Brotherhood of S!Laurencelibrary.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/3882/1/An Incredible Journey... · An incrediblejourney Executive summary The purpose ofthis report is twofold. First,

~.'

Brotherhoodof S! Laurence

Working for an Australia free of poverty

:1n incredible journey'Moving towards democratic decision-making

Report on theVictorian Southern Region Citizens~ Panel

Sara BiceDecember 2004

1111101rnIIUillill[mli~1I11300745

Brotherhood of St Laurence67 Brunswick StFitzroy Vic. 3065ABN 24 603 467 024

Ph: (03) 9483 1183

Internet: www.bsl.org.au

Unpublished report written December 2004

http://www.bsl.org.au

Report and evaluation of the Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel

ContentsAcknowledgments

Executive summary

1 IntroductionAims and rationaleBackground to this Citizens' PanelWhy is the BSL interested in citizens' juries?Deliberative democracy: a theory of practice

2 Citizens' jury method: an overviewMain tenets of a citizens' juryRandom selectionThe chargePlanning and organisation

3 The Victorian Southern Region Citizens' PanelPlanning the Citizens' PanelThe reference groupDeveloping the chargeRandom selection and recruitmentCommunity representation: including statistically marginalised groupsPreparation and briefing: building skills for participationThe deliberation processReport writingRecording the process: the Panel documentaryCommunity forumDebriefingCost

4 A brief evaluation of the Citizens' PanelPurpose of evaluationMethod of evaluationThe Citizens' Panel and community consultationStrengthsWeaknesses

11

iv

11122

44444

66678

1012121415161617

171717181820

The Panel documentary does not cover the early stages of the process due to time limitations anddifficulties in securing videographers. 21

5 Citizens' juries and marginalised communitiesLessons learnedCitizens' Juries: including marginalised communities in consultation

References

Appendix A: invitations and accompanying letter

Appendix B: phone script for OoH

Appendix C: Citizens' Panel agenda

Appendix D: Panel's Report

222223

2526282931

An incredible journey

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the following organisations and individuals for their significantcontributions of time and effort to the Citizens' Panel:

Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Office of Housing (OoH), SouthernMetropolitan Region• Genine Wallinga, Regional Housing Manager

• Peter Buxton, Manager, Housing Operations• Vicki Nakos and Darren Rooth, Housing Services Managers,

Housing Services• Tony Newman, Manager, Service Quality Management Unit

• Richard Kean, Manager, Client Services• Lydia Wheeler, Tenant Participation Project Officer

,

Brotherhood of St Laurence:• Cath Scarth, General Manager, Community Services• Janine Mayhew, Manager, Public Housing Advocacy Program (PHAP)• Kaya Celik, Helen Chandler, Jean Evans-Keating, Milena France, Angela Kyriakopoulos, AlIa

Shcherbakova, Dandenong, Cheltenham and Frankston Public Housing Advocacy Program workers

• Sally Jope Project Manager, Research & Policy• Brendan Dowling, Brotherhood ofSt Laurence volunteer and Citizens' Panel evaluator

Hand in Hand Productions:• Suze Houghton and Adis Hondo

Speakers, supporters and others• Anne Callanan, State Coordinator, Victorian Public Tenants' Association

• Lyn Dixon, Chairperson, North Richmond Tenants' Council

• Jenny Hogan, St Luke's Anglicare, Bendigo• Lyn Carson, School of Economics & Political Science, University of Sydney

• Annie Bolitho, Panel Facilitator

• John Power, Panel Chair• Monash University Peninsula campus and MONSU catering

Finally, a huge thank-you to the panellists, who did an amazing amount of work in a veryshort time:Anne Susan Bob Carmen Carol Christine

Craig

Pat

ii

Dawn

Sofia

John

Sonja

Hazel

Tim

Maureen


AcronymsBSL Brotherhood of St LaurenceDHS Department Of Human ServicesOoH Office of HousingPHAP Public Housing Advocacy Program

iii


Executive summaryThe purpose ofthis report is twofold. First, the report seeks to create a record of the VictorianSouthern Region Citizens' Panel I, which will act as archival information for the Brotherhood ofSt Laurence (BSL) and the broader community, and which will guide future projects. Second, thereport aims to evaluate the success of this particular Citizens' Panel.

BackgroundSince 2002, the Brotherhood of St Laurence has actively investigated the feasibility andappropriateness of citizens' juries as an innovative method of community consultation.2 Inparticular, the BSL is interested in the application of citizens' juries in communities which areoften excluded-through social, economic, cultural or other barriers-from consultation processes.

The BSL has a strong interest in citizens' juries because they are well-aligned with theorganisation's mission and vision: to work for an Australia free of poverty. Citizens' juries includecommunity members from all backgrounds, treat communities and individuals with dignity andrespect, challenge inequality through community empowerment, connect people withincommunities and encourage democratic decision making. The citizens' jury method is alsoconsistent with the emphasis on social governance in the BSL's Social Action and Research (SAR)2004 Strategic Plan.

Citizens' jury methodThe citizens' jury method is steeped in deliberative democratic theory, which is based upon idealsof citizens' participation in informed decision making. Deliberative democracy emphasises theimportance of 'active citizenship' and supports the capabilities of 'everyday people' to makerational and useful decisions.

Several methods of deliberative decision making exist. Common methods include: searchconferences, deliberative polls/televoting, citizens' juries, consensus conferences and residentfeedback panels.

A citizens' jury has three main tenets:

• random selection of members to match a dem'ographic profile• provision of information to facilitate informed decision making• movement toward consensus through facilitated deliberation.

The deliberation performed by a citizens' jury is focused on a 'charge', a question or set ofquestions for the jury about the issue at hand, which guides the entire deliberation process.

Victorian Southern Region Citizens' PanelThe Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel involved public housing tenants from part of theDepartment of Human Service's (DHS) Southern Metropolitan Region. The Panel convened overtwo and a half days to deliberate on community participation.

I Hereafter shortened to Citizens' Panel2 For purposes of this report, the terms 'citizens' jury' and 'citizens' panel' are interchangeable. The BSL made aconscious decision to call its citizens' jury a citizens' panel, due to the potential negative associations ofthe legalistic-sounding 'jury' for public tenants.

IV

o


Planning the Victorian Southern Region Citizens' PanelPlanning for the Citizens' Panel began in July 2004. Dates for the Panel were set for early October,allowing exactly three months' planning time. A reference group consisting of representatives ofthe Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Office of Housing was created and met fortnightlythroughout the lead up to the Panel to consider numerous planning issues.

The charge for the Citizens' Panel was set as follows:• What would it take/or tenants to make the journey to represent their community interests?

o How might they do this?Based on the evidence:• Why would public tenants get involved in the Tenant Participation Framework in their

community?o How would tenants in the community get involved?o How can tenants use the Tenant Participation Framework to make a difference?

Panel membership and community representationThe Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel brought together IS public housing tenants frompart of the Department of Human Service's (PHS) Southern Metropolitan Region: Dandenong,Cheltenham, Frankston and surrounding areas. Eleven panellists were randomly selected. Fourpanellists were chosen non-randomly, after making initial, self-prompted enquiries. This groupprovided good representation of the diverse demographic profile of the region.

The project team worked to ensure that more marginalised groups were included in the Panel'sdeliberations. Five groups, selected based on their likelihood of marginalisation and perception ofneed, were invited to participate in a Community Groups Meeting, which provided direct input tothe Panel. Due to recruitment difficulties and time constraints, only one group, comprising personsfrom culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds, attended. This group's experiencewas very positive, however, and members' ideas were incorporated in the Panel's final report.

Deliberation processThe Panel convened 4-6 October, 2004 at Monash University Peninsula Campus.

Six expert witnesses were invited to attend, with five making presentations. They representedstakeholders, independent community organisations and individuals from the public housingcommunity. After each expert witness presentation, panellists had a IS-minute, confidentialdeliberation period, followed by a question-and-answer session with the witness. The Panel's chairkept each session to time. Longer deliberations also occul!ed at other times throughout the twodays. ' 't

The facilitator aided the Panel's work by developing panellists' skills, team building, guidingdeliberation and helping with the report writing.

The panellists' final task was to collaboratively write a report, including a list of specific outcomes.They had half a day for this task, and were provided with a laptop computer and access to printingand photocopying facilities.

.At the end of the second full day, the Panel presented their report to the Regional HousingManager, OoH and the PHAP Manager. The Panel publicly received responses to their report at aCommunity Forum, held one month later.

Panel documentaryA documentary, entitled Seeing is believing!, was made to provide a model for other organisationsinterested in convening a citizens' jury. The documentary covers the Community Groups Meeting,

v


the Panel's briefing and deliberations and the presentation of their report. It also incorporatesinterviews with BSL staff, paneIIists, and expert witnesses, providing a perceptive look into theplanning, processes and execution of the Panel.

EvaluationThe evaluation of the Panel focuses on its strengths and weaknesses, adaptations made to thecitizens' jury method and lessons learned. The evaluation is based heavily on in-depth, semi-structured, qualitative interviews with BSL and OoR staff and paneIIists.

Overall, feedback on the Citizens' Panel was extremely positive. Stakeholders, several of whomwere initially quite sceptical about the process' potential effectiveness, were unanimously pleasedwith the results of the Panel. Many reported that the Panel exceeded their expectations.

StrengthsThe Citizens' Panel proved to be an effective, inclusive and valuable method of communityconsultation. Its strengths are outlined below.

Community capacity building• It places decision making into the hands of those most affected by the decisions.

• It develops communities' capacity to interact with stakeholders.

• It demonstrates communities' and individuals' capabilities.

Improved communication• It builds understanding between stakeholders and participants.• It provides extremely valuable feedback and information for stakeholders.• It creates a product which can be used by both the community and stakeholders.

• It results in considered and useful outcomes.• It strengthens understandings of community issues.

Increased social capital• It models inclusiveness.• It empowers individuals and communities.• It instils self-confidence in participants.• It builds deliberative, interrogative and collaborative skills of participants.

• It takes the concerns and ideas of ordinary people seriously.

Efficiency• It produces decisions made according to a set deadline.• It enables coverage of a considerable geographical region.

Deliberative and democratic approach• It is a transparent process, which does not make false promises, leading to disillusionment.

• It emphasises the importance and usefulness of democratic practices.

• It is effective in fully addressing community outcomes.

WeaknessesDespite the overall success of the Citizens' Panel, there were several areas which presented asweaknesses of this application of the citizens' jury decision making process.

