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

Download

Media
831-ubc_1994-0511.pdf [ 2.77MB ]
Metadata
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
831-1.0099105-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0099105.ris

Full Text

SOME DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN AMUNICIPAL PLANNING PROCESS:VANCOUVER’S “READY OR NOT!” PROJECTbyROSSLYN BELL (ROZ) MAC KINNONB.A., Daihousie University, 1979B. S .W., Daihousie University, 1983A THESIS SUBMITrED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTERS OF SOCIAL WORKinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSchool of Social WorkWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAugust 1994© Rosslyn Bell MacKinnon, 1994Signature(s) removed to protect privacyIn presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of therequirements for an advanced degree at the University of BritishColumbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely availablefor reference and study. I further agree that permission forextensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may begranted by the head of my department or by his or herrepresentatives. It is understood that copying or publication ofthis thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without mywritten permission.(Signature)Department of So_/,’?- tJop/CThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate a-1Signature(s) removed to protect privacyABSTRACTVancouver City Council has undertaken a project on aging titled ‘READY ORNOT!”. The intention is to provide the city with a community-developed strategicplan on urban aging and to provide a model for subsequent work on socialdevelopment issues, including how to elicit public participation. In an effort tobroaden public participation, on the topic of our aging population, city-wideworkshops were held in twenty-two neighbourhoods and ethnic communities inApril, 1992. Drawing on the assumption that public participation is a desirableaspect of government, this research establishes a participant profile and identifiessome determinants of participation. Questionnaires were sent out to a randomsample of 150 participants of the workshops. The response rate resulted in a sampleof 66. Research included a survey and a focus group, generating descriptivestatistics, process, and content data. As well interviews were undertaken to broadenthe information covered. The information that emerged from this research is thatparticipants tended to be of higher educational, occupational and social status.Overall, they had high feelings of personal and community efficacy. An attachmentto neighbourhood was evident. As well as a commitment to volunteer causes.These findings are reflective of the current literature on participation. A deviationfrom the literature is the fact that the respondents were overwhelming of the femalegender. The percentage breakdown was 71.21% female and 28.79% male. Theutility of this research is that by better understanding who participates and thedeterminants of public participation, social workers can educate and supportindividuals, groups, and communities to seek empowerment through participation.As individuals, professionals and members of our own neighbourhoods we can alsoimpress upon government the need for public participation in planning that affectsthe quality of life of all.11TABLE OF CONTENTSAbstract iiTable of Contents iiiList of Figures vList of Appendices viAcknowledgments viiChapter One INTRODUCTION 1Introduction to the Research and Literature 1Introduction to “READY OR NOT!” 2Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW 8Greek Democracy 9Participatory Democracy 11Elitist Theory 13Democracy Which Recognizes Differences 17Canadian Democracy 20Defining Public Participation 24Models of Public Participation 25Determinants of Public Participation 30Variations of Public Participation 34Chapter Three METhOD 36Research Design 36Interview with participant 42111Chapter Four FINDINGS AND RESULTS 45The Focus Group 45Questionnaire Variables 51Participant Profile 66Chapter Five DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 69Bibliography 75ivList of FiguresFigure 1. Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation 262. Connor’s New Ladder of Citizen Participation 273. Focus Group Configuration 464. Gender Distribution of Respondents 525. Education Level of Respondents 556. Individual Income of Respondents 567. Voting Patterns of Respondents 61VAppendix1. Agreement Between Parties 812. Poster for Workshop 82-833. Planning for Workshops 844. Map of Neighbourhoods 855. Workshop Results 86-886. Letter of Introduction to Research 897. Research Covering Letter 908. English Questionnaire 9 1-949. Working Group Terms of Reference 9510. Focus Group Consent Forms 9611. Focus Group Format 9712. Chinese Covering Letters 98-9913. Chinese Questionnaire 100-10514. Punjabi Covering Letters 106-10815. Punjabi Questionnaire 109-11316. Interview Guide 114viAcknowledgementsWhole hearted thanks to my husband, Daniel, for his love and supportthroughout this process.Thanks to the three fs : family, friends and felines for their caring andencouragement.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 andcomplete my course work a donation has been made to the WesternWilderness Committee Adopt-a-Tree program in aid of the campaign to saveClayoquot Sound.vii1CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTIONIntroduction to the Research and LiteratureWhen considering a research project and subject for this thesis there werefour goals. That the research contribute to an existing project, that the project beof a co-operative nature, that the research be unobtrusive and that it be in thesocial development stream. A project, concerned with planning for Vancouver’saging population was underway by the city of Vancouver Social PlanningDepartment. This project and survey research met the above criteria. Theproject was the “READY OR NOT!” project. The topic was Vancouver’s agingpopulation 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 assetting goals and objectives for the project, beginning to co-ordinate citydepartments around the issue and training staff and volunteers to deliver phasestwo and three. Phase two was city-wide workshops. These workshopsconducted in April 1992 were held in twenty-two neighbourhoods and ethniccommunities. It was the participants of these workshops who were the focus ofthe survey research. Phase three, still in progress, was to co-ordinate, interpretand act on information form phase one and two. The final aspect of phase three2will be a staff-community generated strategic plan regarding coping withVancouver’s aging population. For reasons of economy and efficiency only thisaspect of the project was researched.The researcher was provided with background information on the projectand access to a random sample of participants who attended the one day citywide workshops. It was agreed that the research would be a survey and that inreturn for access to data the survey would include questions posed by both theresearcher and the social planners. Mail costs were shared and planners had ongoing input into the questionnaire development. The relationship between theresearcher and planners is further discussed in Chapters Four and Five.Introduction to The “READY OR NOT!” ProjectIn June 1990, Vancouver city council approved a series ofrecommendations regarding corporate planning. Seven priorities for planningwere identified. They were as follows:1. Urban structure2. Environment3. Social development4. Aging5. Physical services6. Emergency Preparedness7. Information management (Council minutes).Social planners were to find a model which could become the blueprint forfuture 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 sixstatements are as follows:“1. That social goals are an integral part of our quality of life; they mustbe fully integrated into the corporate system in the city’s roles as providerof services, regulator and employer.2. That people affected by city decisions should be involved in theprocess of reaching these decisions.3. That the city should strive for equity of outcome amongneighbourhoods.4. That, where possible, the city should act to improve the situation of thedisadvantaged.5. The departments of the city administration should co-operate andcollaborate in the planning and delivery of social policies, programs andservices.6. The city should attempt to anticipate social change so that potentialnegative impacts can be mitigated and positive impacts enhanced” (SocialPlanning Department Memo February 14, 1991, 3-4).Taking the above into consideration and combining social developmentand 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 projectwas to provide the basis of Vancouver’s response to issues which arise from theaging population, to co-ordinate city departments around the issue of aging andto provide a model for subsequent work on other social development issues(Policy Report, Oct. 1, 1991). The essence of this was projected as being acommunity developed strategic plan with stated goals to:“assist, encourage and promote community-based actions and networks whichwill strengthen community and city responsibility for problem-solving; and helpprepare the city administration for the attitudinal, program and structuralchanges required to serve a population undergoing a major demographic shift”(Project Report , Oct. 1992).4The topic of aging, unlike the environment for example, was an inclusive(everyone ages) and non-confrontational topic. An October 1, 1991, socialplanning policy report, titled, Social Development, Aging, outlines the planningdepartment’s rationale for choosing aging as the topic for this community-government project. In discussing aging as a topic for the pilot project, sevenreasons 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 totwenty-five percent.3. Early planning and intervention is advocated.4. Caring for the aging population today and in the future will impact onother segments of the community.5. Everyone ages and therefore, is a direct stakeholder.6. The aging population will have a significant impact on varioussectors of the community, e.g., economy, environments, social and healthsystems, recreation, education ad public safety. Therefore, these sectorsare 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 majorphases. Initially city staff and community members entered a planning stagewhich was followed by city-wide workshops. These workshops, which wasphase two, were held in April 1992 and are the focus of this research. The thirdphase was the implementation of a city/community working group and subcommittees. It is this group that will produce the strategic plan on aging forconsideration by council. This aspect of the project is behind schedule. It is5anticipated by the social planners involved that the plan will be presented tocouncil in the fall of 1994.The workshops were advertised as workshops to address aging as an issuethat affects all citizens, not just seniors. Project staff sent information packagesto community centers, groups, health care institutions and schools. Brochuresand flyers were translated into five languages. There was advertising incommunity newspapers and posters were distributed for display (See posterexample, Appendix 2). Project buttons were produced and a newsletter, whichwould be on-going throughout the project implemented. Prior to the workshopscommunity people and representatives from various city departments had beeninvolved in planning and publicizing the workshops. A July 1,1992 report tocouncil outlined the various planning activities (Please see Appendix 3).Staff and citizen facilitators, two hundred and forty in all, were trained todeliver the workshops. Each workshop had a recorder who provided a writtensummary of that group’s process. Many participants completed an evaluation ofthe workshop.During the planning stages for the workshops, the city was divided intoneighbourhood areas for workshop locations (Please appendix 4 for map). Thisdivision was done by project planners with the input of residents. The socialplanners summary of “workshop results” is provided in Appendix 5.Twenty-two workshops were held. While April 11, 1992 was the mainworkshop date, workshops were conducted in Punjabi and Cantonese on April4, April 12 in Stratcona and April 29 at the Jewish community centre. The latterworkshop was arranged when representatives of the Jewish communitycontacted the project to state they would like to participate but not on April 11as it was their Sabbath day.6According to the project co-ordinator, Chris Warren, this is the first timea major North American city has sought to include the public in their planningprocess in such an extensive way (city social planner, Personal Interview, Oct.,1992). While it is true that municipal government has held meetings andworkshops in the past it has been issue or neighbourhood specific and not on acity-wide basis. The introduction of another planning exercise called CityPlan isseeking prolonged and more extensive input than previous consultations withcitizens. CityPlan was undertaken after the project on aging was already inprogress. It is considering multiple issues and has utilized a system of “planningcircles”, 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 alsoto tell them how that information is being heard and used” (Ibid.). It is positiveand progressive that a city government has reached further for input into thecommunity than it had before. It may be however, that the people who attendedthe workshops would not be representative of all city dwellers and that it wasmost likely the educated and middle to high wage earners who would have thetime, resources, skill and interest to attend these workshops. An assumption isthat people who are worried about personal safety, how to pay the rent or whatday the food bank is open have little time, energy or skill to become involved insuch activities as planning workshops.This thesis examines the determinants of public participation in the“READY OR NOT!” project. What are the characteristics that participants ofthe workshops have in common? Is there a composite picture that can be drawnalong socioeconomic status? Are there trends that emerge cross-neighborhood?In terms of the variables surveyed are there differences in findings betweenneighbourhoods? In looking at those citizens who attended the workshops, theresearch question was : What were some of the determinants of theirparticipation?The invitation from the city was issued to citizens to enter into a planningpartnership. The data gives us an idea of who responded. It also gives us someindication of who didn’t. Following up on who didn’t attend is one of the mostimportant issues arising for future research and facilitation of broader publicparticipation. Are people not participating by choice or are there societalbarriers to their participation? If there are barriers, what are they? How can theybe countered?78CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEWAn essential starting point when writing about citizen or publicparticipation is the theoretical origins of the concept and practice. The origins ofpublic participation, and for that matter resistance to public participation, arefound in democratic theory and thought. The writings and opinions available ondemocracy are vast in quantity. The purpose of this section is to offer a briefhistorical context to public participation. It is no way a definitive statement ondemocracy.Four bodies of thought concerning democracy are identified. They arethe Greek theory of democracy, also called direct democracy, participatorydemocracy, representative democracy or elitist theory and finally democracywhich recognizes differences. Democracy which recognizes differences is aform of democracy which would recognize differences among those individualswho cast votes. It is mostly chronicled in writings with a feminist, socialist orminority perspective. Another concept of democracy based on the one-partysystem, which was prevalent until recently in the Soviet Union, some EastEuropean societies and third world countries will not be discussed here. Thereare 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.9It 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. Threeidentified elements of democracy are: participation, liberty and equality (Riker1982, 5). However, what constitutes democracy as a practice is widely debatedin societies around the world. Carleton Kemp Allen, writing in Democracy andthe Individual, states, “Ask any six intelligent men [si I what they understandby democracy and there will be six answers so different that there seems to behardly any common basis at all” (Allen 1943, 1).It is not an accident that Allen suggests men be asked to definedemocracy. Gender in democracy and participation was an issue in historicaltimes and continues to be an issue in modern day concepts of democracy andparticipation (Davis 1991; Jones 1993). This issue will be discussed furtherunder the idea of advocacy in democracy.GREEK DEMOCRACYIt has been suggested that, between 462 and 322 BC, Athens came asclose as any community before or since to achieving a state of democracy. Thatis maximum input to the governing body from the maximum number of peoplewithin the governed district. During this period of Athenian history, by andlarge citizens set the agenda for theirpolis in regular assemblies of the whole. Itis crucial to note that the group considered “citizens” was far from the whole ofsociety. Women, immigrant workers and slaves were not considered to becitizens.Nevertheless, “citizens” with the assistance of ten appointed generals, ranthe Boule, a council of 500, which over saw day-to-day operations. There wereno political parties. All government offices and positions were also filled bycitizens on a rotating basis and citizens also rotated jury duty. Eventually10citizens were paid for their duties to democracy. It is a fact that economic andsocial inequality was prevalent. Inequality existed between those who wereconsidered citizens and the women, immigrants