty-nine % of city population in 1986). 2. Baby boomers will continue their influence for the next fifty years. The percentage of people sixty-five and over is expected to grow to twenty-five percent. 3. Early planning and intervention is advocated. 4. Caring for the aging population today and in the future will impact on other segments of the community. 5. Everyone ages and therefore, is a direct stakeholder. 6. The aging population will have a significant impact on various sectors of the community, e.g., economy, environments, social and health systems, recreation, education ad public safety. Therefore, these sectors are stakeholders in the development of a strategic plan. 7. The aging population is a current area of interest (2-3). The format of this project was such that it was delivered in three major phases. Initially city staff and community members entered a planning stage which was followed by city-wide workshops. These workshops, which was phase two, were held in April 1992 and are the focus of this research. The third phase was the implementation of a city/community working group and sub committees. It is this group that will produce the strategic plan on aging for consideration by council. This aspect of the project is behind schedule. It is  5 anticipated by the social planners involved that the plan will be presented to council in the fall of 1994. The workshops were advertised as workshops to address aging as an issue that affects all citizens, not just seniors. Project staff sent information packages to community centers, groups, health care institutions and schools. Brochures and flyers were translated into five languages. There was advertising in community newspapers and posters were distributed for display (See poster example, Appendix 2). Project buttons were produced and a newsletter, which would be on-going throughout the project implemented. Prior to the workshops community people and representatives from various city departments had been involved in planning and publicizing the workshops. A July 1,1992 report to council outlined the various planning activities (Please see Appendix 3). Staff and citizen facilitators, two hundred and forty in all, were trained to deliver the workshops. Each workshop had a recorder who provided a written summary of that group’s process. Many participants completed an evaluation of the workshop. During the planning stages for the workshops, the city was divided into neighbourhood areas for workshop locations (Please appendix 4 for map). This division was done by project planners with the input of residents. The social planners summary of “workshop results” is provided in Appendix 5. Twenty-two workshops were held. While April 11, 1992 was the main workshop date, workshops were conducted in Punjabi and Cantonese on April 4, April 12 in Stratcona and April 29 at the Jewish community centre. The latter workshop was arranged when representatives of the Jewish community contacted the project to state they would like to participate but not on April 11 as it was their Sabbath day.  6 According to the project co-ordinator, Chris Warren, this is the first time a major North American city has sought to include the public in their planning process in such an extensive way (city social planner, Personal Interview, Oct., 1992). While it is true that municipal government has held meetings and workshops in the past it has been issue or neighbourhood specific and not on a city-wide basis. The introduction of another planning exercise called CityPlan is seeking prolonged and more extensive input than previous consultations with citizens. CityPlan was undertaken after the project on aging was already in progress. It is considering multiple issues and has utilized a system of “planning circles”, supported by staff and printed material to elicit public participation. One of the expressed goals of the city staff working on this project is to “engage the public in a different way, to gather information from them but also to tell them how that information is being heard and used” (Ibid.). It is positive and progressive that a city government has reached further for input into the community than it had before. It may be however, that the people who attended the workshops would not be representative of all city dwellers and that it was most likely the educated and middle to high wage earners who would have the time, resources, skill and interest to attend these workshops. An assumption is that people who are worried about personal safety, how to pay the rent or what day the food bank is open have little time, energy or skill to become involved in such activities as planning workshops. This thesis examines the determinants of public participation in the  “READY OR NOT!” project. What are the characteristics that participants of the workshops have in common? Is there a composite picture that can be drawn along socioeconomic status? Are there trends that emerge cross-neighborhood? In terms of the variables surveyed are there differences in findings between neighbourhoods? In looking at those citizens who attended the workshops, the  7 research question was : What were some of the determinants of their participation? The invitation from the city was issued to citizens to enter into a planning partnership. The data gives us an idea of who responded. It also gives us some indication of who didn’t. Following up on who didn’t attend is one of the most important issues arising for future research and facilitation of broader public participation. Are people not participating by choice or are there societal barriers to their participation? If there are barriers, what are they? How can they be countered?  8  CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW An essential starting point when writing about citizen or public participation is the theoretical origins of the concept and practice. The origins of public participation, and for that matter resistance to public participation, are found in democratic theory and thought. The writings and opinions available on democracy are vast in quantity. The purpose of this section is to offer a brief historical context to public participation. It is no way a definitive statement on democracy. Four bodies of thought concerning democracy are identified. They are the Greek theory of democracy, also called direct democracy, participatory democracy, representative democracy or elitist theory and finally democracy which recognizes differences. Democracy which recognizes differences is a form of democracy which would recognize differences among those individuals who cast votes. It is mostly chronicled in writings with a feminist, socialist or minority perspective. Another concept of democracy based on the one-party system, which was prevalent until recently in the Soviet Union, some East European societies and third world countries will not be discussed here. There are those who “doubt whether this is a form of democracy at all” (Held 1993,  15). This is a debate which will not be developed here.  9 It is the concept of “the people” and the people’s expression of interests, ideas and wishes which is at the root of all democratic discourse. Three identified elements of democracy are: participation, liberty and equality (Riker 1982, 5). However, what constitutes democracy as a practice is widely debated in societies around the world. Carleton Kemp Allen, writing in Democracy and the Individual, states, “Ask any six intelligent men [si I what they understand by democracy and there will be six answers so different that there seems to be hardly any common basis at all” (Allen 1943, 1). It is not an accident that Allen suggests men be asked to define democracy. Gender in democracy and participation was an issue in historical times and continues to be an issue in modern day concepts of democracy and participation (Davis 1991; Jones 1993). This issue will be discussed further under the idea of advocacy in democracy.  GREEK DEMOCRACY It has been suggested that, between 462 and 322 BC, Athens came as close as any community before or since to achieving a state of democracy. That is maximum input to the governing body from the maximum number of people within the governed district. During this period of Athenian history, by and large citizens set the agenda for their polis in regular assemblies of the whole. It is crucial to note that the group considered “citizens” was far from the whole of society. Women, immigrant workers and slaves were not considered to be citizens. Nevertheless, “citizens” with the assistance of ten appointed generals, ran the Boule, a council of 500, which over saw day-to-day operations. There were no political parties. All government offices and positions were also filled by citizens on a rotating basis and citizens also rotated jury duty. Eventually  10 citizens were paid for their duties to democracy. It is a fact that economic and social inequality was prevalent. Inequality existed between those who were considered citizens and the women, immigrants and slaves. Inequality also existed among the “citizens”; some citizens were much richer than others. Many of the citizens were working men who required the small payments for their participation. They were not a leisured class who were entertained by participating in democracy (Arbiaster 1987, 18-25). Important to remember is that the number of citizens comprising the polis was estimated at about 50,000. It has often been argued that it was the size of the community that made direct democracy workable. A central feature of the democracy was that citizens were expected to be actively involved in the workings of their community. This active participation was achievable, at in part, due to the reasonably small number of citizens (Ibid.). The smaller number made direct democracy more attainable. This is in direct contrast to the larger population groups and geographical areas which were later to set themselves up as democracies. It was from this larger base that the idea of representative democracy developed which is discussed in the next section. Due to the fact that a central feature of democracy was the expectation that all citizens would participate, the Athenian state recognized no difference between state and society. Their concept of citizenship meant direct participation in public affairs (Held 1993, 16-17). Bhikhu Parekh in Prospects For Democracy, sums up well what are considered to be the central tenets of Greek democracy: a) it was “grounded in a sense of community”; b) “democracy was informed by a view of freedom that required active political participation  “;  11 c) the masses were trusted to decide in the favour of the good of all (Held 1993, 162-163). Despite such broad based participation there were also critics of the process. Ancient theorists, like Socrates and Plato, believed that government was a specialized area of knowledge and very few had the necessary expertise (Arblaster 1987, 20). The sense of community which was embodied in Greek democracy was a good start. The major problem with the community and definition of citizens was that it overlooked large segments of the population, namely, women, immigrants and slaves. It must also be recognized that it was the labour of these groups that allowed the citizens to be so politically active. The fields were tended, the children reared and the market continued because of their labour. The Greek version of democracy had an elite of it’s own.  PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY Participatory democracy is set within the theoretical writings of such eighteenth century liberals as J. J. Rousseau and John Stuart Mill (Pateman 1980). J.J. Rousseau (1712-1778), a French philosopher, has been called “the celebrated spokesperson of direct democracy” (Ross 1952, 203). He has also been noted as “the most significant political thinker of the 18th century” and he is also credited with shaping the French Revolution (Reese 1980, 497). Carol Pateman states that Rousseau “might be called the theorist par  excellence of participation” (Pateman 1980, 22). C. B. MacPherson sums up Rousseau by describing him as a populist with a general will theory (MacPherson 1973, 184, 224). Rousseau felt that men were innately good and would act rightly and wisely on their own accord (Ross 1952, 203).  12 Rousseauian theory did not require complete equality, but rather, advocated that any inequality should not affect political equality. Along with this Rousseau felt any labour and fruit of that labour should be equally shared and as a result of this sharing and the act of participation individuals would opt for the good of all (Pateman 1980, 22- 30). Rousseau condemned private property (Lea 1982, 42) and romanticized man in his primitive state. Like Mill, who would follow him, Rousseau wrote that there needed to be an education process in participation and “that through this educative process the individual will eventually come to feel or no conflict between the demands of the public and private spheres” (Pateman 1980, 25, 22- 30). Rousseau was greatly opposed to the idea of substituting direct participation for representation. With representation he felt people would be “cheated and enslaved” (Ross 1952, 203). Influential also at this time was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), an English philosopher, who’s basic philosophical statement was that the meaning of life was to seek pleasure and avoid pain. As applied to the state he felt “the public interest was the ‘mass of the interests of individuals’ “(Reese 1980, 53). Bentham was an influence on John Stuart Mill who continued and elaborated upon his philosophy. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), also an English philosopher, agreed with Rousseau and Bentham that the highest form of political power was with the people and no group should be excluded form participating (Ross 1952 57). Mill heavily influenced by Bentham, explained “human activity in terms of the “greatest happiness’ principle” (Reese 1980, 358). Unlike Rousseau however, Mill worried that the power of the majority might lead to abuse against the minority (Ross 1952, 57, 207-209). Another major difference between Mill and Rousseau was that Mill rejected the idea that for effective participation  13 there must be political equality. Mill’s comment on this was that everyone should have a voice but “that everyone should have an equal voice is a totally different proposition” (Pateman 1980, 32). Mill felt that an enlightened minority should have greater influence to safeguard against abuses by the majority but that the majority should have input into the process (Ross 1952, 57,207-209).  ELITIST THEORY Contributing to the historical context of elite theory were John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), believed that the natural state of man was one of fierce competition and selfish individualism. This condition “he described as ‘the war of everyman against everyman’ “(Qualter 1986, 31). In Hobbes’ theory the only way to counter man’s antisocial nature and behavioural inclinations (Lea 1982, 10) was to have a very powerful state with almost unlimited power to keep order (Lea 1982; Qualter 1986). The governors would however, take their authority from those who created it and in that way “remain a human institution” (Qualter 1986). John Locke (1632-1704), was an English philosopher who’s writings it has been said “most influenced America’s founding elites” (Dye 1978, 7). He was also influential during England’s “Glorious Revolution”, of 1688. It was during this revolution that the growing British middle class, the majority of them property owners, won the right to representation in parliament (Lea 1982, 42). Locke argued in a “state of nature” the individual had the right to life, liberty and property. He felt that the purpose of government was to protect the rights of the individual and with the consent of the people a government was formed to protect these rights (Dye 1978, 7-8).  14 As society advanced with industrialization, higher population and larger concentrations of people in urban cores the idea of mass participation in democracy seemed unattainable. It was felt that an acceleration in participation could upset the existing stability. Pateman chronicles this school of thought. “Mosca and Michels were two of the best known and most influential writers to advance such a thesis. The former argued that in every society an elite must rule and, in his later writings, combined this with an argument for representative institutions. Michels with his famous ‘iron law of oligarchy’ appeared to show that we were faced with a choice, either organization, which in the twentieth century seemed indispensable, or democracy, but not both. Thus although democracy as the rule of the people by means of maximum participation of all the people might still be an ideal, grave doubts, doubts put forward in the name of social science, appeared to have been cast upon the possibility of realizing this ideal” (Pateman 1980, 2). -  ...  Pateman notes that a further factor that aided the rejection of earlier democratic theories was “that those theories were normative and ‘value-laden’, whereas modem political theory should be scientific and empirical, grounded firmly in the facts of political life” (1980, 3). She goes onto note that Joseph Schumpeter in an “extraordinarily influential book”, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (1943) put forward a “new, realistic definition of democracy”. This definition included that democracy was a method of government and individuals acquired their power by voting for competing parties. In this view of democracy participation had no particular role (Ibid. 3-5). There is agreement in the literature that Schumpeter was highly influential but there is not consensus that his views are realistic or reasonable. Schumpeter emphasized that democracy was not rule of the people but instead elected elites. He went on to note that since the masses could not control those  15 they had elected except by not returning them to office, that the countervailing power was that of autonomous elites (Etzioni-Halvey 1993, 60). “For Schumpeter, a most important requirement of democracy is that the effective range of political decisions be limited. .In this manner he draws together the liberal idea of separation of powers within the state with the notion of elites outside the state as well, in what has come to be known as democratic elite theory” (Ibid.). ..  Representative elites are those that elected to government or organizations while autonomous elites operate outside of government and elections in such places as the business world and interest groups (Presthus 1973; Dye 1978). The opportunity for people to advance in this system allows for leaders from the lower class to become part of the governing elites (Dye 1978). The notion of representative and autonomous elites set out by Schumpeter is prevalent in Canadian society today. “An elite”, Thomas Dye states, “is the few who have power; the masses are the many who do not. Power is deciding who gets what, when and how; it is participation in the decisions that allocate values for a society.” He goes on to add: “Elitism also asserts that the few who govern are not typical of the mass who are governed. Elites control more resources ---power, wealth, education, prestige, status, skills of leadership, information, knowledge of political process, ability to communicate and organization. .elites are drawn from society’s upper classes, from those who own or control a disproportionate share of the societal institutions industry, commerce, finance, education, the military, communications, civic organizations and law” (1978, 3-4). ..  ---  The theory of democracy, first begun by Schumpeter was continued by Robert Dabl (MacPherson 1973, 78). Dahl writing in 1956, suggested that it is a very small number in any given society that will input into decision-making. Dahl also wrote of social training. Like the liberals and Greeks before him he  16 too warned that an increase in participation could lead to instability. He noted it was the lower socioeconomic classes that participated the least. He also felt that this was the class where the ‘most authoritarian’ personality types are found and if their participation were to increase there would be a decline in consensus and polyarchy (Pateman 1980, 10). As noted, elitist theory is not without opponents. C. B. MacPherson is highly critical of the theory. In this body of theory, democracy, he says, “is reduced from humanist aspiration to a market equilibrium system. And although the new orthodox theory claims scientific neutrality, its value judgment is clear enough; whatever works is right that is whatever enables the existing class-stratified society to operate without intolerable friction is best.” (1973, 79) --  It is noteworthy that Dahl has evolved his body of theory, to even question some of his earlier assumptions. Writing in 1989 in Democracy and Its Critics he asks, “If democracy is to exist and citizens are to be political equals, then will democracy not require something other than a market-oriented, private enterprise economy, or at the very least a pretty drastic modification of it’?” (Dahl 1989, 326). Despite this, it has been said that democratic values have largely lived on because of the elites. Such democratic values as freedom of speech, and the press, and equal opportunity for all are values more closely associated with higher levels of education and higher occupation and social status (Dye 1978, 13-17). Criticisms of the system are that while the elites may have some “public regarding” agendas their primary objective is to remain in power and protect their elite status. To this end some actions taken will be manipulations of the system to ensure their own stability and superiority (Ibid.).  17  DEMOCRACY WHICH RECOGNIZES DIFFERENCES Some writers and modem day theorists, particularly those with a feminist, socialist or minority perspective, point out, that one of the limitations of democracy, as it has been practiced by societies to date, is that it has not recognized differences between individuals and groups. The one person one vote principal does not recognize the differences between or the needs of the individual persons who are casting the votes. It also does not account for the fact that there are groups of people within the voters group and particularly outside that are underrepresented. In that, issues that are particular to them are not adequately raised by the dominant forces. That is to say that the representative elites and autonomous elites develop and support policy which protects their interests and maintains the status quo. Within, and also external, to this would also be such things as women and minority issues. This maintenance of the status quo is evident in policies of taxation, support of lotteries, inequitable distribution of wealth, etc. etc. For example, in Canada, it has been found that due to the growth of taxation and tax expenditures, especially since 1970, these expenditures (“tax breaks” or “loopholes”) have greatly reduced the progressive aspects of our tax system. The system is less progressive because it is largely richer Canadians who can afford to take advantage of these benefits (Doem and Phidd 1988). Due to the fact that women and minorities are in the lower income bracket these policies are especially relevant to women and minorities. In regard to women’s issues by transferring relations between the sexes from biology to society (Olderma and Davis 1991, 4) and understanding the power relationships in society, feminists were able to point out the contradictions within theories of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is founded in individualism. The theory does acknowledge that there are  18 differences between us but that, in the one person one vote system, these differences should not count Phillips 1993, 93-111). However, as Arblaster  writes in Democracy “Inequality in wealth and economic power, in other words, is a form of political inequality, which contradicts the principal of political equality expressed in the slogan ‘one person one vote.”... Other forms of inequality, social, racial and sexual, also run counter to the principle of political equality. No one with any experience of political meetings or grass-roots political movements and organizations can fail to have noticed how easily and naturally such groups and gatherings are dominated by white, bourgeois educated males. The advantages and privileges attaching to class, race and gender make it quite ‘natural’ that this should be so” (1987, 80). Kathleen Jones traces this back to the elite representational system that liberal contract theory creates by stating, “[it] excludes from it by definition sexuality and gender and every other particularized aspect of being human, such as race and class. Representation of women in the practice of sovereignty comes to mean representation of persons who happen to be women. Being women is considered politically irrelevant in this view, since it is not representation of women because they are women that is, because, as women they embody and signify something particular that must be present in politics if the promise of equality is to be fulfilled (Jones’ italics, 1993, 236). --  --  When societal relationships are considered in relation to a whole group of people, there is a move away from individualism toward collectivity. While it is true that a group or groups of people may have a common cause, it is equally true, as Jones points out, that only the speaker knows/owns what is being spoken. She goes on to note that the challenge is to have different voices heard without negating any one person’s participation (Ibid. 243-245).  19 For participation to occur the opportunity has to exist or be created. From the Greeks right on up to modem day not all sectors of the population have had equal access to participation. One of the most prevalent causes for the underrepresentation of women participating in politics has been the division of labour. It has been women who are the primary caregivers of children, husbands and parents. Anne Phillips notes that “in feminist literature, the issue is posed more starkly, for the very notion of the active citizen presumes someone is taking care of the children and doing the necessary maintenance of everyday life” (1993, 100). In Canada, until the early 1960s, the responsibility for running the home fell almost exclusively to women while men were the wage earners. According to sociologists Curtis and Tupperman, this changed, around 1980, since which time the majority of wives and mothers are in the paid labour force. However, this consequential change in the roles that women play did not bring an equally profound shift in the role men play within the family; women still do most of the housework and childcare. They note that between 1971 and 1981, the workload at home of both employed males and females remained almost unchanged. In Vancouver employed females worked 3.9 hours per day on family care, compared to 1.45 hours per day for comparable males (1988, 379380). Barriers to women’s participation are also outlined by Kathleen Jones. She states that in recent years political scientists have demonstrated that it is not women’s lack of qualifications or motivation that lead to underrepresentation but political cultural factors such as lack of supportive general welfare policies, as well as the restrictive nature of the party and electoral systems (1993, 238-9).  20 Feminists have extended their analysis to include other groups which are systematically unequal in society. It is this thinking that attempts to lead liberal democracy to a “more substantial democracy” than what is in existence now. (Phillips 1993, 108-9).This view of democracy would have those participating in a democracy define it so there would be recognition and action on the differences between voters. It would also emphasize the needs of particular sectors within the democratic society. If these conditions were to occur it would result in would result in a truer representation of all society.  CANADIAN DEMOCRACY It is generally agreed that Canada is a liberal representative democracy. A representative democracy is a system where persons are elected to make decisions on behalf of the population. These decision makers receive their authority as a result of free elections in which most of the population can vote. Representative democracy is not equivalent to rule by the people as a whole (Jackson Jackson and Baxter-Moore 1986, 25). Within this representative system there is the operation of elites (Presthus 1973). Much as in Greek times there are those who fear if there were full public participation it would be impossible to develop coherent public policy (Allen 1943; Jackson Jackson and Baxter-Moore 1986; Arblaster 1987; Lotz 1987). One explanation offered for this is that if elected representatives were to “mirror” the views of the people or regions they represent there would be little consensus reached on many issues (Jackson Jackson and Baxter-Moore 1986,  25). Another reason is that it would “undercut parliamentary procedures and undermine established procedures and structures for handling social change” (Lotz 1987, 44).  21 In addition to having a representative democracy, Canada is a constitutional democracy in that the constitution sets out, defines and limits to political power. Canadian government also utilizes a federal system which divides power among jurisdictions and over geographical areas (Jackson Jackson and Baxter-Moore 1986, 26). Three conflicting ideologies have been identified as part of the Canadian environment where social planning occurs. There are those with a conservative view who believe in a free market system and pursuit of self interest. There are also social and liberal democrats who believe that the state has a responsibility to intervene to promote a equitable society. Another group, socialists and those on the radical left, believe that social planning is a “buffer to the revolutionary change required for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a just social order” (Clague and Seebaran 1991, 152). There is no doubt that these conflicting ideologies have had an impact on public participation. Many of the elites in Canadian society are conservative in their ideology (Presthus 1973). Despite this, it has been suggested that participation in Canada has developed in three separate but overlapping phases (Tester 1992). They are the extension of the right to vote, expansion of the welfare state (1945 to mid I 960s) and increasing involvement and social activism to address environmental and social concerns (Ibid.). What were some of these social concerns? In the 1 930s, public participation movements were largely found within the labour movement (Curtis and Tupperman 1988; Tester 1992). Workers were organizing for job security, benefits and fairness in the workplace. In the 1 960s people were organizing to ban chemicals such as DDT. In Canada, the citizens of Toronto were lobbying to not have neighbourhoods ripped apart by a new expressway (Tester 1992).  22 In the 1970s in Quebec the public rallied to have foster care regulations changed to be more favourable toward those on welfare and the working poor. In Saskatchewan, public participation resulted in a legal aid plan which was based on a system of neighbourhood clinics. In Winnipeg, citizens were successful in stopping the municipal government from deducting family allowance benefits from welfare cheques (National council of Welfare 1975, 16-29, 30-42, 5-15). The seventies also saw a rise in pubic participation in response to environmental and development issues (Lotz 1987, 44). In the 1980s, one of the many issues citizens, women in particular were organizing around, and continue to, is reproductive technology: in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood and sex selection of children. These are issues involving women and their bodies but also moral and ethical considerations for the whole of society (Curtis and Tupperman 1988, 385392). In the 1990s, what has been called a “new generation” of citizen participation is being discussed and proposed. This type of activism moves beyond attempting to influence government policy and regulations,  “...  the new  generation of citizen participation initiatives increasingly demands the extension of democratic principles and practice into economic decision making  --  profoundly anti-democratic element within western liberal democracies  the --  which  includes both the general operation of the economy and specific investment decisions with evident public implications” (Tester 1992, 34). Within Canada’s representative democracy, there are three levels of government, Federal, Provincial and Municipal. Because of this there are three arenas of government within which public participation can occur. The federal government is charged with reconciling the interests of the entire nation and setting national standards. Provinces respond to specific issues within their  23 territorial unit. Municipal government exists at the urban city or rural town or county level. The federal government followed by the provincial governments have richer coffers acquired by a variety of taxes, regulatory fees, etc. The main source of fmancial support that the municipal level generates for itself is through property taxes and various regulatory fees and licenses. In addition, they are the recipient of transfer payments from the other two bodies of government. This unequal access to operating revenue is most difficult for the municipalities. They are the level of government closest to the people but with the least financial resources and clout. Therefore, many issues identified at the municipal level can only be “taken under consideration” and the municipal leaders left to advocate, or not, with the other levels of government. Joan Newman Kuyek in her book, Fighting For Hope, recognizes the revenue generating difficulties of municipal governments and adds that the property system is “extremely unfair”. She notes, however, that the municipal level can be extremely important for those people who wish to see social transformation. In particular: “Municipalities can initiate decisions around alternative transportation systems, city planning, alternatives to the “social safety net”, housing, recreation and neighbourhood centres. It can determine the level of democracy at a grass roots level in the neighbourhoods and the city itself’(1990, 166). These are powerful abilities if cities chose to use them. It is participation at the municipal level which is the subject of the research in this thesis. Before going on to consider what the literature has to say about determinants of public participation, first public participation will be defined.  24  DEFINING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Equally essential to discussing democracy as the contextual basis of public participation is the need to define public participation. There are as many definitions of public participation as there are of democracy. By examining the components of participation and various models of participation, we can hope to achieve an understanding of public participation. Public is defined as “of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole.” It is also described as “being open to all persons, owned by a community or performed on behalf of a community” (Stein et al. 1988, 1069). This ties in nicely with the democratic concept of common good. Participation is defined as “the act or an instance of participating; a taking part” and br “a sharing, as in benefits or profits” (Stein et al. 1988, 969). It is fair then to say, that public participation is when a person or persons, as part of a broader community, take part or share in an activity which will have an impact on that same community. If participation is to be achieved in the truest sense, then the public will also share in the benefits and profits of participation. Turning to the literature for a definition of public participation the following sampling can be found. In Fostering Public Participation, Powell, Faghfoury and Nyenhuis strike a working definition as, “public participation means the individual and collective action of people to become involved in and improve their community “(1988, 12). Florin and Wandersman quote their community psychology colleagues, Heller, Price, Reinzharz, Rich and Wanclersman as defining citizen participation as “a process in which individuals take part in the decision making in the institutions, programs and environments that affect them” (1991, 43). James Draper states the “essence of participation is a process of learning” (1991, 265). This latter comment fits well with the  25 educational components practiced in both classical and contemporary democracy. Public participation is chronicled in much of the literature from three perspectives. The first is citizen participation in regard to partisan political parties (Verba and Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel, 1977). The second is organizing to influence government decision making in a planning process or work on community development. The third are protesters or those who organize in dissent as a response to conflict between citizens and political structures (Gilbert Specht and Brown 1974; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Powell Faghouty and Nyenhuis 1988; Tester 1992).  MODELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Sherry R. Arnstein’s “L.adder of Citizen Participation” is a frequently quoted typology when public participation is discussed. Arnstein is very clear when she states she feels citizen participation is citizen power. She goes on to say: “It [citizen participation] is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the strategy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources allocated, programs operated, and benefits like contracts and patronage are parceled out. In short, it is a means by which they can induce significant social reform which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society” (1969 216). Arnstein also developed a ladder of citizen participation. In this model she laid out the types of participation and non-participation.  