VI

o

Report and e\;'aluationof the Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel

Organisational difficulties• There was insufficient time for planning, deliberation and summarising the outcomes.

• There was limited inclusion of facilitator in planning process.• There was lack of clarity regarding final decision making authority within reference group.

• The final day for panellists lacked closure.• The project team was constrained from releasing publicity and media informatio~.

Umited resources• The project needed greater resourcing in money and time.• It needed an 'organising or implementation group'.

Recruitment difficulties• The project team lacked the authorization to directly recruit panellists.

• It lacked the ability to directly recruit community groups.• The team had limited capacity to secure participation of the desired community groups.

• It was obliged to include non-random voices.

Documentation limitations• The Panel documentary did not include the early stages of the process.

• DHS staff did not participate in the Panel documentary.

Lessons learnedThroughout the planning and implementation of the Panel, it became apparent that several aspectsof the citizens' jury method would need to be adapted to this particular group and topic. Theseadaptations related to recruitment, random selection, agenda, closure and communityrepresentation. They resulted in several important' lessons learned'.

Time and resourcesTo ensure well planned and effective Citizens' Jury it is crucial to allocate sufficient time andresources to the process.

o Organising groupThe experience highlighted the need for an 'organising group' to assist in implementing the panel.

FacilitatorIt is desirable to select the facilitator as soon as possible after initiation of the project and includeher/him into the reference group.

Developing the agendaThe Panel facilitator set the agenda for the Panel's deliberations. When focusing on marginalisedcommunities, it is important to develop an agenda which incorporates significant time for skill andteam building and enables the facilitator to develop an open and sensitive style, inclusive ofpanellists' knowledge and und~rstandings.

Random selection and recruitmentTo maintain the robustness of the citizens' jury method, the entire panel needs to be randomlyselected, rather than created from individual activists or interest groups. In order to successfullyrecruit a randomly selected yet representative panel, it is essential to be able to recruit participantsdirectly.

VII


Community representationIncluding marginalised communities who are statistical minorities proved to be quite a difficulttask, requiring relationship building and considerable time.

Inclusion of Indigenous AustraliansA great deal of sensitivity is required to plan appropriate ways to consult Indigenous communitiesand enlist their support for and involvement in the process.

Mental health issuesMental health is a prevalent concern among many marginalised or socio-economicallydisadvantaged communities. Inappropriate or challenging behaviours as a result of mental healthissues may arise when working with these groups and it is important to develop protocols fordealing with issues.

Closure and debriefingDue to the fact that this Panel focused on community development issues, many of the panellistsfelt a need to remain engaged in the issues raised beyond the life of the Panel. It is essential thatpanellists have closure to the Panel process itself through appropriate and timely debriefing.

The BSL's initial foray into citizens' juries proved to be a very successful endeavour. Through it,the organisation has begun to develop a novel and useful means of community consultation that isinclusive and replicable. Overall, citizens' juries, through their focus on deliberative democracyand community representativeness, have the potential to reduce social exclusion, to increase socialcapital and to broaden the implementation of social governance.

viii

o


I IntroductionSince 2002, the Brotherhood ofSt Laurence (BSL) has activ~ly investigated the feasibility andappropriateness of citizens' juries as an innovative method of community consultation. Inparticular, the BSL is interested in the application of citizens' juries in communities which areoften excluded-through social, economic, cultural or other barriers-from consultation processes.These primary investigations culminated in 2004 in the Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panet3(Citizens' Panel).

This report outlines the context, organisational processes and outcomes of the Victorian SouthernRegion Citizens' Panel conducted in December 2004. Primary data, drawn from in-depth,qualitative interviews, is presented to illustrate the experiences and perceptions of panellists, expertwitnesses, BSL staff and reference group members.4 The report also addresses significant issuesabout the feasibility, applicability and appropriateness of this method for consultation withmarginalised communities.

Aims and rationaleThe purpose of this report is twofold. First, it provides a record of the Citizens' Panel, which willact as archival information for the BSL and the broader community, and which will guide theimplementation of future projects. Second, the report aims to evaluate the effectiveness of thisparticular Citizens' Panel. Specifically, the evaluation explores the project's strengths andweaknesses, including the method's ability to incorporate frequently marginalised voices intodecision making processes, and considers the method's potential for future use.Several questions are explored:

• How was the citizens' jury method implemented in this project?• To what extent was the Citizens' Panel an effective means of community consultation? Was the

method considered effective by all involved (i.e. the BSL, the Office of Housing (OoH), thepanellists )?

• Specifically, does this Citizens' Panel offer a useful and relevant model for future communityconsultations with marginalised groups? Why or why not?

• Finally, what lessons can be learned about the employment of citizens' panels as a communityconsultation method, specifically within marginalised communities?

Background to this Citizens' PanelIn May 2002, the BSL created the Local Voices initiative to incorporate deliberative decisionmaking methods into the organisation's community consultations. In particular, the BSL hoped to'develop and institutionalise the practice of representative and deliberative methods of communityconsultation around controversial decisions, through the demonstration and cost-benefit analysis ofcitizens' juries' (BSL 2002, p.2). At this time, BSL staff consulted with several experts, includingrepresentatives from the Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) and Dr Lyn Carson, aleading academic in the field.5 They also began conversations with local government to pinpoint anappropriate project for implementation of the Local Voices initiative.6

3 For purposes of this report, the terms 'citizens' jury' and 'citizens' panel' are interchangeable. BSL made a consciousdecision to call its citizens' jury a citizens' panel, due to the potential negative associations of the legalistic-sounding'jury' for public tenants.4 The reference group was the administrative body behind the Panel. See the 'Reference group' section of this report forfurther information.S Dr Lyn Carson is currently Senior Lecturer in Applied Politics with Government and International Relations in theSchool of Economics and Political Science at the University of Sydney.6 A stipulation of the Local Voices proposal was that 'Local Voices will only undertake a citizens' jury with amunicipality that makes a commitment to act on the recommendations'. See: BSL 2002, p. 6.


Two years later, an ideal opportunity arose in the public housing area to undertake a citizens' jury.The Office of Housing sought to create a Tenant Participation Framework and was also setting upRegional Customer Councils-groups of tenants and OoH staff who will meet to discuss publichousing issues and policies in their respective geographical areas. These projects have directimplications for both public tenants and the Public Housing Advocacy Program (PHAP), makingthem highly relevant to the BSL's service provision and community consultations.7 Additionally,OoH was seeking further tenant input into the implementation of the Tenant ParticipationFramework and was willing to respond to the outcomes of a citizens' jury. For these reasons, thedecision was made to trial the citizens' jury method around the issue of tenant involvement.

Why is the BSL interested in citizens' juries?Not only do citizens' juries offer an innovative and inclusive means of community consultation, butalso they are well-aligned with the BSL's mission and vision: to work for an Australia free ofpoverty. Citizens' juries include community members from all backgrounds, and treat communitiesand individuals with dignity and respect. Juries also challenge inequality through empoweringparticipants to inform decision making about public housing and connecting people withincommunities to help them share responsibility for one another.

The citizens' jury method is also consistent with to the BSL's Social Action and Research (SAR)2004 Strategic Plan, especially its emphasis on social governance and democratic processes. SARaims to:

... promote a whole of society, joined-up approach to creating a sustainable, inclusivesociety. [SAR's strategy] recognises that traditional approaches to social policydevelopment and service delivery, based on hierarchies and/or markets have failed todeliver community outcomes and have contributed to the "democratic deficit" (BSL SocialAction and Research 2004, p.17).

Citizens' juries directly address these 'democratic deficits' by including members of the broadercommunity, facilitating informed decision making about community issues, and challengingpreconceptions about citizens' decision making capabilities. They are also a strong means of'build(ing] new forms of partnerships and networks with civil society organisations' (BSL SocialAction and Research 2004, p.17).

Deliberative democracy: a theory of practiceThe citizens' jury method is steeped in deliberative democratic theory, which is broadly based uponideals of citizens' participation in informed decision making. Deliberative democracy places astrong emphasis on 'active citizenship'-individuals actively participating in their local, state ornational communities-and supports the capabilities of 'everyday people' to create rational anduseful decisions (Woodward 2000). These decisions are made possible only through the provisionof relevant information and a carefully designed structure which supports the deliberation process(Figure 1.1).

By working through the deliberation process, 'those participating learn more about the value of,and reasons for, active participation through active citizenship' (Woodward 2000, p.233).Deliberation centres on receipt, engagement with and consolidation of information. Deliberativedemocracy, therefore, calls for forums in which citizens 'exchange views and debate theirsupporting reasons concerning public political questions' (Rawls 1999, p.138). It empowerscitizens by giving them the information necessary to create informed and considered decisions,which are then incorporated into policy and practice.

7 PHAP is a DHS program, administered in the Southern Region through the BSL. For further information about theprogram, see: BSL 2004, Public Tenants: Supporting public tenants in the Southern Region, viewed 29 November 2004,<http://www.bsl.org.au [non-specific web reference]>.

2


Figure 1.1 Figure 1.1: Deliberation process

Issue for deliberationdetermined

Relevant informationprovided to

decision makers

Note taking andconsolidation of

information

Q &A withinformation provider

Deliberation aboutreceived information

Request and receipt ofadditional information

o

Several methods of deliberative decision making exist. Each has particular merits, depending onthe issues being addressed and outcomes sought. Common methods include: search conferences,deliberative poIIs/televoting, citizens' juries, consensus conferences and resident feedback panels(Carson & Gelber 2001). Specifically, citizens' juries are most useful 'when the questions to bedeliberated over are relatively clear in advance ... [and] when the issues involved are particularlycomplex, and expert involvement is required in order that participants fully understand the process'(Carson & Gelber 2001, p.38).

In the case of the Citizens' Panel, PHAP staff were was quite clear that they wanted to addressquestions of tenant involvement, felt the issue was multi-faceted, and knew that expert informationinput would be necessary. A citizens' jury was therefore a very appropriate deliberative democraticmethod.

3


2 Citizens' jury method: an overview

Main tenets of a citizens' juryA citizens' jury has at its core three main tenets (Carson 1998):

• random selection of jury members to match a demographic profile• provision of information to facilitate informed decision making• . movement toward consensus through facilitated deliberation.