and slaves. Inequality alsoexisted among the “citizens”; some citizens were much richer than others.Many of the citizens were working men who required the small payments fortheir participation. They were not a leisured class who were entertained byparticipating in democracy (Arbiaster 1987, 18-25).Important to remember is that the number of citizens comprising the poliswas estimated at about 50,000. It has often been argued that it was the size ofthe community that made direct democracy workable. A central feature of thedemocracy was that citizens were expected to be actively involved in theworkings of their community. This active participation was achievable, at inpart, due to the reasonably small number of citizens (Ibid.). The smaller numbermade direct democracy more attainable. This is in direct contrast to the largerpopulation groups and geographical areas which were later to set themselves upas democracies. It was from this larger base that the idea of representativedemocracy developed which is discussed in the next section.Due to the fact that a central feature of democracy was the expectationthat all citizens would participate, the Athenian state recognized no differencebetween state and society. Their concept of citizenship meant directparticipation in public affairs (Held 1993, 16-17). Bhikhu Parekh in ProspectsFor Democracy, sums up well what are considered to be the central tenets ofGreek democracy:a) it was “grounded in a sense of community”;b) “democracy was informed by a view of freedom that required activepolitical participation“;11c) the masses were trusted to decide in the favour of the good of all (Held1993, 162-163).Despite such broad based participation there were also critics of theprocess. Ancient theorists, like Socrates and Plato, believed that governmentwas 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 agood start. The major problem with the community and definition of citizenswas that it overlooked large segments of the population, namely, women,immigrants and slaves. It must also be recognized that it was the labour of thesegroups that allowed the citizens to be so politically active. The fields weretended, the children reared and the market continued because of their labour.The Greek version of democracy had an elite of it’s own.PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACYParticipatory democracy is set within the theoretical writings of sucheighteenth century liberals as J. J. Rousseau and John Stuart Mill (Pateman1980). J.J. Rousseau (1712-1778), a French philosopher, has been called “thecelebrated spokesperson of direct democracy” (Ross 1952, 203). He has alsobeen noted as “the most significant political thinker of the 18th century” and heis also credited with shaping the French Revolution (Reese 1980, 497).Carol Pateman states that Rousseau “might be called the theorist parexcellence of participation” (Pateman 1980, 22). C. B. MacPherson sums upRousseau by describing him as a populist with a general will theory(MacPherson 1973, 184, 224). Rousseau felt that men were innately good andwould act rightly and wisely on their own accord (Ross 1952, 203).12Rousseauian theory did not require complete equality, but rather,advocated that any inequality should not affect political equality. Along withthis Rousseau felt any labour and fruit of that labour should be equally sharedand as a result of this sharing and the act of participation individuals would optfor the good of all (Pateman 1980, 22- 30). Rousseau condemned privateproperty (Lea 1982, 42) and romanticized man in his primitive state. Like Mill,who would follow him, Rousseau wrote that there needed to be an educationprocess in participation and “that through this educative process the individualwill eventually come to feel or no conflict between the demands of the publicand private spheres” (Pateman 1980, 25, 22- 30). Rousseau was greatlyopposed to the idea of substituting direct participation for representation. Withrepresentation he felt people would be “cheated and enslaved” (Ross 1952,203).Influential also at this time was Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), an Englishphilosopher, who’s basic philosophical statement was that the meaning of lifewas to seek pleasure and avoid pain. As applied to the state he felt “the publicinterest was the ‘mass of the interests of individuals’ “(Reese 1980, 53).Bentham was an influence on John Stuart Mill who continued and elaboratedupon his philosophy.John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), also an English philosopher, agreed withRousseau and Bentham that the highest form of political power was with thepeople 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 theminority (Ross 1952, 57, 207-209). Another major difference between Milland Rousseau was that Mill rejected the idea that for effective participation13there must be political equality. Mill’s comment on this was that everyoneshould have a voice but “that everyone should have an equal voice is a totallydifferent proposition” (Pateman 1980, 32). Mill felt that an enlightenedminority should have greater influence to safeguard against abuses by themajority but that the majority should have input into the process (Ross 1952,57,207-209).ELITIST THEORYContributing to the historical context of elite theory were John Locke andThomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), believed that the natural state ofman 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 andbehavioural inclinations (Lea 1982, 10) was to have a very powerful state withalmost unlimited power to keep order (Lea 1982; Qualter 1986). Thegovernors would however, take their authority from those who created it and inthat way “remain a human institution” (Qualter 1986).John Locke (1632-1704), was an English philosopher who’s writings ithas been said “most influenced America’s founding elites” (Dye 1978, 7). Hewas also influential during England’s “Glorious Revolution”, of 1688. It wasduring this revolution that the growing British middle class, the majority ofthem 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 therights of the individual and with the consent of the people a government wasformed to protect these rights (Dye 1978, 7-8).14As society advanced with industrialization, higher population and largerconcentrations of people in urban cores the idea of mass participation indemocracy seemed unattainable. It was felt that an acceleration in participationcould upset the existing stability. Pateman chronicles this school of thought.“Mosca and Michels were two of the best known and most influentialwriters to advance such a thesis. The former argued that in every societyan elite must rule and, in his later writings, combined this with anargument for representative institutions. Michels with his famous ‘ironlaw 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 thepeople by means of maximum participation of all the people might stillbe an ideal, grave doubts, doubts put forward in the name of socialscience, appeared to have been cast upon the possibility of realizing thisideal” (Pateman 1980, 2).Pateman notes that a further factor that aided the rejection of earlierdemocratic theories was “that those theories were normative and ‘value-laden’,whereas modem political theory should be scientific and empirical, groundedfirmly in the facts of political life” (1980, 3). She goes onto note that JosephSchumpeter in an “extraordinarily influential book”, Capitalism, Socialism andDemocracy (1943) put forward a “new, realistic definition of democracy”. Thisdefinition included that democracy was a method of government and individualsacquired their power by voting for competing parties. In this view of democracyparticipation had no particular role (Ibid. 3-5).There is agreement in the literature that Schumpeter was highlyinfluential but there is not consensus that his views are realistic or reasonable.Schumpeter emphasized that democracy was not rule of the people but insteadelected elites. He went on to note that since the masses could not control those15they had elected except by not returning them to office, that the countervailingpower was that of autonomous elites (Etzioni-Halvey 1993, 60).“For Schumpeter, a most important requirement of democracy is that theeffective range of political decisions be limited. .. .In this manner hedraws together the liberal idea of separation of powers within the statewith the notion of elites outside the state as well, in what has come to beknown as democratic elite theory” (Ibid.).Representative elites are those that elected to government or organizations whileautonomous elites operate outside of government and elections in such placesas the business world and interest groups (Presthus 1973; Dye 1978). Theopportunity for people to advance in this system allows for leaders from thelower class to become part of the governing elites (Dye 1978).The notion of representative and autonomous elites set out bySchumpeter is prevalent in Canadian society today. “An elite”, Thomas Dyestates, “is the few who have power; the masses are the many who do not. Poweris deciding who gets what, when and how; it is participation in the decisionsthat allocate values for a society.” He goes on to add:“Elitism also asserts that the few who govern are not typical of the masswho are governed. Elites control more resources ---power, wealth,education, prestige, status, skills of leadership, information, knowledge ofpolitical process, ability to communicate and organization. .. .elites aredrawn from society’s upper classes, from those who own or control adisproportionate share of the societal institutions --- industry, commerce,finance, education, the military, communications, civic organizations andlaw” (1978, 3-4).The theory of democracy, first begun by Schumpeter was continued byRobert Dabl (MacPherson 1973, 78). Dahl writing in 1956, suggested that it isa 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 he16too warned that an increase in participation could lead to instability. He noted itwas the lower socioeconomic classes that participated the least. He also felt thatthis was the class where the ‘most authoritarian’ personality types are found andif their participation were to increase there would be a decline in consensus andpolyarchy (Pateman 1980, 10).As noted, elitist theory is not without opponents. C. B. MacPherson ishighly 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, itsvalue judgment is clear enough; whatever works is right -- that iswhatever enables the existing class-stratified society to operate withoutintolerable friction is best.” (1973, 79)It is noteworthy that Dahl has evolved his body of theory, to evenquestion some of his earlier assumptions. Writing in 1989 in Democracy and ItsCritics 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, privateenterprise 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 onbecause of the elites. Such democratic values as freedom of speech, and thepress, and equal opportunity for all are values more closely associated withhigher 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 “publicregarding” agendas their primary objective is to remain in power and protecttheir elite status. To this end some actions taken will be manipulations of thesystem to ensure their own stability and superiority (Ibid.).17DEMOCRACY WHICH RECOGNIZES DIFFERENCESSome writers and modem day theorists, particularly those with a feminist,socialist or minority perspective, point out, that one of the limitations ofdemocracy, as it has been practiced by societies to date, is that it has notrecognized differences between individuals and groups. The one person onevote principal does not recognize the differences between or the needs of theindividual persons who are casting the votes. It also does not account for thefact that there are groups of people within the voters group and particularlyoutside that are underrepresented. In that, issues that are particular to them arenot adequately raised by the dominant forces. That is to say that therepresentative elites and autonomous elites develop and support policy whichprotects their interests and maintains the status quo. Within, and also external,to this would also be such things as women and minority issues. Thismaintenance of the status quo is evident in policies of taxation, support oflotteries, inequitable distribution of wealth, etc. etc. For example, in Canada, ithas been found that due to the growth of taxation and tax expenditures,especially since 1970, these expenditures (“tax breaks” or “loopholes”) havegreatly reduced the progressive aspects of our tax system. The system is lessprogressive because it is largely richer Canadians who can afford to takeadvantage of these benefits (Doem and Phidd 1988). Due to the fact thatwomen and minorities are in the lower income bracket these policies areespecially relevant to women and minorities.In regard to women’s issues by transferring relations between the sexesfrom biology to society (Olderma and Davis 1991, 4) and understanding thepower relationships in society, feminists were able to point out thecontradictions within theories of liberal democracy. Liberal democracy isfounded in individualism. The theory does acknowledge that there are18differences between us but that, in the one person one vote system, thesedifferences should not count Phillips 1993, 93-111). However, as Arblasterwrites in Democracy“Inequality in wealth and economic power, in other words, is aform of political inequality, which contradicts the principal of politicalequality expressed in the slogan ‘one person one vote.”... Other forms ofinequality, social, racial and sexual, also run counter to the principle ofpolitical equality. No one with any experience of political meetings orgrass-roots political movements and organizations can fail to havenoticed how easily and naturally such groups and gatherings aredominated by white, bourgeois educated males. The advantages andprivileges attaching to class, race and gender make it quite ‘natural’ thatthis should be so” (1987, 80).Kathleen Jones traces this back to the elite representational system thatliberal contract theory creates by stating,“[it] excludes from it by definition sexuality and gender and every otherparticularized aspect of being human, such as race and class.Representation of women in the practice of sovereignty comes to meanrepresentation of persons who happen to be women. Being women isconsidered politically irrelevant in this view, since it is not representationof women because they are women -- that is, because, as women theyembody and signify something particular -- that must be present inpolitics if the promise of equality is to be fulfilled (Jones’ italics, 1993,236).When societal relationships are considered in relation to a whole group ofpeople, there is a move away from individualism toward collectivity. While it istrue that a group or groups of people may have a common cause, it is equallytrue, as Jones points out, that only the speaker knows/owns what is beingspoken. She goes on to note that the challenge is to have different voices heardwithout negating any one person’s participation (Ibid. 243-245).19For participation to occur the opportunity has to exist or be created. Fromthe Greeks right on up to modem day not all sectors of the population have hadequal access to participation. One of the most prevalent causes for theunderrepresentation of women participating in politics has been the division oflabour. It has been women who are the primary caregivers of children, husbandsand parents. Anne Phillips notes that “in feminist literature, the issue is posedmore starkly, for the very notion of the active citizen presumes someone istaking care of the children and doing the necessary maintenance of everydaylife” (1993, 100).In Canada, until the early 1960s, the responsibility for running the homefell almost exclusively to women while men were the wage earners. Accordingto sociologists Curtis and Tupperman, this changed, around 1980, since whichtime 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 equallyprofound shift in the role men play within the family; women still do most ofthe housework and childcare. They note that between 1971 and 1981, theworkload at home of both employed males and females remained almostunchanged. In Vancouver employed females worked 3.9 hours per day onfamily care, compared to 1.45 hours per day for comparable males (1988, 379-380).Barriers to women’s participation are also outlined by Kathleen Jones.She states that in recent years political scientists have demonstrated that it is notwomen’s lack of qualifications or motivation that lead to underrepresentationbut 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).20Feminists have extended their analysis to include other groups which aresystematically unequal in society. It is this thinking that attempts to lead liberaldemocracy to a “more substantial democracy” than what is in existence now.