clc policy brief formatted final 20140610 · this policy brief seeks to highlight implications for...

i

POLICY BRIEF Prepared by Chris Roche & Thu-Trang Tran

Institute of Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University for the Central Land Council

May 2014

ii

1

POLICY BRIEF Independent Evaluation

CLC Community Development and Governance Programs

2

Executive Summary INTRODUCTION In 2005, the Central Land Council (CLC) established the Community Development Unit (CDU) to implement a community development program that works with rent and royalty monies from mining. The program seeks to both maintain Aboriginal identity, language, culture and connection to country and strengthen Aboriginal capacity to participate in mainstream Australia through improving health, education and employment outcomes. The program is one of the largest self-funded and demand driven service and development programs of its kind in the Northern Territory. In 2011, the CLC established the Lajamanu Governance Project in partnership with Lajamanu residents. This three-year project uses a development approach to strengthen effective and legitimate decision-making and implementation processes, and address the ‘governance gap’ in remote communities, starting in Lajamanu. In 2013, an independent, government-funded evaluation was commissioned to assist the CLC to explore and improve its development work in order to maximise the benefits for Aboriginal people. The evaluation assessed these projects’ contribution to achieving positive social, cultural and economic outcomes valued by Aboriginal people, and strengthening their governance capacity. This policy brief seeks to highlight implications for policy and practice arising from key findings of the evaluation. In the ethos of the CLC’s collaborative approach, this brief invites dialogue between policy makers, businesses and community development practitioners about the findings of the evaluation. KEY FINDINGS For the period 2005-2013, $25.2M of Aboriginal funds was used for community benefit, growing from about $0.5M per annum in the first two years, to $5M per annum in the last four years. If leveraged funds were included, total community development expenditure would be $33.2M. This indicates an important and growing commitment from Aboriginal people choosing to spend their money in a collective manner. The evaluation found that the CDU has largely delivered on its goal, in a cost-effective manner, of making a tangible difference to Aboriginal people’s lives. The outcomes achieved align with the five priority areas identified in the Australian Government’s recently announced Indigenous Advancement Strategy. Importantly, the efficacy of the CLC’s Community Development Framework and processes employed in delivering the programs, based on Aboriginal control, ownership, empowerment and self-identified priorities are supported by the evidence. Moreover, the CDU’s approach in supporting and facilitating communities to determine and prioritise – with legitimacy – their development outcomes is to be recognised. CLC’s processes challenge and update definitions of community development outcomes and how they are best achieved. Whilst both Aboriginal people and service providers valued outcomes related to health, education and employment, Aboriginal people were more likely to express the view that strengthening culture and enhancing their voice and control, are in and of themselves an intrinsic part of the development process, and are central to achieving development outcomes. Strong community governance is thus crucial for communities to be able to engage and negotiate with governments, drive their own development objectives, and hold service providers and agencies to account for performance and delivery of projects to meet those objectives. The CLC’s successful elaboration of highly tailored and context specific approaches in practice were essential to the effectiveness of its development work in each community. This resonates with international development practice, where there is a move away from inappropriate importation of often alien ‘best practice’ to supporting processes which are a ‘good fit’ with the local context and ‘go with the grain’ of indigenous political and cultural realities.

iii

1



2

Some of the critical factors underpinning CDU’s success were: • understanding political and cultural context and operating and implementing processes tailored to those local

realities • understanding and valuing existing skills, capabilities and institutions in communities • investing in Aboriginal people to design governance arrangements, thus placing primacy on local power,

agency and voice and ensuring genuine involvement in decision making processes affecting their communities

• creation of a simple, consistent and understood process of community engagement which allows for priorities and approaches to be tailored and locally relevant

• strong practice in critical self-reflection, active listening and working at the pace of Aboriginal governance groups

• inclusive governance and decision making processes which accommodate the interests of less vocal and powerful groups within communities

• alignment of individuals, relationships and organisational networks that seek to maximise the effectiveness of the use of limited resources, working together and not undermining each other

• requisite high level of cross-cultural skills and ways of working, and • strong monitoring and evaluation processes that allowed for critical reflection and reflexive practice, and for

the development, in future, of social accountability or community feedback mechanisms. The infographic on the next page provides a visual summary of these findings.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS Doing community development well is difficult, especially in remote central Australia Aboriginal communities. The development process is critical to the achievement of sustainable development outcomes. The CLC’s development practice over eight years and the recent Lajamanu Governance Project provide important lessons about the process of community development in remote Aboriginal communities, namely: • how Aboriginal people can be genuinely involved in processes that produce outcomes they value • how external actors can sensitively support those processes in ways that are empowering, and how they can

undermine this, and • how collective action between numerous actors is critical in determining community well-being.