These form the foundation for the major steps ofthe citizens' jury process, outlined below and inFigure 2.1.8

Random selectionRandom selection, based on a demographic profile, allows citizens' juries to be representative ofentire communities, and also fosters inclusiveness.9 Often, community forums or town meetingstend to draw out voices of people who are more confident, are more mainstream, or identifythemselves as being directly affected by the issue at hand. This self-selection often results in thesame individuals being heard repeatedly about particular issues, and accommodates 'squeakywheels'. By randomly selecting participants and then actively and directly recruiting those selectedindividuals, citizens' juries include a broader range of voices, those individuals who are just asaffected by the issue, but who might not normally speak out. Additionally, the use of randomselection based on a demographic profile ensures that a diverse and representative cross-section ofthe community comments on the issue, and that the final recommendations are, therefore, morerepresentative of that entire community.

The chargeThe deliberation performed by a citizens' jury is very focused and specific. Prior to the jury's firstmeeting, the jury organisers develop a charge, a set of particular questions about the issue at hand,which guides the entire deliberation process (Carson 2003). The charge defines the topic for expertwitnesses, helping them to present relevant and useful information. It also creates a point of focusfor the jury's discussions, which the facilitator may use as a base, consistently bringingconversations back to the charge and its related concerns. Ultimately, the jury's report directlyaddresses and attempts to answer the charge, drawing on the information received and thesubsequent deliberations.

Planning and organisationThe planning and carrying out of a citizens' jury can be broken down into three key areas-organisation, information and consultation--each with its own steps. Many of the organisationaland informational steps of a citizens' jury are performed simultaneously. Additionally, there is noset order in which organisational steps must occur. Obviously, a venue must be determined beforethe jury can be held, but organisers might set up an evaluation process long before choosing avenue. It is also possible that both of these activities would be taking place at the same time. Theactual process of planning a jury is often closely related to the timeframe available.

8 For a more detailed account of how to set up a citizens' jury, refer to: Carson, L 2003, Consult your community: ahandbook: a guide to using citizens 'juries, Department of Planning, Sydney.9 For more information on how to perform random selection, see: Carson, L. 2003, Consult your community: ahandbook: a guide to using citizens' juries, Department of Planning, Sydney.

4


Figure 2.1 : Suggested steps in planning and holding a citizens' jurylO

o

o

Organisation

• determine budget &timeframe

• set up advisory/reference group

• hire project manager• determine terms of

reference for keystakeholders &participants

• hire facilitator and/orchairperson

• determinedemographic profile

• arrange venue hire,catering, child-care,interpreting services

• perform random drawto meet demographicprofile

• recruit participants• devise media

campaign: pressreleases before, duringand after event

• invite expert witnesses• set up evaluation

process

Information

• conduct communityawareness campaign

• advisory groupcreates the charge(set of questions thejury will deliberate)

• advisory groupdetermines mostrelevant information

• send backgroundinformation toparticipants

• expert witnessesprovide presentationoverviews toorgamsers

• provide additionalinformationrequested byparticipants

• jury's report andresponses madepublic by the juryorganisers

Consultation

• brief facilitator andchair on project aimsand issues

At the citizens' jury:• brief participants on

their role and termsof reference

• introduceparticipants to eachother and tofacilitator and chair

• skill and teambuilding exercises

• present expertwitness information

• Q & A sessions• deliberation sessions• consolidation of

information intowritten report

• present report

After the jury:• present

stakeholders'responses to jury

10 Please note: the order of steps presented here is merely a suggestion. Many of these steps may occur simultaneously orin a different order. How an organiser carries out these steps is often closely related to the timeframe and budgetavailable.

5


Planning and execution of a citizens' jury requires a significant amount of time, resourcing andlogistical support. While it is often possible to keep costs down in certain areas, such as printing orcatering, juries do cost an average of $45,000 (Carson 2003).

There are several other aspects of citizens' juries, such as whether to have members of the publicattend as observers, which are often best left to the participants to decide. Some groups may feelperfectly comfortable having others listen in on expert witness presentations and question-and-answer sessions, while others may not. It is important to give participants authority and choiceabout these types of decisions, so they truly 'own' the process.

3 The Victorian Southern Region Citizens' PanelThe Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel brought together 15 public housing tenants frompart ofthe Department of Ruman Service's (DRS) Southern Metropolitan Region: Dandenong,Cheltenham, Frankston and surrounding areas. This group provided good representation of thediverse demographic profile of the region (Figure 3.1). The Panel convened over two and a halfdays, 4-6 October, 2004 at Monash University Peninsula Campus in Frankston. AlthoughFrankston is geographically towards the southern end of the region, this was an ideal venue inregard to accessibility via public transport, cost, layout, equipment and comfort.

Over the two days, the Panel's tasks included preparation and briefing, interaction with expertwitnesses, deliberation and collaborative report writing. Several observers, made up ofBSL, OoRand DRS staff, members of the public, students, and representatives from other communityorganisations were in attendance throughout the Panel. It was agreed by the panellists that theseobservers could be present during expert witness presentations and question and answer sessions.Observers were also present for the presentation of the Panel's report. Although the Panel officiallyended on 6 October, other follow-up events, including a Community Forum and DVD launch, wereheld in order to provide appropriate response to the Panel's report, and necessary debriefing aboutand closure to the process.

One panellist described the positive value of her experience:

I learned that I can actually do this type of work. It has given me confidence. It was reallyempowering that I participated in communication with other people from differentbackgrounds. I came out with a good feeling that I've done something. ~Sonja, panellist

Planning the Citizens' PanelPlanning for the Citizens' Panel began in earnest in early July 2004. Dr Lyn Carson, an expert indeliberative democracy from the University of Sydney, presented a seminar to BSL staff aboutdeliberative methods and citizens' juries. DRS and OoR staff also attended this meeting, whichallowed the Citizens' Panel to be set down for early October. This provided exactly three monthsfor the planning and organisation of the Panel.

The reference groupThe reference group was made up ofBSL and OoR staff, including PHAP tenancy workers, BSLexecutive staff, a representative from BSL Social Action and Research, Regional OoR AreaManagers and DRS staff.11 The group met fortnightly in the lead up to the Panel and wasresponsible for:

11 Reference groups may also be referred to as 'advisory groups'. The perceived difference between a 'reference group'and an 'advisory group' varies greatly, depending on who you ask. Some say they are interchangeable. Others make thedistinction that an advisory committee is more 'independent', made up of non-government organisations or independentcitizens who are not necessarily direct stakeholders in the process, whereas reference groups almost always include directstakeholders. See: Carson, L 2003, Consult your community: a handbook: a guide to using citizens 'juries, Department ofPlanning, Sydney.

6

o

o


• developing terms of reference• providing input and approval for a media campaign• selecting the Panel's facilitator, Annie Bolitho and chair, John Power• identifYing community groups who might not be represented in a random sample or are

especially marginalised• determining local agencies and organisations to contact about the Panel

• choosing a venue• choosing expert witnesses• creating and refming the charge• planning the Community Forum• determining the role and level of involvement of shadow panellists or emergency panellists• planning and assisting with transport of panellists to/from Panel

• attending and helping out with the Panel.

The effective and efficient work of the reference group was vital to preparing the Panel within ashort timeframe. Having OoH and DHS staff on the reference group also expedited resolution ofissues that arose throughout the process. Several of these issues are discussed in further detail later.

As a reference group member, I felt that time was too short. Everything was pushed toconduct the training of the members, as well as the Citizens' Panel. That's purely also aresource issue: the longer it goes, the costs will be higher. But we tried to come up withsomething as professional as possible with[in] the time limitations imposed upon us.~BSL reference group member

Developing the chargeOne of the most challenging issues in preparing for the Citizens' Panel was planning a chargewhich would be both effective and acceptable to all stakeholders. Initially, the charge wasconcerned with whether tenants wanted to participate in their communities, and, if so, how theywould like to participate. Although this charge was generally approved by the reference group,there was some variance of opinion about the wording within DHS. This required the referencegroup to rework the charge in order to proceed with the Panel.

After much discussion and significant input from the Panel facilitator, the following charge wasagreed upon and used for the Citizens' Panel:

• Wltat would it take for tenants to make tlte journey to represent tlteir community interests?o How might they do this?

Based on the evidence provided:• Wlty would public tenants get involved in tlte Tenant Participation Framework in tlteir

communifJ! ?o How would tenants in the community get involved?o How can tenants use the Tenant Participation Framework to make a difference?

This final charge, while topical, was not as direct or specific as the initial charge and was describedas 'too vague' both by members of the reference group and by panellists.

I think [the charge] was a bit abstract for the group. [It] could have been a bit moreconcrete, a bit more relevant. -BSL reference group member

7


The charge we've been given is quite a loaded question. I mean, we really could do withmore days of deliberation, but I think it would get to the point of: where would you drawthe line? -Carol, panellist

I struggled with [the charge] in terms of viability. It seemed too broad and too vague. Butthe Panel seemed to relate to it to some degree. They related to the community developmentside. -OoH reference group member

Random selection and recruitmentRandom selection, which is central to the citizens' jury method, was one of the most challengingaspects of organising the Citizens' Panel. Informing tenants about the Citizens' Panel, getting a fulldemographic profile for tenants in the Southern Metropolitan Region and recruiting panellists wereall made difficult by the project team's lack of direct access to raw data about public tenants in theregion, due to the Privacy Act, which prohibits DHS from releasing tenants' information (VictorianGovernment 2000; DHS 2002).

Initially, the project team aimed to create a panel of20 public housing tenants, with a back-upgroup of five' shadow panellists'. These shadow panellists, also public tenants, would be on handduring the two days of the Panel, in case a panellist could not attend or was forced to drop out dueto unforeseen circumstances.

If we had control over the data, that would have been the best option for us. Because it wasso specific, it was quite hard. We couldn't use the electoral roll or anything. It had to bepublic tenants. It had to be OoH. If that happened again, then we would work with OoH todo direct phone calls and follow-ups. -BSL reference group member

Early in the planning process, the project manager requested tenant data for the three OoH areaoffices covered by the Citizens' Panel. OoH staff on the reference group provided invaluable helpin making information available. The data provided, however, was less detailed than requested,making it difficult to create a completely accurate demographic profile of the region. Despiterequesting from DHS data concerning gender, age bracket, preferred language, country of birth,household composition and early housing segment, only regional demographic information aboutcountry of birth, early housing segment and household composition was supplied. This meant thatthe sample for the Citizens' Panel was not as well defined as planned.