(Phillips 1993, 108-9).This view of democracy would have those participatingin a democracy define it so there would be recognition and action on thedifferences between voters. It would also emphasize the needs of particularsectors within the democratic society. If these conditions were to occur it wouldresult in would result in a truer representation of all society.CANADIAN DEMOCRACYIt is generally agreed that Canada is a liberal representative democracy. Arepresentative democracy is a system where persons are elected to makedecisions on behalf of the population. These decision makers receive theirauthority 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 representativesystem there is the operation of elites (Presthus 1973).Much as in Greek times there are those who fear if there were full publicparticipation it would be impossible to develop coherent public policy (Allen1943; 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 littleconsensus reached on many issues (Jackson Jackson and Baxter-Moore 1986,25). Another reason is that it would “undercut parliamentary procedures andundermine established procedures and structures for handling social change”(Lotz 1987, 44).21In addition to having a representative democracy, Canada is aconstitutional democracy in that the constitution sets out, defines and limits topolitical power. Canadian government also utilizes a federal system whichdivides power among jurisdictions and over geographical areas (JacksonJackson and Baxter-Moore 1986, 26).Three conflicting ideologies have been identified as part of the Canadianenvironment where social planning occurs. There are those with a conservativeview who believe in a free market system and pursuit of self interest. There arealso social and liberal democrats who believe that the state has a responsibilityto intervene to promote a equitable society. Another group, socialists and thoseon the radical left, believe that social planning is a “buffer to the revolutionarychange required for the overthrow of capitalism and the creation of a just socialorder” (Clague and Seebaran 1991, 152). There is no doubt that theseconflicting ideologies have had an impact on public participation. Many of theelites in Canadian society are conservative in their ideology (Presthus 1973).Despite this, it has been suggested that participation in Canada hasdeveloped in three separate but overlapping phases (Tester 1992). They are theextension of the right to vote, expansion of the welfare state (1945 to midI 960s) and increasing involvement and social activism to addressenvironmental and social concerns (Ibid.).What were some of these social concerns? In the 1 930s, publicparticipation movements were largely found within the labour movement(Curtis and Tupperman 1988; Tester 1992). Workers were organizing for jobsecurity, benefits and fairness in the workplace.In the 1 960s people were organizing to ban chemicals such as DDT. InCanada, the citizens of Toronto were lobbying to not have neighbourhoodsripped apart by a new expressway (Tester 1992).22In the 1970s in Quebec the public rallied to have foster care regulationschanged to be more favourable toward those on welfare and the working poor.In Saskatchewan, public participation resulted in a legal aid plan which wasbased on a system of neighbourhood clinics. In Winnipeg, citizens weresuccessful in stopping the municipal government from deducting familyallowance benefits from welfare cheques (National council of Welfare 1975,16-29, 30-42, 5-15). The seventies also saw a rise in pubic participation inresponse to environmental and development issues (Lotz 1987, 44).In the 1980s, one of the many issues citizens, women in particular wereorganizing around, and continue to, is reproductive technology: in vitrofertilization, surrogate motherhood and sex selection of children. These areissues involving women and their bodies but also moral and ethicalconsiderations for the whole of society (Curtis and Tupperman 1988, 385-392).In the 1990s, what has been called a “new generation” of citizenparticipation is being discussed and proposed. This type of activism movesbeyond attempting to influence government policy and regulations, “... the newgeneration of citizen participation initiatives increasingly demands the extensionof democratic principles and practice into economic decision making-- theprofoundly anti-democratic element within western liberal democracies-- whichincludes both the general operation of the economy and specific investmentdecisions with evident public implications” (Tester 1992, 34).Within Canada’s representative democracy, there are three levels ofgovernment, Federal, Provincial and Municipal. Because of this there are threearenas of government within which public participation can occur. The federalgovernment is charged with reconciling the interests of the entire nation andsetting national standards. Provinces respond to specific issues within their23territorial unit. Municipal government exists at the urban city or rural town orcounty level.The federal government followed by the provincial governments havericher coffers acquired by a variety of taxes, regulatory fees, etc. The mainsource of fmancial support that the municipal level generates for itself isthrough property taxes and various regulatory fees and licenses. In addition,they are the recipient of transfer payments from the other two bodies ofgovernment.This unequal access to operating revenue is most difficult for themunicipalities. They are the level of government closest to the people but withthe least financial resources and clout. Therefore, many issues identified at themunicipal level can only be “taken under consideration” and the municipalleaders left to advocate, or not, with the other levels of government.Joan Newman Kuyek in her book, Fighting For Hope, recognizes therevenue generating difficulties of municipal governments and adds that theproperty system is “extremely unfair”. She notes, however, that the municipallevel can be extremely important for those people who wish to see socialtransformation. In particular:“Municipalities can initiate decisions around alternative transportationsystems, city planning, alternatives to the “social safety net”, housing,recreation and neighbourhood centres. It can determine the level ofdemocracy at a grass roots level in the neighbourhoods and the cityitself’(1990, 166).These are powerful abilities if cities chose to use them.It is participation at the municipal level which is the subject of theresearch in this thesis. Before going on to consider what the literature has to sayabout determinants of public participation, first public participation will bedefined.24DEFINING PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONEqually essential to discussing democracy as the contextual basisof public participation is the need to define public participation. There are asmany definitions of public participation as there are of democracy. Byexamining 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 acommunity 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 fairthen to say, that public participation is when a person or persons, as part of abroader community, take part or share in an activity which will have an impacton 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 thefollowing sampling can be found. In Fostering Public Participation, Powell,Faghfoury and Nyenhuis strike a working definition as, “public participationmeans the individual and collective action of people to become involved in andimprove their community “(1988, 12). Florin and Wandersman quote theircommunity psychology colleagues, Heller, Price, Reinzharz, Rich andWanclersman as defining citizen participation as “a process in which individualstake part in the decision making in the institutions, programs and environmentsthat affect them” (1991, 43). James Draper states the “essence of participationis a process of learning” (1991, 265). This latter comment fits well with the25educational components practiced in both classical and contemporarydemocracy.Public participation is chronicled in much of the literature from threeperspectives. The first is citizen participation in regard to partisan politicalparties (Verba and Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel, 1977). The second isorganizing to influence government decision making in a planning process orwork on community development. The third are protesters or those whoorganize in dissent as a response to conflict between citizens and politicalstructures (Gilbert Specht and Brown 1974; Milbrath and Goel 1977; PowellFaghouty and Nyenhuis 1988; Tester 1992).MODELS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONSherry R. Arnstein’s “L.adder of Citizen Participation” is a frequentlyquoted typology when public participation is discussed. Arnstein is very clearwhen she states she feels citizen participation is citizen power. She goes on tosay:“It [citizen participation] is the redistribution of power that enables thehave-not citizens, presently excluded from the political and economicprocesses, to be deliberately included in the future. It is the strategy bywhich the have-nots join in determining how information is shared, goalsand policies are set, tax resources allocated, programs operated, andbenefits like contracts and patronage are parceled out. In short, it is ameans by which they can induce significant social reform which enablesthem to share in the benefits of the affluent society” (1969 216).Arnstein also developed a ladder of citizen participation. In this modelshe laid out the types of participation and non-participation.26Figure 1 Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein 1969)Non-participation 1. Manipulation2. TherapyDegrees of Tokenism 3. Informing4. Consultation5. PlacationDegrees of Citizen Power 6. Partnership7. Delegated Power8. Citizen ControlMany feel that when governments do invite input from the public they doso in a controlled or token manner (Arnstein 1969; Chekki 1979). This impliesthat the government is more interested in window dressing or exercises in publicrelations than genuine citizen participation. Certainly the degrees of citizencontrol that Arnstein notes are hardly, if ever, achieved.In the 1 980s Desmond Connor revisited Arnstein’s ladder to come upwith “A New Ladder of Citizen Participation”.27Figure 2 Connor’s New Ladder of Citizen Participation Connor 1987General Public 1. Education2. Information Feedback3. ConsultationLeaders 4. Joint Planning5. Mediation6. LitigationSteps 1-6 flowinto and up to 7. Resolution/PreventionConnor notes that what he likes about his model is that it is cumulative andinteractive. Connor has stated his model is to prevent and resolve publiccontroversy (Connor 1987). Clearly, the focus of Connor’s ladder differsgreatly from Amstein’s. While Arnstein proposes what the conservatives andelites would consider to be a radical approach, that is, the redistribution ofpower within society, Conno?s model is supportive of the status quo.In addition to types of participation there are several vehicles forparticipation. Perhaps the most easily recognized and simplest form of publicparticipation is that of voting.At all levels of government the law dictates that elections must be held ona regular basis. Individuals living within that jurisdiction, over the age ofmajority and meeting residency requirements, are then eligible to vote. Today,in Canada, the franchise is widely held. Some groups such as the mentallyincompetent and those under age are still not permitted to vote. Until recentyears this rule also applied to incarcerated individuals. Despite the fact that28there are some groups that are still excluded, the numbers of those included aremuch higher than in the past.As noted earlier, the practice of withholding the right to vote goes back tothe very origins of democracy itself when women, immigrants and slaves wereexcluded (Arblaster 1987). In Canada universal franchise was granted only in1960, a short twenty-four years ago (Jackson Jackson and Baxter-Moore 1986494-495). Prior to this time particular groups in society were excluded, or insome cases were given the right to vote and then had it revoked. At the time ofConfederation voting was provincially regulated and the only persons with theright to vote were male property owners. In 1885, voting was brought underfederal jurisdiction. However, this was not a progressive move; at the time ofthis legislation, Canadians of Asian extraction were disenfranchized, a situationthat followed with other groups. In 1917, as a result of the World War,Canadians who were of Eastern European heritage were removed from votinglists. It was also at this time that some women were given the right to vote. Inthe established patriarchal tradition, the vote was open only to women who wererelatives 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 bythe granting powers that these groups would support the government position onconscription. In 1918, all women were given voting rights equal to men. Forsome other groups it took much longer: Asian Canadians - 1948; Inuit -disenfranchised in 1934, restored in 1950; certain religious groups, mainlyMennonites, disenfranchised in 1920, restored in 1955 and Native Indians livingon reserves were not granted the vote until 1960 (Ibid. 494 - 495).The right to vote is considered crucial in a liberal democracy. The processgives citizens the opportunity to:291) 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 andassures 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 inCanada there really isn’t that much choice between the political ideologies ofparties and there is a blurring of party philosophies, so that conservatives actlike liberals, socialists like conservatives, etc. (Curtis and Tupperman 1988).This appears to depend on what action is perceived as being to the politicaladvantage of the party given the current issues and political climate.Voting as a form of public participation has been found to have a weakrelationship between itself and other forms of participation. This means thatbecause a person votes it does not make them more likely to participate in otherways as well. It has been repeatedly suggested that most people vote because ofa 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 muchinformation or action as other forms of participation.Questions are raised regarding the function of elections. Such as the issueof elections as a way of legitimizing politicians and maintenance of the currentdistribution of power. Presthus states that our current system reinforces thestatus quo, “crystallizes existing power relationships” and makes it difficult fornew 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 positive30consequence of elite accommodation has been our popularly tolerated system ofresource allocation. In 1973, he correctly predicted that “the conflict betweenwelfare and ‘economic’ criteria of resource allocation will probably becomemore intense as resources are strained by increasing welfare, health andeducational programmes, often launched at the expense of traditionaleconomically-oriented criteria” (348). Economic criteria meaning thatgovernments will base more decisions on economic principles, such as privatebusiness does. Indeed, we are currently faced with government spending cuts inthe areas of health and welfare with the justification stated as the need to bringdown the national debt so as to maintain and improve our economic viability.All this points to the need for public participation beyond the act ofvoting. Long held principles of democracy are the common good, majority rulesand education for citizens so they may participate in the process. While it maynot be practical for every citizen to participate, it is necessary that enoughcitizens participate so these goals can be pursued and the power of elites, if notbalanced, at least countered. It is important to state that true participation is notplacation but the empowerment of the public to contribute to decisions thateffect them and their communities.If we accept that it is desirable for as many people as possible toparticipate, then it is helpful to know who already participates. It is recognizedthat 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 oftheir participation’?DETERMINANTS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONExisting literature suggests that socioeconomic variables are majorindicators of who will participate and who will not. Previous research contends31that education and class are likely to be higher in those who participate (Verbaand Nile 1972; Haeberle 1989; Perkins et al. 1990; Panda 1990).Socioeconomic variables were but a few of the multiple variablesconsidered by Lester W. Milbrath and M.L. Goel (1977) in a comprehensiveinternational review of several dozen pieces of research into politicalparticipation. 