final report - creating space for strength

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Eaton International Consulting Inc. May 2013

1

Creating Space for Strength

An Asset-Based Community Development and Research Project for

Calgary's North Central Communities

Final Report

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report 2

Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013 June 2013

For information about this report, please contact Eaton International Consulting Inc. or

the authors:

Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D. [email protected]

Lee Tunstall, Ph.D. [email protected]

Vilma Dawson [email protected]

Citation information:

Eaton, S.E., Tunstall, L. and Dawson, V. (2013). Final Report - Creating Space for

Strength: An Asset-Based Community Development and Research Project. Aspen Family

and Community Network Society

Copyright © 2013 Aspen Family and Community Network Society

Any omissions (within the parameters of our study) or errors are purely unintentional.

Every effort has been made to present valid and reliable data.

mailto:[email protected]





Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 9

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 11

Project Goals ................................................................................................................. 11

Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) ................................................................ 12

What Makes Our Community Vibrant .............................................................................. 13

Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 14

A Modified Participatory Action Research (PAR) Approach ......................................... 14

Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 15

Overview of Calgary’s North Central Communities ...................................................... 15

Data Sources Consulted ................................................................................................ 17

A Typical Resident ......................................................................................................... 18

Key Learnings: Demographics ....................................................................................... 19

Population Data ............................................................................................................ 19

Assessment of Spaces and Community Services .............................................................. 42

How the Assessment of Community Spaces and Services was Conducted .................. 42

Limitations of the Assessment ...................................................................................... 43

Key Learnings ................................................................................................................ 43

Interviews with Community Residents ............................................................................. 46

Informal Interview Structure ........................................................................................ 46

Identifying Potential Interviewees ................................................................................ 47

Interview Weighting and Community ........................................................................... 47

Interview Results ............................................................................................................... 51

What Community Means .............................................................................................. 51

Community Achievements ............................................................................................ 54

Community Strengths ................................................................................................... 61

Community Space ......................................................................................................... 62

The Three Best Aspects of the Community .................................................................. 64



What Makes Our Community Vibrant .......................................................................... 65

Community Consultation with Working-Age Adults ......................................................... 66

World Café Conversation Format ..................................................................................... 68

What the Community Had to Say ................................................................................. 69

The Four Questions ....................................................................................................... 72

Community Consultation with Seniors ............................................................................. 79

Meeting Format ............................................................................................................ 79

Seniors’ Concerns About Income Data ......................................................................... 80

Seniors’ Consultation Results........................................................................................ 81

Seniors’ Top Priorities ................................................................................................... 85

Community Consultation with Youth ............................................................................... 89

Online Survey .................................................................................................................... 91

Models of Community Multipurpose Sites ....................................................................... 95

Characteristics of Community Multipurpose Sites ....................................................... 95

Communities of Space .................................................................................................. 96

What we already know about spaces in Calgary’s North Central Communities .......... 97

Calgary Models of Multi-purpose Spaces ..................................................................... 98

Models of Multi-purpose, Multi-agency Facilities Outside Calgary ............................. 99

Models of Community Spaces: Additional Observations ........................................... 100

Models of Community Spaces: Next Steps ................................................................. 101

Recommended Action Plan ............................................................................................. 102

Phase One: Form a Planning Group ............................................................................ 102

Phase Two: Planning ................................................................................................... 103

Phase Three: Preparing ............................................................................................... 104

Phase Four: Building the Space for Strength .............................................................. 105

Appendix A – Research Tools .......................................................................................... 106

Interview Schedule...................................................................................................... 106

Informed Consent ....................................................................................................... 108



Appendix B – Supplementary Reports and Resources .................................................. 110

Appendix C – Ward Maps of Study Area ......................................................................... 112

Appendix D: Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces ........................................... 115

Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces in Calgary ........................................... 115

Community Resource Centres .................................................................................... 121

Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 126

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 132



Table of Figures

Table 1: What Makes a Community Vibrant? ............................................................................................ 13