Due to privacy laws and the resultant inability ofDHS to provide an entire data set, the projectteam was unable to draw its own sample of 20 tenants. Privacy laws also prevented DHS fromreleasing tenants' phone numbers, which made direct recruitment very difficult. As a result,recruitment of panellists was reliant upon tenants taking the initiative to ring the project managerupon receipt of an invitation. 12 As Carson notes, 'Silent voices can often be stimulated simply byinviting their timid owners to speak' (Carson 2001, p.61). Carson also notes the importance notonly of inviting those chosen by random selection to participate, but also of coaxing them toparticipate; demonstrating to them that they are a valuable part of the process because it was theirname that was drawn (Carson 2001). In this instance, the project manager was unable to stimulatesuch voices or to coax randomly selected tenants to agree to take part, as they could not becontacted directly.

12 It should also be noted that the difficulties tenants had to overcome in order to respond to the invitation werepotentially compounded by the fact that the project manager could only offer tenants a mobile phone number forresponse. Some tenants are unable to dial out to mobile phones from their home phones, and others may have found thecost of a mobile phone call prohibitive. A better solution, had the set-up time been available, would have been to providea toll-free number.

8

o


Due to these limitations, a hybrid recruitment method was developed. Since the BSL project teamdid not have access to the data to draw its own random sample, instead, DHS drew a sample of 200from the over 10,000 tenants in the region. This method had several consequences. First, althoughthe sample of 200 met the demographic profile for the region, it was less likely that a panel of 20recruited from this 200 would match the profile. Second, despite requests to the contrary, thesample of 200 included tenants from the Prahran and Port Melbourne areas, which were not to beincluded in the Panel, so 50 names had to be discarded.

Ultimately, instead of drawing and actively recruiting 20 panellists and five shadow panellists, 100names were drawn and invitations (see Appendix A) were sent to those 100 tenants. It was hopedthat this would result in a 20 per cent response rate, providing us with our 20 panellists. Only sixtenants responded to this initial mail out. Due to the poor response rate, the BSL project managerinitiated a second mail out, sending invitations to the remaining 50 valid names from the DHSsample. This resulted in three more responses.

At the subsequent reference group meeting, further recruitment options were discussed. It wasagreed that the best recruitment option would be for OoH staff, who were allowed access to thephone numbers, to call the remaining tenants who had received an invitation but who had notresponded. A script was created (Appendix B) to guide the staff-most of whom were not on thereference group and were not aware of the citizens' panel process-through the phone recruitment.If a tenant agreed to participate on the Panel, they were asked if their phone number could bereleased to the project manager. The project manager then made follow-up phone calls to thoseindividuals to confirm their participation and to provide further information and encouragement.

The [OoH staff] who rang around got a buzz out of the positive aspects of the process.Often, they're worn down on a day-to-day basis, dealing with the negative side of clientservices. So the ring-around was well received. -OoH reference group member

In total, 16 panellists were confirmed, and the reference group agreed that this was an acceptablenumber. At this point, however, no shadow panellists were available. To rectify this, it was agreedthat four shadow panellists would be invited from the list of individuals who had made initialinquiries about the Citizens' Panel, in response to the awareness-raising letter.

I thought it would be a good opportunity to get involved with tenants from a wide variety ofbackgrounds. And, we don't have a lot of tenant groups down in this area, so, immediately,when I heard about it, I did want to get involved. ~Anne Susan, panellist

9


Figure 3.1 Demographic profile of the Southern Metropolitan Region13

Demographic category

~rea H(fusing(omc~:lfl·.·,, ..DandenongCheltenhamFrankston

AustraliaNew ZealandNorthern IrelandEnglandFormer USSR

Segment 1Segment 2Segment 3

~ri~ralII9usinglmP'li~-nfSOtherWait Turn

Southern Metropolitan Regiontenants

49%1%1%6%5%1%

2%32%

Citizens' Panel

-40%35%25%

65%5%5%

15%5%5%

In the three days leading up to the Panel, however, five panellists had to withdraw for personalreasons. This meant that the four non-randomly selected shadow panellists were asked toparticipate as panellists. Eventually, the Panel took its final form of 15 members, comprising 11randomly-selected and four self-selected shadow panellists. The effect of including non-randomrepresentatives is discussed in the Evaluation section of this report. Ultimately, despite thedifficulties faced due to inability to access data, lack of complete demographic information, andinability to recruit panellists directly, the Panel covered a good demographic range that wasgenerally perceived to be representative of the region (Figure 3.1).

The Panel was really diverse. I couldn't imagine a more diverse group of people!~ OoR reference group member

Community representation: including statistically marginalised groupsAlthough random selection is an effective means of creating a statistically representative group, the ~BSL project team was also very concerned to include those groups who might not register .statistically. For example, people identifying in the Census as Indigenous Australians make up onlybetween 0.2 and 0.5 per cent of the Southern Region's population (ABS 2002) and are, therefore,unlikely to be included through random selection. Often, however, it is groups such as IndigenousAustralians and persons from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds who are mostin need of support, yet are least likely to be heard. Similarly, groups such as those who may have amental illness may not wish to identify as such and consequently their voices are also not heard.

A panel of that size, the diversity ofthe region, you can't represent everyone. Some arestatistically so small that they are not a person! It was quite innovative to think aboutanother way of hearing from those groups. ~BSL reference group member

13 Note: This table indicates the demographic profile which was expected to be represented at the Panel, based onconfirmation of participants. The percentages presented are based on the initial number of20 participants. This expectedprofile is somewhat different from the actual profile of the Panel, which resulted from participants dropping out from thePanel at the last minute. For further discussion, see the section of this report on 'Random selection'.

10


It was this concern for more marginalised groups that led the project team to attempt to increasecommunity representation at the Citizens' Panel by bringing together 'community groups'-individuals drawn together because of a common characteristic. Five community groups wereidentified by the reference group, based upon their likelihood of marginalisation and perceivedneed. They were invited to participate in a Community Groups Meeting, which preceded the Paneland offered them the opportunity to voice their ideas and opinions about the charge to thepanellists. It was hoped that these ideas would then be included in the Panel's deliberations, muchas information from expert witnesses would be.

From the estate where I live, we have a lot of people from non-English speakingbackgrounds, and I think that it's very important, for such an important thing like theCitizens' Panel that those people are represented. ~Carol, panellist

Figure 3.2: Panel demographics

I5%

20%5%5%

15%10%10%15%10%5%

:I5%

25%30%25%

5%5%5%

25%75%

Y I95%

5%

Percentage ofpanellists

Characteristic

20-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6464+

II.G~nd~rmalefemale

D:RQuseboll.J]t,¢omp'osHitrrt:'"couple and kidssinglessingle parentolder singlecoupleyoutholder couple

ogrefbrre<!1!!ngy!!ge" .•EnglishRussian 14

40%35%25%

15%0%

35%45%

5%

0%10%10%40%15%15%10%

~"~~;"'. . ,

65%5%5%

20%5%

Percentage ofpanellists

DandenongCheltenhamFrankston

Characteristic

IflIousiii'i~t;!lmlicati5'ri 'segnient1;',Early Housing segment 1Early Housing segment 2Early Housing segment 3Wait Turn segment 4Other

Length of tenancyO-{j months6 months-l year1-2 years2-5 years5-10 years10-20 years20+ years

'81".. ..)Af·•b• "h ·,;+? •••s '><,"!iiiiiii1i@1I,-.:;ollntgjiQ.', Irt '1iiMi!!i,J:!.=:, '1;,.,

AustraliaNew ZealandNorthern IrelandEnglandFormer USSR

o

The idea of bringing together community groups developed fairly late in the planning process. Fivegroups-Indigenous Australians, mental health clients, older people, youth and persons withCALD backgrounds-were invited through relevant agencies such as Migrant Resource Centres

14 Please note: a Russian translator was present throughout the Panel. It is crucial that translators be provided forparticipants, so that all community members have an equal chance to participate,

11


and other community support services. Unfortunately, due to our inability to identify and recruitthese groups directly because of limited time, only one group, persons from CALD backgrounds,was formed.

The CALD group, made up of individuals from Pashtun and Dari Afghan language groups, met thenight before the Panel began. The group, facilitated by two reference group members, with acommunity member acting as translator, reviewed the charge and discussed issues that wererelevant to them as a non-English speaking community. Over two hours, the group created a list ofmain ideas and issues, which was then presented to the paneIIists. The entire meeting was basedaround a dinner, which brought together the paneIIists, the community groups and several referencegroup members, making it a positive and exciting lead-in to the Panel.

Through the community groups process, we tried to compensate for [the lack of statisticalrepresentation] in that part ofthe region with certain groups. It was unfortunate that wedidn't have more groups. But, we had a multicultural group, which was terrific.-BSL reference group member

Preparation and briefing: building skills for participationBefore entering into the intense deliberation of the Citizens' Panel, it was important to enable thepaneIIists to get to know one another and to better understand their task, so a briefing meeting anddinner was held the night before the Panel commenced. The Panel facilitator, Annie Bolitho, ledthe group through ice breaker, team-building and skill-building exercises. 15 During a very shortamount of time, the paneIIists, many of whom had never participated in any form of communityconsultation, made impressive progress, coming together well as a group and quickly picking upthe skills necessary for effective deliberation.

We bonded really well. The two days were really intense, and we were able to achieve ahell of a lot. -Sonja, panellist

The progress made by the paneIIists strongly demonstrates the importance of a skilled, sensitiveand independent facilitator to any citizens' panel. While the citizens' jury method emphasises theabilities of everyday people to make considered, intelligent decisions, this is extremely difficult ifthey are not first empowered with the necessary skills to do so.

A process like this has to be mediated-it enables participants to not only work well as agroup but to also be reminded of their goal. As people who don't know each other, it wasimportant for them to realise that everybody has a different world view. Part ofthat isdisagreement. Mediation creates a safety net for wide-ranging discussion. It is veryimportant to have a facilitator establish ground rules and group norms, and for the group tounderstand what their goal is. ~Annie Bolitho, Panel facilitator

The deliberation processThe majority ofpaneIIists' time was spent receiving information from expert witnesses anddeliberating on that information (Appendix C). Over the two days, the paneIIists heard from five

15 AnnieBolithocurrentlyworksas Manager,SocialCapacityBuildingProject,CatchmentStrategies,DepartmentofSustainabilityandEnvironment.Shehashadsignificantexperiencewithcitizens'juries, andbroughta wealthofknowledgeto the facilitationrole.

12

o


expert witnesses, representing stakeholders, independent community organisations and individualsfrom the public housing community.