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 personreceives 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 furtherstimuli (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 activeroles (77-78).3. Persons growing up in upper middle or upper socioeconomic strataenvironments are more likely to develop self confidence and feelings ofpersonal competence as well as higher education levels (78).4. People are more likely to vote or be interested in a campaign if they havebeen contacted personally (37).5. Middle class persons, men more than women, are exposed to more politicalstimuli than lower class persons (38); middle aged persons expose themselves topolitics 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 asense of citizen duty (52).7. Those who have a strong group identification, sense of belonging, participatemore actively (57).328. Persons near the centre of society are more likely to participate than thosecloser 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 causesof 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 statusare more likely to participate (102).13. People with a higher education level tend to participate more. It is importantto note that the relationship between education and participation most closelycorrelates with campaign activity, community participation and communicationactivities and to a smaller degree with protests. In regard to voting, educationcorrelates insignificantly and in some cases negatively with voter turnout (98-100).14. Organizational membership is a major independent predictor of politicalbehaviour (110).15. In regard to community identification it was found that the longer a personlived in a particular community the more likely participation was (113); as wellhomeowners were more active than non homeowners (114).16. Men are more likely to participate than women but this gap narrows in theupper socio-economic class (116-117).Steven Haeberle, doing research on grassroots citizen participation inAlabama, further validated Milbrath and Goal’s summary. Haeberle found that33the individuaUs concept of neighborhood and his/her own level of attachment tothat neighborhood had an impact on the level of participation. He also quotedConnerly (1986) as saying attachment to neighbourhood tends to be deepestamong the elderly and low income earners (1989, 27-28). As well the length ofresidency, the number of services and organizations in the community and theamount of business a person is able to conduct in their own neighborhood willaffect an individual’s attachment to and sense of neighborhood (Verba and Nile1972; Haliman 1984).Communication, skill level and knowledge in operating planningprograms are important factors which will influence the development of citizenparticipation (Gilbert Specht and Brown 1974; Chekki 1979). These areimportant factors for planners to note.David Chavis and Abraham Wandersman conducted research on sense ofcommunity in the urban environment and participation in a volunteerneighbourhood association. The setting for their study was Waverley-Belmontin Nashville, Tennessee. There sample consisted of 423 people living within aset geographical boundary. These people were from eight blocks that had activeassociations in 1979. Information was gathered by personal interviews. “Localaction”, the dependent variable, was represented by the level of participation inthe block association -- categorized as non member, member, worker or leader.They found that “the strongest path to participation was through a sense ofcommunity and through neighboring relations, which influenced the degree towhich a person became involved in the block association” (1990, p. 69). In asecond study to further test the causal influences of their process model theyconducted a longitudinal analysis. With an N of 349, they looked at therelationship between selected variables at two points in time, one year apart.While the demographics were different from the sample used in the previous34study a sense of community was found to contribute to the neighboringrelationship. A subsample (n = 143). showed a strong interdependence betweenparticipation and sense of community. They further found that a “sense ofpersonal power” appeared to precede an individual’s participation. Theirconclusions included that” a minimal sense of personal power is necessary foran individual to get involved” (1990 71 - 75).VARIATIONS IN PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONWhen individuals consider participation, participation in governmentplanning, neighborhood associations, political parties or voting may be mostreadily identified as forms of participation. Indeed, it is in these areas that mostof the existing research has been conducted. Considering the elements ofparticipation, as being a sharing and learning process in relation to acommunity, there are many more areas where public participation occurs.Neighbourhoods and communities have many existing organizations, bothformal and informal. A formal organization may be founded in a charitable orreligious cause such as the Lion and Lioness clubs or Knights of Columbus.Trade unions are an avenue for participation as are educational institutions andclubs. 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 discusscommunity issues.The ways people participate will vary from community to community andculture to culture. First Nations people use pow-wows. In some cultures streetperformers use plays and music as a form of participation. Political satire,performed by a comedy troupe, such as the Royal Canadian Air Farce, or foundin editorial cartoons, could be considered a form of participation.35The existing literature does not capture the multiple variations of publicparticipation. Historically researchers have not been culturally or gendersensitive. This has resulted in narrower research and interpretations of whatconstitutes public participation and how it is expressed.It may be as well, that the determinants of participation that have beenfound to exist have come about as a result of the places and manner in which theresearch was conducted. It is possible that the research was conducted in placesthat tend to attract the higher educated and income people to begin with. Whatwould determinants of participation look like if the research were conducted onadditional ways of participation, such as those noted above? Undoubtedly afuller range of determinants of participation would emerge as well as a broaderbase of literature on what constitutes public participation.36CHAPTER 3METHODThis research design employed both quantitative and qualitative methods.Qualitative methods were employed in the undertaking of a focus group and inan interview with a citizen involved in community participation and this project.In the data analysis there were also interviews held with Punjabi speaking eldersand these employed qualitative research. The quantitative research comes in theform of the survey that was undertaken with workshop attendees.For reasons of economy and efficiency this design was used. It isrecognized that there are drawbacks and limitations to this type of research.These are further discussed in Chapter Four.RESEARCH DESIGNSurveyThe survey was in the form of mailed out, self-administered, languagespecific questionnaire. It was sent to a random sample, N=150, of participantsof the April, 1992, workshop (excluding staff members and organizers). Thequestionnaires were mailed out with a letter of introduction from “READY ORNOT!” coordinator Chris Warren covering the researcher’s letter of explanation(See Appendix 6 and 7).37A one shot follow-up telephone contact, using a standardized interviewguide was done ten days post the questionnaire return deadline date of March20, 1993, to those who had not yet responded. This contact was made inEnglish. Twenty -five contacts, either in person or by answering machine weremade. One of these was impossible to complete, due to a language barrier. It isrecognized that a language specific contact would have been preferablehowever, time and resources did not allow for this. This follow-up did not yieldsignificant additional data. Most of those contacted had reasons why they hadnot completed the initial questionnaire. For example, five people stated theywere too busy, three people stated they had been out of town at the time of thedate for the questionnaire to be returned by, one person stated she had recycledthe questionnaire for a grocery list, one stated her small child had colored it andone stated he had accidentally spilled coffee over it. It was a conscious decisionof the researcher to not further pursue people who had not responded to theinitial mail-out or follow-up telephone request to complete the survey bymailing out an additional surveys or by making additional telephone calls. Nofurther 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 andanalysis of this survey.Questionnaire DevelopmentThe questionnaire was developed by the researcher through a process ofliterature review and, to democratize the process, city staff and citizen focusgroup had opportunities for extensive input and review. Numerous meetingswere held with city staff and Section Three of the questionnaire was developedto help answer some of their questions about the project (See Appendix 8). Thissection of the questionnaire contained questions that were important to the goals38of the project staff. For example, they wanted to know if the project newsletterwas read, if participants knew about neighbourhood initiatives and how satisfiedthey were or were not with the flow of communication. Including thisinformation enhanced the democratization of the research so that it was notsolely directed by the researcher. This arrangement also created a reciprocalexchange, in that the staff people received information necessary to theirevaluation and the researcher received support and access to the workshopparticipant list. Section Three is not reported in Findings and Results.The questionnaire consisted of fixed alternative and Likert type scaleresponses, generating nominal and ordinal data, with the customary courtesyquestion at the end. The Likert type scale lends itself very well to this type ofresearch as it is a straightforward method of index construction (Babbie 1974).The mailed out questionnaire had four sections (See Appendix 8).The Focus GroupInput from citizens and staff was done through a focus group. Accordingto focus group literature, focus groups can be randomly selected, recruited withthe assistance of key individuals or,“the researcher may be able to take advantage of settings or situationswhere community members or special interest groups gather to discusscommon issues or experiences. In other words, the researcher may tapinto “natural” focus groups and work with individuals at hand” (Morgan1988).The naturally occurring group in this case was the “READY OR NOT!”working group members group. The “READY OR NOT!” project workinggroup was made up of ten citizens and twelve city staff members. Workinggroup members were recruited from attendees of the workshop. At theworkshops project staff had requested that those who were interested in a39continued and increased level of involvement should indicate their interest andwhy. From the group who replied, project staff selected working groupmembers, taking into account such things as experience, neighbourhood, age,etc. (See Appendix 9).They met regularly, approximately once every twoweeks, and also chaired or were active on working sub-committees. Their timewas volunteered and at the time of the focus group they have been activelyinvolved for several months.The working group members were advised of the focus group at theirprevious meeting. They also received a summary of the research in the minutesof that meeting. These tasks were undertaken by the project co-ordinator. Oftwenty-two working group members, seven attended (All signed consent toparticipate forms, see Appendix 10). The focus group adopted a semi-structuredformat (See Appendix 11). Comments were tape recorded, partially transcribed,analyzed and incorporated into the finalized questionnaire. The group ran forapproximately two hours. The questionnaire was reviewed question by question.Focus group members were committed to the task and worked hard to givefeedback and help formulate revised questions.Numerous changes to the questionnaire took place as a result of thisgroup. They will be further discussed in Chapter 4.Questionnaire TranslationWhen the ‘READY OR NOT!” workshops were organized, in addition toneighborhood events, there were several “community” meetings held. One forthe Chinese community was conducted in Cantonese and one for the IndoCanadian community was conducted in Punjabi. This necessitated thetranslation of the cover letters and questionnaire into these two languages (SeeAppendices 12, 13, 14 and 15).40Questionnaire Pre-testThe questionnaire was pre-tested on nine persons, three in each languagecategory. Several suggestions were incorporated from this feedback, forexample two typing errors were corrected and it was found that the instructionsto one section did not match the text.SampleThe “READYOR” project maintains a data base of over nineteenhundred names of people who have in some way been involved with the projectto March 1993. This list included city staff, media contacts, etc. For thepurposes of this research it was decided that those people who attended theApril 1992 workshop would be surveyed. Since the primary interest of thisresearch is public participation, it was decided that staff and media would bewithdrawn from the database before the sample was drawn. Other namesdeleted were those of the working group members as they had been involved inthe focus group. Those with incorrect addresses, and those who had requestednot to receive mail from the project were also removed before the sample wasdrawn. This left a total of 651 names from which a computer generated randomsample of 150 was drawn. The questionnaires and covering letters were mailedto the respondents and a self-addressed stamped envelope was enclosed tofacilitate its return.One limitation of this study is that due to the unavailability of apublished, standardized test, an instrument specific to this study had to bedeveloped. In research, this is a recognized limitation. On the other handperhaps a case could be made that, due to the focus group input, an appropriatequestionnaire for this population emerged. A strength of survey design is that it41asks 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 questionswere understood or honestly answered;2) identity of respondent, how does the researcher know the questionnaire wascompleted by who it was addressed to?3) return rate, there is always the potential for the respondent to discard of thequestionnaire or set it aside, albeit with good intentions, indefinitely (Ibid.1991).Despite its drawbacks the benefits to doing survey research makes it aviable research design (Miller and Miller 1991). This is particularly true of thisresearch which had a limited financial and time budget. Also this is the firsttime this municipality has undertaken this type of planning process with thepublic, therefore, survey research is an appropriate place to start to generatefuture research questions.Several steps were taken in order to address internal validity. The pretests were not done on persons selected for the survey and the sample wasdrawn by simple random sampling.There is always the question that those who did not respond aresomehow different and the study therefore biased. It is the judgment call of theresearcher whether or not to follow-up on the non-respondents (Yedis andWeinbach 1991). No follow-up with non-respondents was undertaken exceptto investigate possible causes for the very low rate of return of Punjabiquestionnaires.To increase the validity of this study, the variables were a central focus aswell as the association between the variables (Baker 1988). In regard to42external validity, because we are dealing with a finite population, the study isnot generalizable (Yedis and Weinbach 1991).Interview with a “READY OR NOT!” participantTo add a “human face” to the literature definitions, an interview wasundertaken with an individual who was involved with the “READY OR NOT!”project. Frank Frigon has also been active in community planning anddevelopment for many years. He has a Masters degree in Canadian history anddegrees in education and adult education, with a focus on community education.A qualitative interview was conducted with him on April 2, 1993. An interviewguide was used (See Appendix 16).The essence of this interview was todetermine how an individual engaged in public participation, day in and dayout, defines public participation. Mr. Frigon’s definition of participationincludes such elements as participation is a lifestyle which encompasses ongoing education and learning in a holistic manner while retaining a focus on thegrassroots and neighbourhood levels. It is also of note that Mr. Frigon indicatedhis participation in several projects had occurred due to the influence of anotherperson. As with the previous definitions there is an emphasis on learning andcommunity.The interview was recorded and transcribed in its entirety. Thetranscription was reviewed looking for indicators and then the indicators wereclustered into themes. The common themes were then grouped into a largercategory. Eight themes were decided upon. Care was taken to insure they aremutually exclusive and exhaustive. The themes are:• Participation as a lifestyle• Participation as on-going education/learning• Participation as an interactive process43• Holistic, broad approach to participation• Participation due to influence of another person• Grassroots focus in participation• Concept of neighbourhood• Issues specific to participant’s neighbourhoodFollowing are several (non-exhaustive).examples of how indicatorsbecame emerging themes and then themes. The indicators are verbatim quotesand are reproduced exactly as they occurred in the transcription.Theme : Participation as a lifestyleEmerging themes : Participation, self interestline 198 “so participation becomes, really, participation in living.”line 172 “so, ah, having a job that’s reasonable or stable .... that’s an importantelement of participation..”line 415 “I see my own development, in terms of the kind of thing I want to seehappening.”Theme: Participation as on-going learning I educationEmerging themes : education, learning, self-developmentline 81”... more integrated urban development package, and education was acore 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 arebringing in a woman from Portland.”44Theme: Holistic, broad approach to participationEmerging themes : holistic approach, multi-level perspective,interconnectedness of overall society to every day life, broadened perspectiveLine 61”... I broadened my perspective on things, I realized a morecomprehensive approach..”Line 82 “... more integrated urban development package...”Line 126 “... seeing connections through the neighbourhood and all the variouscomplexities of the issue.”Line 136 “I could see that Healthy Communities was a better approach, morecomprehensive, reaching out to the neighbourhood.”On the basis of one interview these themes would be considered to be inthe very early stages of development. In subsequent interviews it would beprudent to incorporate information that was gleaned from the interview that didnot exist in the interview guide but was important. For example, one of thepoints 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 endedand to check out the meaning with the informant. In a larger study, colleagueand respondent review and critique would enhance credibility. Nevertheless,this exercise was most useful in assisting in drawing out examples cited in theliterature.The other piece of qualitative research which was done was twointerviews with Punjabi elders to discuss the value of survey research in thatcommunity. Those interviews are discussed in Chapter Four.45CHAPTER 4FINDINGS AND RESULTSThis chapter examines the findings and results of the research. Thequestionnaire questions are outlined and responses reported. As well, theresearch 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 ofVancouver is included.THE FOCUS GROUPThe first fmdings to be reported are those of the focus group. The focusgroup was both invaluable and challenging. It acted as pre pre-test, in terms ofclarity of questions, presentation., etc. and also highlighted sensitive issues.The following chart shows the gender of participants, who they are andwhere they positioned themselves around the table. The persons identified as”city staffe were careful to point out they were attending on “their own time, asprivate citizens”. It is considered worthwhile to identify them as it is unclearthat they would have been at the table had they not been employed for the cityin departments which have been supportive of this project.The even number of participants, eight, and the size of the tables, allowedfor an even and balanced configuration. The two project staff sat together. Theonly person of male gender was one of the project staff.46Figure 3 Focus Group Configuration* 1-1-____±-h____ ____TAPE/* ±KEY : Roz - Student Researcher, Facilitator of focus groupC - Citizen , numbered in order of entering roomCS - city staff, numbered in order of entering roomPSC - Project Staff Co-ordinatorPSA - Project Staff AnalystThe focus group also served as an example of the care that must be takento reconcile competing and sometimes, conflicting opinions. For example, theresearcher proposed a question on religious affiliation and the group wereunanimous and adamant that this question was too personal and/or politicallyincorrect to be asked. It was decided by the researcher that in the face of thisvery strong opposition, it was more democratic to honour the wishes of thefocus group. On other questions, such as”Is English your second language’?”47there were concerns raised by the focus group but with explanation it wasdecided to leave it in. Regarding martial status, one or two of the members werewidowed and they pointed out that “widowed” should be a category in theresponses for marital status as it is “something much different than single”.Further examples of focus group participants personal experiences affectingtheir input were evidenced in the discussion on caregiving. The fact that severalmembers were providing caregiving to others lead to lengthy discussion aroundthis variable. Following is a sample of the transcript that illustrates the type ofdiscussion that took place. (Please see previous chart for key.)Cl “What is covered under children? What does children mean? I have an adult. He is nota child.”Roz “Ummhumm, aie you caregiving for him though ?