Table 2: Calgary's North Central Communities........................................................................................... 16

Table 3: Community Populations (2011) .................................................................................................... 19

Table 4: Northern Calgary Community Five-Year Population Changes ...................................................... 20

Table 5: Age Ranges by Community (2011) ................................................................................................ 22

Table 6 : Highest Level of Education in Calgary North Central Communities (2006) ................................. 24

Table 7: Median Household Income in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005 and 2010) ............... 26

Table 8: Marital Status of Persons in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) .................................. 27

Table 9: Average Number of People per Dwelling in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) .......... 30

Table 10: Prices for Single Family Homes in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) ....................... 31

Table 11: Prices for Condominiums in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) ................................ 32

Table 12: Number of Recent Immigrant in Calgary's North Central Communities ..................................... 33

Table 13: Origin Country of Immigrants in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) ......................... 33

Table 14: Visible Minority Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) ............................... 35

Table 15: Aboriginal Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) ....................................... 36

Table 16: Residents with Disabilities in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) .............................. 37

Table 17: Populations of Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) ..................................... 38

Table 18: Median Income for Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005) ............................. 38

Table 19: Transportation in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) ................................................ 39

Table 20: Police-reported Crimes Committed in Calgary's North Central Communities (April 15-

October 15, 2012) ....................................................................................................................................... 40

Table 21: Crime Rates ................................................................................................................................. 41

Table 22: Interviews Weighted by Community Demographics................................................................... 48

Table 23: Interviews Weighted by Special and Diverse Populations .......................................................... 49

Table 24: Interviews Weighted by Gender (percentage) ............................................................................ 49



Table 25: Interviews Weighted by Visible Minority (percentage) .............................................................. 49

Table 26: Interview Results: What does Community Mean to You? .......................................................... 52

Table 27: Interview Results: What We Mean When We Talk About "People" ........................................... 53

Table 28: Interview results: Community Association Achievements .......................................................... 55

Table 29: Interview Results: Citizen-led Achievements .............................................................................. 57

Table 30: Interview Results: Additional Community Achievements ........................................................... 58

Table 31: Interview Results: Community Services and Programs ............................................................... 60

Table 32: Interview Results: What Residents Believe is Working Well ....................................................... 61

Table 33: Interview Results: Existing Available Spaces for Community Use ............................................... 62

Table 34: Interview Results: Three Best Aspects of Calgary's North Central Communities, as

Identified by Residents................................................................................................................................ 64

Table 35: Interview results: What Makes a Community Vibrant? .............................................................. 65

Table 36: Priorities Identified by Residents at the Community Consultation ............................................. 71

Table 37: Community Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in Our

Community?................................................................................................................................................ 73

Table 38: Community Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better? ..................................... 75

Table 39: Community Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five

Years? ......................................................................................................................................................... 76

Table 40: Community Consultation Results: Question 4 - How do We Get There? .................................... 77

Table 41: Community Consultation Aggregate Results .............................................................................. 78

Table 42: Seniors’ First Priority ................................................................................................................... 85

Table 43: Seniors' Second Priority............................................................................................................... 86

Table 44: Seniors' Third Priority .................................................................................................................. 87

Table 45: Youth Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in our Community? ........... 89

Table 46: Youth Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better? .............................................. 90

Table 47: Youth Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five

Years? ......................................................................................................................................................... 90



Table 48: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 1 - What is Good

and Strong in our Community? ................................................................................................................... 91

Table 49: MacEwan- Sandstone Online Survey: Question 2 - What Could be Better? ............................... 92

Table 50: MacEwan-Sandstone Online Survey: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in

Five Years? .................................................................................................................................................. 93

Table 51: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 4 - How do We

Get There? .................................................................................................................................................. 94



Executive Summary

This section presents the highlights of common themes that emerged through the variety of methods we used to collect data including interviews, community consultations and surveys. These results are presented as broad, general themes that recurred throughout the study.