Expert witnessesIt is customary for expert witnesses to 'represent a variety of perspectives and opinions, usuallywith input from the advisory committee and other stakeholders' (Carson 2003, p.lS). Six expertwitnesses were invited to participate in the Citizens' Panel, with five making presentations:

• Tony Newman, Manager of Service Quality, DHS, was the first expert witness and discussedDHS' Tenant Participation Framework, which served as the basis for the charge.

• Janine Mayhew, Manager, PHAP, BSL, provided information about the PHAP servicesavailable to tenants, and the ways in which these services might feed into or facilitate tenantparticipation.

• Anne Callanan, Coordinator, Victorian Public Tenants' Association, spoke about tenants'groups, their benefits and tasks, and ways in which tenants wishing to start up their owntenants' group might do so.

• Lyn Dixon, Chair, North Richmond Tenants' Council, focused on her experiences as a publictenant establishing and running a tenants' group in her area. She provided much practicaladvice from an insider's perspective.

• Jenny Hogan, Strengths-based Community Building, St Luke's Anglicare Bendigo, describedseveral innovative community building projects headed by St Luke's in regional Victoria. Sheconcentrated on projects that might be similarly useful to tenants from the SouthernMetropolitan Region.

The process we went through was that we had the expert witnesses and then we went into adeliberation room, pretty much like juror[ s]. Then we asked questions of each other andthen come to find conclusions. And that's how we drew the recommendations. It was great.-Craig, panellist

Throughout expert witness presentations, the Panel's chair, John Power, played a crucial role inkeeping the witnesses to their allotted times, and ensuring that observers did not disturb thepanellists.16 After each expert witness presentation, he asked the observers to move to a waitingarea, allowing the panellists to have confidential, frank discussions. These intervals of 10 to 15minutes were crucial to the panellists' ability to more fully understand presented information, andto formulate questions which were representative of the group's concerns. The facilitator played akey role, helping to ensure that the questions were relevant to the charge and advanced the Panel'sknowledge.

Sometimes, [the facilitator] has helped us with how to word questions that we want to ask[expert witnesses], so that they're worded in a better way than what we might say. I'veasked her specifically, "This is what I'd like to say. Can you give me some advice on howto say this better?" And that's been really helpful. ~Anne Susan, panellist

After the brief deliberation period, observers and the expert witness were invited back into theroom for a question-and-answer session.17 These sessions, usually lasting about 30 minutes,

16 John Power is a retired Melbourne University professor, with a strong interest in social governance and deliberativedemocratic processes. His commitment to these processes ensured the smooth running of Panel within time constraints.17 It is important to note that observers do not speak in these question-and-answer sessions. Observers are restricted tolistening only, and the question-and-answer process must occur solely between the panellists and the expert witness.

13


allowed panellists to refine their understandings of witness presentations and to probe for furtherinformation.

DeliberationDeliberation occurred not only immediately after the expert witness presentations, but throughoutthe Panel's proceedings (Appendix C). Providing ample time for deliberation was vital to thecreation of considered outcomes. The Panel had to absorb a great deal of information. Additionally,panellists were expected to negotiate group dynamics and to work collaboratively, while agreeingto disagree, in order to move towards consensus. Thus, their task was- both intensive and tiring. Inspite of this, it is quite possible that the pressures created by time constraints resulted in betteroutcomes. All participants in the Panel, including panellists, the facilitator, chair, reference groupmembers and expert witnesses, were forced to remain on task and to operate at a high level.

The timeframe was a key strength [because] the majority of people operate at a low level oftheir capacity. So, to have an intense and short period of time is energising and offerspeople a challenge. It uncovers what people's actual capabilities are that they rarely get anopportunity to exercise. It brings out what is inside people. Everyone's got it, they justnever get the opportunity to practise it. ~Annie Bolitho, Panel facilitator

It is during these stretches of intense deliberation that the facilitator's importance to the processbecomes most apparent. Annie worked to keep the Panel focused on the charge, to draw out issues,as well as encourage quieter voices, and to ensure that any information desired by the Panel wasprovided. Throughout, Annie continued to foster skills including note taking, negotiation,prioritisation and documentation, and prepared the panellists for their fmal task of writing thereport.18 Without the support and guidance of the facilitator, completing the Panel process andreport would have been near-impossible.

There were a couple of disagreements, because everybody had their own point of view. Buteverybody accepted other people's points of view. ~Maureen, panellist

[The facilitation] was quite good. Everybody was treated with the same amount of dignity.[Annie] didn't seem to care that some people had a degree or not. They just wantedordinary people and their views and everyone was treated the same. ~John, panellist

Report writingThe panellists' final task was to collaboratively consolidate the results of their deliberations andwrite a report that included a list of specific outcomes. The Panel was allotted half a day for thistask, and was provided with a laptop computer and printing and photocopying facilities. As withthe deliberation, the facilitator played a crucial role in the report writing, ensuring that allpanellists' opinions and ideas were heard, and that the final report was a genuine reflection of theentire group. Annie also aided the group with the formatting and writing of the report, helping themto develop their ideas into a well-structured, meaningful document (See Appendix D). While thefacilitator is heavily involved in drawing out ideas and guiding the writing of the report, it isimportant to note that a skilled facilitator must have the ability to perform these tasks withoutusurping the panellists'authority. As in the deliberation process, panellists must also 'own' thereport.

18 One'important aspect of notetaking was the Panel's decision to keep a 'scrapbook'. A designated panelistrecorded, in the scrapbook, running minutes of the Panel's deliberations, as well as thoughts and ideas. Thisinformation was then drawn upon to guide the writing of the Panel's report.

14

o


Writing the agreement was very thorough. It was hard, but we all were on the sameguidelines and the same charge, so we knew where we were going. But it was just the timerestraints; with the time restraints it was hard. -Craig, panellist

Presentation of the reportAt the end of the second full day, and after a very demanding collaborative writing process, threemembers chosen to represent the Panel formally presented their report to the Regional HousingManager, OoH, and to the PHAP Manager, who both formally received it. This formal reading andacceptance strongly illustrated the value which the BSL PHAP and OoH placed on the Panel'sinput, and helped reassure panellists that their ideas would be seriously considered.

I think the recommendations are being treated very seriously. Things are already happeningand they need to be further developed so that the group can see the successes of theoutcomes. -OoH reference group member

After the report was presented and received, closing remarks were made, gifts of thanks were madeto the facilitator and to the chair, and certificates of participation were presented to the panellists. ACommunity Forum, at which OoH and PHAP would respond to the Panel's Report was alsoannounced, to be held approximately in one month's time.

The outcomes were being quoted in the state-wide [PHAP] managers meeting. The OoH isusing them in various forums, and are quoting the recommendations that the tenants havemade in the process. -BSL reference group member

Recording the process: the Panel documentaryIn undertaking this Citizens' Panel, the project team was keen to develop a model which would bereplicable, both internally and by other community organisations, especially those concerned withincreasing the voice of marginalised groups. Early in the planning, it was suggested that adocumentary of the Panel might provide a helpful aid: it would be useful to read about the process,but even more useful to see it. Several funding sources were considered and, ultimately, a grantwas received from the BSL's Innovation Hub. This grant allowed for the hiring of Suze Houghtonand Adis Hondo, videographers with much experience in community development projects.19

There is a huge value in promoting tenants in a positive light, in promoting the OoH in apositive light, and, also, in promoting the process as a democratic decision making process.-BSL reference group member

Although the initial plan was to film the entire process including reference group meetings, timeconstraints made this impossible. Thus, the documentary, entitled Seeing is believing!, covered theCommunity Groups Meeting, the Panel's briefing and deliberations, and the presentation of theirreport. It also incorporated interviews with BSL staff, panellists and expert witnesses, providing aperceptive look into the planning, processes and execution of the Panel.

19 Suze and Adis are the proprietors of Hand in Hand Productions, work in association with Open Channel, and haveproduced documentaries on such topics as social welfare in India and the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions(CoHRE).

15


While the documentary was generally viewed by all who participated as a positive aspect of thePanel process, there was some initial concern about whether the videoing would be too intrusive,would prevent panellists from speaking openly, or would affect expert witness presentations. Aswith the issue of allowing attendance of observers, it was vital that panellists had the choice to optout of the documentary.2o The project manager introduced the video process to panellists in earlyconversations, and the videographers spoke openly to the panellists about the filming process,while working to make the filming as unobtrusive as possible. DHS raised concerns about howstaff might be portrayed and, consequently, did not participate in the documentary. This meant thatseveral key aspects of the Panel process, such as the Regional Housing Manager's receipt of thePanel's report, were not able to be incorporated. Most of the Panel process, however, was recorded.

We will continue to push for [further use of the citizens' jury method). Other departmentsmight want to get involved. With the video, we will promote it. In other departments, theremight be issues, but maybe not quite so contentious. [Other agencies] could use it for policyinput. For very specific policy issues, use this to consult and connect with community. Thedifficulty is in getting people to see that this works, and we'll have to do the hard work topromote it and get it but there. ~BSL reference group member

The Panel documentary was launched at the Community Forum to a very positive reception bypanellists, OoH and BSL staff and members of the general public.21

Community forum'One of the aims of [citizens' juries] is to stimulate wider public interest in the topic underconsideration' (Carson 2003, p.16). Thus, the project team organised a Community Forum, held amonth after the Citizens' Panel, at which OoH and PHAP presented their responses to the Panel'sreport. Not only did the Forum help to increase public awareness of the Panel and its results, butalso it helped to formalise the responses to the Panel's report. Additionally, the Panel documentary,Seeing is Believing!, was formally launched at the Forum.

DebriefingThe Panel focused on a community development issue which has implications for the panellists'daily lives. It was important to the BSL, therefore, to have an appropriate level of follow-up withthe panellists. Citizens' Panels do not often specifically involve marginalised communities, and areoften about issues which readily accommodate comprehensive and detailed deliberation of aspecific charge and, therefore, have a strong sense of closure. The very nature of this Panel's topicmeant that this sense of closure was difficult to attain, as many of the panellists left the Panel withfeelings of increased confidence and empowerment, as well as a desire to continue theirinvolvement. Additionally, there was some ambiguity among panellists as to whether or how theirwork would continue.

The project manager arranged a panel debriefing session a fortnight after the Community Forum, toprovide panellists with an opportunity to reflect on the Panel and discuss what, if any, futureactions they would like to take. Seven panellists attended the debriefing, facilitated by HimadriPotter, a BSL staff member from People Work & Culture department and skilled in groupdynamics. As he had not been involved in the Panel, Himadri was able to provide independentguidance. This meant that panellists had the advantage of being led through the debriefing process,without feeling inhibited about expressing their views.