The formulation and implementation of community programs or development policy – by government agencies, business or community organisations – need to draw on the principles and factors instrumental to the CLC’s community development processes that delivered tangible results. Given the new Indigenous Advancement Strategy and Remote Community Advancement Network, and a revised Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory policy, there is opportunity to amplify and leverage the work of the CDU to enhance the outcomes envisaged for the “place-based initiatives”, “tailored local solutions”, and programs “that work with communities to produce long-term transformational change”.1 It is worthwhile noting that the CLC’s Community Development Program goals are consistent with the five priority areas of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy: jobs, land and economy; children and schooling; safety and wellbeing; culture and capability; and remote Australia strategies2. Leveraging the CDU’s program requires concerted efforts to create opportunities for other communities and other actors (service providers and government agencies) in remote Indigenous communities to deliberate and assess how the CDU’s community development processes and the Lajamanu Governance Project can be applied to their particular context. Government agencies can support these deliberations amongst community and service providers to establish a shared understanding of Indigenous development and concomitant approaches and practices required of different actors (albeit with different responsibilities) to their work in remote Indigenous communities.

1 http://www.dpmc.gov.au/accountability/budget/2014-15/IA_budget.cfm 2 See also the Empowered Communities Initiatives

5

Table of Contents

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION REPORT 6

BACKGROUND 6

FINDINGS 8 Cost effectiveness 8 Delivering on community development outcomes 8 Evidence base for CLC’s community development practice 9 Critical factors for effectiveness 9

ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER CONSIDERATION 10

FURTHER INFORMATION 11

6

Summary of Evaluation Report

BACKGROUND The Central Land Council (CLC) is a statutory authority set up under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (Northern Territory) 1976 (ALRA) covering an area of 750,000 square kilometers in the southern half of the Northern Territory (NT). It is an Aboriginal organisation governed by a council of 90 elected Aboriginal members. The CLC supports Aboriginal people in central Australia to achieve freehold title to their traditional lands under the ALRA and recognition of native title rights, and to manage their land and to negotiate agreements with others seeking to use their land, which includes payment of rent and royalties to Traditional Owners. Central to the CLC’s work is a commitment to support effective arrangements that give Aboriginal people increased control over their own affairs, including their own development. This is critical given that Aboriginal people in central Australia continue to be an extremely disadvantaged group in terms of key social, economic and health indicators. Redressing the extreme disadvantage of many central Australian Aboriginal communities has proven to be very challenging. Many programs and projects designed to help improve the well being of Aboriginal people in central Australia fail to achieve desired outcomes, and many socio-economic indicators appear to be worsening. The CLC’s Community Development Unit (CDU) was established in 2005 (with the support of Traditional Owners and residents) to implement community development projects that seek to achieve the dual objectives of maintaining Aboriginal identity and strengthening Aboriginal people’s participation in mainstream Australia. These projects are principally funded using Aboriginal money sourced from rent and royalties from land-use agreements and affected area payments for collective community benefit (rather than for individual benefit). The CDU led the development of the CLC’s Community Development Framework that is characterised by a focus on community ownership, Aboriginal control, trust-based relationships, respect for local values and processes, an understanding of cultural differences, and monitoring and evaluation. The locations of the major CLC community development projects in 2013 are set out in the map on the next page. In April 2011, the Lajamanu Governance Project was established by the CLC in partnership with Lajamanu residents with the support of the Commonwealth and NT governments. This three-year project uses a development approach to strengthen effective and legitimate decision-making and implementation processes, and address the ‘governance gap’ in remote communities, starting in Lajamanu. It is important to note the divergence over time between the principles and approaches underpinning the CLC Community Development Program and Governance Project and the Commonwealth and NT governments’ policies and practices. The Community Development Program is only one of many interventions in the lives of Aboriginal people in this region. The Program was established during a period of rapid government policy changes (such as the NT Emergency Response and the NT ‘Growth Towns’ model, and the abolition of community councils through Shire reform). Research suggests that the cumulative impact of recent policies has seen a decline in capacity for local decision-making and control, creating a ‘governance vacuum’, often exacerbated by excessive and uncoordinated demands by external agencies on limited community capacities.



7

1



2

8

1



2

FINDINGS The following highlights key findings and relevant recommendations from the Evaluation Report. This is supplemented by the infographic above, which visually depicts the overall assessment of the CDU’s Community Development Program.