Our Communities

Our study included nine North Central Calgary neighbourhoods:

1. Harvest Hills

2. Coventry Hills

3. Country Hills

4. Country Hills Village

5. Panorama Hills

6. Evanston / Creekside

7. Hidden Valley

8. MacEwan Glen

9. Sandstone Valley

4 Key Questions

We asked residents four key questions that guided our work: 1. What is good and strong in your community? 2. What could be better? 3. What do you want to see happen in five years? 4. How do we get there?

Strengths of Calgary’s North Central Communities

People

Safety and security

Natural green spaces

Community association events and sports programs

Commercial amenities



What Needs to be Improved in Calgary’s North Central Communities

Affordable, accessible community gathering space

Emergency medical services

Diagnostic medical services

Affordable recreation, leisure and personal interest programs

Public transportation

Public high school

Services and support for vulnerable populations



Introduction

This innovative Calgary project was designed to find out about community strengths and

assets, what can be improved, and how. The study focused on these communities:

1. Harvest Hills

2. Coventry Hills

3. Country Hills


5. Panorama Hills

6. Evanston / Creekside

7. Hidden Valley

8. MacEwan Glen

9. Sandstone Valley

Project Goals

This project had five main goals:

1. Identify pre-existing community assets such as community spaces, services,

programs and space.

2. Collect neighbourhood information and data.

3. Highlight untapped community strengths and assets that could be better utilized

in Calgary’s north central communities.

4. Determine what services and programs are currently available in the identified

communities.

5. Develop an action plan to move forward.

The project included collecting data from primary sources such as interviews and

community meetings, and secondary data, such as demographic data.



Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)

Using an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach, we focused on the

strengths of a community. The idea behind this approach is that if you focus on needs,

problems and challenges that is exactly what you will find. In any social system,

problems always exist. The unrelenting focus on “needs” has monopolized community

conversations for decades, yet despite the efforts of community organizers and

agencies, “help” continues to evaporate and the perception continues to be that “help

from the outside will arrive only when a convincing story of emptiness and need has

been told.”1

Often, when we focus only on problems, we fail to identify what is actually working. A

strength-based approach does not deny the existence of problems, but re-focuses the

conversation. An asset-based approach seeks to re-discover and mobilize the strengths,

capacities and assets that already exist within a community; then build on the

foundation of what is already working well to construct an even stronger community

that understands not only its vibrancy, but also its capacity for further development.

Communities are a source of deep wisdom. Therefore, participation from individuals,

informal groups and formal associations is not only desirable - it is necessary. By

identifying what is currently working, we build solutions from a foundation of strength.

We look at how to build a community “from the inside out”, by turning inward to the

community to build on its social, physical, financial assets. This approach seeks to

empower communities and build relationships among community members, agencies

and organizations in order to build on civic capacity to plan for long-term impact and

growth.

Using an asset-based approach, we started by asking, “What’s working?” We use what

we learned from that as a point of departure to build a viable plan to:

1. Identify, recognize and mobilize existing assets.

2. Link local assets to opportunities (e.g. economic opportunities, new relationships,

etc.)

3. Continue sustainable community building over a long period of time.

1 See: Kretzmann, 1995.



What Makes Our Community Vibrant

Residents we interviewed often reported that they made a choice to live in these

communities. Their sense of satisfaction and comfort comes from having most of their

needs and expectations met.

Community residents emphasized in their interviews that it is people who make the

community vibrant. A sense of connection, belonging and safety all contribute to the

community’s strength. In addition to this, having access to a variety of events, activities

and programs that include programs for families, seniors, single adults, youth and

children give citizens a sense that their community is strong and vibrant. It was noted

that events and activities need to include free or low-cost programs in order to make

them truly accessible to all members of the community.

Table 1: What Makes a Community Vibrant?



Methodology

The Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) approach provided the foundation

for the values and the philosophy that guided our work.