26 Figure 1  Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation  Non-participation  (Arnstein 1969)  1. Manipulation 2. Therapy  Degrees of Tokenism  3. Informing 4. Consultation  5. Placation Degrees of Citizen Power  6. Partnership 7. Delegated Power 8. Citizen Control  Many feel that when governments do invite input from the public they do so in a controlled or token manner (Arnstein 1969; Chekki 1979). This implies that the government is more interested in window dressing or exercises in public relations than genuine citizen participation. Certainly the degrees of citizen control that Arnstein notes are hardly, if ever, achieved. In the 1 980s Desmond Connor revisited Arnstein’s ladder to come up with “A New Ladder of Citizen Participation”.  27 Figure 2  Connor’s New Ladder of Citizen Participation  General Public  Connor 1987  1. Education 2. Information Feedback 3. Consultation  Leaders  4. Joint Planning  5. Mediation 6. Litigation Steps 1-6 flow into and up to  7. Resolution/Prevention  Connor notes that what he likes about his model is that it is cumulative and interactive. Connor has stated his model is to prevent and resolve public controversy (Connor 1987). Clearly, the focus of Connor’s ladder differs greatly from Amstein’s. While Arnstein proposes what the conservatives and elites would consider to be a radical approach, that is, the redistribution of power within society, Conno?s model is supportive of the status quo. In addition to types of participation there are several vehicles for participation. Perhaps the most easily recognized and simplest form of public participation is that of voting. At all levels of government the law dictates that elections must be held on a regular basis. Individuals living within that jurisdiction, over the age of majority and meeting residency requirements, are then eligible to vote. Today, in Canada, the franchise is widely held. Some groups such as the mentally incompetent and those under age are still not permitted to vote. Until recent years this rule also applied to incarcerated individuals. Despite the fact that  28 there are some groups that are still excluded, the numbers of those included are much higher than in the past. As noted earlier, the practice of withholding the right to vote goes back to the very origins of democracy itself when women, immigrants and slaves were excluded (Arblaster 1987). In Canada universal franchise was granted only in 1960, a short twenty-four years ago (Jackson Jackson and Baxter-Moore 1986  494-495). Prior to this time particular groups in society were excluded, or in some cases were given the right to vote and then had it revoked. At the time of Confederation voting was provincially regulated and the only persons with the right to vote were male property owners. In 1885, voting was brought under federal jurisdiction. However, this was not a progressive move; at the time of this legislation, Canadians of Asian extraction were disenfranchized, a situation that followed with other groups. In 1917, as a result of the World War, Canadians who were of Eastern European heritage were removed from voting lists. It was also at this time that some women were given the right to vote. In the established patriarchal tradition, the vote was open only to women who were relatives of soldiers. First Nation soldiers were also given the vote at this time. This was not a liberalization of the system toward fairness; it was expected by the granting powers that these groups would support the government position on conscription. In 1918, all women were given voting rights equal to men. For some other groups it took much longer: Asian Canadians 1948; Inuit -  -  disenfranchised in 1934, restored in 1950; certain religious groups, mainly Mennonites, disenfranchised in 1920, restored in 1955 and Native Indians living on reserves were not granted the vote until 1960 (Ibid. 494 495). -  The right to vote is considered crucial in a liberal democracy. The process gives citizens the opportunity to:  29 1) chose their political representatives form competing candidates; 2) express their acceptance or disapproval of the existing government; 3) aggregate “various demands into a limited number of choices and assures the representation of diverse opinions in policy making arena”; 4) accord political leaders a measure of legitimacy;  5) allocate formally political power and influence within the system (Ibid. 477). A number of issues are raised in this. There are those who say that in Canada there really isn’t that much choice between the political ideologies of parties and there is a blurring of party philosophies, so that conservatives act like liberals, socialists like conservatives, etc. (Curtis and Tupperman 1988). This appears to depend on what action is perceived as being to the political advantage of the party given the current issues and political climate. Voting as a form of public participation has been found to have a weak relationship between itself and other forms of participation. This means that because a person votes it does not make them more likely to participate in other ways as well. It has been repeatedly suggested that most people vote because of a sense of civic duty (Presthus 1973, 38; Milbrath and Goel 1977, 12-13). Going to the polls one day every few years may not require as much information or action as other forms of participation. Questions are raised regarding the function of elections. Such as the issue of elections as a way of legitimizing politicians and maintenance of the current distribution of power. Presthus states that our current system reinforces the  status quo, “crystallizes existing power relationships” and makes it difficult for new or weaker interests to contribute to the decision-making process (1973, 349). Decision-making is heavily weighted towards the political, bureaucratic, business and interest group elites in society. He does note that a positive  30 consequence of elite accommodation has been our popularly tolerated system of resource allocation. In 1973, he correctly predicted that “the conflict between welfare and ‘economic’ criteria of resource allocation will probably become more intense as resources are strained by increasing welfare, health and educational programmes, often launched at the expense of traditional economically-oriented criteria” (348). Economic criteria meaning that governments will base more decisions on economic principles, such as private business does. Indeed, we are currently faced with government spending cuts in the areas of health and welfare with the justification stated as the need to bring down the national debt so as to maintain and improve our economic viability. All this points to the need for public participation beyond the act of voting. Long held principles of democracy are the common good, majority rules and education for citizens so they may participate in the process. While it may not be practical for every citizen to participate, it is necessary that enough citizens participate so these goals can be pursued and the power of elites, if not balanced, at least countered. It is important to state that true participation is not placation but the empowerment of the public to contribute to decisions that effect them and their communities. If we accept that it is desirable for as many people as possible to participate, then it is helpful to know who already participates. It is recognized that some people would chose not to participate even if barriers are removed. But for those who do decide to participate, what are some of the determinants of their participation’?  DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Existing literature suggests that socioeconomic variables are major indicators of who will participate and who will not. Previous research contends  31 that education and class are likely to be higher in those who participate (Verba and Nile 1972; Haeberle 1989; Perkins et al. 1990; Panda 1990). Socioeconomic variables were but a few of the multiple variables considered by Lester W. Milbrath and M.L. Goel (1977) in a comprehensive international review of several dozen pieces of research into political participation. They were able to summarize many determinants of participation. A number of their conclusions are as follows: 1. There is a positive correlation between the amount of stimuli a person receives about politics and the likelihood and depth of his/her participation (35); the more attracted a person is the more they tend to expose themselves to further stimuli (40). 2. People who are attracted to politics are more likely to participate (36); sociable and confident people are more likely to enter politics and take active roles (77-78). 3. Persons growing up in upper middle or upper socioeconomic strata environments are more likely to develop self confidence and feelings of personal competence as well as higher education levels (78). 4. People are more likely to vote or be interested in a campaign if they have been contacted personally (37).  5. Middle class persons, men more than women, are exposed to more political stimuli than lower class persons (38); middle aged persons expose themselves to politics more than younger persons (41). 6. If a person feels a civic duty to participate then they are more likely to do so (49) and those of the upper socioeconomic status are more likely to develop a sense of citizen duty (52). 7. Those who have a strong group identification, sense of belonging, participate more actively (57).  32 8. Persons near the centre of society are more likely to participate than those closer to the periphery (89). 9. Personal efficacy leads to higher participation levels (58). 10. Socio-economic variables such as class or place of residence are not causes of behaviour; however, these same social conditions do form personalities, beliefs and attitudes which then “cause” specific action such as participation (86). 11. It has been consistently found, that regardless of how class is measured, higher class individuals are more likely to participate than lower class persons (92). 12. Higher income earners (96) and persons of higher occupational status are more likely to participate (102). 13. People with a higher education level tend to participate more. It is important to note that the relationship between education and participation most closely correlates with campaign activity, community participation and communication activities and to a smaller degree with protests. In regard to voting, education correlates insignificantly and in some cases negatively with voter turnout (98100). 14. Organizational membership is a major independent predictor of political behaviour (110).  15. In regard to community identification it was found that the longer a person lived in a particular community the more likely participation was (113); as well homeowners were more active than non homeowners (114). 16. Men are more likely to participate than women but this gap narrows in the upper socio-economic class (116-117). Steven Haeberle, doing research on grassroots citizen participation in Alabama, further validated Milbrath and Goal’s summary. Haeberle found that  33 the individuaUs concept of neighborhood and his/her own level of attachment to that neighborhood had an impact on the level of participation. He also quoted Connerly (1986) as saying attachment to neighbourhood tends to be deepest among the elderly and low income earners (1989, 27-28). As well the length of residency, the number of services and organizations in the community and the amount of business a person is able to conduct in their own neighborhood will affect an individual’s attachment to and sense of neighborhood (Verba and Nile 1972; Haliman 1984). Communication, skill level and knowledge in operating planning programs are important factors which will influence the development of citizen participation (Gilbert Specht and Brown 1974; Chekki 1979). These are important factors for planners to note. David Chavis and Abraham Wandersman conducted research on sense of community in the urban environment and participation in a volunteer neighbourhood association. The setting for their study was Waverley-Belmont in Nashville, Tennessee. There sample consisted of 423 people living within a set geographical boundary. These people were from eight blocks that had active associations in 1979. Information was gathered by personal interviews. “Local action”, the dependent variable, was represented by the level of participation in the block association  --  categorized as non member, member, worker or leader.  They found that “the strongest path to participation was through a sense of community and through neighboring relations, which influenced the degree to which a person became involved in the block association” (1990, p. 69). In a second study to further test the causal influences of their process model they conducted a longitudinal analysis. With an N of 349, they looked at the relationship between selected variables at two points in time, one year apart. While the demographics were different from the sample used in the previous  34 study a sense of community was found to contribute to the neighboring relationship. A subsample (n = 143). showed a strong interdependence between participation and sense of community. They further found that a “sense of personal power” appeared to precede an individual’s participation. Their conclusions included that” a minimal sense of personal power is necessary for an individual to get involved” (1990 71 75). -  VARIATIONS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION When individuals consider participation, participation in government planning, neighborhood associations, political parties or voting may be most readily identified as forms of participation. Indeed, it is in these areas that most of the existing research has been conducted. Considering the elements of participation, as being a sharing and learning process in relation to a community, there are many more areas where public participation occurs. Neighbourhoods and communities have many existing organizations, both formal and informal. A formal organization may be founded in a charitable or religious cause such as the Lion and Lioness clubs or Knights of Columbus. Trade unions are an avenue for participation as are educational institutions and clubs. Informal structures may include women gathering at a table to discuss, plan and co-operate on child care or men gathering in a coffee shop to discuss community issues. The ways people participate will vary from community to community and culture to culture. First Nations people use pow-wows. In some cultures street performers use plays and music as a form of participation. Political satire, performed by a comedy troupe, such as the Royal Canadian Air Farce, or found in editorial cartoons, could be considered a form of participation.  35 The existing literature does not capture the multiple variations of public participation. Historically researchers have not been culturally or gender sensitive. This has resulted in narrower research and interpretations of what constitutes public participation and how it is expressed. It may be as well, that the determinants of participation that have been found to exist have come about as a result of the places and manner in which the research was conducted. It is possible that the research was conducted in places that tend to attract the higher educated and income people to begin with. What would determinants of participation look like if the research were conducted on additional ways of participation, such as those noted above? Undoubtedly a fuller range of determinants of participation would emerge as well as a broader base of literature on what constitutes public participation.  36  CHAPTER 3 METHOD This research design employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. Qualitative methods were employed in the undertaking of a focus group and in an interview with a citizen involved in community participation and this project. In the data analysis there were also interviews held with Punjabi speaking elders and these employed qualitative research. The quantitative research comes in the form of the survey that was undertaken with workshop attendees. For reasons of economy and efficiency this design was used. It is recognized that there are drawbacks and limitations to this type of research. These are further discussed in Chapter Four.  RESEARCH DESIGN Survey The survey was in the form of mailed out, self-administered, language specific questionnaire. It was sent to a random sample, N=150, of participants of the April, 1992, workshop (excluding staff members and organizers). The questionnaires were mailed out with a letter of introduction from “READY OR NOT!” coordinator Chris Warren covering the researcher’s letter of explanation (See Appendix 6 and 7).  37 A one shot follow-up telephone contact, using a standardized interview guide was done ten days post the questionnaire return deadline date of March 20, 1993, to those who had not yet responded. This contact was made in English. Twenty -five contacts, either in person or by answering machine were made. One of these was impossible to complete, due to a language barrier. It is recognized that a language specific contact would have been preferable however, time and resources did not allow for this. This follow-up did not yield significant additional data. Most of those contacted had reasons why they had not completed the initial questionnaire. For example, five people stated they were too busy, three people stated they had been out of town at the time of the date for the questionnaire to be returned by, one person stated she had recycled the questionnaire for a grocery list, one stated her small child had colored it and one stated he had accidentally spilled coffee over it. It was a conscious decision of the researcher to not further pursue people who had not responded to the initial mail-out or follow-up telephone request to complete the survey by mailing out an additional surveys or by making additional telephone calls. No further questionnaires were received as a result of the telephone follow-up. Therefore, the initial response rate is the one which is used in the reporting and analysis of this survey. Questionnaire Development The questionnaire was developed by the researcher through a process of literature review and, to democratize the process, city staff and citizen focus group had opportunities for extensive input and review. Numerous meetings were held with city staff and Section Three of the questionnaire was developed to help answer some of their questions about the project (See Appendix 8). This section of the questionnaire contained questions that were important to the goals  38 of the project staff. For example, they wanted to know if the project newsletter was read, if participants knew about neighbourhood initiatives and how satisfied they were or were not with the flow of communication. Including this information enhanced the democratization of the research so that it was not solely directed by the researcher. This arrangement also created a reciprocal exchange, in that the staff people received information necessary to their evaluation and the researcher received support and access to the workshop participant list. Section Three is not reported in Findings and Results. The questionnaire consisted of fixed alternative and Likert type scale responses, generating nominal and ordinal data, with the customary courtesy question at the end. The Likert type scale lends itself very well to this type of research as it is a straightforward method of index construction (Babbie 1974). The mailed out questionnaire had four sections (See Appendix 8). The Focus Group Input from citizens and staff was done through a focus group. According to focus group literature, focus groups can be randomly selected, recruited with the assistance of key individuals or, “the researcher may be able to take advantage of settings or situations where community members or special interest groups gather to discuss common issues or experiences. In other words, the researcher may tap into “natural” focus groups and work with individuals at hand” (Morgan 1988). The naturally occurring group in this case was the “READY OR NOT!” working group members group. The “READY OR NOT!” project working group was made up of ten citizens and twelve city staff members. Working group members were recruited from attendees of the workshop. At the workshops project staff had requested that those who were interested in a  39 continued and increased level of involvement should indicate their interest and why. From the group who replied, project staff selected working group members, taking into account such things as experience, neighbourhood, age, etc. (See Appendix 9).They met regularly, approximately once every two weeks, and also chaired or were active on working sub-committees. Their time was volunteered and at the time of the focus group they have been actively involved for several months. The working group members were advised of the focus group at their previous meeting. They also received a summary of the research in the minutes of that meeting. These tasks were undertaken by the project co-ordinator. Of twenty-two working group members, seven attended (All signed consent to participate forms, see Appendix 10). The focus group adopted a semi-structured format (See Appendix 11). Comments were tape recorded, partially transcribed, analyzed and incorporated into the finalized questionnaire. The group ran for approximately two hours. The questionnaire was reviewed question by question. Focus group members were committed to the task and worked hard to give feedback and help formulate revised questions. Numerous changes to the questionnaire took place as a result of this group. They will be further discussed in Chapter 4.  