“Cl “Yes.”Roz “He has an illness or something that you have to look after...”Cl “He is not a spouse and he is not a parent, he’s not a child.”Roz “I don’t think it matters what age he is if you have someone that you’re caregiving forthat is your child.”CS2 “But they would leave that out then.”Cl “I would leave that out and just write in adult child, uhh...”CS2 “Offspring.”Roz “Relative?”PSC “So you could put children, any age?”PSA “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 forability to spend time at meetings and going out versus how much time I have athome..”C3 “Oh, is that why the question is being asked?”Several voices “yes, ummhumm, yes...”PSA “I think I’d use the generic question, but I agree with you people who haveobligations at home may have more difficulty... right C3?”C3 and other voices in agreement.48A balancing act in the focus group was to allow participants time to saywhat they wanted and still advance the agenda so all the material could becovered. In addition the suggestions of the project staff also needed to beconsidered both at the time of the focus group and in other discussions.When a researcher undertakes research using an external agency’s datathere are many concerns and considerations on the part of that agency. There areissues 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, theconcerns and consideration are also political ones. This research was negotiatedstep-by-step with city planners. For example, it was not considered acceptableby staff to have the statement” I would never call city Hall because no-onewould listen to me anyway” in the questionnaire without an alternativepositively worded statement. Therefore, the statement” I feel city Hallwelcomes citizen inquiries “was added. Interactions with the agencycommanded understanding, diplomacy and the ability to compromise.An important part of this research was the focus group and the positiveimpact of that on the questionnaire development. In opening up the researchprocess to various stakeholders, the researcher both gives up and gainssomething. What is given up is absolute control and the idea that the researcheris the best person to determine variables, methods, etc. What is gained is theopportunity to work co-operatively and together develop an end product that isricher, more sensitive and more inclusive than what could be produced if peopleworked independently.Rate of ReturnOne hundred and fifty questionnaires were mailed out. Of these, 66responses were received. One hundred and two were mailed to persons who49attended workshops that were conducted in English, 26 to people who attendedworkshops that were conducted in Chinese and 22 to people who attended aworkshop conducted in Punjabi. The returns were as follows: Englishquestionnaires 58, Chinese questionnaires 7 and Punjabi questionnaires 2. Fourcopies were returned because the person had moved.Punjabi Return RateOf the two Punjabi questionnaires that were returned, one was notcompleted and included a note requesting a questionnaire in English. This wasprovided but was not returned. There is a disparity in the rate of return of thesequestionnaires relation to the other two groups. Interviews were undertaken inthe Punjabi speaking community to gather information on why this occurred. Akey community person, Gurnam Sanghera, was located. At this time Mr.Sanghera, a social worker, was employed as a Long Term Care manager for thecity of Vancouver. He had been active in promoting the “READY OR NOT!”project within the Indo-Canadian community. Mr. Sanghera suggested keyinformants within the Indo-Canadian community and contacted these people toexplain the purpose of the interviews and seek permission for them to becontacted directly (Sanghera 1993). Interviews were conducted with twoPunjabi speaking elders. A third contact did not materialize due to conflictingschedules.Mr. Gurnam Ranu, is a retired school principal. He stated he has attendeda men’s group at the Sunset Community Centre for six years. He identifiedhimself as a spokesperson and also secretary of the group. This group of menmet every Thursday afternoon and as many as two hundred to two hundred andfifty men often attend. They discuss issues in their community, often inviteguest speakers and share a meal. In regard to why a questionnaire would have a50low response rate in his community, Mr. Ranu stated that people may not takethe time or care. In addition, however, he stated that many of the people whoattended the workshops were seniors, as are the men who attend his group. Hewent on to note that many people speak Punjabi or Hindi but can not read orwrite it. He estimated that of the older citizens about fifty percent would havereceived minimal education before immigrating to Canada. He also stated thatmany of the children and grandchildren who assist the seniors with their mailread only English. Mr. Ranu stated that the best way to do research in the IndoCanadian community would be to seek an invitation to a community group suchas his. The benefit of this he said is that a researcher would “get feedback rightaway” 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 womenin attendance. They are segregated and the male elders traditionally speak forthe community. He did note that this is changing somewhat in recent years, withyounger men becoming more involved in community leadership. As well, hepointed out that the local neighbourhood house now runs a group for IndoCanadian women (Ranu 1993).Mr. Gurdev Dhaliwal, is a volunteer at O.A.S.I.S., a settlement agencyfor Indo-Canadian immigrants, and president of the India Punjabi SeniorsCitizen Society. His feedback on the questionnaire was that it would have beenbetter if it had been circulated in both Punjabi and English. He stated that someof the older population are unable to read and write. He indicated that it is hisfeeling that “face to face” interviews work much better in his community. Hetoo, stated it would be a good idea to come to his group, “because there youmeet 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 gathered51in meetings. As well, traditionally men and women did not met face to face inpublic. This is a tradition which continues in the community” (Dhaliwal 1993).QUESTIONNAIRE VARIABLESThe finalized questionnaire gathered data on several variables. In thisdesign the dependent variable is public participation. As noted the independentvariables that were considered were decided upon with input from staff andcitizens.The majority of research that has been done on who participates in social,political and volunteer activities has considered socioeconomic anddemographic variables. These variables are reported on in the following text.AgeAge was broken down into discrete categories. The median age categoryof respondents was 55 to 64. It is clear in the literature on age and participationthat middle aged persons expose themselves more to politics than youngerpersons and their rates of participation are higher (Milbrath and Goel 1977). Inthis case the median age category is slightly higher than middle age.Although the workshops had been advertised as an issue that affectseveryone it is unclear how much the topic of aging affected the age level of theparticipants. It is clear that many of the people who attended are those who, dueto their own age, are more acutely aware of the effects of aging. This brings upan issue that was not explored in this questionnaire. That is how much ispeople’s participation influenced by self interest? Respondents reason forattending was asked and the answers suggest that self interest could be at least apart of the motivation for attending.52Reason for AttendingRespondents were asked whether their main reason for attending was forpersonal, work or combination of the two reasons. Three stated they attendedfor work reasons, 43 for personal reasons and 14 for a combination of work andpersonal interest (n= 60). Crosstabulation reveals of those who said theyattended for personal reasons alone, 15 were under the age of forty-five and 27were over the age of forty-five (n=42).GenderRespondents were asked to identify their sex with choices of male orfemale. Despite the limitations of the wording of this question in terms ofgender sensitivity, all respondents filled in this question. Forty-seven identifiedthemselves as female and 19 as male.Figure 4 Gender Distribution of Respondents As Percent of Total (N = 66)28.79%fflJ M&eFemale71.21%53As visually represented in the above figure the majority of respondentsare 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 disparityis particularly striking in the three age groups over the age of 45. According tothe 1991 census figures for the city of Vancouver there are 92,425 men over theage 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 ofthis disparity.The higher number of women participating is not consistent with thefindings of previous studies which have found that men, particularly middleaged men, participate in higher numbers than women (Ibid.) Some of theseprevious studies have looked at partisan political involvement, traditionally amale domain. As well, the topic of the workshop and women’s traditional role ascaregivers in society may have had an impact. This is however, speculationwithout further research.English as Second LanguageThe questionnaire also asked respondents if English is their secondlanguage and 16 of the respondents answered yes (n=65). That is 24.6%, almostone fourth of the respondents have English as a second language. Seven wereChinese and 1 Punjabi, which leaves 8 respondents who have another languageas their mother tongue. This questionnaire used the phrase English as a secondlanguage. Some individuals and groups now prefer that this term be replacedwith English as an additional language.Due to the fact that there are three identifiable language groups, theremaybe differences in variables between the groups. This is offered as arecognition of the possibility of differences only. Cell size is not significant to54pursue data analysis. Even if the cell sizes were significant analysis along theselines will not be done as the writer is philosophically opposed to analysis alongthe lines of race only unless respondents clearly indicate research along suchlines is acceptable to them as respondents.Martial StatusAll respondents indicated their marital status. Thirty-one responded thatthey were married, with the rest of the respondents breaking down as follows:single - 21, common law - 1, widowed - 9 and other- 3. Crosstabulationrevealed 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 arewidowed are in the age category 75 and over.EducationThose that responded had a median education level of university withouta degree. In regard to education 5 respondents stated they have grade 9 or lessand 32 indicated they have university with a degree. Forty-eight percent, almosta full half of the respondents are university educated.55Figure 5 Education Levels of RespondentsY axis = frequency35302520151050(N = 65)Numerous studies have found that individuals with higher education levelsparticipate more (Verba and Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Perkins et al.1990; Panda 1990).IncomeIncome proved to be the question people were less willing to answer.Nine respondents did not mark their individual income and eight chose not toprovide household income. The annual income category that respondents onaverage belong to is $20,000 to 29,999. The following graph illustrates thebreakdown of respondents income.Less Th8n Grade 6rde 9 to 1 3 Non Universit’j University University With9 Without Degree Degree56Figure 6 Individual Income of RespondentsY axis = frequency14121086420(N = 57)Income and AgeThe subject of the workshops, aging, attracted seniors. What does thedata look like when it is controlled for seniors? Of the 15 responding, 2 hadincomes of $40,000 to 49,999 and 13 fell below $29,999. This brings the rest ofthe respondents average income up and in line with what is reported in otherstudies. That is that people who participate tend to have higher incomes (Verbaand Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Perkins et al. 1990; Panda 1990).Size of Household and Household IncomeThe 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 inUnderl 0,000. I I I1 0,000 20,000 to 30,000 to 40,000 to 50,000 andtol9,999 29,999 39999 49,999 over57households 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 IncomeSource of income was identified as “from employment” by 30 personsand as “from other sources” by 33 persons (n=63). In the latter category somepeople voluntarily identified “other sources” as being from pensions,investments, etc. Predictably, as people age their income is from sources otherthan employment.OccupationClosely 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 asentertainment. ... Occupation provides a good overall marker of socialstatus, since it carries a wage or salary and is affected by educationalqualifications. Occupation also means a way of life (1990 66).It has been found that those with higher income and occupational statusparticipate more (Presthus 1973; Milbrath and Goel 1977; Panda 1990). Alsothat socioeconomic variables contribute to the formation of personalities typesthat 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. Importantinformation can be gleaned by examining the occupations listed by respondents.58Occupation has been divided into three categories: Human/Social Services,Communications/Service Sector and Other. The following is a list of theresponses:List of Occupations (R = Retired)Human ServicesTeacherClergy--2PhysiotherapistExecutive Director of Non-profit SocietyPhysicianPhysician (R)NurseNurse (R)Homemaker/Clinical CounselorActivity WorkerSocial WorkerClinical Social WorkerSocial Work AdministerSocial Worker (R)Clinical Social WorkerFamily TherapistSocial Service WorkerHome Support Worker (R)Communications/Service SectorPlannerPlanner/stay at home motherProject Manager -- Apt. Complexes59OpticianRealtor --2Realtor (R)Management ConsultantPublic Relations ConsultantMarketing ConsultantLibrary Info Services Co-ordinatorLibrary AssistantOther - may or may not be people relatedWriterUnemployedStudents - 2Computer workerHomemaker - 3Building Maintenance WorkerCake DecoratorExecutive SecretaryExecutive Secretary (R)A scan of this list reveals that half of the respondents who listedoccupation are or were employed in the field of human services, social work,health care, etc. Of the remaining number another twenty-five percent areinvolved in occupations that require daily dealing with the public or clientgroups, e.g. Realtor, marketing/public relations consultant, library workers.Most of the occupations of those who responded are occupations that fall intowhat has traditionally been called the middle class of society.60Gender, Occupation, IncomeWhat is the relationship between sex, occupation and individual income?Cross tabulation revealed that 5 male respondents were professional males, withthree earning over $50,000 per annum (n=14). In the female category 4respondents earned over $50,000. In the female category there are also 5professionals earning less than $10,000 (n= 52).Caregiving ResponsibilitiesIn regard to caregiving responsibilities, 20 people, about one third of therespondents, identified themselves as having caregiving responsibilities. Twelvehad 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 ofrespondents, 44, had no dependents.VotingOne of the first and most fundamental forms of public participation isvoting. Respondents were asked to identify which elections they “usually” votein. Of the 58 persons answering this question, the majority, 49, stated theyusually vote in municipal, provincial and federal elections.61Figure 7 Voting Patterns of Respondents by Percent of Total (N = 58)LegendAll elections= 84.4%, All