Using ABCD as a starting point, we designed the study to gather data in a number of

ways including:

Overview of demographic data to help us understand who lives in the

communities in the study area

Interviews with community residents to hear individual points of view, stories

and perspectives

Community consultations to gather data from groups of residents.

A Modified Participatory Action Research (PAR) Approach

The research methodology used during the interviews was modified participatory action

research (PAR). A true PAR approach would have entailed training citizens to conduct

the interviews themselves, and then working alongside them to interpret, analyze and

present the data.

Due to the compressed timelines of the project, which allowed us approximately six

weeks to identify interview participants and conduct the interviews, the research team

used a modified PAR approach. We consulted with our Steering Committee (which

included a large community association), seeking advice and input to develop the

interview schedule and to identify prospective interviewees.

The steering committee approved the process and methodology in the fall of 2012, and

the data collection with residents began in December 2012.



Demographic Data

Collecting the demographic data first allowed us to understand whom we should focus

on for our interview and community meetings in order to ensure that the populations of

the communities included in the study were represented fairly.

The data provided in this report are exclusive to the communities that the Steering

Committee for this project identified in the early stages of the project. The statistics

included are by no means exhaustive.

Overview of Calgary’s North Central Communities

The first phase of the project was to understand the parameters of the study, and in

particular to understand the overall demographic information available for the

communities under study. For the purposes of this report, the study area includes:

Northern Hills: Coventry Hills, Panorama Hills, Harvest Hills, Country Hills, and

Country Hills Village;

Evanston/Creekside2;

Hidden Valley3;

Sandstone Valley/MacEwan Glen.

Currently, these communities fall into the following civic wards and provincial ridings4,

with current government representatives listed also. Maps of electoral divisions may be

found at: http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/

2 A call to 311 confirmed that Creekside would be located in Ward 2.

3 The Hidden Valley Community Association notes that the sub-community of Hanson Ranch is part of

Calgary Northern Hills and is located in Ward 3.

4 Electoral divisions do not exactly match municipal communities.

http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/Public%2520Website/files/maps/ED23_CALGARY_NORTHERN_HILLS_400.pdf



Table 2: Calgary's North Central Communities

Community

Association

Community Ward Councillor Electoral

Division2

MLA

Northern Hills

Community

Association

Harvest Hills 3 Jim

Stevenson

Calgary

Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Coventry Hills 3 Jim

Stevenson

Calgary

Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Country Hills 4 Gael

MacLeod

Calgary

Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Country Hills

Village

3 Jim

Stevenson

Calgary

Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Panorama Hills 3 Jim

Stevenson

Calgary

Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Evanston

/Creekside

Community

Association

Evanston 2 Gord Lowe Calgary MacKay

Nose-Hill4

Neil Brown (PC)

Creekside 2 Gord Lowe Calgary

Foothills5

Len Webber (PC)

Hidden Valley

CA

Hidden Valley6 4 Gael

MacLeod

Calgary

Foothills5

Len Webber (PC)

Sandstone

MacEwan

Community

Association

MacEwan 4 Gael

MacLeod

Calgary MacKay

Nose-Hill

Neil Brown (PC)

Sandstone 4 Gael

MacLeod

Calgary MacKay

Nose-Hill

Neil Brown (PC)



Data Sources Consulted

The data for this report was drawn mainly from the City of Calgary’s Community

Profiles, as reported by the social research policy department of the City of Calgary

using the 2011 civic census and 2006 federal census.5 The most recent federal census

was conducted in 2011 but community level data will unfortunately not be available

until fall 2013, so in some categories the 2006 census data is the most recent available.

In some cases, the community profiles do not include all 2011 civic census data, in which

case, the original census report was consulted.6 For home prices, reporting from the

Calgary Real Estate Board (CREB) was used, and for crime, the Calgary Police Service

Crimes Web Mapping Application was consulted for the most recent six-month period.

5 Social Policy and Planning Division, Community Profiles (Calgary: Community Neighbourhood Services,

City of Calgary, 2012). Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Social-research-

policy-and-resources/Community-profiles/Community-Profiles.aspx>

6 City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results (Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 35; 123-

32. Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-

services/Civic-Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf>.