20 Consent and release forms were provided, and persons not wishing to participate in the documentary were not filmedintentionally and were fully edited out of the final product.21 Copies of Seeing is Believing! are available through BSL by contacting Janine Mayhew.

16

()

o


I learnt I could do things. I have always locked myself away in my own area. Now, I can dothings for myself. Now, 1can speak up for myself. 1used to need my family to speak up forme. Now, 1can speak for myself. -Maureen, panellist

The debriefing proved to be extremely constructive, as it helped paneIIists to value theirexperiences of participating in the Panel. Prior to the debriefing, several paneIIists felt their workduring the Panel would be useless if not all aspects of their report were acted upon. By undergoingthe debriefing process, the paneIIists developed an understanding of the inherent value of theirparticipation in the Panel: increased self-confidence, skills development, community involvement,new friends and contacts, and feelings of accomplishment. Several panellists had already becomemore involved in their local communities in the month since the Panel. Other PaneIIists were alsoable to develop ideas as to how they might appropriately and successfully continue the work of thePanel in their immediate communities, through other means of community involvement orformation of local tenant groups. PaneIIists left the meeting with a greater sense of closure andaccomplishment.

CostExpenses for the project amounted to just over $38,000. Major costs were the project manager'ssalary, expenses for panel members (transport, meals, child care), venue hire, publicity and DVDproduction. There was significant in-kind support from the Brotherhood of St Laurence and otherparties.

4 A brief evaluation of the Citizens' Panel

Purpose of evaluationAs this Citizens' Panel was the first for BSL PHAP, it was crucial that the process be monitoredand evaluated. An independent evaluation was built into the process from the very beginning, withan intern from SAR performing an evaluation of the citizens' jury method in relation tomarginalised communities (Jope & Dowling, unpub.). The project manager also undertook toevaluate the process as it unfolded, in order to assess the success of this particular Panel. Issuesincluded the robustness of the method, views of the Panel by both paneIIists and stakeholders, andresponses to the Panel's report.

The importance of having evaluation around this process is that it adds to the body ofknowledge around deliberative decision making processes and engaging citizens in decisionmaking. It also gives people who were involved in the process an opportunity to feed back,to say what worked and didn't work, so that ... then, next time we do it, we can take intoaccount those things and make it better. -BSL reference group member

The evaluation begins by reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of the Panel. It then discussesseveral adaptations which were made to the citizens' jury method in order to better accommodatethe Panel's focus on marginalised communities. The evaluation finishes by reviewing lessonslearned from BSL PHAP's initial experience with Citizens' Juries.

Method of evaluationThe evaluation is based heavily on in-depth, semi-structured interviews, with BSL and OoR staffand paneIIists. The interviews were performed by Brendan Dowling, a BSL volunteer andindependent Panel evaluator, Sally Jope, SAR, and Sara Bice, Panel project manager. Interviews

17


lasted between 15 minutes and one hour, and covered a range of topics, including expectations,random selection, the charge, inclusiveness, and strengths and weaknesses of the Panel.

The Citizens' Panel and community consultationOverall, feedback on the Citizens' Panel was extremely positive. Stakeholders, several of whomhad been quite sceptical about the effectiveness of the process, were unanimously pleased with theresults of the Panel. Many reported that the Panel exceeded their expectations. Additionally,stakeholders reported that the Panel's Report was surprisingly considered and their list of outcomes'eminently do-able'. Panellists also reported that they were very happy with the Panel's processand results. Many reported feelings of increased confidence and a desire to become more involvedin their community. Others felt they had provided a valuable service through representing theircommunities.

StrengthsThe Citizens' Panel proved to be an effective, inclusive and valuable method of communityconsultation. Its strengths are surveyed below.

Community capacity buildingCitizens' Panels place decision making into the hands of those most affected by the decisions. Theprocess promotes active participation and informed decision making by those most affected by theoutcomes of the charge deliberated.

The Panel process can develop a community's capacity to interact with a range of stakeholders thatincludes the expert witnesses, observers and reference group members from government. Randomselection of the Panel members from the broader public tenant community provides an opportunityto the Panel members to engage and build relationships with other public tenants they wouldotherwise not have an opportunity to interact with--or if they do, it is often in a negative context.

The process demonstrates communities' and individuals' capabilities. Given the opportunity andthe support of experienced and skilled facilitation, the panel quickly demonstrated skills necessaryfor effective collaboration and deliberation.

I think I've learned how much people can do for each other when they're just willing togive up a little bit of time and a little bit of effort. And it's nice to see just ordinary citizenscome together and make a difference. -John, panellist

Improved communicationThe process builds understanding between all stakeholders including participants by creatingopportunities to develop mutual trust and respect. It also provides valuable feedback andinformation for stakeholders, generating shared understanding of the experiences of public tenants.

The outcomes, I think, are on a range oflevels. Specifically, in terms of the Panel and theissues they were discussing, there's obviously learnings there for us around participation ofservice users in a range of things that we do. -BSL reference group member

The final report on the outcomes created a product which can be used in considering futuredirections and participation by the community and stakeholders. The recommendations are timely,realistic and manageable.

18

o

Report and evaluation ofthe Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel

The outcomes will inform future consultation and decision making processes, information sharingand appropriate service delivery.

The Panel environment created opportunities to strengthen the understanding of community issuesby all involved. This came about through a well-facilitated, democratic decision making processand the willingness by all involved to share experiences, information, skills and knowledge.

Increased social capitalThe Citizen Panel models inclusiveness through the random selection and deliberative decisionmaking processes and the opportunity to engage those who are often most marginalised anddisadvantaged.

The deliberative and democratic decision making processes can be empowering for bothindividuals and communities. The Citizen Panel method has the power and capacity to include andto take account of those voices frequently marginalised and excluded from decision making, thoughthis requires considerable time and effort.

The Citizen Panel method builds self-confidence in participants through the processes of selection,engagement, and facilitation. Trust, respect and democratic decision making create a safeenvironment for the Panellists' ideas and opinions to be heard, considered and included in decision-making.

I have the confidence to work with people, and I think I have developed better group workskills. I felt really empowered from the experience. ~Sonja, panellist

Skilled facilitation ensures the process builds deliberative, interrogative and collaborative skills ofparticipants. Throughout the progress of the panel, and within a very tight timeframe, the facilitatorassisted the Panel in maintaining a clear focus and concentration on the topic. Opportunity wasprovided for panellists to collaborate in considering issues and further cross examination of expertwitnesses.

The process takes the concerns and ideas of everyday people seriously. It is inclusive of those whoare all too often marginalised and excluded. However to be effective it also requires commitmentfrom stakeholders to progress outcomes and recommendations.

EfficiencyDecisions are made according to a set deadline. As discussed previously, it is quite possible that thevery time constraints which made the Panel challenging for participants also made it more fruitful.

Geographical coverageBecause transport, meals and child-care support were offered, the citizens' jury process in this caseenabled input from residents across a considerable geographical area. It was important and usefulto bring together tenants from across the outer southern metropolitan region, as many have hadsimilar experiences, but rarely have contact with each other due to their living situations.

The Citizens' Panel is formal. It transports people so that geographical barriers areovercome, and that's often a barrier. ~BSL reference group member

19


Deliberative and democratic processIt is a transparent process, which does not make false promises, leading to disillusionment. Theprocess is intrinsically committed to ideals of citizens' participation in informed and democraticdecision making.

I must admit that I did come into this panel with a certain amount of cynicism as to whetherit would work, whether it would be worthwhile. What I've learnt over the last couple ofdays is that I've found that there are other people, likeminded people to myself, who areconcerned with community, who believe that nurturing community spirit is a worthwhilething to do. So, I will take away great optimism, to be perfectly honest. ~Carol, panellist

The Citizen Panel emphasises the importance and usefulness of democratic practices. Deliberativedemocracy emphasises the importance of 'active citizenship' and supports the capabilities of'everyday people' to create rational and useful decisions.

The final report was inclusive of all panellists' opinions and ideas, and was a genuine reflection ofthe entire group. The report created a product which can be used in considering future directionsand participation by the community and stakeholders. The recommendations are timely, realisticand manageable and will inform future consultation and decision making processes, informationsharing and in planning appropriate service delivery.

WeaknessesDespite the overall success of the Citizens' Panel, there were several evident weaknesses, althoughsome were beyond the control of the Panel's organisers. Those weaknesses are outlined here, andmany are also addressed under 'Lessons learned' (see page 22).

Organisational difficultiesThe project was under significant time constraints which did not allow sufficiently for both theplanning and execution stages.

As the facilitator was not confirmed until late in the process, she was unable to participate in theearly stages of the planning process. This meant the project team was unable to benefit from herextensive experience in conducting citizens' juries. Certain aspects of the facilitator's job weremore difficult, as she had limited input in the preparation. Selecting the facilitator as soon aspossible after initiation of the project and incorporating her/him into the reference group wouldreduce pressure on the role, lessen confusion and improve the overall running of the panel.

We could really do with more days of deliberation, but I think it would get to the point of:where would you draw the line? We could do with more information, but, at this time,would more information help us? We've got to this stage. We don't have more time.~Carol, panellist

There existed lack of clarity within the reference group regarding final decision making authority.As planning proceeded, decision making became increasingly complex, especially around issuessuch as the media strategy and developing the charge, as voices from beyond the reference groupbegan to have growing influence. This lack of clarity around authority and decision makinghighlighted some of the complexities in working in partnership in this instance a partnershipbetween the BSL and DRS in planning and implementing the Panel. For example, DRS waswriting and planning the release of its 'Tenant Participation Framework' while planning for thePanel was occurring. There was some concern that the Panel's original focus on tenant

20


participation as encroaching upon DHS' policy plans and, therefore, inappropriate. These opinionsdirectly affected the ways in which the BSL project team was able to proceed with the Panel, andled to an almost complete lack of media coverage-before, during and after the Panel-and to achange in the charge.

The reference group needs more autonomy to operate within a framework, so that they canmake decisions, rather than seek endorsement. ~OoH reference group member

It was disheartening to have the process interrupted and questioned and invalidated in someways. I think we did push a lot of boundaries, and people are talking about it.~BSL reference group member

In hindsight, although there were concluding remarks after the presentation of the Panel's report,there was not an opportunity for all those involved, particularly the panellists, to gain a sense ofclosure.