Cost effectiveness

Between 2005 and 2013, both the volume and diversity of sources of funds utilised for community benefit with the support of the CDU has grown rapidly. This indicates an important and growing commitment from Aboriginal people to choose to spend their money in a collective manner. Over the last eight years, total community development expenditure (excluding staff costs) was $25.2M, growing from about $0.5M per annum in the first two years of operation to nearly $5M per annum in the last four years. If funds leveraged through other grants are included, this brings the total to $33.2M. This reflects increased demand for community development projects and additional income sources allocated for community development purposes. The cost of the CDU unit for the period between 2005-13 was estimated at $5.9M, which represents an average of 15% of total expenditure over eight years. This is a cost effective operation given the outcomes achieved. There is however, a looming mismatch between increasing demand for CDU’s services and its ability to finance the supply of these services. As of October 2013, the CDU employs 13 staff and has a total staffing and annual operational budget of $1.8M. Unmet demand for CDU’s services poses significant risks for the CLC, the potential for sustained community development outcomes, and the extent of the effectiveness of future government policies and programs in the region that rely on strong community governance capacity. The Lajamanu Governance Project is no longer funded at all.

Delivering on community development outcomes

Social, cultural and economic outcomes Community development projects supported by CDU and the CLC Governance Project have clearly produced outcomes valued by Aboriginal people. These are well reported in the CLC’s annual reports and Community Development monitoring reports. They include:

• the generation of employment opportunities • enhanced training and education outcomes • skills development • improved early childhood development and education • youth engagement • cultural strengthening and maintenance, and • enhanced health and overall well-being for kidney patients.

Collective community benefits The CDU’s work in facilitating and supporting agreement for use of rent and royalty payments for collective benefit is significant. The community development projects have produced longer-term collective benefits for people than individual royalty payments. There are a number of less powerful or influential people who have benefitted from these programs who would have otherwise missed out in their absence. It was also observed that, in some cases, the CDU supported community development processes seemed to be somewhat insulated from community conflicts. On the other hand, decisions about individual payments often exacerbated tensions. There is also some evidence to suggest that individual and collective use of royalties and other income should be seen as complementary rather than an ‘either-or’ option.

9

1



2

Community empowerment The Community Development Program and Lajamanu Governance Project have also played a critical role in empowering Traditional Owners and community residents across central Australia within a context of broader disempowerment. These programs are providing multiple forums and processes through which a critical mass of Aboriginal people across central Australia are able to analyse, identify and address their self-determined needs and priorities. These programs occur in a context where a range of other forums serving similar purposes have been disbanded over the last decade. People contrasted the empowering CDU and Lajamanu Governance Project processes with their lack of voice and power in relation to their local shire, school and government more generally. The majority of interviewees take great pride in the fact that Aboriginal people are utilising their own money to address their own priority needs in a manner that maximises their control.

Evidence base for CLC’s community development practice

There is clear evidence of good development practice by the CLC. Almost universally, interviewees were also of the view that a wide range of services initially instigated and funded through the Community Development Program would simply not have happened without the impetus of CLC and agreement of Aboriginal people to pool funds for collective community benefit. The CDU’s and Lajamanu Governance Project’s ways of working conform well to a set of emerging principles for those working on complex problems in international development. CLC has amassed an impressive range of data, reports and interviews on both the community development and governance programs. The CDU has used this evidence base and regular independent monitoring to reflect and adapt its practice over time. It has also made strong efforts to share its lessons with others.

Critical factors for effectiveness

Certain factors have had a profound impact on the Community Development Program, the Lajamanu Governance Project and the operation of the CLC more broadly. Importance of context-specific approaches: The CDU’s ability to realise in practice a context-specific approach to community development work is an essential factor underpinning the effectiveness of its Community Development Program. In part this is because the CDU has managed to create a simple, consistent and understood process of community engagement that allows for a comprehensive understanding of existing skills, capabilities and institutions in communities and development approaches that are tailored and locally relevant. This resonates with international development practice, where there is a move away from inappropriate importation of often alien ‘best practice’ to supporting processes which are a ‘good fit’ with the local context and ‘go with the grain’ of indigenous political and cultural realities. Power, agency and voice: It is critical to invest in Aboriginal people to design appropriate governance arrangements, thus placing primacy on local power, agency and voice and ensuring genuine involvement in decision-making processes affecting their communities. The Lajamanu Governance Project demonstrates that legitimate and strong community governance – sensitively built from and through supporting Indigenous structures – is crucial for communities to be able to engage and negotiate with governments, to drive their own