A Typical Resident

Of course, there can be no typical residents of the communities under study. Each one

of the 77,946 people who live there is unique and is a result of both genes and

upbringing. However, when considering the demographic data available for the

communities, a composite profile can be collected from the available data when

considering averages and medians across the nine communities.

A composite profile of a typical resident of these communities finds the person:

Is between 35 and 44;

Is employed;

Drives alone to work;

Has one child living at home (1.1);

Has a household income of approximately $106,254;7

Has either a high school diploma or a university degree;

Is married;

Is Canadian born and Caucasian;

Owns his/her own home.

7 This figure is extrapolated from 2006 census data, which showed a median income for the communities

of $79,830. However, by 2010, the median income for Calgary had gone up to $89,490 or 33.1%

(www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil107a-eng.htm) which would be in 2010

dollars adjusted for inflation. Therefore, because of the vast change in median income since last data

available in 2005, the median income has been increased by 33.1% for this report. This can be framed

only as a “best guess” number and actual 2006 income figures can be found in the Appendix.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil107a-eng.htm



Key Learnings: Demographics

Beyond these high-level composite characteristics, more detailed observations about

this area of Calgary can be made. These are gleaned from various population

characteristics, including age, gender, education, employment, income, households,

dwellings, etc. There are also certain special populations that are highlighted within this

report, as an attempt to uncover some of the more diverse aspects of the area’s

population.

Population Data

Community Populations

The total population for the study area is 77,946, or 7.1% of Calgary’s total 2011

population. Panorama Hills is the largest community with 19,851 residents, followed by

Coventry Hills (15,722) and Hidden Valley (11,657). The smallest community is Country

Hills Village with 2,342 residents, followed by Country Hills at 3,720. Three of the largest

20 communities in Calgary are found within this study area: Panorama Hills (1); Coventry

Hills (7) and Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (16).

Table 3: Community Populations (2011)



Population Changes8

The communities included in the study are also a mixture between older, established

communities and newer, growing communities. In general, Harvest Hills and Country

Hills have remained with a constant population over the past five years. Hidden Valley

(including Hanson Ranch), MacEwan Glen and Sandstone Valley have actually lost

residents during this time period. Coventry Hills, Panorama Hills and

Evanston/Creekside have experienced rapid growth.

Table 4: Northern Calgary Community Five-Year Population Changes

Evanston

Creekside CA

Hidden

Valley CA

Data PointHarvest

Hills

Country

Hills

Country

Hills

Village

Coventry

Hills

Panorama

Hills

Evanston/

Creekside

Hidden

Valley

MacEwan

Glen

Sandstone

ValleyTotal Area

City of

Calgary

Population (2011) 7,485 3,720 2,342 15,722 19,851 5,889 11,657 5,138 6,142 77,946 1,090,936

Population change from

2010-2011 (two-year) 74 46 24 -4 1,952 706 -123 24 -237 2,462 25,481

Population change from

2007-2011 (five-year) 2 78 879 1,832 7,955 2,620 -153 -244 -415 12,554 99,177

Northern Hills CA

Sandstone Macewan

CA

8 The data in this section is drawn from the 2011 civic census. City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results

(Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 81-89. Web. 30 October 2012.

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/Civic-

Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf

http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/Civic-Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf




Age Profiles9

The age profile of the communities mirrors that of Calgary quite closely. The only slight

difference is that the most common age range for the area under study is between 35

and 44, while for Calgary it is slightly younger at between 25 and 34. The only two

communities that mirror Calgary’s most common age range are Country Hills Village and

Evanston/Creekside.

Country Hills Village has the lowest number (250) and percentage (10.7%) of children,

while also being home to the highest percentage of seniors (28%) and the second

highest number at 656. Panorama Hills actually has the highest number of residents

over 65 living in the community (943), although this only equates to 4.8% of the total

community population.