Questionnaire Translation When the ‘READY OR NOT!” workshops were organized, in addition to neighborhood events, there were several “community” meetings held. One for the Chinese community was conducted in Cantonese and one for the Indo Canadian community was conducted in Punjabi. This necessitated the translation of the cover letters and questionnaire into these two languages (See Appendices 12, 13, 14 and 15).  40  Questionnaire Pre-test The questionnaire was pre-tested on nine persons, three in each language category. Several suggestions were incorporated from this feedback, for example two typing errors were corrected and it was found that the instructions to one section did not match the text.  Sample The “READY OR” project maintains a data base of over nineteen hundred names of people who have in some way been involved with the project to March 1993. This list included city staff, media contacts, etc. For the purposes of this research it was decided that those people who attended the April 1992 workshop would be surveyed. Since the primary interest of this research is public participation, it was decided that staff and media would be withdrawn from the database before the sample was drawn. Other names deleted were those of the working group members as they had been involved in the focus group. Those with incorrect addresses, and those who had requested not to receive mail from the project were also removed before the sample was drawn. This left a total of 651 names from which a computer generated random sample of 150 was drawn. The questionnaires and covering letters were mailed to the respondents and a self-addressed stamped envelope was enclosed to facilitate its return. One limitation of this study is that due to the unavailability of a published, standardized test, an instrument specific to this study had to be developed. In research, this is a recognized limitation. On the other hand perhaps a case could be made that, due to the focus group input, an appropriate questionnaire for this population emerged. A strength of survey design is that it  41 asks the respondents the same questions in the same way in a consistent manner (Yedis and Weinbach 1991). Limitations that exist in all mail-out surveys are: 1) the potential for distortion, the researcher has no way of knowing if questions were understood or honestly answered; 2) identity of respondent, how does the researcher know the questionnaire was completed by who it was addressed to? 3) return rate, there is always the potential for the respondent to discard of the questionnaire or set it aside, albeit with good intentions, indefinitely (Ibid. 1991). Despite its drawbacks the benefits to doing survey research makes it a viable research design (Miller and Miller 1991). This is particularly true of this research which had a limited financial and time budget. Also this is the first time this municipality has undertaken this type of planning process with the public, therefore, survey research is an appropriate place to start to generate future research questions. Several steps were taken in order to address internal validity. The pre tests were not done on persons selected for the survey and the sample was drawn by simple random sampling. There is always the question that those who did not respond are somehow different and the study therefore biased. It is the judgment call of the researcher whether or not to follow-up on the non-respondents (Yedis and Weinbach 1991). No follow-up with non-respondents was undertaken except to investigate possible causes for the very low rate of return of Punjabi questionnaires. To increase the validity of this study, the variables were a central focus as well as the association between the variables (Baker 1988). In regard to  42 external validity, because we are dealing with a finite population, the study is not generalizable (Yedis and Weinbach 1991).  Interview with a “READY OR NOT!” participant To add a “human face” to the literature definitions, an interview was undertaken with an individual who was involved with the “READY OR NOT!” project. Frank Frigon has also been active in community planning and development for many years. He has a Masters degree in Canadian history and degrees in education and adult education, with a focus on community education. A qualitative interview was conducted with him on April 2, 1993. An interview guide was used (See Appendix 16).The essence of this interview was to determine how an individual engaged in public participation, day in and day out, defines public participation. Mr. Frigon’s definition of participation includes such elements as participation is a lifestyle which encompasses on going education and learning in a holistic manner while retaining a focus on the grassroots and neighbourhood levels. It is also of note that Mr. Frigon indicated his participation in several projects had occurred due to the influence of another person. As with the previous definitions there is an emphasis on learning and community. The interview was recorded and transcribed in its entirety. The transcription was reviewed looking for indicators and then the indicators were clustered into themes. The common themes were then grouped into a larger category. Eight themes were decided upon. Care was taken to insure they are mutually exclusive and exhaustive. The themes are: • Participation as a lifestyle • Participation as on-going education/learning • Participation as an interactive process  43 • Holistic, broad approach to participation • Participation due to influence of another person • Grassroots focus in participation • Concept of neighbourhood • Issues specific to participant’s neighbourhood Following are several (non-exhaustive).examples of how indicators became emerging themes and then themes. The indicators are verbatim quotes and are reproduced exactly as they occurred in the transcription.  Theme : Participation as a lifestyle Emerging themes : Participation, self interest line 198 “so participation becomes, really, participation in living.” line 172 “so, ah, having a job that’s reasonable or stable  ....  that’s an important  element of participation..” line 415 “I see my own development, in terms of the kind of thing I want to see happening.”  Theme: Participation as on-going learning I education Emerging themes : education, learning, self-development line 81”... more integrated urban development package, and education was a core issue.” line 162  “...  learning as you’re doing, ah, which is really my interest.”  line 379 “I’m going this afternoon to a planning conference where we are bringing in a woman from Portland.”  44 Theme: Holistic, broad approach to participation Emerging themes : holistic approach, multi-level perspective, interconnectedness of overall society to every day life, broadened perspective Line 61”... I broadened my perspective on things, I realized a more comprehensive approach..” Line 82  “...  Line 126  more integrated urban development package...”  “...  seeing connections through the neighbourhood and all the various  complexities of the issue.” Line 136 “I could see that Healthy Communities was a better approach, more comprehensive, reaching out to the neighbourhood.” On the basis of one interview these themes would be considered to be in the very early stages of development. In subsequent interviews it would be prudent to incorporate information that was gleaned from the interview that did not exist in the interview guide but was important. For example, one of the points this interviewee made was the idea of participation as a way of life. In this interview an attempt was made to keep the questions open ended and to check out the meaning with the informant. In a larger study, colleague and respondent review and critique would enhance credibility. Nevertheless, this exercise was most useful in assisting in drawing out examples cited in the literature. The other piece of qualitative research which was done was two interviews with Punjabi elders to discuss the value of survey research in that community. Those interviews are discussed in Chapter Four.  45  CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND RESULTS This chapter examines the findings and results of the research. The questionnaire questions are outlined and responses reported. As well, the research process is discussed and findings are related to the existing literature. A brief review of the pertinent areas of the 1991 census for the city of Vancouver is included.  THE FOCUS GROUP The first fmdings to be reported are those of the focus group. The focus group was both invaluable and challenging. It acted as pre pre-test, in terms of clarity of questions, presentation., etc. and also highlighted sensitive issues. The following chart shows the gender of participants, who they are and where they positioned themselves around the table. The persons identified as” city staff e were careful to point out they were attending on “their own time, as private citizens”. It is considered worthwhile to identify them as it is unclear that they would have been at the table had they not been employed for the city in departments which have been supportive of this project. The even number of participants, eight, and the size of the tables, allowed for an even and balanced configuration. The two project staff sat together. The only person of male gender was one of the project staff.  46  Figure 3  Focus Group Configuration  *  1±  1-  -h  TAPE/  * KEY : Roz C CS PSC PSA  -  -  -  -  ±  Student Researcher, Facilitator of focus group Citizen , numbered in order of entering room city staff, numbered in order of entering room Project Staff Co-ordinator Project Staff Analyst  -  The focus group also served as an example of the care that must be taken to reconcile competing and sometimes, conflicting opinions. For example, the researcher proposed a question on religious affiliation and the group were unanimous and adamant that this question was too personal and/or politically incorrect to be asked. It was decided by the researcher that in the face of this very strong opposition, it was more democratic to honour the wishes of the focus group. On other questions, such as”Is English your second language’?”  47 there were concerns raised by the focus group but with explanation it was decided to leave it in. Regarding martial status, one or two of the members were widowed and they pointed out that “widowed” should be a category in the responses for marital status as it is “something much different than single”. Further examples of focus group participants personal experiences affecting their input were evidenced in the discussion on caregiving. The fact that several members were providing caregiving to others lead to lengthy discussion around this variable. Following is a sample of the transcript that illustrates the type of discussion that took place. (Please see previous chart for key.)  PSA  “What is covered under children? What does children mean? I have an adult. He is not a child.” “Ummhumm, aie you caregiving for him though ?“ “Yes.” “He has an illness or something that you have to look after...” “He is not a spouse and he is not a parent, he’s not a child.” “I don’t think it matters what age he is if you have someone that you’re caregiving for that is your child.” “But they would leave that out then.” “I would leave that out and just write in adult child, uhh...” “Offspring.” “Relative?” “So you could put children, any age?” “I would suggest to call it children, even if they’re seventy.”  C2  “I’m still a mother, he’s still a child.”  PSA  “But you’re looking, may be you can just do a generic question, you’re looking for ability to spend time at meetings and going out versus how much time I have at  Cl Roz Cl Roz Cl Roz CS2 Cl CS2 Roz PSC  home..” C3  “Oh, is that why the question is being asked?”  Several voices “yes, ummhumm, yes...” “I think I’d use the generic question, but I agree with you people who have obligations at home may have more difficulty... right C3?” C3 and other voices in agreement.  PSA  48 A balancing act in the focus group was to allow participants time to say what they wanted and still advance the agenda so all the material could be covered. In addition the suggestions of the project staff also needed to be considered both at the time of the focus group and in other discussions. When a researcher undertakes research using an external agency’s data there are many concerns and considerations on the part of that agency. There are issues of confidentiality, use of the data and reporting of the data to name a few. When the research is done at an agency that is directed by politicians, the concerns and consideration are also political ones. This research was negotiated step-by-step with city planners. For example, it was not considered acceptable by staff to have the statement” I would never call city Hall because no-one would listen to me anyway” in the questionnaire without an alternative positively worded statement. Therefore, the statement” I feel city Hall welcomes citizen inquiries “was added. Interactions with the agency commanded understanding, diplomacy and the ability to compromise. An important part of this research was the focus group and the positive impact of that on the questionnaire development. In opening up the research process to various stakeholders, the researcher both gives up and gains something. What is given up is absolute control and the idea that the researcher is the best person to determine variables, methods, etc. What is gained is the opportunity to work co-operatively and together develop an end product that is richer, more sensitive and more inclusive than what could be produced if people worked independently. Rate of Return One hundred and fifty questionnaires were mailed out. Of these, 66 responses were received. One hundred and two were mailed to persons who  49 attended workshops that were conducted in English, 26 to people who attended workshops that were conducted in Chinese and 22 to people who attended a workshop conducted in Punjabi. The returns were as follows: English questionnaires 58, Chinese questionnaires 7 and Punjabi questionnaires 2. Four copies were returned because the person had moved.  Punjabi Return Rate Of the two Punjabi questionnaires that were returned, one was not completed and included a note requesting a questionnaire in English. This was provided but was not returned. There is a disparity in the rate of return of these questionnaires relation to the other two groups. Interviews were undertaken in the Punjabi speaking community to gather information on why this occurred. A key community person, Gurnam Sanghera, was located. At this time Mr. Sanghera, a social worker, was employed as a Long Term Care manager for the city of Vancouver. He had been active in promoting the “READY OR NOT!” project within the Indo-Canadian community. Mr. Sanghera suggested key informants within the Indo-Canadian community and contacted these people to explain the purpose of the interviews and seek permission for them to be contacted directly (Sanghera 1993). Interviews were conducted with two Punjabi speaking elders. A third contact did not materialize due to conflicting schedules. Mr. Gurnam Ranu, is a retired school principal. He stated he has attended a men’s group at the Sunset Community Centre for six years. He identified himself as a spokesperson and also secretary of the group. This group of men met every Thursday afternoon and as many as two hundred to two hundred and fifty men often attend. They discuss issues in their community, often invite guest speakers and share a meal. In regard to why a questionnaire would have a  50 low response rate in his community, Mr. Ranu stated that people may not take the time or care. In addition, however, he stated that many of the people who attended the workshops were seniors, as are the men who attend his group. He went on to note that many people speak Punjabi or Hindi but can not read or write it. He estimated that of the older citizens about fifty percent would have received minimal education before immigrating to Canada. He also stated that many of the children and grandchildren who assist the seniors with their mail read only English. Mr. Ranu stated that the best way to do research in the Indo Canadian community would be to seek an invitation to a community group such as his. The benefit of this he said is that a researcher would “get feedback right away” and the purpose of the exercise could be explained to participants. Mr. Ranu went on to confirm that meetings are not held with both men and women in attendance. They are segregated and the male elders traditionally speak for the community. He did note that this is changing somewhat in recent years, with younger men becoming more involved in community leadership. As well, he pointed out that the local neighbourhood house now runs a group for Indo Canadian women (Ranu 1993). Mr. Gurdev Dhaliwal, is a volunteer at O.A.S.I.S., a settlement agency for Indo-Canadian immigrants, and president of the India Punjabi Seniors Citizen Society. His feedback on the questionnaire was that it would have been better if it had been circulated in both Punjabi and English. He stated that some of the older population are unable to read and write. He indicated that it is his feeling that “face to face” interviews work much better in his community. He too, stated it would be a good idea to come to his group, “because there you meet many people, face to face and they can tell you what they think.” Mr. Dhaliwal also stated that his group is men only. He elaborated by saying that “traditionally women stayed at home to tend the household while men gathered  51 in meetings. As well, traditionally men and women did not met face to face in public. This is a tradition which continues in the community” (Dhaliwal 1993).  QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLES The finalized questionnaire gathered data on several variables. In this design the dependent variable is public participation. As noted the independent variables that were considered were decided upon with input from staff and citizens. The majority of research that has been done on who participates in social, political and volunteer activities has considered socioeconomic and demographic variables. These variables are reported on in the following text.  Age Age was broken down into discrete categories. The median age category of respondents was 55 to 64. It is clear in the literature on age and participation that middle aged persons expose themselves more to politics than younger persons and their rates of participation are higher (Milbrath and Goel 1977). In this case the median age category is slightly higher than middle age. Although the workshops had been advertised as an issue that affects everyone it is unclear how much the topic of aging affected the age level of the participants. It is clear that many of the people who attended are those who, due to their own age, are more acutely aware of the effects of aging. This brings up an issue that was not explored in this questionnaire. That is how much is people’s participation influenced by self interest? Respondents reason for attending was asked and the answers suggest that self interest could be at least a part of the motivation for attending.  52 Reason for Attending Respondents were asked whether their main reason for attending was for personal, work or combination of the two reasons. Three stated they attended for work reasons, 43 for personal reasons and 14 for a combination of work and personal interest (n= 60). Crosstabulation reveals of those who said they attended for personal reasons alone, 15 were under the age of forty-five and 27 were over the age of forty-five (n=42). Gender Respondents were asked to identify their sex with choices of male or female. Despite the limitations of the wording of this question in terms of gender sensitivity, all respondents filled in this question. Forty-seven identified themselves as female and 19 as male. Figure 4  Gender Distribution of Respondents As Percent of Total (N  =  28.79%  fflJ  M&e Female  71.21%  66)  53 As visually represented in the above figure the majority of respondents are female. Further, it is revealing to examine the age breakdown of both sexes. While there are many more women than men in each age category, this disparity is particularly striking in the three age groups over the age of 45. According to the 1991 census figures for the city of Vancouver there are 92,425 men over the age of 45 and 103,715 women, a difference of 11,290 (Statistics Canada 1994). Further research is required in order to determine the bases for and the nature of this disparity. The higher number of women participating is not consistent with the findings of previous studies which have found that men, particularly middle aged men, participate in higher numbers than women (Ibid.) Some of these previous studies have looked at partisan political involvement, traditionally a male domain. As well, the topic of the workshop and women’s traditional role as caregivers in society may have had an impact. This is however, speculation without further research.  English as Second Language The questionnaire also asked respondents if English is their second language and 16 of the respondents answered yes (n=65). That is 24.6%, almost one fourth of the respondents have English as a second language. Seven were Chinese and 1 Punjabi, which leaves 8 respondents who have another language as their mother tongue. This questionnaire used the phrase English as a second language. Some individuals and groups now prefer that this term be replaced with English as an additional language. Due to the fact that there are three identifiable language groups, there maybe differences in variables between the groups. This is offered as a recognition of the possibility of differences only. Cell size is not significant to  54 pursue data analysis. Even if the cell sizes were significant analysis along these lines will not be done as the writer is philosophically opposed to analysis along the lines of race only unless respondents clearly indicate research along such lines is acceptable to them as respondents. Martial Status All respondents indicated their marital status. Thirty-one responded that they were married, with the rest of the respondents breaking down as follows: single 21, common law 1, widowed 9 and other 3. Crosstabulation -  -  -  -  revealed that 17 women who participated were single while there were 5 men. In the widowed category there was 1 man and 8 women. All those who are widowed are in the age category 75 and over. Education Those that responded had a median education level of university without a degree. In regard to education 5 respondents stated they have grade 9 or less and 32 indicated they have university with a degree. Forty-eight percent, almost a full half of the respondents are university educated.  55 Figure 5  Education Levels of Respondents Y axis  =  (N  =  65)  frequency  35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Less Th8n Grade 9  6rde 9 to 1 3  Non Universit’j  University Without Degree  University With Degree  Numerous studies have found that individuals with higher education levels participate more (Verba and Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Perkins et al. 1990; Panda 1990).  Income Income proved to be the question people were less willing to answer. Nine respondents did not mark their individual income and eight chose not to provide household income. The annual income category that respondents on average belong to is $20,000 to 29,999. The following graph illustrates the breakdown of respondents income.  56  Figure 6  Individual Income of Respondents Y axis  =  (N  =  57)  frequency  14 12 10  8 6 4 2  I  .  0 Underl 0,000  1 0,000 tol9,999  20,000 to 29,999  I  30,000 to 39999  I  40,000 to 49,999  50,000 and over  Income and Age The subject of the workshops, aging, attracted seniors. What does the data look like when it is controlled for seniors? Of the 15 responding, 2 had incomes of $40,000 to 49,999 and 13 fell below $29,999. This brings the rest of the respondents average income up and in line with what is reported in other studies. That is that people who participate tend to have higher incomes (Verba and Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Perkins et al. 1990; Panda 1990). Size of Household and Household Income The largest number of respondents, 22, live in single person households. Seventeen respondents lived in 2 person households, 8 in 3 person households, 14 in 4 to 5 person households, 2 in households of 6 to 9 people and 2 in  57 households with 10 or more people (n=66). The household income on average is $30,000 to 39,999. Six respondents stated they had an individual income of over $50,000 per annum, while 18 households fell within that category. Source of Income Source of income was identified as “from employment” by 30 persons and as “from other sources” by 33 persons (n=63). In the latter category some people voluntarily identified “other sources” as being from pensions, investments, etc. Predictably, as people age their income is from sources other than employment. Occupation Closely related to income is occupational status. As Goyder points out: Social status in the general adult population, is indicated by education, income, wealth, employment, occupation and lifestyle factors such as entertainment. Occupation provides a good overall marker of social status, since it carries a wage or salary and is affected by educational qualifications. Occupation also means a way of life (1990 66). --  ...  It has been found that those with higher income and occupational status participate more (Presthus 1973; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Panda 1990). Also that socioeconomic variables contribute to the formation of personalities types that participate more (Milbrath and Goel 1977). Among respondents, professional people numbered 27. This group was followed by retired persons, 21 in number, 6 of that number identified themselves as retired professionals. There were also 2 students and 1 unemployed person. The respondents were asked what their occupation was. Important information can be gleaned by examining the occupations listed by respondents.  58 Occupation has been divided into three categories: Human/Social Services, Communications/Service Sector and Other. The following is a list of the responses: List of Occupations  (R = Retired)  Human Services Teacher Clergy--2 Physiotherapist Executive Director of Non-profit Society Physician Physician (R) Nurse Nurse (R) Homemaker/Clinical Counselor Activity Worker Social Worker Clinical Social Worker Social Work Administer Social Worker (R) Clinical Social Worker Family Therapist Social Service Worker Home Support Worker (R) Communications/Service Sector Planner Planner/stay at home mother Project Manager  --  Apt. Complexes  59 Optician Realtor --2 Realtor (R) Management Consultant Public Relations Consultant Marketing Consultant Library Info Services Co-ordinator Library Assistant  Other may or may not be people related -  Writer Unemployed Students 2 -  Computer worker Homemaker  -  3  Building Maintenance Worker Cake Decorator Executive Secretary Executive Secretary (R) A scan of this list reveals that half of the respondents who listed occupation are or were employed in the field of human services, social work, health care, etc. Of the remaining number another twenty-five percent are involved in occupations that require daily dealing with the public or client groups, e.g. Realtor, marketing/public relations consultant, library workers. Most of the occupations of those who responded are occupations that fall into what has traditionally been called the middle class of society.  60 Gender, Occupation, Income What is the relationship between sex, occupation and individual income? Cross tabulation revealed that 5 male respondents were professional males, with three earning over $50,000 per annum (n=14). In the female category 4 respondents earned over $50,000. In the female category there are also 5 professionals earning less than $10,000 (n= 52). Caregiving Responsibilities In regard to caregiving responsibilities, 20 people, about one third of the respondents, identified themselves as having caregiving responsibilities. Twelve had children at home, 4 a chronically ill person and 4 aged parents (n=64). Married caregivers numbered 17 and single caregivers 3. By far the majority of respondents, 44, had no dependents. Voting One of the first and most fundamental forms of public participation is voting. Respondents were asked to identify which elections they “usually” vote in. Of the 58 persons answering this question, the majority, 49, stated they usually vote in municipal, provincial and federal elections.  61 Figure 7  Voting Patterns of Respondents by Percent of Total  (N  =  58)  Legend All elections= 84.4%, All except municipal= 8.62%, All except provincial= 1.72%, All except federal= 1.72%, Municipal only= 3.45%  /-  H All  +  4*  +  +  I  +  Election,  C  All Except Municipal  0  All Except Provincial  0 All  EP  Except Federal  Municipal Onltj  4*4-  Volunteer Activities It was felt that participants in the workshops may be people who are generally involved in their neighborhoods and community. Also there is evidence in the literature that those who participate tend to have high rates of volunteer activities (Presthus 1975; Milbrath and Goel 1977). As well, organizational membership has been found to be a major independent predictor of political behaviour (Milbrath and Goel 1977). Many volunteer activities take place within organizations. Therefore, respondents were asked the number of volunteer activities they are involved in. The avenge number was one volunteer  62 activity, with 11 respondents stating they were involved in 5 or more volunteer activities (n=64). In regard to the number of times per month that respondents volunteered, the average was one, with 25 stating they volunteered 5 or times per month (n=63). Twelve respondents listed no volunteer activity.  Income and Volunteering Is individual income significant to the number of times per month that people volunteer? Do seniors volunteer more? Five people with incomes under  $10,000 volunteered 5 or more times per month. One of the 5 respondents was a senior. Of the 6 people, none of them seniors, with incomes of over $50,000, 4 of them volunteered 5 or more times per month.  Personal Efficacy To give an indication of feelings of personal efficacy, the respondents were asked, using the scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, to rate the following statements: “Ordinary people like me are able to influence government decisions”; and “I believe when there is a job to be done, I am a capable person to call upon”. A statement regarding the approachability of city hall, was worded two different ways: “I would never call city Hall because no one would listen to me anyway” and” I feel city Hall welcomes citizen inquires”. Forty-nine people agreed that ordinary people can influence government decisions while nine disagreed (n=63). Twenty-five people or  40.8% strongly agreed that when there is a job to be done they are capable to call upon, 17 agreed, 2 disagreed, 4 strongly disagreed and 13 were neutral (n=64). Ten respondents felt they would not be heard if they called city hall  (n=64).and seven felt city hall does not welcome citizen inquiries (n=64). In general, people felt they could approach city hall.  63 These results indicate that over all people responding to this survey feel they have a high level of personal efficacy. This is consistent with previous studies that have found that feelings of personal efficacy leads to higher participation levels (Milbrath and Goel 1977; Chavis and Wandersman 1990).  Neighbourhood Much of the organization of the “READY OR NOT!” meetings and groups were done by neighborhood. Therefore, respondents were asked where they believe their input to be best placed, in response to the statement” I believe my participation with municipal government is most useful at : the neighborhood level, the city-wide level or both levels”. Of 59 responses, 15 felt their involvement would be most useful at the neighbourhood level, 9 at the city level and 35 on both fronts. It was hoped that there would be an opportunity to do comparisons by neighbourhood with the data collected. However, only three neighbourhoods had response rates which resulted in cell size of 5 or greater. They are Arbutus Shaughnessy 5, Dunbar Southiands 5 and the Jewish community 7. The higher participation rate in the Jewish community is consistent with previous studies that found that participation by individuals from this community is higher than from other religious/ethnic groups (Milbrath and Goel 1977). Due to the fact that neighbourhood by neighbourhood analysis could not be undertaken the communities (Chinese, Punjabi and Jewish) were extracted and the neighbourhood responses were collapsed into east/west categories. Using the traditional city divider of Ontario Street to distinguish east and west communities, consistently the rate of response was higher from westside communities. For example, lone questionnaires were returned from the  64 neighbourhoods of Downtown Eastside, Hastings Sunrise, Killarney, Mount Pleasant and Victoria Fraserview.  Attachment to Neighbourhood Attachment to a person’s neighborhood has an effect on participation. To look at this, respondents were asked how long they have lived at their current residence and how long they have been residents of Vancouver. They were asked to respond by checking “lifelong” or filling in the number of years. Because exact age was not asked, those who answered lifelong were slotted into the upper limit of the age group they checked off. One person indicated they lived at their residence lifelong (and was under age 19).and an additional 10 people stated they had lived in Vancouver lifelong. The median residence at the current address is 11.57 years with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 56 (n=63). Twenty-nine years was the average residency in Vancouver (n=64), with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 75+. This is consistent with previous findings that the longer a person has lived in a particular community the more likely they are to participate (Verba and Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Hallman 1984). To further probe neighborhood attachment, respondents were asked to rate, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, the following statements: “I really like the neighborhood I live in” and “I believe it is important to participate in my neighborhood.” In regard to the first statement, 12 respondents agreed and 44 of the respondents strongly agreed with this statement (n=63). Five respondents disagreed. These people lived in the neighborhoods of Keningston, Killarney, Downtown Eastside, Strathcona and Marpole-Oakridge. Four of these respondents live on the east side of the city. Fifty-six of the respondents agreed with the second statement that it is important to participate in your  65 neighbourhood (n=63). The bulk of respondents indicated they “really like” their neighbourhood and over half stated they felt it is important to participate in their neighbourhood. The level of a person’s attachment to their neighbourhood enhances their participation (Haeberle 1989).  Community Efficacy Community efficacy was explored by asking respondents to rate the statements “People working together make a difference” and “The best way to get things done is to have everyone, government and citizens working together”. A strong sense of community efficacy emerged with 59 people stating that people working together make a difference. Of the other respondents, 4 were neutral and 1 strongly disagreed (n=64). Citizen and government co-operation was favored by 57 people with 7 neutral and 1 strongly disagreeing (n=64). Multiple studies have found that those who have a strong group identification and sense of belonging participate more actively (Milbrath and Goel 1977; Chavis and Wandersman 1990).  