Inability to publicise the Panel: The partnership between the BSL and DHS in planning andimplementing the Panel meant that certain desirable aspects of the Panel process were stifled. Thelack of media coverage was, in part, related to the tight time constraints on the Panel and thedifficulty of getting press releases approved in time to remain relevant.

Limited resourcesNeed for greater resourcing: Due to the sheer size ofthe region, transporting tenants to/from thePanel was very difficult. This stress could have been reduced, had there been funding available foraccommodation or alternative modes of transport.

The process would have benefited from an 'organising or implementation group'. It was difficultfor one person to implement the project particularly within the constrained timelines and limitedresoutces.

Recruitment difficultiesInabiljty to directly recruit panellists led to non-randomly selected participants, which may haveaffected the representativeness of the Panel, especially in relation to whose voices are heard. Often,individuals who self-select, as the non-random panellists did, are those who are already speakingout or who are more willing to speak out on community issues.

Inability to directly recruit community groups was mainly related to time and staffing constraints.The project manager was forced to rely on already overworked community agency staff to recruitcommunity groups' participants. This resulted in low response rates. In the case of the Indigenousgroup, issues of cultural relevance and concerns about tokenism also came into play.

Documentation limitationsThe Panel documentary does not cover the early stages of the process due to time limitations anddifficulties in securing videographers.

There was a lack ofDHS participation in the Panel documentary. Due to the unpredictable natureof the Panel, and related concerns about how staff and information might be portrayed, DHS staffwere not authorized to participate in the Panel documentary. This resulted in several major Panelevents not being recorded.

21


Two people who were not randomly selected were squeaky wheels - they wanted to havean influence - this is not what random selection is about. They wanted to dominate thediscussions -1 think they felt they had a role to do that, that they had experience and shouldshare it with the group, that they owed it to the group. It put people offside quite a lot.-BSL reference group member.

5 Citizens' juries and marginalised communitiesThroughout the planning and implementation of the Panel, it became apparent that several aspectsof the citizens' jury method needed to be adapted to this particular group and topic. In mostinstances, these adaptations were related to the Panel's inclusion of margin ali sed communities andindividuals, and its focus on a community development issue. Specifically, they were related torecruitment, random selection, closure, and community representation. These adaptations resultedin several important 'lessons learned'.

There was an incredible learning curve for everyone involved. When you're an earlyfrontrunner in developing a process, it's an exercise in documenting and sharing learning.The process doesn't have to wrap up perfectly in line with the model. For everyoneinvolved-the panellists, the reference group, the organisation running it, the OoH, theobservers, the facilitator, the chair, the evaluator, the project manager-all the players, itwas a massive learning curve. -Annie Bolitho, Panel facilitator

Lessons learned

Time and resourcesTo ensure awell planned and effective Citizens' Jury, it is crucial that sufficient time and resourcesare allocated to the process. Strict timeframes and limited resources placed great pressures on theplanning and implementation process that compromised the final outcome of a range of aspects of~~~ .

Organising groupIn future, it may be helpful to create a small organising group to aid with logistical tasks prior toand during the panel. This group could be made up of volunteers.

FacilitatorIt will be important to select the facilitator as soon as possible after initiation of the project andincorporate her/him into the reference group. This would reduce pressure on the role, lessenconfusion and improve the overall running of the panel.

Developing the agendaThe Panel facilitator set the agenda for the Panel's deliberations. This allowed her to create anagenda which was different from the common panel model and, therefore, more appropriate for apanel comprised of individuals from marginalised communities or situations. Annie purposelyincorporated greater amounts of time for skill and team building and developed an open andsensitive facilitation style, which was inclusive ofpanellists' knowledge and understandings.

Random selection and recruitmentIn order to maintain the robustness of the citizens' jury method, the entire Panel needs to berandomly selected. To achieve a ranqomly selected and representative panel, it is essential to havethe ability to recruit participants directly. Although the hybrid method adopted by this Panel wasultimately effective, it did not result in the best possible random selection. Several self-selecting

22

o


individuals were included on the Panel, potentially impacting group dynamics andrepresentativeness. In future, it would be best to determine a means of directly contacting .participants. For example, OoH staff with access to phone numbers could be brought in early in theplanning, informed about the citizens' jury method and trained as recruiters. This would facilitatedirect recruitment of all panellists.

Community representationIt is extremely important that communities who are not 'statistically represented' somehow beincluded in the decision making process of citizens' panels. Bringing together specifically targetedcommunity groups to input their ideas into the panel's deliberations has the potential to be veryuseful and a powerful means of inclusion. Indeed, the ideas of the community group that did meetprior to this Panel were directly incorporated into the Panel's report. However involving suchgroups requires identifying them and contacting agencies early in the planning stages. This wouldcreate stronger understanding of and commitment to the process, which, in tum, may greatlyincrease recruitment success.

Inclusion of Indigenous AustraliansOrganisations seeking to implement an inclusive citizens' panel must consider ways in whichIndigenous communities may be better consulted and represented. Open conversations betweenpanel organisers and Indigenous representatives are necessary to determine the way forward. It isimportant to recognise that citizens' juries are a concept based heavily on Western, Anglo ideals ofdemocracy, which may not be aligned with or appropriate for Indigenous communities. It may,therefore, be necessary to develop alternative strategies for inclusion.

Closure and debriefing:Due to the fact that this Panel focused on community development issues, many of the panellistsfelt a need to remain engaged about the issues raised. Although this desire for engagement isextremely positive, it is essential that panellists have closure to the Panel process itself allowingthem to progress to consider further community engagement through other means, such as atenants' group. The Panel organisers need to ensure that panellists have the opportunity to reflecton their experiences, to fully understand the value of their contributions, and to consider 'where tofrom here'. This can be achieved by incorporating a debriefing into the Panel process. Smallactions such as having drinks or taking a group photograph at the end of the Panel may helpcontribute to a sense of closure. It is also desirable to arrange debriefings for the facilitator andproject manager, to allow for reflection on the project.

The citizens' jury is a white process. So, how do we engage the groups in a process likethat? Maybe we need to hear from them in their own processes, rather than try and fit theminto our processes. Is there a way we can alter the panel to fit Indigenous culturalpreferences? -BSL reference group member

Citizens' Juries: including marginalised communities in consultationBSL PHAP's initial foray into citizens' juries proved to be an extremely successful endeavour.Through initiating and implementing a citizens' jury, the organisation has begun to develop a noveland useful means of community consultation that is inclusive and replicable. Citizens' juriesprovide voice to those individuals and communities often left unheard. They offer 'ordinary'people the opportunity to become more informed about social issues and to create informed andconsidered opinions on matters of public importance. They also provide a strong, transparentmeans of consultation between large organisations, such as government, and the individuals andcommunities they impact.

23


It has been an incredible journey and an incredible experience, and I would recommend itto anybody in the future who is given an invitation to join. ~Carol, panellist

Overall, citizens' juries, through their focus on deliberative democracy and communityrepresentativeness, have the potential to reduce social exclusion, to increase social capital and toexpand the implementation of social governance.

24


ReferencesAustralian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2002, Population distribution: Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Australians 2001, Cat.noA705.0, ABS, Canberra, viewed December 2004,<http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf/O/85AB4 A6668629B 77CA25 6BE400026A25/$File/4 7050_200 l.pd£>.

Brotherhood of St Laurence (BSL) (unpublished project proposal) 2002, Local voices: Strongercommunities through participation in deliberative decision making.

---{unpublished) 2004, Social Action and Research, BSL Strategic Plan 2004-07.

Carson, L 1998, 'Random selection in consultation and participation', Community Quarterly,volA7, December, People Projects, Balaclava, pp.68-77.--2001, 'Stimulating the voice ofthe voiceless', Australia and New Zealand Third SectorReview, vol.7, issue 2, ANZTSR, Sydney, pp.57-70.--2003, Consult your community: a handbook: a guide to using citizens' juries, Department ofo Planning, Sydney, viewed 12 October 2004, <http://www.iplan.nsw.gov.au/>.

Carson, L & Gelber, K 2001, Ideasfor community consultation: A discussion on principles andproceduresfor making consultation work, Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney,NSW.

Carson, L & Martin, B 1999, Random selection in politics, Praeger, Westport, Connecticut.

Department of Human Services (DHS) 2002, Department of Human Services privacy policy,viewed 2 December 2004, <http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/privacy/>.

Jope, S & Dowling, B 2005 (unpub.), Sharing the learnings about deliberative participation: areview of the citizens jury for public tenants.

Rawls, J 1999, The law of peoples with 'The idea of public reason revisited', Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Woodward, V 2000, 'Community engagement with the state: a case study of the Plymouth HoeCitizens' Jury', Community Development Journal, vo1.35, issue 3, pp.233-44.

Victorian Government 2000, Information Privacy Act: Act no. 98/2000, viewed 2 December 2004,<http://www.privacy.vic.gov.au>. [the Act itself is found on a site linked to this one]

25


Appendix A; invitations and accompanying letter~ ~~

Dear Tenant

TheB rotherho<x.1QfStLau[ence (BS L.);association \Aiith the V~,pOfflce QfHolJ,singand Community Bulldin~ Is~!e~se(Uoi autp ~arnember dY0lB: ;JocaICitizens'Pa I

The Vlcto ria n SQuthern.R~9ionCitizens~tPane I wll include 2g ~'b1ichMusing~~!~Dt$~o will discuss Issueslon2ert1ingpubli~housing. The Panel's OUtcomesVvtllbe .recorded.and presente<! to the Housing't,Manageli 5 outhem Metrop:>boi,JlegIOQt,Depa~nt dHuman S'ervt<:~~ . ....

This Is anexcltlng oPp:>rtunity for you to beCome'roore involved in you~community and to be .'cons ulted about your ideas for your community!,

ThefIfst 20 people tocall,tne"ProjectM$na9t?ron 0425 7$10777be~n 9;OO<antand5:00 p.rn 'MUbe ontheP,anel!

Tha,nk you. for your ,~andwehope to hear from you!'

Yours sincerely

t:~nsf PanelP rojectManager~rotbemood.ofSt Laurence

26


VICTORIAN SOUTHERN REGION CITIZENS' PANEL

Frequently Asked Questions

What will happen when I call?If there are spaces left on the Pane~ you \WI begiven a panellist nurrbet You will be asked tolYoviOOsOlIn very rosie personallnforrmtion, suchas a contact nurreer. You wiI also be asked a fewother questions to help us help you to paltk:ipate.