Panorama Hills is also the community with the highest number children (6,201 or 31.2%

of the community population), although Evanston/Creekside actually has the highest

percentage of children living there at 32.4% or 1,909 children. Hidden Valley (including

Hanson Ranch) also has a high percentage of children at 31.9% or 3,714. There are also

6,099 (7.8% of the total area population) children under the age of four living in all of

the communities.







Table 5: Age Ranges by Community (2011)



Gender Profiles10

The gender breakdown of the population is very close to 50-50 for the area, as it is for

Calgary in general (39,016 female; 38,930 male). There is a notable difference in

children under 19, where males (11,763) outnumber females (11,126) by 637

individuals. There is a contrasting difference found at the other end of the age

spectrum, where women 65 and older (2,495) outnumber men of the same age range

(2,096) by some 400 individuals.

Education Profiles11

The educational status of the residents in the study area tracks very closely with those

of Calgary in general. In 2006, close to one-quarter of residents had either a high school

diploma (25%) or a university degree (23.3%) listed as their highest level of education.

This is very similar to the average Calgary rates of high school (25.6%) and university

education (25.3%). There was a 17.3% rate of area residents who held no degree,

diploma or certificate, which was again close to the 18.1% Calgary average.

Within the communities, Evanston/Creekside has the most highly educated residents,

with 30.9% holding a university degree, and an additional 25.4% hold a college diploma.

Only 10.9% had no degree, diploma or certificate and 18.5% had only high school.

Country Hills Village had the lowest percentage of university-educated residents

(16.9%), followed by Harvest Hills (17.6%) and Sandstone Valley (19.9%). Country Hills

Village also had the highest percentage of residents with trades certifications.





11 The data in this section is drawn from the 2006 federal census, from the City of Calgary Community

Profiles.



Table 6 : Highest Level of Education in Calgary North Central Communities (2006)



Employment Profiles12

The employment rate in 2011 for those over the age of 15 in the study area (69.5%) is

slightly higher than overall rate for Calgary (65.3%). The highest rates are in

Evanston/Creekside (79.6%), Coventry Hills (76.5%) and Hidden Valley (including

Hanson Ranch) (72.9%). Country Hills Village, with its large senior population, has the

lowest employment rate at just 50.6%, followed by Sandstone Valley (65.4%) and

MacEwan Glen (68.6%).

Income Profiles13

The median household income figures come from 2005 data, as reported in the 2006

census. Calgary experienced a significant economic boom after 2005, and as such the

2005 figures are not reflective of current conditions. Statistics Canada reported in 2006

that the Calgary average household income was $67,238; by 2010, this figure had

increased to $89,49014, which represents a 33.1% increase. As a result, two versions of

the median income are presented here: one is the 2005 data, which is firm, while the

other is the 2010 figures which we extrapolated to indicate an increase of 33.1%.

Although this is not scientific (as

for example, Country Hills Village

has a higher percentage of

seniors on fixed incomes), it will

provide a closer reflection of

current estimated median

incomes.

12 The data in this section are drawn from the 2011 civic census. City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results

(Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 35; 123-32. Web. 30 October 2012.

<http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/Civic-

Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf>.

13 The data in this section are drawn from the 2006 federal census, from the City of Calgary Community

Profiles.

14 Statistics Canada, Family income and income of individuals, related variables: Sub-provincial data, 2010

(Ottawa: Statistics Canada, June 27, 2012). Web. 31 October 2012. < http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-

quotidien/120627/dq120627b-eng.pdf>

With few exceptions, residents in Calgary’s North

Central communities have a higher household

income than the Calgary average.



The highest median income rates are found in Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch)

($89,044 – 2005; $119,419 - 2010), Panorama Hills ($89,044 – 2005; $118,518 - 2010),

MacEwan Glen ($87,943 – 2005; $117,052 - 2010) and Harvest Hills ($87,200 – 2005;

$116,063 - 2010). The lowest rates by far are found in Country Hills Village ($50,960 –

2005; $67,828 - 2010), again because of the high population of seniors living on fixed

incomes.