10

1



2

development objectives, hold service providers and agencies accountable and is valued by these actors. Also, in an environment of contested values and conflicting priorities, inclusive governance and decision making processes which accommodate the interests of less vocal and powerful groups within communities are necessary to build legitimacy. Relationships and organisational networks: Alignment of individuals, relationships and organisational networks maximise the effectiveness of the use of limited resources, especially in circumstances where there may be a lack of local Aboriginal intercultural governance, weak accountability and coordination of service providers. Also, the importance of collaboration between different service providers in communities cannot be underestimated, as they need to work together and not undermine each other (inadvertently or otherwise). Attributes and skills of staff engaged in effective practice: Success is likely to occur where individuals demonstrate a desire to work with people in a respectful manner where Aboriginal culture and law are valued and incorporated alongside organisational policies, guidelines and institutional norms. Furthermore individuals that work effectively are willing and able to transcend their institutional straitjackets, take initiative and interpret guidelines flexibly. In many instances these individuals act on little more than instinct and intuition, implicitly recognising the importance of building effective working relationships with other service providers. The ability of CDU staff to facilitate these networks of collaboration, elevate Aboriginal voice within them and broker relationships between diverse actors is a skill-set that is highly effective in this context. Strong monitoring and evaluation processes: Quality data and regular independent monitoring and evaluation has been key to the CDU’s critical reflection and reflexive practice. This repository of know-how and evidence is essential to the future development of stronger social accountability or community feedback mechanisms, and for a system of learning that is adaptable to complex and uncertain circumstances.

ISSUES REQUIRING FURTHER CONSIDERATION The Evaluation Report raised issues that warrant further consideration. Addressing gaps in basic services: Many of the activities supported through the Community Development Program are used to help fund health and education services and activities. Such services and activities are funded by Federal and State governments in much of mainstream Australia. It is also the case that communities are using their own resources through CDU to fund programs and services that government has been reluctant to support (such as cultural activities and outstation upgrades and access). In light of the implementation of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, Remote Community Advancement Network, and Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory policies, it is prudent and necessary that both the CLC and governments work with Indigenous communities to analyse how best to design and invest in projects that cover the needs of communities, minimising gaps and overlaps. Sustainability, future viability and resilience: There are financial viability issues relating to recurrent or flow-on costs of projects, and longer term planning and investment in economic activity that produces a return. A constraint is that continued funding for many collective community benefit projects is tied to the future life of the Granites and Tanami Mines. Therefore, complementary funding streams should be explored which allow greater sustainability of the CDU’s operating model. This should include confirming ongoing arrangements with government sources, but also securing funding from non-governmental sources and mining companies, particularly to enable innovation and piloting of new initiatives. These issues are of particular concern in the case of non- Remote Service Delivery communities.

11

1



2

Evaluative frameworks aligned with Aboriginal culture: Although Aboriginal people and most service providers emphasise similar positive elements of the CLC’s community development and governance projects, it is also clear that there are also dimensions which are valued – and weighted – differently (for example, projects passing on cultural knowledge and facilitating access to country are highly valued by Aboriginal people). This is particularly the case for what in broad terms might be called cultural dimensions and, to a lesser extent, issues of voice and control. Whilst both Aboriginal people and service providers valued outcomes related to health, education and employment, Aboriginal people were more likely to express the view that strengthening culture, and enhancing their voice and control, were central to achieving these outcomes. The CDU and agencies supporting community development work need to develop more holistic evaluative frameworks that better represent the elements that different stakeholders value. Accountability and management of subcontractors: The subcontracting processes managed by CDU can be time consuming, difficult and challenging. This is in part due to the lack of providers (and thus reduced choice) in remote areas, and few have the skills or capacities to work in a way consistent with CDU principles. There is no evident mechanism by which community residents could hold government and service providers to account for performance. Some project committees feel a loss of control over projects once these are handed to subcontractors. There is an opportunity for the CLC and the government to use the economic leverage of the million dollars of projects they support each year to, for example, require mandatory training of subcontractors in community development principles and cross-cultural practices. Facilitating understanding of Aboriginal ways of working: The absence of cross-cultural training undermines effectiveness of non-Aboriginal service providers. There was a widely held view - from both Aboriginal respondents and service providers - that all non-Aboriginal staff working as service providers at a community level need a better understanding of Aboriginal ways of working, community histories and local context and culture. In particular, some of the approaches of practitioners valued by community members are:

• depth of historical knowledge and local relationships • ability to navigate complex local politics • ability to collaborate with other agencies, and • tenacity in ensuring delivery of projects.

The CLC, with the support of appropriate government agencies, can play an important role in developing the requisite cultural understanding and ways of working.

FURTHER INFORMATION Independent Evaluation of the Central Land Council’s Community Development and Governance Programs, Prepared by Chris Roche (La Trobe University) & James Ensor (People and Planet Group Pty Ltd) for the Central Land Council, March 2014, available at http://www.clc.org.au/files/pdf/2014_Evaluation_of_CLCs_Development_work-La_Trobe_University.pdf The Central Land Council Community Development Framework, September 2009, available at www.clc.org.au/files/pdf/The_CLCs_Community_Development_framework.pdf

clc policy brief formatted final 20140610 · this policy brief seeks to highlight implications for...

Documents