except municipal= 8.62%,All except provincial= 1.72%, All except federal= 1.72%,Municipal only= 3.45%Volunteer ActivitiesIt was felt that participants in the workshops may be people who aregenerally involved in their neighborhoods and community. Also there isevidence in the literature that those who participate tend to have high rates ofvolunteer activities (Presthus 1975; Milbrath and Goel 1977). As well,organizational membership has been found to be a major independent predictorof political behaviour (Milbrath and Goel 1977). Many volunteer activities takeplace within organizations. Therefore, respondents were asked the number ofvolunteer activities they are involved in. The avenge number was one volunteer/-+4* ++ I+ 4*4-H All Election,C All Except Municipal0 All Except Provincial0 All Except FederalEP Municipal Onltj62activity, with 11 respondents stating they were involved in 5 or more volunteeractivities (n=64). In regard to the number of times per month that respondentsvolunteered, the average was one, with 25 stating they volunteered 5 or timesper month (n=63). Twelve respondents listed no volunteer activity.Income and VolunteeringIs individual income significant to the number of times per month thatpeople 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 asenior. Of the 6 people, none of them seniors, with incomes of over $50,000, 4of them volunteered 5 or more times per month.Personal EfficacyTo give an indication of feelings of personal efficacy, the respondentswere asked, using the scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, to rate thefollowing statements: “Ordinary people like me are able to influencegovernment decisions”; and “I believe when there is a job to be done, I am acapable person to call upon”. A statement regarding the approachability of cityhall, was worded two different ways: “I would never call city Hall because noone would listen to me anyway” and” I feel city Hall welcomes citizeninquires”. Forty-nine people agreed that ordinary people can influencegovernment decisions while nine disagreed (n=63). Twenty-five people or40.8% strongly agreed that when there is a job to be done they are capable tocall 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). Ingeneral, people felt they could approach city hall.63These results indicate that over all people responding to this survey feelthey have a high level of personal efficacy. This is consistent with previousstudies that have found that feelings of personal efficacy leads to higherparticipation levels (Milbrath and Goel 1977; Chavis and Wandersman 1990).NeighbourhoodMuch of the organization of the “READY OR NOT!” meetings andgroups were done by neighborhood. Therefore, respondents were asked wherethey believe their input to be best placed, in response to the statement” I believemy participation with municipal government is most useful at : theneighborhood level, the city-wide level or both levels”. Of 59 responses, 15 felttheir involvement would be most useful at the neighbourhood level, 9 at the citylevel and 35 on both fronts.It was hoped that there would be an opportunity to do comparisons byneighbourhood with the data collected. However, only three neighbourhoodshad response rates which resulted in cell size of 5 or greater. They are ArbutusShaughnessy 5, Dunbar Southiands 5 and the Jewish community 7. The higherparticipation rate in the Jewish community is consistent with previous studiesthat found that participation by individuals from this community is higher thanfrom other religious/ethnic groups (Milbrath and Goel 1977).Due to the fact that neighbourhood by neighbourhood analysis could notbe undertaken the communities (Chinese, Punjabi and Jewish) were extractedand the neighbourhood responses were collapsed into east/west categories.Using the traditional city divider of Ontario Street to distinguish east and westcommunities, consistently the rate of response was higher from westsidecommunities. For example, lone questionnaires were returned from the64neighbourhoods of Downtown Eastside, Hastings Sunrise, Killarney, MountPleasant and Victoria Fraserview.Attachment to NeighbourhoodAttachment to a person’s neighborhood has an effect on participation. Tolook at this, respondents were asked how long they have lived at their currentresidence and how long they have been residents of Vancouver. They wereasked to respond by checking “lifelong” or filling in the number of years.Because exact age was not asked, those who answered lifelong were slotted intothe upper limit of the age group they checked off. One person indicated theylived at their residence lifelong (and was under age 19).and an additional 10people stated they had lived in Vancouver lifelong. The median residence at thecurrent 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 previousfindings that the longer a person has lived in a particular community the morelikely they are to participate (Verba and Nile 1972; Milbrath and Goel 1977;Hallman 1984).To further probe neighborhood attachment, respondents were asked torate, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, the following statements: “I reallylike the neighborhood I live in” and “I believe it is important to participate inmy neighborhood.” In regard to the first statement, 12 respondents agreed and44 of the respondents strongly agreed with this statement (n=63). Fiverespondents disagreed. These people lived in the neighborhoods of Keningston,Killarney, Downtown Eastside, Strathcona and Marpole-Oakridge. Four ofthese respondents live on the east side of the city. Fifty-six of the respondentsagreed with the second statement that it is important to participate in your65neighbourhood (n=63). The bulk of respondents indicated they “really like”their neighbourhood and over half stated they felt it is important to participate intheir neighbourhood. The level of a person’s attachment to their neighbourhoodenhances their participation (Haeberle 1989).Community EfficacyCommunity efficacy was explored by asking respondents to rate thestatements “People working together make a difference” and “The best way toget things done is to have everyone, government and citizens working together”.A strong sense of community efficacy emerged with 59 people stating thatpeople working together make a difference. Of the other respondents, 4 wereneutral and 1 strongly disagreed (n=64). Citizen and government co-operationwas favored by 57 people with 7 neutral and 1 strongly disagreeing (n=64).Multiple studies have found that those who have a strong group identificationand sense of belonging participate more actively (Milbrath and Goel 1977;Chavis and Wandersman 1990).Previous Experience in PlanningSome people are habitually involved in government planning. That is,they attend council regularly, submit briefs and/or attend various publicmeetings. These are the citizens that Mathews calls,“professional citizens.. . perennial members of advisory boards ortrustees of established community organizations sometimes referred to asthe ‘usual suspects’, these citizens are accustomed to dealing with officialsand are quite willing to be treated as the public’s real representatives.There is no denying their usefulness. No community could do withoutthem. However, they are not necessarily conduits to the public at large. Infact, the professional citizens are sometimes more likely to represent theofficials point of view than vice versa” (1994, 90).66It was important to the organizers of this project that they broaden the base ofparticipants. To test whether the workshop participants were new to city publicplanning, the respondents were asked about prior involvement in planning. Afairly even split occurred, 32 responded no and 34 replied yes (n=66). Elevenpeople or 16% of the respondents who participated for the first time had Englishas a second language.Who Should Plan?Respondents were asked who of individuals and families, government orcharitable organizations should take the major lead in planning and lookingafter our aging population. Only four respondents stated the individual/family.Charitable organizations were not strongly linked with planning and delivery ofservice. One individual responded charitable organizations, 2 individuals/familyand charitable organizations and 1 felt government and charitable organizations.Other responses were close in number, with 15 people giving the responsibilityto government, 18 to the individual/family and government and 20 peopleresponded all three parties have a role to play. In retrospect it is recognized thatit 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 ifrespondents may have emphasized one activity over the other in their responses.Participant ProfileData from this survey reveals that the average respondent is most likelyto be a female professional, over the age of forty-five, with some universitytraining, 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 dependentsat home and a one in two chance of being married. The average respondent’s67length of residency is 11.57 years and residency in Vancouver is 29.19 years.The average respondent belongs to 2.3 volunteer organizations and volunteers3.1 times per month. Average individual income is between $20,000 and 29,999with the average household income slightly over $40,000. Typical respondentsattended for personal reasons and approximately fifty percent have had previousexperience in government planning. Respondents indicated they feel a strongsense of personal and community efficacy believing that their input can make adifference.At the outset of this research it was expected that it would be possible toconstruct a participant profile of those who attended these workshops. In anyrandom sample, provided the sample was correctly drawn and this one was, it isassumed that the respondents are representative of the overall participants. Alegitimate question then, is, does this mean that the majority of participants atthe workshop were women? Registration cards were filled in by participants butgender was not asked. A review of the random sample list shows that 85 of thenames drawn in the sample are those traditionally given to women. Forexample, Irene, Pauline, Mary, Jean, Lorraine, etc. Traditional men’s names,such as, Michael, Tony, Robert and Joe, accounted for 38 persons on therandom sample. Five people had gender neutral names, such as, Lee or Terry,or names that were not readily linked to gender. Twenty-two of thequestionnaires were sent out to people in the Punjabi language group. The lowrate of return from this sector meant this sector is not incorporated into theparticipant profile. In regard to participant profile more women than men wererandomly selected and responded to the questionnaire. Due to random samplingit is most likely more women than men also participated in the workshops.68City of Vancouver DataCensus information for the year 1991 states that the total population forthe city in 1991 was 471,845. Men made up 232,090 of that number and women239,755. The biggest disparity in age groups is in the over 75 age categorywhere women out-number men almost two to one. The average income forfemales in the city is $14,509. and for males $22,485. The average householdincome was $22,484. The source of income for 73.5% of the city’s populationwas from employment. One person household comprised 39.3% of thehouseholds while 29.6% were two person households. The average number ofchildren per family was 1.1. Husband and wife families numbered 85,175 andsingle parent families 15,795. Of these 13,105 were headed by women. Thirtythree percent of the population had university education. There were 174,755people 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 thanPunjabi speakers (Statistics Canada 1994).69CHAPTER FIVEDISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONSThe results of this research are in line with what has been discovered inprevious research. Overall, respondents had incomes higher than the cityaverage and were better educated than the average citizen. The householdincome of participants was almost twice that of the city average.The longer people live in a house, a neighbourhood, or city, the moreattachments they form. Their surroundings are familiar and they have aninvestment, both financially and emotionally. Previous research has implied thatthose with greater attachment and investment tend to participate more. Thatproved true in this survey with the average time in the city at twenty-nine yearsand the average time at current address just under twelve years.In general, those who responded have strong feelings of personal efficacyand community efficacy. Overall, they are also empowered in their contact withelected municipal officials, feeling that they are able to influence governmentand make a difference. Their voting patterns are evidence of a high sense ofcivic duty.The low rate of return on the Punjabi questionnaires was surprising andrequired follow-up. What was found was that survey research is not the bestmethod of research in this community, that personal contacts through70community spokespersons would yield the greatest information. If surveyresearch must be undertaken it is imperative that the survey provide bothPunjabi and English language translations. A large number of the IndoCanadians that did participate in the workshops were seniors. This was as aresult of an influential city staff member who networked through wellestablished senior men’s groups. In the traditions of this community it is seen asappropriate that elder males speak for the community.This points to another area for future research regarding participationwhich is the multicultural aspect of our city. How does this get cared for insocial planning and research? To begin with we need permission and/orinvitation from specific groups to undertake research in their community. Weneed to involve people early and to the maximum possible to ensure that ourresearch will be culturally sensitive, relevant and successful. The time to consultkey informants is prior to the research, not afterwards to ask what went wrong!Another surprising feature in this research was the imbalance betweenmen and women respondents. While the organizers did arrange child mindingservices for the workshops it is unlikely that this greatly affected the sample asonly 12 of the total respondents indicated they were caregiving for children.There is the issue that some of the studies summarized by Milbrath and Goelwere done regarding political participation, in numerous cases as it relates topartisan political participation. As Jones pointed out, this is an area thattraditionally has been closed to women due to the lack of supportive policiesand programs to enhance women’s participation. Curtis, Tupperman and Phillipsrightly point out that the participation of women in political activity is hinderedby the division of labour. Generally speaking, there is also the issue of thedifference between men and women and their ways of knowing and71communication. Women tend chose co-operative and consensus models whilepolitics can be confrontational.Women are also not consistently socialized in leadership roles. They arehowever, socialized into helping or service roles which leads to another point. Alarge percentage of these respondents were women and employed inhelping/service sectors. They are also in the upper margin of what has beendubbed “the sandwich generation”, women who are not quite finished withcaregiving for their children and have aged parents who are requiring moreassistance. Planning for coping with an aging population may be more relevantto an individual if she is actually engaged in it.It was the intention of the “READY OR NOT!” project to include asmany people as possible and gain as wide a range of input as possible. Thecomplimentary internal goal was to develop “comprehensive inter-departmentalcollaboration which acknowledges the significant links among issues, thefunctions we perform and their impact on the city. “(Policy Report, SocialDevelopment, Aging, Oct. 1, 1991 ,3).Was it successful? Yes and no. While thisis in no way a formal evaluation a few evaluative observations will be made. Itwas successful in that it was the first time city council sought city-wide input inthis manner. It was successful in that the staff working on the project took stepsto address barriers. For example, they held a workshop for deaf persons andcontinued to provide interpreters for the deaf at subsequent communitymeetings. They also held workshops for the Punjabi and Chinese (Cantonese)communities. They gave support to the Jewish community to hold theirworkshops on an alternative day. They provided paid, not volunteer, child carefor the workshops because they believed child care has a value and provisionshave to be taken for mothers to be able to participate.72There were however many more barriers that were not successfully metor overcome. Of overwhelming note is the absence of participation of FirstNations citizens. As well as the under and unemployed and lower educated andthose 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 isappropriate 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 existingstaffing 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 SocialDevelopment that our council adopted in 1991, then greater funds have to bededicated to carry out those principles and projects such as this one. Evengreater linkages with communities and neighbourhoods have to occur. Givenour fiscal times the burden can not all fall to city coffers. Such linkages alsoresult in finding and utilizing resident experts and key community organizersand informants. The best strategic plans are generated from the bottom up.The macro problem is that we need to raise the standard of living andbetter educate those at the bottom rungs of our social strata to allow for fullerparticipation or at least the option of deciding if they wish to pursue fullerparticipation. Until the standard of living can be raised we have to build on theinnovative steps taken in this project and find other inclusive, non-threateningways to broaden the base of participation.One way to enhance neighbourhoods