There is a significantly lower rate of low-income households in the study area (7.3%)

than across Calgary (14.2%). The highest rates of low-income households are found in

Sandstone Valley (8.5%) followed by MacEwan Glen (8.3%) and Evanston/Creekside

(8.3%). The lowest rates are found in Panorama Hills (5.1%) and Harvest Hills (5.9%).

Table 7: Median Household Income in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005 and

2010)



Marital Status Profiles15

The vast majority of residents over the age of 15 in the study area are married couples

(59.8%) as of 2006, while those who were never married are next at 29.8%. This differs

from the average across Calgary, as 35.6% were never married, while 49.7% were

married. There was a 7.9% divorce or separation rate, while 7.8% of couples were living

common law. Only 2.6% of residents were widowed, as of 2006.

Panorama Hills and Evanston/Creekside had the highest rate of married couples at

64.9%. Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) was next at 62.6%. Country Hills Village

had the lowest percentage of married couples at 48.8%, and also the highest percentage

of widowed individuals at 14.1%, which is not surprising considering the profile of older

residents living in the community.

Table 8: Marital Status of Persons in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)

15 The data in this section is drawn from the 2006 federal census, from the City of Calgary Community

Profiles.



Household Structure

As reported in the 2006 federal census, 5% of residents of the area live alone, with the

highest rate being 28.8% in Country Hills Village. The lowest rate for individuals living

alone occurs in Evanston/Creekside (2.7%) and Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch)

(3.9%). All communities in the study area have lower rates of single-person households

than the Calgary average (10.2%). 16

There is also a lower percentage of lone-parent families with children living in this area.

There is an average of 16.4% of households headed by a lone parent, compared to

23.5% for all of Calgary. There is a high percentage living in Country Hills Village (36.8%),

which is the only community higher than the Calgary average. The lowest percentage of

lone-parent families are found in Evanston/Creekside (9.7%), followed by Panorama

Hills (11.4%).17

There are a considerable number of children living at home. There were 16,845 children

under the age of 18 (77.7%) living at home in 2006, while the remaining 4,830 (22.3%)

were over 18. There are fewer children over the age of 18 living at home in the

communities under study than in Calgary (28.3%). There are quite substantial

differences between communities. Sandstone Valley has the highest percentage of

children over 18 living at home at 35.9%, followed by MacEwan Glen at 31%. The lowest

percentage of children over 18 living at home is found in Coventry Hills at just 14.5%,

followed by Evanston/Creekside at 15.6%. 18


Profiles.


Profiles.


Profiles.



Housing and Dwellings19

There were 27,324 dwellings in the study area in 2011, which is distributed in a manner

that closely mirrors the populations of the nine communities. There are far more single-

family homes (SFH) in this area (78.3%) than exist on average across Calgary (57.9%).

Conversely, there are also fewer apartments (8.1%), townhouses (8.5%), and duplexes

(4.4%) than in the rest of Calgary.

Coventry Hills has the highest percentage of SFH with 94.6%, followed by

Evanston/Creekside at 90.8% and Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) at 89%.

Country Hills Village has no SFH, only apartments and townhouses.

Ownership rates are also higher in the study area (86.8%) than in the rest of Calgary

(72.8%). The outlier in percentage of ownership is again Country Hills Village (69%).

The average number of individuals per dwelling ranges between 1.84 (Country Hills

Village) and 3.17 (Panorama Hills), with an average for the area of 2.86.

19 The data in this section are drawn from the 2011 civic census. City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results

(Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 35; 123-32. Web. 30 October 2012.

<http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/Civic-

Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf>.