Previous Experience in Planning Some people are habitually involved in government planning. That is, they attend council regularly, submit briefs and/or attend various public meetings. These are the citizens that Mathews calls, “professional citizens.. perennial members of advisory boards or trustees of established community organizations sometimes referred to as the ‘usual suspects’, these citizens are accustomed to dealing with officials and are quite willing to be treated as the public’s real representatives. There is no denying their usefulness. No community could do without them. However, they are not necessarily conduits to the public at large. In fact, the professional citizens are sometimes more likely to represent the officials point of view than vice versa” (1994, 90). .  66 It was important to the organizers of this project that they broaden the base of participants. To test whether the workshop participants were new to city public planning, the respondents were asked about prior involvement in planning. A fairly even split occurred, 32 responded no and 34 replied yes (n=66). Eleven people or 16% of the respondents who participated for the first time had English as a second language. Who Should Plan? Respondents were asked who of individuals and families, government or charitable organizations should take the major lead in planning and looking after our aging population. Only four respondents stated the individual/family. Charitable organizations were not strongly linked with planning and delivery of service. One individual responded charitable organizations, 2 individuals/family and charitable organizations and 1 felt government and charitable organizations. Other responses were close in number, with 15 people giving the responsibility to government, 18 to the individual/family and government and 20 people responded all three parties have a role to play. In retrospect it is recognized that it would have been preferable to split the roles of “planning” and “looking after” into two questions. Because that was not done, it is impossible to know if respondents may have emphasized one activity over the other in their responses. Participant Profile Data from this survey reveals that the average respondent is most likely to be a female professional, over the age of forty-five, with some university training, working in a human/social service or other people oriented position. This woman is most likely to live in a two person household with no dependents at home and a one in two chance of being married. The average respondent’s  67 length of residency is 11.57 years and residency in Vancouver is 29.19 years. The average respondent belongs to 2.3 volunteer organizations and volunteers 3.1 times per month. Average individual income is between $20,000 and 29,999 with the average household income slightly over $40,000. Typical respondents attended for personal reasons and approximately fifty percent have had previous experience in government planning. Respondents indicated they feel a strong sense of personal and community efficacy believing that their input can make a difference. At the outset of this research it was expected that it would be possible to construct a participant profile of those who attended these workshops. In any random sample, provided the sample was correctly drawn and this one was, it is assumed that the respondents are representative of the overall participants. A legitimate question then, is, does this mean that the majority of participants at the workshop were women? Registration cards were filled in by participants but gender was not asked. A review of the random sample list shows that 85 of the names drawn in the sample are those traditionally given to women. For example, Irene, Pauline, Mary, Jean, Lorraine, etc. Traditional men’s names, such as, Michael, Tony, Robert and Joe, accounted for 38 persons on the random sample. Five people had gender neutral names, such as, Lee or Terry, or names that were not readily linked to gender. Twenty-two of the questionnaires were sent out to people in the Punjabi language group. The low rate of return from this sector meant this sector is not incorporated into the participant profile. In regard to participant profile more women than men were randomly selected and responded to the questionnaire. Due to random sampling it is most likely more women than men also participated in the workshops.  68 City of Vancouver Data Census information for the year 1991 states that the total population for the city in 1991 was 471,845. Men made up 232,090 of that number and women 239,755. The biggest disparity in age groups is in the over 75 age category where women out-number men almost two to one. The average income for females in the city is $14,509. and for males $22,485. The average household income was $22,484. The source of income for 73.5% of the city’s population was from employment. One person household comprised 39.3% of the households while 29.6% were two person households. The average number of children per family was 1.1. Husband and wife families numbered 85,175 and single parent families 15,795. Of these 13,105 were headed by women. Thirty three percent of the population had university education. There were 174,755 people who listed their mother tongue as Chinese and 9,160 as Punjabi. Italians (10,700) and Germans (83,540) are found in Vancouver in greater numbers than Punjabi speakers (Statistics Canada 1994).  69  CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The results of this research are in line with what has been discovered in previous research. Overall, respondents had incomes higher than the city average and were better educated than the average citizen. The household income of participants was almost twice that of the city average. The longer people live in a house, a neighbourhood, or city, the more attachments they form. Their surroundings are familiar and they have an investment, both financially and emotionally. Previous research has implied that those with greater attachment and investment tend to participate more. That proved true in this survey with the average time in the city at twenty-nine years and the average time at current address just under twelve years. In general, those who responded have strong feelings of personal efficacy and community efficacy. Overall, they are also empowered in their contact with elected municipal officials, feeling that they are able to influence government and make a difference. Their voting patterns are evidence of a high sense of civic duty. The low rate of return on the Punjabi questionnaires was surprising and  required follow-up. What was found was that survey research is not the best method of research in this community, that personal contacts through  70 community spokespersons would yield the greatest information. If survey research must be undertaken it is imperative that the survey provide both Punjabi and English language translations. A large number of the Indo Canadians that did participate in the workshops were seniors. This was as a result of an influential city staff member who networked through well established senior men’s groups. In the traditions of this community it is seen as appropriate that elder males speak for the community. This points to another area for future research regarding participation which is the multicultural aspect of our city. How does this get cared for in social planning and research? To begin with we need permission and/or invitation from specific groups to undertake research in their community. We need to involve people early and to the maximum possible to ensure that our research will be culturally sensitive, relevant and successful. The time to consult key informants is prior to the research, not afterwards to ask what went wrong! Another surprising feature in this research was the imbalance between men and women respondents. While the organizers did arrange child minding services for the workshops it is unlikely that this greatly affected the sample as only 12 of the total respondents indicated they were caregiving for children. There is the issue that some of the studies summarized by Milbrath and Goel were done regarding political participation, in numerous cases as it relates to partisan political participation. As Jones pointed out, this is an area that traditionally has been closed to women due to the lack of supportive policies and programs to enhance women’s participation. Curtis, Tupperman and Phillips rightly point out that the participation of women in political activity is hindered by the division of labour. Generally speaking, there is also the issue of the difference between men and women and their ways of knowing and  71 communication. Women tend chose co-operative and consensus models while politics can be confrontational. Women are also not consistently socialized in leadership roles. They are however, socialized into helping or service roles which leads to another point. A large percentage of these respondents were women and employed in helping/service sectors. They are also in the upper margin of what has been dubbed “the sandwich generation”, women who are not quite finished with caregiving for their children and have aged parents who are requiring more assistance. Planning for coping with an aging population may be more relevant to an individual if she is actually engaged in it. It was the intention of the “READY OR NOT!” project to include as many people as possible and gain as wide a range of input as possible. The complimentary internal goal was to develop “comprehensive inter-departmental collaboration which acknowledges the significant links among issues, the functions we perform and their impact on the city. “(Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, Oct. 1, 1991 ,3).Was it successful? Yes and no. While this is in no way a formal evaluation a few evaluative observations will be made. It was successful in that it was the first time city council sought city-wide input in this manner. It was successful in that the staff working on the project took steps to address barriers. For example, they held a workshop for deaf persons and continued to provide interpreters for the deaf at subsequent community meetings. They also held workshops for the Punjabi and Chinese (Cantonese) communities. They gave support to the Jewish community to hold their workshops on an alternative day. They provided paid, not volunteer, child care for the workshops because they believed child care has a value and provisions have to be taken for mothers to be able to participate.  72 There were however many more barriers that were not successfully met or overcome. Of overwhelming note is the absence of participation of First Nations citizens. As well as the under and unemployed and lower educated and those from the “eastside” of the city. Is this the fault of project staff? Absolutely not. The micro problem was in staff time and funds. That is appropriate levels of funding and staffing were not dedicated to this project. A “basic premise [of]  ...  The project [is that it I will be carried out within existing  staffing and budget levels” (Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, 1991, 5). Not including staff the budget for the project for 1992 was $32,000 (Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, 1992 07 01). If Vancouver as a city, is committed to the Principles of Social Development that our council adopted in 1991, then greater funds have to be dedicated to carry out those principles and projects such as this one. Even greater linkages with communities and neighbourhoods have to occur. Given our fiscal times the burden can not all fall to city coffers. Such linkages also result in finding and utilizing resident experts and key community organizers and informants. The best strategic plans are generated from the bottom up. The macro problem is that we need to raise the standard of living and better educate those at the bottom rungs of our social strata to allow for fuller participation or at least the option of deciding if they wish to pursue fuller participation. Until the standard of living can be raised we have to build on the innovative steps taken in this project and find other inclusive, non-threatening ways to broaden the base of participation. One way to enhance neighbourhoods and broaden the opportunities for residents to participate, especially eastside residents, would be to put a ward system of representation in place for city council. A ward system contributes to neighbourhood building in that there is one person representing a specific  73 electoral area. Ideally, in order to be re-elected this person must work diligently within that ward and carry on an on-going dialogue with residents. Essential to broadening participation is the need to fit the opportunities for participation to the public. In addition to the linkages to established groups mentioned earlier, we also need to enhance outreach to various sectors of the public. What is being talked about at the Aboriginal Friendship Center or First United Church, on the eastside, is much different than what is being said at the Shaughnessy Golf Club or the Arbutus Club, on the westside. We need to target and include groups that otherwise might not participate. Groups such as ethnic minorities, single mothers and the aged. For example, did this project do enough to outreach to those who have already aged? Many of these people have special needs, such as mobility problems. In cases such as this it is more appropriate to take the forum for participation to the people than ask the people to come to a venue. It would appear that what has occurred with this particular planning exercise is that it has been more accessible to the better educated and higher wage earners. The groups who are not represented in this participation will continue to live and age in neighborhoods in our city. Assuming that we do indeed agree that the public has a contribution to make, then how does a fuller spectrum of the public become involved? In addition to programs that address more equitable education and raise the standard of living we must look toward what are appropriate meeting places and avenues of participation for all classes. A group may require a space within which to participate but they may also require the provision of small gifts for exchange or food if either is integral to a gathering in that community. Social workers and city planners need to go to the various sectors within society to find out what existing means there are for participation and support those groups in participating in that manner rather  74 than imposing what may be artificial forms of participation on them. We must also teach, acknowledge, allow and support indigenous members of groups to plan, deliver and evaluate public participation. Arnstein and Tester point out that we must also give the public greater say in the allocation of resources. Just as survey research is not the most effective way of gathering information from the Punjabi speaking community, our other “middle class” tools and ways of information are not suitable for all people. A workshop format may be a highly appropriate vehicle for participation in some neighbourhoods or communities while it is not in others. (In regard to these workshops the project summarized what were considered to be strengths and weaknesses of the workshops. This summary is contained in Appendix 5.) We must more often and more readily consult those who we wish to participate. And that is only step one. Then we must be willing to assist citizens to reach consensus and the biggest task of all, as both researchers and municipal politicians we must be willing to accept that consensus. Participation has to be more that an exercise in public relations for it to be meaningful and encourage fuller participation. We must encourage governments to give citizens stronger input into the allocation of resources and program development. This research adds to our understanding of who accepted the invitation from municipal government to form a planning partnership to generate a strategic plan for coping with our aging population. It allows for identification of some of the determinants of their participation as well as construction of a profile of the participants. It is much more a place of beginning than an ending. Just as social workers are challenged to undertake research on participation, so are we all challenged to enable and empower the public, which includes our clients, to participate.  75  Bibliography Allen, Carleton Kemp. Democracy and the Individual, essay index reprint series, 1972, New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1943. Arbiaster, Anthony. Democracy, Keynes, England: Open University Press, 1987. Arnstein, Sherrie. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal ofAmerican Institute ofPlanners, 35, 1969. Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973. Baker, Harold R., James A. Draper and Brett T. Fairbaim Dignity and Growth. Citizen Participation in Social Change, Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises Ltd, 1991. .  Baker, Harold R., James A. Draper and Brett T. Fairbairn, editors, Dignity and Growth, Citizen Participation in Social Change, Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises Ltd, 1991. Baker, Therese L. Doing Social Research, New York: Mcgraw-Hill Inc., 1988. Books, John W., and Charles Prysby. Political Behaviour and the Local Context, New York : Praeger, 1991.  Carniol, Ben. Case Critical, Challenging Social Work in Canada, 2nd edition, Toronto: Between the Lines, 1992. Carroll, William K., editor. Organizing Dissent, Contemporary Social Movements In Theory and Practice, Victoria, Canada: Garamond Press, 1992. Chafetz, Janet Saitman. Gender Equality, An Integrated Theory of Stability and Change, California: Sage Publications, 1990. Chapin, Henry. “Citizen involvement: the new consultants” Perception 1, May-June, 1978, 35-36.  76 Chavis, David M. and Abraham Wandersman. “Sense of community and development” American Journal of Community Psyclwlogy. 18,1 Feb. 55-81, 1990. Chekki, Danesh A. Planning and Citizen Participation in a Canadian city (Reporting on an experiment in Winnipeg Manitoba) Community Development Journal, 14, Jan., 1979, 34-40. Clague, Michael and Roopchand Seebaran, The Change Process Through Urban Social Planning, editors Baker, Draper, Fairburn, Dignity and Growth, Citizen Participation in Social Change, Calgary, Canada: Detselig Enterprises Ltd, 1991.  Connell, R.W. Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987. Connor, Desmond. Constructive Citizen Participation, Victoria: Development Press, 1985. A new ladder of citizen participation. National Civic Review, 1988, 249 257. -  Cunningham, Frank, Sue Findlay, Marlene Kadar, Alan Lennon and Ed Silva. Social Movements, Social Change, Toronto: Between the Lines, 1988. Curtis, James and Lorne Tuppennan. Understanding Canadian Society, Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, 1988. Davis, Kathy, Monique Leijenaar, Jantine Oldersma. The Gender ofPower, London: Sage Publications, 1991. Dahi, Robert A. Democracy and It’s Critics, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989. Doern, G. Bruce, and Richard W. Phidd. Canadian Public Policy, Ideas, Structure, Process, Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada, 1988. Dye, Thomas R., and L. Harmon Zeigler. The Irony ofDemocracy, 4th edition, Belmont, California: Duxbury Press, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1978.  