and broaden the opportunities forresidents to participate, especially eastside residents, would be to put a wardsystem of representation in place for city council. A ward system contributes toneighbourhood building in that there is one person representing a specific73electoral area. Ideally, in order to be re-elected this person must work diligentlywithin that ward and carry on an on-going dialogue with residents.Essential to broadening participation is the need to fit the opportunitiesfor participation to the public. In addition to the linkages to established groupsmentioned earlier, we also need to enhance outreach to various sectors of thepublic. What is being talked about at the Aboriginal Friendship Center or FirstUnited Church, on the eastside, is much different than what is being said at theShaughnessy Golf Club or the Arbutus Club, on the westside. We need to targetand include groups that otherwise might not participate. Groups such as ethnicminorities, single mothers and the aged. For example, did this project do enoughto outreach to those who have already aged? Many of these people have specialneeds, such as mobility problems. In cases such as this it is more appropriate totake the forum for participation to the people than ask the people to come to avenue.It would appear that what has occurred with this particular planningexercise is that it has been more accessible to the better educated and higherwage earners. The groups who are not represented in this participation willcontinue to live and age in neighborhoods in our city. Assuming that we doindeed agree that the public has a contribution to make, then how does a fullerspectrum of the public become involved? In addition to programs that addressmore equitable education and raise the standard of living we must look towardwhat are appropriate meeting places and avenues of participation for all classes.A group may require a space within which to participate but they may alsorequire the provision of small gifts for exchange or food if either is integral to agathering in that community. Social workers and city planners need to go to thevarious sectors within society to find out what existing means there are forparticipation and support those groups in participating in that manner rather74than imposing what may be artificial forms of participation on them. We mustalso teach, acknowledge, allow and support indigenous members of groups toplan, deliver and evaluate public participation. Arnstein and Tester point outthat we must also give the public greater say in the allocation of resources.Just as survey research is not the most effective way of gatheringinformation from the Punjabi speaking community, our other “middle class”tools and ways of information are not suitable for all people. A workshopformat may be a highly appropriate vehicle for participation in someneighbourhoods or communities while it is not in others. (In regard to theseworkshops the project summarized what were considered to be strengths andweaknesses of the workshops. This summary is contained in Appendix 5.)We must more often and more readily consult those who we wish toparticipate. And that is only step one. Then we must be willing to assist citizensto reach consensus and the biggest task of all, as both researchers and municipalpoliticians we must be willing to accept that consensus. Participation has to bemore that an exercise in public relations for it to be meaningful and encouragefuller participation. We must encourage governments to give citizens strongerinput into the allocation of resources and program development.This research adds to our understanding of who accepted the invitationfrom municipal government to form a planning partnership to generate astrategic plan for coping with our aging population. It allows for identificationof some of the determinants of their participation as well as construction of aprofile 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, soare we all challenged to enable and empower the public, which includes ourclients, to participate.75BibliographyAllen, Carleton Kemp. Democracy and the Individual, essay index reprintseries, 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 ofAmericanInstitute 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 andGrowth. Citizen Participation in Social Change, Calgary, Canada:Detselig Enterprises Ltd, 1991.Baker, Harold R., James A. Draper and Brett T. Fairbairn, editors, Dignityand 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 LocalContext, 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 SocialMovements In Theory and Practice, Victoria, Canada: GaramondPress, 1992.Chafetz, Janet Saitman. Gender Equality, An Integrated Theory of Stability andChange, California: Sage Publications, 1990.Chapin, Henry. “Citizen involvement: the new consultants” Perception 1,May-June, 1978, 35-36.76Chavis, David M. and Abraham Wandersman. “Sense of community anddevelopment” American Journal of Community Psyclwlogy. 18,1Feb. 55-81, 1990.Chekki, Danesh A. Planning and Citizen Participation in a Canadian city(Reporting on an experiment in Winnipeg Manitoba) CommunityDevelopment Journal, 14, Jan., 1979, 34-40.Clague, Michael and Roopchand Seebaran, The Change Process ThroughUrban 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 CivicReview, 1988, 249 - 257.Cunningham, Frank, Sue Findlay, Marlene Kadar, Alan Lennon and EdSilva. Social Movements, Social Change, Toronto: Between theLines, 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: YaleUniversity 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, 4thedition, Belmont, California: Duxbury Press, Wadsworth PublishingCompany, 1978.77Etzione-Halevy, Eva. The Elite Connection, Problems and Potential OfWestern Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.Florian, Paul and Abraham Watersman. “An introduction to citizenparticipation, voluntary organizations, and community development:Insights for empowerment through research.” American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 18,1 Feb. 1990, 41-54.Goyder, John. Essentials ofCanadian Society ,Toronto: Mc Clelland & StewartInc., 1990.Held, David. Prospectsfor Democracy, North, South, East, West,Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.Heliman, Howard W. Neighborhoods, Their Place in Urban Life, BeverlyHills, California: Sage Publications, 1984.Heberle, Steven H. Planting the Grass Roots: Structuring CitizenParticipation, New York: Praeger Press, 1989.Jackson, Robert J., Doreen Jackson and Nicholas Baxter-Moore. Politics InCanada, Culture, Institutions, behaviour and Public Policy,Scarborough, Ontario: Prentice Hall Canada Inc., 1986.Jones, Kathleen B. Compassionate Authority, Democracy and theRepresentation ofWomen, New York: Routledge, Chapman andHall, Inc., 1993.Kuyek, Joan Newman. Fighting For Hope, Organizing to Realize OurDreams, Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1990.Lea, James F. Political Consciousness and American Democracy, Jackson:University of Mississippi Press, 1982.Lemonias, Peter. Citizen Surveysfor City Government, StudentIndependent Project Report, Austin: Lyndon B. Johnson School ofPublic 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, 1994.78Milbrath, L.W. and M.L. Goel. Political Participation . How and Why DoPeople Get Involved in Politics? Chicago: Rand McNally, 1977.Miller, Thomas I. and Michelle A. Miller. Citizens Surveys, how to dothem, 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 andPublic 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 Wandersmanand David M. Chavis. Participation and the social and physicalenvironment 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 publicparticipation, a briefdiscussion and selected annotatedbibliography, Ottawa/Montreal: Canadian Council on SocialDevelopment, 1988.Prestby, John, Abraham Wandersman, Paul Florin, Richard Rich and DavidChavis. “Benefits, Costs, Incentive Management and Participation inVoluntary Organizations : A means to understanding and promotingempowerment”, American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,1Feb. 1990, 117-149.Presthus, Robert. Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics, Toronto: TheMacmillan Company of Canada Limited, 1973.Price, Richard H. “Whither participation and empowerment” AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 18,1 Feb. 1990, 163 - 167.Qualter, Terence H., Conflicting Political Ideas in Liberal Democracies,Agincourt, Ontario: Methun Publications, The Carswell CompanyLtd., 1986.79Riker, William H., Liberalism Against Populism, A confrontation Between theTheory ofDemocracy and the Theory ofSocial Choice, San Francisco:W.H. Freeman and Company, 1982.Reese, William L. Dictionary ofPhilosophy and Religion, Eastern andWestern Thought, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1980.Ross, Aif. Why Democracy, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UniversityPress, 1952.Roussopoulos, Dimitrios I. Dissidence, Essays Against the Mainstream,Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1992.Stein, Jess, editor in chief, Random House College Dictionary, RevisedEdition, Toronto: Random House of Canada Limited, 1988.Tester, Frank J. Reflections on Tin Wis, Environmentalism and theEvolution 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 SocialWorkers, New York: Longman Publishing Group, 1991.Winston, Kenneth and Mary Jo Bane. Gender and Public Policy, Cases andComments, Colorado: Westview Press, 1993.Zimmerman, Marc A. “Taking Aim on Empowerment Research : on thedistinction between individual and psychological conceptions” AmericanJournal of Community Psychology, 18,1 Feb. 1990, 169 - 177.Government publicationsNational Council of Welfare. Organizingfor Social Action: ThreeCanadian Experiences, A report preparedfor the national council ofwelfare by those who took part, Ottawa: Government Press, 1975.Statistics Canada. 1991 Census Report, Ottawa: Government Press, 1994.80Unpublished MaterialCity of Vancouver Council Minutes, June 1990.City of Vancouver Social Planning Department Reports and MemosSocial Planning Department Memo, Feb. 14, 1991.Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, Oct. 1, 1991.Policy Report, Social Development, Aging, Jan. 7, 1992.Personal InterviewsChris 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 APPENDIX 1 (81)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) 871-604824 November 1992Dr. Sharon Manson SingerAssociate ProfessorSchool of Social WorkUniversity of British ColumbiaV6T 1Z1Dear 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 PublicParticipation in a Municipal Planning Process: Vancouver’s “READY OR NOT!”Christine Warren, our senior social planner and the co-ordinator of “READY OR NOT!”, willbe 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 PlanningJP/mm: 5SP-0106.COVPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERAPPENDIX 2 (82)z I liiiIIIivA’(ovt’sIF YOU’RE PLANNING ON____HAVING SOME MOREBIRTHDAYS......you should get involved in “READY OR NOT!”Qn April 11th, you, the people of Vancouver, are invited toparticipate in a unique project about the future of our city.The aging of the population has been called the single mostimportant trend of our time. It will change the way we doeverything - from work, education, business and transportationto housing, health care and neighbourhood design. Andwhether you’ve had 16 birthdays or 60, the changes to come willaffect you. “READY OR NOT!”, Vancouver’s Project on Aging,is meeting the challenge of preparing for these changeshead-on.We need your ideas!Many Vancouver residents have helped plan and organize thisproject. We want more of you! You and your neighbours, youngand old alike, are invited to brainstorm with us during workshopsto be held in over 20 sites across the city.Come and exchange thoughts and ideas about what works inyour neighbourhood now and what could be changed, createdor improved in the future.You can make a difference!If you would like to participate in this one-of-a-kind project andwant to make a difference in your neighbourhood and your city,come to the April 11th. workshop in your area. Bring aneighbour! 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 onApril 4. The Strathcona neighbourhood workshop will take place on April12. The workshop at the Jewish Community Centre is on April 29th.Workshop Times - Locations - Childminding Information(83)American Sign Language9:30am- 12:30 pm Western Institute for the Deaf,2125W. 7th AvenueArbutus-Rldge/Shaughnessy9:00am. 12:00 pm St. John’s Shaughnessy Church,1490 Nanton St.Chudminding Preregistration: 731-4966Downtown Eastside11:00 am - 2:00 pm Carnegie Centre, 401 Main StreetChildminding Preregistration: 682-0931 (call Dayle)Dunbar-Southiands9:00 am - 12:30 pm Dunbar Community Centre,4747 Dunbar StreetChildminding Preregistration: 224-1374Fairview10:00 am - 2:00 pm False Creek Community Centre,1318 CartwrightChildminding Preregistration: 665-4325Grandview-Woodtands9:00 am - 12:30 pm Britannia Community Centre.1661 Napier StreetChildminding Preregistration: 253-4391Hastings-Sunrise9:00 am - 1:00pm Hastings Community Centre,3096 HastingsChildminding Preregistration: 255-2606Kensington-Cedar Cottage10:00 am - 1:30 pm Trout Lake Community Centre,3350 Victoria Dr.Chilminding Preregistration: 876-9285Kerrisdale9:00 am - 12:00 noon Kerrisdale Community Centre,5851 W. Blvd.Chitdminciing Preregistration: 266-8331Kiliarney9:30 am - 12:30 pm Killarney Secondary School.6454 KillarneyChildminding Preregistration: 434-9167Kltsiiano9:30 am - 1:30pmBayview School. 2251 CollingwwoodHenry Hudson School, 1551 CypressKits Nbhd House, 2325 W 7th AvenueChildminding Preregistration: 736-9844 (Debby)Marpole/Oakridge10:00 am - 2:00 pm Marpole Oakridge CommunityCentre, 990 W. 59th AvenueChildminding Preregistration: 327-8371Mount Pleasant10:00 am - 2:00 pm Biltmore Hotel, 395 KingswayChildminding Preregistration: 872-5252Rent rew-Collingwood9:00 am - 1:00 pm Renfrew Community Centre,2929 E. 22nd AvenueChildminding Preregistration: 434-6688Riley Park10:00 am - 2:00 pm Riley Park Community Centre,50 E. 30th AvenueChildminding Preregistration: 879-7104SunsetNictoria Fraserview9:00 am - 12:30 pm Boys & Girls Club,7595 Victoria DriveChildminding Preregistration: 879-9918 (9am -3pm)West End10:00 am - 2:00 pm West End Community Centre.870 Denman StreetChildminding Preregistration: 689-3876 (call Heather)West Point Grey8:30 am - 12:30 pm Our Lady of Perpetual HelpChurch, 2550 Camosun StreetChitdminding Preregistration: 228-8811APRIL 4TH:Chinese Community Workshop (Cantonese)1:00 pm - 4:00 pm Ramada Renaissance Hotel,1133 W. Hastings StreetChildminding Preregistration: 684-1628lndo-Canaclian Community Workshop (Punlabt)1:30pm - 4:30 pm Moberly Auditorium,7646 Prince Albert St.APRIL 12TH:Strathcona2:00 pm. 5:00 pm Strathcona Community Centre.601 KeeferSt.Childminding Preregistration: 254-9496APRIL 29TH:Jewish Community Centre1:00pm - 3:00 pm 950 W.4lst AvenueAPRIL 11TH:—Please register for childminding 3 days in advance —APPENDIX 3 (84)APPENDIX AAPRIL “READY OR NOT!” WORKSHOPS1. WORKSHOP PLANNINGIn 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 toplan neighbourhood workshops.• project name selected by public contest.• neighbourhood teams organized; team coordinators identified (teams comprised of residentsand 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— tocommunity 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— distributed by teams.publicity translated into five languages.5000 “READY OR NOT!” buttons made and distributed.teams selected location of workshops; workshop chaiiperson; small-group facilitators andrecorders;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 actualworkshops 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 forfacilitators; 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 theirneighbourhood 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 (85)‘NO£ *GINP.C K 00*0SOURCE: Vancouver City “READY OR NOT!” Poster (1992)APPENDIX 5 (86)APPENDIX AWORKSHOP RESULTSThe age break-down of participants was: under 20 — 3%; 20-39 — 17%; 40-64 — 41%; 65+ —39%. Fifty-six percent were property owners and 44% were renters. People found out about theworkshop in the following ways:Community agency — 31%Friend/Neighbour — 17%Citystaff —16%Brochure/flyer — 11%Media — 10%Poster — 9%Other — 6%The workshops sought to identify: shared goals, local and city-wide issues, positive attributes ofneighbourhoods, and local and city-wide actions. Results varied in terms of the type ofinformation sought.a) Shared goals — we did not specifically ask people to identify goals. However, somethemes emerged with were evident right across the city. These themes popped up in thediscussions of issues, changes and actions. They were:• the desire to strengthen neighbourhoods and communities. This was also referredto as “community-building”; “creating a sense of community” and “neighbourhoodempowerment”.the desire to break down barriers between generations— to create intergenerational 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 tospecificity. Participants discussed a broad range of issues, but were asked to identify oneor two priorities for more detailed discussion. Across the city, in 111 small-groupdiscussions, people identified the following priority issues:Housing —50 groupsSafety & security —33 groups• Health— 27 groupsTransportation/traffic — 19 groups• Isolation — 15 groupsNeighbourhood Planning — 10 groupsRecreation — 10 groupsAside from the absence of the “environment” and the inclusion of “isolation”, these issuesare fairly consistent with ihe many polls, surveys and plans previously undertaken —(E7)APPENDIX A2. WORKSHOP RESULTSThe age break-down of participants was: under 20— 3%; 20-39 — 17%; 40-64 — 41%; 65+ —39%. Fifty-six percent were property owners and 44% were renters. People found out about theworkshop in the following ways:Community agency — 31%Friend/Neighbour — 17%Citystaff —16%Brochure/flyer — 11%Media — 10%Poster — 9%Other —6%The workshops sought to identify: shared goals, local and city-wide issues, positive attributes ofneighbourhoods, and local and city-wide actions. Results varied in terms of the type ofinformation sought.a) Shared goals — we did not specifically ask people to identify goals. However, somethemes emerged with were evident right across the city. These themes popped up in thediscussions of issues, changes and actions. They were:• the desire to strengthen neighbourhoods and communities. This was also referredto as “community-bui1ding; “creating a sense of community” and “neighbourhoodempowerment”.the desire to break down barriers between generations — to create intergenerational 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 tospecificity. Participants discussed a broad range of issues, but were asked to identify oneor two priorities for more detailed discussion. Across the city, in 111 small-groupdiscussions, people identified the following priority issues:• Housing —50 groups• Safety & security —33 groupsHealth —27 groupsTransportation/traffic — 19 groupsIsolation — 15 groupsNeighbourhood Planning — 10 groupsRecreation —10 groupsAside from the absence of the “environment” and the inclusion of “isolation”, these issuesare fairly consistent with the many polls, surveys and plans previously undertaken —including (with acknowledgement that other surveys have been more specific) Goals forVancouver, Choosing our Future and the Urban Canada Study.