What if I'm caller number 21but I really want to be on thePanel?Unfortunately, this Citizens' Panel only has space for20 panellists. This clces not Il'ean that you cannotparticipate in the Panen Callers 21·30 will be askedto be 'shadow panellists'. Shadow panellists will fillin if a panellistcannot carre to the Panel Feel freeto call the Project Manager if you are interested inthe Pane~ as there may be other things you cao 00to help oul!

What if J'mnot sure if I want tobe on the Panel? What shouldIdo?

If you 00 not v.ish to 00 on the Panel, you do notneed to take any action. Even if you decKle notto 00 on the Panel, you are invited to aneoo aCorrmJnity FollJOl to be held in eartj Nove~r. Atthe FOrurl, the Citizens' Panel v.illannounce theiroutcomes. Everyone at the Fonmwil havethe Opp:lltunlty to l-earaoout the Citizens' Panelprocess, and to ask questions.

If you're not sure if you v.antto be on the Panel, it'sa good idea to call the Project ManageL Even if youare one of the first 20 pe0Pe to call, you 00 not have to beon the Panel You could just ring up and ask a fewquestions. This is perfectly nne and 1M? encourageyou to call!

I don't want to be on the Panel.What should I do?

Will the $50/day affect myCentrelink payments?The S50 cOYer.;costs inCurred and will not affectyour Centrelink payrrent

I want to be on the Panel.What should I do?

Why did I get this invitation?You have received thls irJllitatxmto be on theCitizens' Panel beca15€ YOll" narre v.as dra\\fl atranOOm from over 10,000 public housing tenants.Citizens' Paneti use rarxlom selection to choosepanellists so that e~ryone in the cormunityhas a fair g:> at being able to paltk:ipate.

No. You 00 oot have to be an Australian Citizento be on the Panel If you have receWed thisimitation, you are eligjble to be on the Paneland \w encourage you to paltk:lpate!

Do I have to be an AustralianCitizen to beon the Panel?

If you would like to be on the Pane~ you shouldcal 0425 790777 bet.'Ween the hours of 9:00 a.mand 5:00 p.m The fllSt 20 peoPe to ringthis nurrber be~n these hours will be on the Panel

What about transport/foodchildcare/healthcare duringthe Panel?

The Panel ~ be IXQViied~ffee chiklcare,transport. and food. We will00 our best toaccornrodate any SfXKlal health concerns yourrigl"« have. Panel merrbers will receive S50/day forcosts incurred

o

o

27


Appendix B:phone script for OoHCitizens' Panel: script for follow up phone calls

Before ringing, you may wish to look over the attached Citizens' Panel Fact Sheet and Script forLocal Agencies to help you answer any queries that might arise.

1) Hi, can I speak with Mr/MrslMs ? Thanks.

2) Hello, Mr/MrslMs . This is [your name] and I'm calling about the Brotherhood ofSt Laurence Citizens' Panel. The BSL sent you an invitation last week and we're just following up.Did you receive that invitation?

2a) If YES: That's great (and continue to 3)

2b) If NO, (please record this on the confirmation sheet): You have been selected from 10,000public housing tenants to be invited to be on the Citizens' Panel. Would you be interested in thePanel? (if interested, continue to 3)

3) I'm calling because we'd really like you to be on the Panel. We haven't had enough people callin yet, so we're ringing to see if you're interested. You'll receive $50 per day (2 days) for being onthe Panel and BSL will provide transport, food and child-care. Would you or someone in yourhousehold be interested in being on the Panel?

3a) If YES: Thanks. That's great. I'll just get your contact details and Sara from the Brotherhoodof St Laurence will give you a call. (Record name and contact details on confirmation sheetattached)

3b) If NO: That's OK. We really appreciate your time.

FYI:• Panellists need to attend a Briefing Meeting and Dinner: Monday 4 October,

4:00 - 8:00 p.m., Monash Frankston (transportlfoodlchild-care provided)

• Citizens' Panel: Tuesday & Wednesday, October 5 & 6, 9:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m.

• The $50/day will not affect Centrelink payments.• .All food, including morning and afternoon tea and lunch, is included.

• Children will also have lunches and snacks.• BSL can transport panellists to/from the Panel in their bus.• BSL will reimburse for transport costs: by car - $/km travelled; by public transport -

reimbursement of ticket cost (keep ticket as receipt).• Accredited child care workers will be on site to provide child-care.

• BSL can provide language interpreters if needed.

• BSL can provide health care if needed.• Panellists don't need to have any special knowledge.

28


Appendix C: Citizens' Panel agenda

Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel

Agenda

Tuesday 5 October

Time Activity Location9:00-10:30 Panel briefing Meeting Room 110:30-10:45 Opening remarks: Genine Wallinga, Back Dining Room .

Housing Manager, SouthernMetropolitan Region, Department ofHuman ServicesCatherine Scarth, General ManagerCommunity Services, Brotherhood ofSt Laurence

10:45-11 :00 Expert Witness presentation: Tony Back Dining RoomNewman, Services Quality Manager,Department of Human Services

11:00-11:10 Panel deliberation Back Dining Room11:10-11:30 Expert Witness Q & A: Tony Newman Back Dining Room11:30-11:50 Morning tea Bistro11:50-12:05 Expert Witness presentation: Janine Back Dining Room

Mayhew, Manager, Public HousingAdvocacy Program, Brotherhood ofSt Laurence

12:05-12:15 Panel deliberation Back Dining Room12:15-12:35 Expert Witness Q & A: Janine Mayhew Back Dining Room12:35-1:00 Panel deliberation on first witnesses Meeting Room 11:00-2:00 Lunch Bistro2:00-2:15 Expert Witness presentation: Ann Back Dining Room

Callanan, State Coordinator, VictorianPublic Tenants Association

2:15-2:25 Panel deliberation Back Dining Room2:25-2:45 Expert Witness Q & A: Ann Callanan Back Dining Room2:45-3:00 Afternoon tea Bistro3:00-3:30 Panel deliberation on third witness Meeting Room 13:30-4:15 Reflections - Day 1 Meeting Room 1

29


Wednesday 6 October

Victorian Southern Region Citizens' PanelAgenda

time activity location9:00-9:10 Day 2 - opening Back Dining Room9:10-9:25 Expert Witness presentation: Jen Lehmann, Back Dining Room

Deliberative Decision-making and Public HousingTenants

9:25-9:40 Panel deliberation Back Dining Room9:40-10:00 Expert Witness Q & A: Jen Lehmann, Deliberative Back Dining Room. Decision-making and Public Housing Tenants10:00-10:15 Expert Witness presentation: Jenny Hogan, Back Dining Room

Strengths-based Community Building, St Luke's10:15-10:30 Panel deliberation Back Dining Room10:30-10:50 Expert Witness Q & A: Jenny Hogan Back Dining Room10:50-11:10 Morning tea Bistro11: 10-11 :25 Expert Witness presentation: Lyn Dixon, North Back Dining Room

Richmond Public Tenants' Association11:25-11 :40 Panel deliberation Back Dining Room11:40-12:00 Expert Witness Q & A: Lyn Dixon Back Dining Room12:00-1:00 Panel deliberation on expert witnesses Meeting Room 11:00-2:00 Lunch Bistro2:00-3:00 Summative discussion Meeting Room 13:00-3:20 Afternoon tea Bistro3:20-4:30 Summative discussion & report Meeting Room 14:30-4:45 Presentation of outcomes Back Dining Room4:45-5:00 Thanks and conclude: Genine Wallinga, Janine Back Dining Room

Mayhew

30


Appendix D: Panel'sReport

PreambleWe are the Victorian Southern Region Citizens' Panel. We comprise public housing tenants from adiverse range of the public housing sector, drawn from Cheltenham, Frankston and Dandenong.Our aim is to facilitate tenant participation within the public housing community, so that tenantscan provide feedback to housing staff, and have direct input into recommendations on how housingservices are provided.

This, in turn, should lead to improved communication between tenants and Office of Housing(OoR) staff, and have a significant long-term effect on housing management and the delivery ofhousing services.

The ChargeWhat would it take for tenants to make the journey to represent their community interests?How might they do this?

Based on the evidence:Why would public tenants get involved in the Tenant Participation Framework in their community?How would tenants in the community get involved?How can tenants use the Tenant Participation Framework to make a difference?

Recommendations addressing the charge• The panel recommends that the Tenant Participation framework draft must be simplified and

put in 'easy to read' terms. It must be translated into different languages. It is important that itbe made available to tenants who want to become familiar with it.

• That tenant participation be based on a framework which includes not only local, regional andstate levels, but tenant advocates trained to liaise between tenants and the department,including policy and on-ground housing staff.

• The panel recommends that tenants' participation can be encouraged by accessing communityservices, organisations and resources.

• That OoH work towards employing public housing tenants in liaison capacities within themany Department of Human Services agencies.

• The panel recommends that there be more training for OoH staff in communicating sensitivelywith people's diverse needs, including ordinary, everyday people who sometimes haveproblems. Multicultural awareness and social skills should be taken into consideration inemploying new staff.

• The Panel supports the draft Participation Framework's intention to increase face-to-faceinteraction between tenants and OoH staff, manag~ment and field staff, if and when required.

• The panel not.es that tenants would benefit from being informed about the changes beingundertaken within the Department. This would help to~ards rebuilding trust between tenantsand the Department.

• The panel recommends that once contact is made to housing staff about an issue, the tenantneeds to be reassured that feedback and suggestions will be taken seriously and given dueconsideration. Housing staff need to get back to tenants within a certain time frame.

• Tenants need help and support from housing staff to start up their own tenants' group in theirarea, e.g. available resources, venues, contact names, etc.

• Tenants need to hear about success stories from other tenants' groups to inspire them toparticipate or even start their own group.

31


• There is a need to target 'spot purchase' homes who may feel isolated.• The panel recommends more information be available to tenants from OoR about policy,

procedures and how tenants can access services, e.g. website, Q&A page - where questions areanswered by staff. A monthly regional meeting could be held where tenants can ask OoR staffquestions.

ConcernsThe panel wishes to note that there have been ongoing concerns raised in discussion as to whetherthe recommendations and report will be taken seriously. The panel wishes to receive an indicationbefore 5th November, 2004 as to ways in which ongoing contact and action arising from the Panelinitiative will be sustained:

32

Documents

Brotherhood of S!Laurencelibrary.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/3882/1/An Incredible Journey... · An incrediblejourney Executive summary The purpose ofthis report is twofold. First,