77 Etzione-Halevy, Eva. The Elite Connection, Problems and Potential Of Western Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993. Florian, Paul and Abraham Watersman. “An introduction to citizen participation, voluntary organizations, and community development: Insights for empowerment through research.” American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,1 Feb. 1990, 41-54. Goyder, John. Essentials of Canadian Society ,Toronto: Mc Clelland & Stewart Inc., 1990. Held, David. Prospectsfor Democracy, North, South, East, West, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993. Heliman, Howard W. Neighborhoods, Their Place in Urban Life, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1984. Heberle, Steven H. Planting the Grass Roots: Structuring Citizen Participation, New York: Praeger Press, 1989. Jackson, Robert J., Doreen Jackson and Nicholas Baxter-Moore. Politics In Canada, Culture, Institutions, behaviour and Public Policy, Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1986. Jones, Kathleen B. Compassionate Authority, Democracy and the Representation of Women, New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall, Inc., 1993. Kuyek, Joan Newman. Fighting For Hope, Organizing to Realize Our Dreams, Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1990. Lea, James F. Political Consciousness and American Democracy, Jackson: University of Mississippi Press, 1982.  Lemonias, Peter. Citizen Surveys for City Government, Student Independent Project Report, Austin: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas, 1976. Mac Pherson, C.B. Democratic Theory: Essays in Retrieval, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Mathews, David. Politicsfor People, Finding a Responsible Public Voice, Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994.  78  Milbrath, L.W. and M.L. Goel. Political Participation How and Why Do People Get Involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally, 1977. .  Miller, Thomas I. and Michelle A. Miller. Citizens Surveys, how to do them, how to use them, what they mean, Washington D.C.: International City Management Association, 1991.  Morgan D.L. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research, California: Sage, Qualitative Research Series, no. 16, 1988. Panda, Snehalata. Determinants ofPolitical Participation: Women and Public Activity, Deli: Ajanta Publications (India), 1990. Pateman, Carole. Participation and Democratic Theory, London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Perkins Douglas, Paul Flourin, Richard C. Rich, Abraham Wandersman and David M. Chavis. Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context, American Journal of Community Psychology 18,1 Feb. 1990, 55-81. Powell Mary, Nahid Faghfoury and Pat Nyenhuis. Fostering public participation, a briefdiscussion and selected annotated bibliography, Ottawa/Montreal: Canadian Council on Social Development, 1988. Prestby, John, Abraham Wandersman, Paul Florin, Richard Rich and David Chavis. “Benefits, Costs, Incentive Management and Participation in Voluntary Organizations : A means to understanding and promoting empowerment”, American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,1 Feb. 1990, 117-149.  Presthus, Robert. Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics, Toronto: The Macmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1973. Price, Richard H. “Whither participation and empowerment” American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,1 Feb. 1990, 163 167. -  Qualter, Terence H., Conflicting Political Ideas in Liberal Democracies, Agincourt, Ontario: Methun Publications, The Carswell Company Ltd., 1986.  79 Riker, William H., Liberalism Against Populism, A confrontation Between the Theory ofDemocracy and the Theory ofSocial Choice, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1982. Reese, William L. Dictionary ofPhilosophy and Religion, Eastern and Western Thought, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1980. Ross, Aif. Why Democracy, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1952. Roussopoulos, Dimitrios I. Dissidence, Essays Against the Mainstream, Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1992. Stein, Jess, editor in chief, Random House College Dictionary, Revised Edition, Toronto: Random House of Canada Limited, 1988. Tester, Frank J. Reflections on Tin Wis, Environmentalism and the Evolution of Citizen Participation in Canada, Alternatives, 1992, Vol. 19, No.1,34-41. Verba, Sidney and Norman Nile. Participation in America, New York: Harper and Row, 1972. Yegidis Bonnich and Robert W. Wienback. Research Methodsfor Social Workers, New York: Longman Publishing Group, 1991. Winston, Kenneth and Mary Jo Bane. Gender and Public Policy, Cases and Comments, Colorado: Westview Press, 1993. Zimmerman, Marc A. “Taking Aim on Empowerment Research : on the distinction between individual and psychological conceptions” American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,1 Feb. 1990, 169 177. -  Government publications National Council of Welfare. Organizing for Social Action: Three Canadian Experiences, A report preparedfor the national council of welfare by those who took part, Ottawa: Government Press, 1975. Statistics Canada. 1991 Census Report, Ottawa: Government Press, 1994.  80  Unpublished Material City of Vancouver Council Minutes, June 1990. City of Vancouver Social Planning Department Reports and Memos Social Planning Department Memo, Feb. 14, 1991. Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, Oct. 1, 1991. Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, Jan. 7, 1992.  Personal Interviews Chris Warren, Social Planner, interview by author, Vancouver, B.C., October, 1992. Frank Frigon, interview by author, Tape recording, Vancouver, B.C., April, 1992. Gurnam Sanghera, interview by author, Vancouver, B.C., March, 1993. Gurnam Ranu, interview by author, Vancouver, B.C., April, 1993. Gurdev Dhaliwal, interview by author, Vancouver, B.C., April, 1993.  CltyofVancouver  (81)  APPENDIX 1  Social Planning Department: 250 West Heritage Building, City Square, Box 96, 555 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., V5Z 3X7  (604) 873-7487 FAX: (604) 871-6048  24 November 1992 Dr. Sharon Manson Singer Associate Professor School of Social Work University of British Columbia V6T 1Z1 Dear Dr. Manson Singer: By way of this letter, we would like to welcome Roz MacKinnon to collaborate with our ‘READY OR NOT!” team to conduct research for her project, Some Determinants of Public Participation in a Municipal Planning Process: Vancouver’s “READY OR NOT!” Christine Warren, our senior social planner and the co-ordinator of “READY OR NOT!”, will be Roz’s main contact with our project. If you need any more information, please do not hesitate to call me at 873-7487. Yours truly,  Director of Social Planning  JP/mm: 5SP-0106.COV PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER  APPENDIX 2  I  z  liii II  Ii vA’(ovt’s  IF YOU’RE PLANNING ON HAVING SOME MORE BIRTHDAYS... should get involved in “READY OR NOT!” Qn April 11th, you, the people of Vancouver, are invited to participate in a unique project about the future of our city.  The aging of the population has been called the single most important trend of our time. It will change the way we do everything from work, education, business and transportation to housing, health care and neighbourhood design. And whether you’ve had 16 birthdays or 60, the changes to come will affect you. “READY OR NOT!”, Vancouver’s Project on Aging, is meeting the challenge of preparing for these changes head-on. -  We need your ideas!  Many Vancouver residents have helped plan and organize this project. We want more of you! You and your neighbours, young and old alike, are invited to brainstorm with us during workshops to be held in over 20 sites across the city. Come and exchange thoughts and ideas about what works in your neighbourhood now and what could be changed, created or improved in the future. You can make a difference! If you would like to participate in this one-of-a-kind project and want to make a difference in your neighbourhood and your city, come to the April 11th. workshop in your area. Bring a neighbour! Bring a friend! It’s our city. It’s our future. Please see reverse for workshop times & locations and childminding information. Please note that meetings in Punjabi and Cantonese will take place on April 4. The Strathcona neighbourhood workshop will take place on April 12. The workshop at the Jewish Community Centre is on April 29th.  (82)  (83)  Workshop Times Locations Childminding Information -  APRIL 11TH: American Sign Language 9:30am- 12:30 pm Western Institute for the Deaf, 2125W. 7th Avenue Arbutus-Rldge/Shaughnessy 9:00am. 12:00 pm St. John’s Shaughnessy Church, 1490 Nanton St. Chudminding Preregistration: 731-4966 Downtown Eastside 11:00 am 2:00 pm Carnegie Centre, 401 Main Street Childminding Preregistration: 682-0931 (call Dayle) Dunbar-Southiands 9:00 am 12:30 pm Dunbar Community Centre, 4747 Dunbar Street Childminding Preregistration: 224-1374 Fairview 10:00 am 2:00 pm False Creek Community Centre, 1318 Cartwright Childminding Preregistration: 665-4325 Grandview-Woodtands 9:00 am 12:30 pm Britannia Community Centre. 1661 Napier Street Childminding Preregistration: 253-4391 Hastings-Sunrise 9:00 am 1:00pm Hastings Community Centre, 3096 Hastings Childminding Preregistration: 255-2606 Kensington-Cedar Cottage 10:00 am 1:30 pm Trout Lake Community Centre, 3350 Victoria Dr. Chilminding Preregistration: 876-9285 Kerrisdale 9:00 am 12:00 noon Kerrisdale Community Centre, 5851 W. Blvd. Chitdminciing Preregistration: 266-8331 Kiliarney 9:30 am 12:30 pm Killarney Secondary School. 6454 Killarney Childminding Preregistration: 434-9167 Kltsiiano 9:30 am 1:30pm Bayview School. 2251 Collingwwood Henry Hudson School, 1551 Cypress Kits Nbhd House, 2325 W 7th Avenue Childminding Preregistration: 736-9844 (Debby) -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  Marpole/Oakridge 10:00 am 2:00 pm Marpole Oakridge Community Centre, 990 W. 59th Avenue Childminding Preregistration: 327-8371 Mount Pleasant 10:00 am 2:00 pm Biltmore Hotel, 395 Kingsway Childminding Preregistration: 872-5252 Rent rew-Collingwood 9:00 am 1:00 pm Renfrew Community Centre, 2929 E. 22nd Avenue Childminding Preregistration: 434-6688 Riley Park 10:00 am 2:00 pm Riley Park Community Centre, 50 E. 30th Avenue Childminding Preregistration: 879-7104 SunsetNictoria Fraserview 9:00 am 12:30 pm Boys & Girls Club, 7595 Victoria Drive Childminding Preregistration: 879-9918 (9am -3pm) West End 10:00 am 2:00 pm West End Community Centre. 870 Denman Street Childminding Preregistration: 689-3876 (call Heather) West Point Grey 8:30 am 12:30 pm Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, 2550 Camosun Street Chitdminding Preregistration: 228-8811 -  -  -  -  -  -  -  APRIL 4TH: Chinese Community Workshop (Cantonese) 1:00 pm 4:00 pm Ramada Renaissance Hotel, 1133 W. Hastings Street Childminding Preregistration: 684-1628 lndo-Canaclian Community Workshop (Punlabt) 1:30pm 4:30 pm Moberly Auditorium, 7646 Prince Albert St. -  -  APRIL 12TH:  -  -  —  Strathcona 2:00 pm. 5:00 pm Strathcona Community Centre. 601 KeeferSt. Childminding Preregistration: 254-9496  APRIL 29TH: Jewish Community Centre 1:00pm 3:00 pm 950 W.4lst Avenue -  Please register for childminding 3 days in advance  —  APPENDIX  (84)  3  APPENDIX A  APRIL “READY OR NOT!” WORKSHOPS 1.  WORKSHOP PLANNING In point fonn, following is a list of the key actions taken in planning the workshops: • community meeting held in November, 1991 150 people attended; 104 volunteered to plan neighbourhood workshops. —  • • • • •  project name selected by public contest. neighbourhood teams organized; team coordinators identified (teams comprised of residents and staff). four “community” teams organized Indo-Canadian, Chinese, Jewish and Deaf. planning meetings held with team coordinators. over 30 speeches given by project staff, Steering Committee and team coordinators to community groups, rotary clubs, multicultural groups, Board of Trade, religious groups, City departments. —  • • •  workshop on demographic trends offered to Council and senior staff. newsletter produced. 75,000 brochures and flyers written and printed publicity translated into five languages.  —  distributed by teams.  5000 “READY OR NOT!” buttons made and distributed. teams selected location of workshops; workshop chaiiperson; small-group facilitators and recorders; teams organized cbildcare and local donations of food and equipment. 240 facilitators trained in two sessions; provided with info package and training material. project significantly covered by media, including: Sun, Province, community newspapers, Vancouver Magazine, ethnic media, community TV and radio. Coverage of actual workshops by BC7V, CBC television and CBC radio. consultant hired to do outreach to high-school students. teams provided assistance by project staff also provided with: agenda; guidelines for facilitators; guidelines for chairpeople; registration cards; evaluation fonns; recorders’ forms; infonnation hand-outs and thank-you posters recognizing sponsors and donors. introductory video produced (funded by VanCuy); video provided to each team translated into Cantonese, Punjabi and open-captioned for the Deaf. over 3000 letters sent to City staff who live in Vancouver, inviting them to attend their neighbourhood workshop distributed by Steering Committee members. Steering Committee met every two weeks to oversee planning. post-workshop congratulations party donated by Sheraton Plaza 500. —  —  —1—  APPENDIX 4 ‘NO  £  *GI  N  P.C K 00*0  SOURCE:  Vancouver City  “READY OR NOT!”  Poster  (1992)  (85)  APPENDIX  5  (86)  APPENDIX A WORKSHOP RESULTS 41%; 65+ 3%; 20-39 17%; 40-64 The age break-down of participants was: under 20 39%. Fifty-six percent were property owners and 44% were renters. People found out about the workshop in the following ways: —  Community agency Friend/Neighbour Citystaff Brochure/flyer Media Poster Other  —  —  —  31% 17% —16% 11% 10% 9% 6% —  —  —  —  —  —  The workshops sought to identify: shared goals, local and city-wide issues, positive attributes of neighbourhoods, and local and city-wide actions. Results varied in terms of the type of information sought. we did not specifically ask people to identify goals. However, some a) Shared goals themes emerged with were evident right across the city. These themes popped up in the discussions of issues, changes and actions. They were: —  •  the desire to strengthen neighbourhoods and communities. This was also referred to as “community-building”; “creating a sense of community” and “neighbourhood empowerment”. the desire to break down barriers between generations to create inter generational linkages. the desire to continue the process of partnership with the municipal government. —  b) Issues issues, too, were very consistent across the city, with variations according to specificity. Participants discussed a broad range of issues, but were asked to identify one or two priorities for more detailed discussion. Across the city, in 111 small-group discussions, people identified the following priority issues: —  • •  Housing Safety & security Health Transportation/traffic Isolation Neighbourhood Planning Recreation  —50 —33 27 19 15 10 10 —  —  —  —  —  groups groups groups groups groups groups groups  Aside from the absence of the “environment” and the inclusion of “isolation”, these issues are fairly consistent with ihe many polls, surveys and plans previously undertaken  —  (E7)  APPENDIX A 2.  WORKSHOP RESULTS 41%; 65+ 17%; 40-64 The age break-down of participants was: under 20— 3%; 20-39 39%. Fifty-six percent were property owners and 44% were renters. People found out about the workshop in the following ways: —  —  —  31% 17% —16% 11% 10% 9% —6%  Community agency Friend/Neighbour Citystaff Brochure/flyer Media Poster Other  —  —  —  —  —  The workshops sought to identify: shared goals, local and city-wide issues, positive attributes of neighbourhoods, and local and city-wide actions. Results varied in terms of the type of information sought. we did not specifically ask people to identify goals. However, some a) Shared goals themes emerged with were evident right across the city. These themes popped up in the discussions of issues, changes and actions. They were: —  •  the desire to strengthen neighbourhoods and communities. This was also referred to as “community-bui1ding; “creating a sense of community” and “neighbourhood empowerment”. to create inter the desire to break down barriers between generations generational linkages. the desire to continue the process of partnership with the municipal government. —  •  issues, too, were very consistent across the city, with variations according to b) Issues specificity. Participants discussed a broad range of issues, but were asked to identify one or two priorities for more detailed discussion. Across the city, in 111 small-group discussions, people identified the following priority issues: —  • •  —50 —33 —27 19 15 10 —10  Housing Safety & security Health Transportation/traffic Isolation Neighbourhood Planning Recreation  —  —  —  groups groups groups groups groups groups groups  Aside from the absence of the “environment” and the inclusion of “isolation”, these issues are fairly consistent with the many polls, surveys and plans previously undertaken including (with acknowledgement that other surveys have been more specific) Goals for Vancouver, Choosing our Future and the Urban Canada Study. —  -2-  (88)  APPENDIX A C)  Positive neighbourhood attributes participants did not have any difficulty listing a great number of community assets including, happily, some City services such as community centres and the Block Watch program. —  a broad range of changes / actions were identified, although most were not d) Actions specific in terms of the “how” of implementation. The interesting observation here is that while many actions would require government involvement, a significant number were community-based. Some examples include: —  • • • • • • • • • • •  3.  Community groups getting directly involved in the development of affordable housing. Allow for housing “mix” in each neighbourhood, to facilitate “Aging in Place”. Densification of major corridors. Development of a seniors skill bank to utilize their expertise and experience. Community kitchens. Phone trees. Inter-generational childcare. Seniors adopt-a-high-school project. Staff and politicians attend neighbourhood “coffee” talks. Information exchange between communities. “Have you spoken to your neighbour” campaign.  