-2-(88)APPENDIX AC) Positive neighbourhood attributes — participants did not have any difficulty listing a greatnumber of community assets including, happily, some City services such as communitycentres and the Block Watch program.d) Actions — a broad range of changes / actions were identified, although most were notspecific in terms of the “how” of implementation. The interesting observation here is thatwhile many actions would require government involvement, a significant number werecommunity-based. Some examples include:• Community groups getting directly involved in the development of affordablehousing.• 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.3. WORKSHOP EVALUATIONBased on the evaluation forms completed at the workshops; evaluation meetings with the SteeringCommittee and team coordinators and informal feedback from participants, following is a list ofstrengths 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 Deafworkshops;-3-APPENDIX 6 (89)city of VancouverSocial Planning Department:DearThis letter will introduce you to Roz Mackinnon, a UBC student doing a Master’s degree insocial Work. A letter from Roz follows this one.Roz initially connected with “READY OR NOT!” wanting a “case study” through which tolook at factors related to public participation. And, as luck would have it, this was about thetime we were thinking of starting an evaluation of the project. The happy result of ourliaison is the attached questionnaire.The questionnaire includes a mix of questions designed to get both specific and generalinformation. We, of course, are particularly interested in your views on the “READY ORNOT!” project and really encourage you to call us if you have comments or questions whichgo beyond the questionnaire.Attachments (2)CWImm: 1etr2099VAICOG VEt’SPIOJACT 01AGING250 West Heritage Building, City Square, Box 96, 555 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., V5Z 3X7 (604) 873-7487 FAX: (604) 871-6048[vance for taking some of your time to fill out the questionnaire. A copy ofresults will be made available to you at your request.Chris WarrenProject Co-ordinator“READY OR NOT!”Vancouver’s Project on AgingPRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERAPPENDIX 7 (90)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASchool of Sodil Woh2080 West MallVancouver, B.C. V6T 1Z2March 4, 1993.Dear “READY OR NOT!” Participant,I am a Masters Student in Social Work at the University of British Columbia. I am doingresearch on “READY OR NOT!” which will become part of my thesis which is titled SomeDeterminants of Public Participation in a Municipal Planning Process : Vancouver’s “READYOR NOT!”. The benefit of this research is that it will give us a better understanding of whoparticipated and what are some of the factors that determined participation. Knowing this willhelp people plan future community based planning efforts better.Your name along with one hundred and forty - nine others were randomly selected fromall the names of citizens who participated in the “READY OR NOT!” citywide workshops inApril, 1992. Questionnaires have been mailed to 150 people.I realize that your time is valuable and I appreciate your help with this research. I havetried to keep the questionnaire short, it will probably take about 20 minutes to complete. If atany time you have questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at my home number873-3999. My research supervisor, Dr. Sharon Manson Singer may also be contacted at theabove address or telephone 822-2255.You are under no obligation to participate and there will be no negative consequences ifyou decide not to.Your questionnaire responses will be kept confidential. Once it is received anyidentifying information will be removed. The results of this survey will be reported as groupfindings so no one respondent can be singled out.Please return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed, stampedenvelope by MARCH 20, 1993.Thank you for your time and co-operation,Yours Sincerely,Roz Mac Kinnon,Research Student.end.APPENDIX 8 (91)QUESTIONNAIRESome Derenninants ofPublic Participation in “READY OR NOfl”1Completion of this questionnaire is your consent to participate in this research. Your answers will be keptconfidential. If you have questions or concerns please call:Roz Mac Kinnon - UBC Student Researcher: 873 - 3999 or Dr. Sharon Manson Singer - Supervisor - 822 -2255A. We would like you to provide some information about yourself Pleasefill in the blank orma,ic the appropriate boz1. Number of years at current residence: 3. My occupation is:Lifelong 0 or______ years2. Length of residence in Vancouver:Lifelong C] or______ years4. Sex: 5. English is my second language:Male 0 Yes C]Female C] No C]6. Age: 7. Highest level of Education:Under 19 0 Less than grade 9 020-34 0 Grade9-13 C]35-44 0 Non - University C]45-54 C] University without a Degree C]55-64 0 University with a Degree C]65-74 075+ 08 Including yourself, size of household: 9. Dependents I have living at home:1 person C] Children []2 persons C] Chronically Ill Person 03persons C] AgedParents C]4-5persons C]6-9persons C]10 or more nersons C]10. Number of volunteer 11. Number of times per month that Iactivities I am involved in: do volunteer work:None C] None C]1 0 1 02 0 2 03 0 3 04 0 4 05 or more 0 5 or more 0(92)2B. We are i,uerested in your views on your neighborhood and civic affairs. On a scale of one tofive, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, rate each statement below:1. Ordinary people like me are able to influence government decisions.DDDI]Dstrongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree2.1 believe it is important to participate in my neighbourhood.DDDDDstrongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree3.! really like the neighbourhood I live in.UUDDDstrongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree4.1 believe when there is a job to be done, I am a capable person to call upon.D[]DDDstrongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree5.1 would never call City Hall because no one would listen to me anyway.UDDODstrongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree6. People working together makes a difference.L]DDDDstrongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree7.1 feel City hail welcomes citizen inquiries.DDDC]Dstrongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 strongly agree8. The best way to get things done is to have everyone, government andcitizens working together.DDDDDstrongly 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). 31. 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 voiceconcerns 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 C3. Prior to attending the “READY OR NOT!” workshop have you participated withgovernment in public processes? (e.g. by attending committees, hearings, presenting briefs orappearing 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 C5. 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 #6a. Do you believe the newsletter is a good way to get information to participants?YesC] NoDb. 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 ORNOT!” project? YesO Not]If you answered yes to #6, please answer the following, otherwise proceed to #7a) One of the goals of this project is to find a way to get broader public participationon social issues that affect local government and neighbourhoods. How satisfiedare you that this is working?Very satisfied C Satisfied C] Somewhat satisfied C] Not at all satisfied Cb) Another goal of “READY OR NOT!” is to promote the idea of City staff andresidents 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 CI did not have enough information about what was involved C]Other, specify8. After the workshops, a funds established to provide small grants to neighbourhoodsto begin acting on some of the ideas expressed at the workshops. Do you know about thisfund? YesD No CIf you answered yes, do you think this fund is a good idea? Yes C No C(94)1. Marital Status: 2. Type of household: 3. Source of Income:Single C Non - family household C] From employment CMarried C] Lone parent household C] From other sources CCommon Law C Two parent household C]Widowed C] Multiple family household C]Other CI4. Individual Yearly Income: 5. Household Income:Under $10,000 C] 30,000 - 39,999 C] Under $10,000 C] 30,000 - 39,999 C]10,000 - 19,999 C] 40,000 - 49,999 I] 10,000 - 19,999 C] 40,000 - 49,999 C]20.000 - 29.999 C] 50,000 and over C] 20,000 - 29,999 0 50,000 and over C]6.1 usuauv vote in the following elections: MuniciDal C Provincial C] Federal C]7.1 believe my participation with municipal 8. Which group(s) should have the maingovernment is most useful at : (mark any) responsibility for planning and lookingthe neighbourhood level C after our aging population? ( mark any)the city - wide level 0 Individual and Family 0both levels C] Municipal government CProvincial government CFederal government C]Charitable Organizations CNot Sure CE is there anything else you would like to add? Please use the space below and the back ofthispage fnecessaiy.Please return this Questionnaire in the enclose4 selfaddressed and stamped envelope byMARCH20, 1993. We appreciate the time you have donated to this research by completingthis questionnaire. Ifyou would like a summwy ofthis research please coil the City ofVancouver Social Planning Department at 871 - 6033 or 871 - 6035 and leave your name andmailing address, a copy will be mailed to you after the research report Is written. Please callthe same numbers Ifyou’d likefurther information on the “READY OR NOT!” project.Please provide some information about yourselfby marking the appropriate box: 4APPENDIX 9 (95)APPENDIX E“READY OR NOT!” — WORKING GROUPTerms of ReferencePURPOSE- To produce a plan for strategic change with regard to the impact of the aging of the city’spopulation.- 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 andlong-term actions. Sources of information would include:a) data from community workshops;b) round-table discussions in specific issue areas identified by the community. Theseshould include at least housing, safety and security, health care, transportation,isolation, neighbourhood planning and recreation. Other areas which will likely beaffected by population aging are education and business;C) professional advice in tho above areas, regarding opinions on the potential impact ofaging and possible actions;d) data from City departments;e) briefs and submissions.- To maintain and build on links with the community by inviting community participation inround-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 ifthey wish to be on the Working Group. Selection of the eight people will be made by theproject Steering Committee, based on the following ctiteriaAPPENDIX 10 (96)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASchool of Social Work6201 Cecil Green Park Road________Vancour. B.C. Canada V6T IZII- ,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 hasparticipated in “READY OR NOT!” and why.This research is being done because this project will produce a community based strategicplan on preparing for our aging population and develop a model for future social developmentwork. In short the City has asked the public to speak up and are listening to what you have tosay.The benefit of this research is that it will give us a better understanding of whoparticipated and what are some of the factors that determined your participation. Knowing thiswill 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 whoparticipated in the workshops. I would like your input into this questionnaire. What do you thinkdetermined participation for citizens, like yourself?We realize that your time is valuable and appreciate your help with this research. I ampleased you agreed to join this focus group which will help me decide what are the importantquestions to ask. You are under no obligation to participate and there will be no negativeconsequences if you choc not to.The focus group will run one time for approximately 1.5hours.Should you have questions regarding this research please contact myself or Dr. SharonManson Singer, Research Supervisor, at the above address. tel. 822-2255.If you would like a summary of the focus group content and analysis or questionnaireresearch summary, check here and initial_____Both,______Focus group only,______Initials.Please retain one copy of this letter for your reference and sign and return the secondcopy to me.Thank you for your time and cooperation.Yours Sincerely,Roz1ac KinnonI,______________,agree to participate in a focus group as part of the research onparticipation in “READY OR NOT!”. I realize I am under no obligation to participate and willsuffer no negative consequences if I chose not to. My signature below signifies consent andreceipt of a copy of this letter.Signature___________ __________ ____________Date___ _____APPENDIX 11 (97)FOCUS GROUPS SEMI-STRUCTURED FORMAT -- OUTLINEUniversity of British Columbia, Student Researcher: Roz Mac KinnonResearch Supervisor: Dr. Sharon Manson Singerdo School of Social Work, 6201 Cecil Green Road, Vancouver, B.C.V6T 1Z1 Telephone: 822-2255APPROXIMATE TIME COMMITMENT 1.5 hours to 2 hours1. Welcome2. Thank you for participating3. Explanation of research4. Questions, Answers and Discussion5. Discussion of literature review andproposed variables and questions6. Questions, Answers and Discussion7. Open floor to focus group participants8. Summarize, close group and Thank you.(1mm.)(2 mm)(10mm)(5-15 mm)(10-15 mlii)(30mm)(10-30mm)(lOmin)City of VancouverAPPENDIX 12 (98),*lcDlv1t’sSocial Planning Department: ‘It I • I* Gil G250 West Heritage Building, City Square, Box 96, 555 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., V5Z 3X7 (604) 873-7487 FAX: (604) 871-60481993/03/104rtI1P r i or Not)*‘ 13,*- 1&1iri-J‘L14-•*f& i-ir;1çk2-)tt_ —1PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER____(99)_THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIASchool of Social Wah2080 West HallL. *5 Vancouver, LC. V6T 1Z2‘L’90zUfl1JW1-1)1t /“9 11, i3 / y •‘i1?/s_o&&-.o-:‘jv-. _) -) .16-..i’J & U t -.z. ‘X.4 )F1“F‘40U..--@‘5d-i43‘.ULIUEJEJUEILIOUCI>>4>-0000000&0J—D.—D——*—D—D—D-DI’JQD’LJDwQ’4Q4LJ4Q4Q4QDfMQDi.“D’ciiQu.QQ4‘(1.L40‘z-Srr’LL1Dr-in LJ/YL.[El449 4;--,‘,.kI,’t7,&I-r-ie4“‘3LI* LI[El > LI[[LILI. C t\)M’‘Ub4I.LjUL1LILIUL1LILiThIiIOLJ\1*/\,DDE1C/YIj,EILI.9ciirr)Qi‘05’bb’7G’’o,50o’o*bbh’b—QO-6 14bb’b—4’_—33’r’b6/,’b?—,o’(rE’hi6L7’1’—oOo’O/ciO3’O1$y4C(t70!)) L.\-T‘—\V)0APPENDIX 14 (106)city ot Vancouveri1iISoclalPlanningDepartn’ient:250 West l-$ehtage Building. City Square. Box 96,555 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver. BC., V5Z 3X7 (604) 873-7487 FX (604) 871-60481993/03/101D TZ -173 -r\ i51I ‘-i -rp) Cir’ i4 -- .i1, (4,----l) I7wi1,i--- - - -I-r .‘-1rrfi-m‘‘ t’- •‘-‘q wr •- 1PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER()at1ijL.4.(_tw_._€‘e:cLL 7z€$C-lhie-c(LOT)THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (108).nI_ScooI of SocI Vc2080 West MallVancouver, 8.C. V6T 1Z2a.. 9. ‘ (-).v-o-j )‘ •fl LY.-3-- I--ir ( w) ‘ar— r’ )W’1‘-‘qr (-à1-i’( WbI i4’ 1TP q, (-p ‘ 3?t7 iirwa 1.lci—iTPIj i’“ WV•• 4i---i-rrw So 3. ‘i ‘j b%%U.b1 )IZ‘‘4’ 7i_11a-- ‘--‘ v• ‘Yi(- V I- ipirwi 37 z11q7 2.0cki. 13-Tl I (‘ri ,---‘? %i4I4 1* çd’ ra. -- 3-3%q_) 4 t ‘ -‘I nq.’4 v.-,-3...4 %- ---? .wT?3 f4•r I• ç7jj Th(V.4 PTZ‘“-‘---\ WrT)•-r’ i7i, ‘Z “i% V I4-;kr-•‘-iirj z HI HI 01J U),HI 0(110)______27 T* :r. aD I . [c *13 rn 31 T 3jT4WI zj;.:1. hf .. f544l (V 7, IODDOD_f4r5 1 2 3 4 52. V1__DO 0 CD‘ 1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 54.000004. 1 2 3 4 5 -5 () ‘-r t.00000ic x$ ‘ 1 2 3 45 3i6. _-____‘- ‘000001 2 3 4 5ria ‘i’J000001 2 3 4 58 *a .DOD-DOoLX&o—QLtcJ1S.L&Siw4£7JqJ44€FJa!*LJLLLk‘ZL€*C?çc..L3U.Cc\tc.-.Ldc.1’0--Q-Lh.tLt1£it___.;--‘2,4‘tLJ.4e’.aQQQX.-0D-’4T 4t2?D4oaDWLSLLL444b*y0tI12tbbl•L——£-.V.L(11i)0%—I*i-•13-“41i ia;LdJ! LIL1j,JaJ-w1W‘JLir L)A•wJDo0 j,ri twDOIi f I IItA —4(‘J41—°•r>40—’-;1.t’—):,,--—Jf I 1’ £ I0,rcifiJi’(A)APPENDIX 16 (114)Subject’s name : Frank FrigonDate 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 communitydevelopment I mean activities and groups you have or are involved in that are workingfor the betterment of a geographic area -- a city or neighborhood for example. I am mostinterested in forms of public participation.• We hear a lot about public participation with various levels of government -- what doespublic participation mean to you?• What about the role of government?• I’d like to talk to you about the “READY OR NOT!” project from several aspects. Wereyou 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 publicparticipation?• Do you have anything you would like to add?• Thank you for your time and interest.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099105/manifest

Comment

Related Items