WORKSHOP EVALUATION Based on the evaluation forms completed at the workshops; evaluation meetings with the Steering Committee and team coordinators and informal feedback from participants, following is a list of strengths and weaknesses of the process so far. a) Strengths • this process worked; participation in planning and workshop turn-out was very high; • the key strength was the neighbourhood focus; • the process was viewed as a sincere partnership; • simultaneous workshops made people feel as if they were part of a larger whole; • the process was seen as non-threatening; • plain language used was appreciated; • small-group discussions allowed for a high rate of participation • high degree of personal contact pulled people to the workshops; • media coverage was good; • facilitator training was successful; • small-group facilitators and recorders were essential and highly appreciated; • locations were accessible to all; • introductory video was very useful and well-received; • childcare available at all locations; • translations and bilingual facilitators / recorders at Indo-Canadian, Chinese and Deaf workshops; -3-  APPENDIX  city of Vancouver  6  (89)  VAICOG VEt’S PIOJACT  Social Planning Department:  01  AGING  250 West Heritage Building, City Square, Box 96, 555 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., V5Z 3X7  (604) 873-7487 FAX: (604) 871-6048  Dear This letter will introduce you to Roz Mackinnon, a UBC student doing a Master’s degree in social Work. A letter from Roz follows this one. Roz initially connected with “READY OR NOT!” wanting a “case study” through which to look at factors related to public participation. And, as luck would have it, this was about the time we were thinking of starting an evaluation of the project. The happy result of our liaison is the attached questionnaire. The questionnaire includes a mix of questions designed to get both specific and general information. We, of course, are particularly interested in your views on the “READY OR NOT!” project and really encourage you to call us if you have comments or questions which go beyond the questionnaire. [vance for taking some of your time to fill out the questionnaire. A copy of results will be made available to you at your request.  Chris Warren Project Co-ordinator “READY OR NOT!” Vancouver’s Project on Aging  Attachments (2)  CWImm: 1etr2099 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER  APPENDIX  7  (90)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  School of Sodil Woh  2080 West Mall Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z2  March 4, 1993. Dear “READY OR NOT!” Participant, I am a Masters Student in Social Work at the University of British Columbia. I am doing Some research on “READY OR NOT!” which will become part of my thesis which is titled Y Determinants of Public Participation in a Municipal Planning Process : Vancouver’s “READ who g of tandin unders OR NOT!”. The benefit of this research is that it will give us a better will participated and what are some of the factors that determined participation. Knowing this help people plan future community based planning efforts better. Your name along with one hundred and forty nine others were randomly selected from ops in all the names of citizens who participated in the “READY OR NOT!” citywide worksh April, 1992. Questionnaires have been mailed to 150 people. I realize that your time is valuable and I appreciate your help with this research. I have If at tried to keep the questionnaire short, it will probably take about 20 minutes to complete. r numbe any time you have questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at my home at 873-3999. My research supervisor, Dr. Sharon Manson Singer may also be contacted the above address or telephone 822-2255. You are under no obligation to participate and there will be no negative consequences if you decide not to. Your questionnaire responses will be kept confidential. Once it is received any identifying information will be removed. The results of this survey will be reported as group findings so no one respondent can be singled out. Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope by MARCH 20, 1993. -  Thank you for your time and co-operation, Yours Sincerely,  Roz Mac Kinnon, Research Student. end.  APPENDIX  8  (91)  QUESTIONNAIRE  1  Some Derenninants of Public Participation in “READY OR NOfl”  Completion of this questionnaire is your consent to participate in this research. Your answers will be kept confidential. If you have questions or concerns please call: Roz Mac Kinnon UBC Student Researcher: 873 3999 or Dr. Sharon Manson Singer Supervisor 822 -2255 -  -  -  -  A. We would like you to provide some information about yourself Pleasefill in the blank or ma,ic the appropriate boz 1.  Number of years at current residence: Lifelong 0 or______ years  2.  Length of residence in Vancouver: Lifelong C] or______ years  4.  Sex:  Male Female 6.  Age: Under 19  20-34 35-44 45-54 55-64  65-74 75+  0 C]  7.  0 0 0 C] 0  6-9persons 10 or more nersons 10.  C] C] C]  Number of volunteer activities I am involved in:  None 1 2 3 4 5 or more  English is my second language:  Yes  C]  No  C]  Highest level of Education: Less than grade 9  Grade9-13 Non University University without a Degree University with a Degree -  0 0  8 Including yourself, size of household: 1 person C] 2 persons C] 3persons C] 4-5persons  5.  3. My occupation is:  C] 0 0 0 0 0  0 C] C] C] C]  9. Dependents I have living at home: Children [] Chronically Ill Person 0 AgedParents  C]  11. Number of times per month that I do volunteer work: None C] 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 or more 0  (92)  2  of one to a B. We are i,uerested in your views on your neighborhood and civic affairs. On scale five, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, rate each statement below: 1. Ordinary people like me are able to influence government decisions.  DDDI]D  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 2.1 believe it is important to participate in my neighbourhood.  DDDDD  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree  3.! really like the neighbourhood I live in.  UUDDD  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 4.1 believe when there is a job to be done, I am a capable person to call upon.  D[]DDD  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 5.1 would never call City Hall because no one would listen to me anyway.  UDDOD  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree 6. People working together makes a difference.  L]DDDD  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree  7.1 feel City hail welcomes citizen inquiries.  DDDC]D  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree  8. The best way to get things done is to have everyone, government and citizens working together.  DDDDD  strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree  (93)  C. We would like your opinions on the “READY OR NOT!” project. Please mark the box (es). 3 1. What attracted you to the April 1992 “READY OR NOT!” workshop? (mark any) Topic of aging C] Opportunity to speak with City representatives C] Opportunity to voice concerns C] Opportunity to meet others in myneighbourhood C] To gather information C] The meeting was held in my neighbourhood C] Another person encouraged me to attend C] Other ( specify) 2. What was your major reason for attending ? Because of my job C] Personal C] Both C 3. Prior to attending the “READY OR NOT!” workshop have you participated with government in public processes? (e.g. by attending committees, hearings, presenting briefs or appearing before municipal council?) No: C Yes : please specify Municipal C Provincial C] Federal C] -  4. Prior to day of the workshop, had you been involved in the project? Yes C  No C  5. Do you receive the project newsletter, READY OR NOT NEWS? Yes C No C] If you answered yes to #5 please answer the following, otherwise proceed to #6 a. Do you believe the newsletter is a good way to get information to participants? YesC] NoD b. What part (s) of the newsletter do you find the most interesting? Project Update C] Neighbourhood News C] City News C] Demographic News C] 6. After attending the workshop, have you continued to participate in the “READY OR NOT!” project? YesO Not] If you answered yes to #6, please answer the following, otherwise proceed to #7 a) One of the goals of this project is to find a way to get broader public participation on social issues that affect local government and neighbourhoods. How satisfied are you that this is working? Very satisfied C Satisfied C] Somewhat satisfied C] Not at all satisfied C Another goal of “READY OR NOT!” is to promote the idea of City staff and b) residents working together as partners. Do you feel this has happened? A lot C Somewhat C] Not at all C] 7. If you have not continued to participate in the project, what Is (are) the reason (s)? Lack of interest C The project is different than I expected C Lack of time C I did not have enough information about what was involved C] Other, specify  8. After the workshops, a fund s established to provide small grants to neighbourhoods to begin acting on some of the ideas expressed at the workshops. Do you know about this fund? YesD No C If you answered yes, do you think this fund is a good idea? Yes C No C  (94)  4  Please provide some information about yourselfby marking the appropriate box: 2. Type of household: Non family household Lone parent household Two parent household Multiple family household  1. Marital Status: Single  Married Common Law Widowed Other  C C] C C] C  4. Individual Yearly Under $10,000 C] 10,000 19,999 C] 20.000 29.999 C] -  -  -  Income: 30,000 39,999 C] 40,000 49,999 I] 50,000 and over C] -  -  I 6.1 usuauv vote in the following elections:  C] C] C] C]  3. Source of Income: From employment C From other sources C  5. Household Income: Under $10,000 C] 30,000 39,999 C] 10,000 19,999 C] 40,000 49,999 C] 20,000 29,999 0 50,000 and over C] -  -  -  -  Provincial C]  MuniciDal C  Federal C]  8. Which group(s) should have the main responsibility for planning and looking after our aging population? ( mark any) Individual and Family 0 Municipal government C Provincial government C C] Federal government Charitable Organizations C C Not Sure  7.1 believe my participation with municipal government is most useful at : (mark any) the neighbourhood level C 0 the city wide level C] both levels -  E is there anything else you would like to add? Please use the space below and the back ofthis page fnecessaiy.  Please return this Questionnaire in the enclose4 selfaddressed and stamped envelope by MARCH20, 1993. We appreciate the time you have donated to this research by completing this questionnaire. Ifyou would like a summwy ofthis research please coil the City of Vancouver Social Planning Department at 871 6033 or 871 6035 and leave your name and mailing address, a copy will be mailed to you after the research report Is written. Please call the same numbers Ifyou’d like further information on the “READY OR NOT!” project. -  -  APPENDIX  “READY OR NOT!”  —  9  (95)  APPENDIX E  WORKING GROUP  Terms of Reference  PURPOSE -  -  -  To produce a plan for strategic change with regard to the impact of the aging of the city’s population. To submit the plan, with recommendations, to the community and to City Council. To assist in the evaluation of “READY OR NOT!”  OBJECTIVES -  To review and analyze information in order to identify feasibility and priority of short and long-term actions. Sources of information would include: a) data from community workshops; b) round-table discussions in specific issue areas identified by the community. These should include at least housing, safety and security, health care, transportation, isolation, neighbourhood planning and recreation. Other areas which will likely be affected by population aging are education and business; C) professional advice in tho above areas, regarding opinions on the potential impact of aging and possible actions; data from City departments; d) e) briefs and submissions.  -  To maintain and build on links with the community by inviting community participation in round-tables and by holding meetings in neighbourhoods.  MEMBERSHIP -  -  -  16, plus a chairperson; 8 staff, 8 community members. Staff participation will be negotiated with City departments. Selection of community representatives: Based on these terms of reference, people will be asked to submit a letter of interest if they wish to be on the Working Group. Selection of the eight people will be made by the project Steering Committee, based on the following ctiteria  APPENDIX THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  BRITISH  10  (96)  COLUMBIA  School of Social Work 6201 Cecil Green Park Road Vancour. B.C. Canada V6T IZI  I-  ,1993.  Dear Focus Group Participant. You have spoken to Chris Warren, Co-ordinator of Vancouver’s Project on Aging: “READY OR NOT!” about a research project being undertaken to determine who has participated in “READY OR NOT!” and why. This research is being done because this project will produce a community based strategic plan on preparing for our aging population and develop a model for future social development work. In short the City has asked the public to speak up and are listening to what you have to say. The benefit of this research is that it will give us a better understanding of who participated and what are some of the factors that determined your participation. Knowing this will help us plan future community based planning efforts better. The bulk of the research will be a survey to a random sample of 150 people who participated in the workshops. I would like your input into this questionnaire. What do you think determined participation for citizens, like yourself? We realize that your time is valuable and appreciate your help with this research. I am pleased you agreed to join this focus group which will help me decide what are the important questions to ask. You are under no obligation to participate and there will be no negative consequences if you choc not to.The focus group will run one time for approximately 1.5 hours. Should you have questions regarding this research please contact myself or Dr. Sharon Manson Singer, Research Supervisor, at the above address. tel. 822-2255. If you would like a summary of the focus group content and analysis or questionnaire Initials. Both, Focus group only, research summary, check here and initial Please retain one copy of this letter for your reference and sign and return the second copy to me. Thank you for your time and cooperation. Yours Sincerely, Roz1ac Kinnon agree to participate in a focus group as part of the research on I, participation in “READY OR NOT!”. I realize I am under no obligation to participate and will suffer no negative consequences if I chose not to. My signature below signifies consent and receipt of a copy of this letter. Date Signature  APPENDIX  FOCUS GROUPS SEMI-STRUCTURED FORMAT  --  11  OUTLINE  University of British Columbia, Student Researcher: Roz Mac Kinnon Research Supervisor: Dr. Sharon Manson Singer do School of Social Work, 6201 Cecil Green Road, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z1 Telephone: 822-2255 APPROXIMATE TIME COMMITMENT 1. Welcome 2. Thank you for participating 3. Explanation of research 4. Questions, Answers and Discussion 5. Discussion of literature review and proposed variables and questions 6. Questions, Answers and Discussion 7. Open floor to focus group participants 8. Summarize, close group and Thank you.  1.5 hours to 2 hours (1mm.) (2 mm) (10mm) (5-15 mm) (10-15 mlii) (30mm) (10-30mm) (lOmin)  (97)  City of Vancouver  APPENDIX  12  (98)  ,*lcDlv1t’s  Social Planning Department:  ‘It I *  Gil  • I G  250 West Heritage Building, City Square, Box 96, 555 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., V5Z 3X7 (604) 873-7487 FAX: (604) 871-6048  1993/03/10  4rt I  *‘  -J  1P 13,  *-  ri  or Not)  1&1iri  ‘L14-•  *f&  i-ir ; ç 1 k2  -)tt_ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER  —1  (99)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA School of Social Wah  2080 West Hall Vancouver, LC. V6T 1Z2  L. *5  ‘L’9  Ufl 0 z 1-1)  1JW 1t / “9 11  ‘  ,  /y  i3  •  i1? /s_o&&-.o -:‘jv  -.  _)  -) .16-..  i’J & U  t  -  .z. ‘X.  4  )F1  00  ULIUEJEJ  .  >-  00000  >>4  UEILIOUCI  ‘  -i  ‘4  -  -  U..  “F  43  d 5 @‘  0  fMQ  4Q  D wQ’  ——* Di .“D’  4LJ 4Q  —D.—D  0 J  4  ciiQ  4Q 4Q u.Q Q  D  —D —D—D -D D’ LJ  I’JQ  &  L4  ‘(1.  0  LI  *  L  rr’  /Y  L.  n Dr-i LJ  L1  &I-  LI  “‘3  4 e  r-i  ,  LI  >  [El  ‘z-S  t7  ‘  4; -,  k  [[LI  ,.  -  449  [El  L  I,’ I.  C t\)  UL1  ‘  M’  LILIUL1LI  I.  LiThIiIO *  U  DE1  Lj  b4  D  /  \,  LJ\1  C  cii  33’r’  /YIj,  EI  LI .9  r G’’o,5 bb’7 QO-6 Q bbh’b— 1  4’_—  hi ci  r)  O3’O1  Qi  ‘05’  0o’o*  4bb’b  —  b6/,’b?—  6L ’ 7 1’  —  ,o’(rE’ oOo’O/  $y4C  (t70!)  ‘  L.  )  V  —\  \-T  )  0  APPENDIX  14  city ot Vancouver  i1iI SoclalPlanningDepartn’ient: 250 West l-$ehtage Building. City Square. Box 96,555 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver. BC., V5Z 3X7  (604) 873-7487 FX (604) 871-6048  1993/03/10  TZ  1D  173 -r\  I  i51 ‘  --  1,  Ci  -rp)  -i  i4  r’  -  (4,-  wi1  .i  ---l)  I7  i ,  ---  -  -  -  I  -r  .‘  -1rrfi  -m t’-  ‘‘  •‘‘  q  wr  •-  PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER  1  (106)  a  () t1i jL.4.(  _tw_.  _€  € -  C  l  cLL z ‘e: 7  $ hi e-c  (LOT)  (108)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ScooI of SocI Vc 2080 West Mall Vancouver, 8.C. V6T 1Z2 .nI_  a.. 9.  (-).v-o-j  ‘  .  •fl  )‘  LY  -  3 I  -  --  ar  ir  w)  )W’1  (  I  -à1-i’(  i4’  q,  1TP  iirwa  -  ‘  r’  —  qr  t7  (  ‘-‘  Wb ‘  (-p  1.lci  3?  —  iTPI j  •  4i  j  b%%U.b1  i’  ---i-rrw )IZ  a--  • ‘Yi( -  ‘--‘  rwi  cki. 13-Tl %q  I  _)  nq.’4  çd’ ra.  1*  I  --  4 t v.-,-3...4 %- ---?  -  ipi z11q7  37 (‘ri 3-3  ,---‘  .w  T?3 f4•r ç7jj .  V  4  I  Th(  PTZ  ‘  ‘-  2.0  -‘  ‘  •  7i  v  I  V  %i4I4  ‘  ‘‘4’  _11  ?  WV•  “  3. ‘i  So  “-  --\  WrT)  •  -r’  i7i ‘  ,  Z  “i%  I  V  4  -;kr-•  J  U),  0  HI  01  HI  HI  z  rj  ‘-ii  (110)  7  D  :r  T*  I  .  [c  .  rn  a 31  zj;  WI  1.  hf  f4r5  ODDOD 1 2 3 4 5  2.  *13  ..  2  .  f544l  (V  V1 ‘  DO 0 CD 1 2 3 4 5  1 2 3 4 5 4.  4.  00000 1 2 3 4 5  -  ( ) ‘-r  5 ic x$ ‘  6.  00000 1 2 3 45 _ -  t.  3i  ‘-  ‘  00000 1 2 3 4 5 ria  ‘i’J  00000 1 2 3 4 5 8  .  *a  DOD-DO  T 3jT 4  :  7, I  L  €FJ  o o  LX&  —  Q  tc J1S. L&S  a!*  iw4 £  LLk  LJL  ‘  ZL€*  C?  c.  .  L3U.  -  1’  .  dc  L  0 Q  7JqJ44  ç  c.  \t  Cc  .  -  -  -Lh.tLt1  £  .; --  ‘2  ,  e’  4  ‘t LJ.  it  4 .  Q Q QX. 0  a  -  D-’4T  D4t  2?  D4  oa  DWLSLLL444b*  y  0 tI12  tbbl  •L  —  — .  £  V. L  -  (11i)  Do LI  !  “4  *iia;LdJ  •131i  4  —I  •wJ  L)A  Lir  ‘J  -w 1W  L1j  ,JaJ  —  ItA  I  I  f  Ii  DO  tw  j,ri  0  0%  (‘J  -  t’—  ;1.  J  •  —°  rci  0,  —  ) :,,-  >40—’-  41  fiJi’  r  I  £  1’  f I  (A)  APPENDIX 16  (114)  Subject’s name : Frank Frigon Date of Interview April 2, 1993. Location: 2150 Brunswick Street, Vancouver, B.C. • Recheck that audio taping is okay • Explanation of Research • Explanation of this Assignment • Relevant personal information • Length of time in Vancouver • Education • Roles in the Community • Tell me about your experience in community development  by community development I mean activities and groups you have or are involved in that are working for the betterment of a geographic area a city or neighborhood for example. I am most --  --  interested in forms of public participation. • We hear a lot about public participation with various levels of government public participation mean to you?  --  what does  • What about the role of government? • I’d like to talk to you about the “READY OR NOT!” project from several aspects. Were you involved in the project from the beginning? • What do you see as the goals of the project? • How do you think the project is doing in terms of meeting its goals? • What do you see as being the short and long term benefits? • Can you comment on the history of city hall in terms of public participation? • Do you have anything you would like to add? • Thank you for your time and interest.  


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