Table 9: Average Number of People per Dwelling in Calgary's North Central

Communities (2011)

House Prices20

In 2011, average prices for single family home (SFH) ($380,609)21 and condo

($270,248)22 prices in the study area are generally lower than the Calgary average

($453,845 – SFH; $288,291 – condo),23 although the median price for condos is slightly

20 The data in this section are drawn from Calgary Real Estate Board (CREB) statistics.

21 CREB, Community Statistics – Year Summary 2011: Single Family Homes (Calgary: CREB, 2012). Web. 30

Oct. 2012.

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_SF_PB.pdf.

22 CREB, Community Statistics – Year Summary 2011: Condominiums (Calgary: CREB, 2012). Web. 30 Oct.

2012.

<http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_CO_PB.pdf>

23 CREB, Calgary Regional Housing Market Statistics (Calgary: CREB, January 2012), p. 2. Web. 30 October

2012. http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2012/package/res-stats-2012_January.pdf.

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2012/package/res-stats-2012_January.pdf



higher ($260,100 – area; $255,000 – Calgary).24 The exception to this is Panorama Hills,

where the average SFH price was $471,257, which is slightly higher than the average.25

Table 10: Prices for Single Family Homes in Calgary's North Central Communities

(2011)

24 Community Statistics – Year Summary 2011: Condominiums and Calgary Regional Housing Market

Statistics, January 2012.

25 Community Statistics – Year Summary 2011: Single Family Homes, p.1.



Table 11: Prices for Condominiums in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)

Diverse and Special Populations

There are numerous sub-populations, or groups of people, within these communities

that can be revealed using both federal and civic census data. There is a demonstrated

desire on the part of the community to include these residents in the study.

Diversity is a term that includes a variety of different personal characteristics. For the

purposes of this report, the focus will be on the following categories: immigrant, visible

minority, Aboriginal, disability, and seniors.

Immigrant residents

Calgary has experienced tremendous growth in population over the past decade, and

much of this growth is due to immigrants choosing the city as their new Canadian home.

In 2010, the total immigrant population of Calgary was estimated to be 304,000, or

almost 30%, and is expected to climb to 500,000 by 2020.26

26 Diversity in Calgary: Looking Forward to 2020 (Calgary: City of Calgary, 2011.) Web. 30 October 2012.

<http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/Social-research-policy-and-resources/diversity-in-

Calgary.pdf>



As of 2006, the communities in this study have on average27.9% of their residents

identified as immigrants. The highest rates of immigrants are found in the communities

of Panorama Hills (41.7%) and Sandstone Valley (38.8%). The lowest percentage of

immigrant residents is found in Harvest Hills (19.4%). When considering numbers, again

Panorama Hills leads the way with 4,255 immigrant residents, followed by Hidden Valley

(including Hanson Ranch) (3,130) and Coventry Hills (2,900).

Table 12: Number of Recent Immigrant in Calgary's North Central Communities

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Cou

ntry

Hills

Cou

ntry

Hills

Cov

entry

Har

vest H

ills

Pan

oram

a

Evans

ton/

Hidde

n

Mac

Ewan

San

dsto

ne

Number of residents

Additional to this overall data, the federal census also provides more detailed

information on the breakdown of the origin country of most recent immigrants. From

2001 to 2006, the top 10 countries of origin were reported on at the community level.

Within the study area, immigrants from China were the most common, followed by

those from the Philippines, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The highest numbers of Chinese

immigrants live in Sandstone, while the highest numbers of Pakistani immigrants live in

Panorama Hills and Harvest Hills. There is also a large population of Afghans in Coventry

Hills. The largest numbers of immigrants from the Philippines live in Hidden Valley

(including Hanson Ranch) and Panorama Hills.



Table 13: Origin Country of Immigrants in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)

The number of immigrants from locations that were unspecified is significant. This

makes it difficult to project what the demographics of these communities may look like,

in terms of immigrant populations, in the coming years.

Visible Minority Residents

Residents who identify as visible minority can be either immigrant or Canadian-born.

According to the 2006 federal census, 22.2% of Calgary’s population, or 237,900,

belonged to a visible minority group, which is the fourth highest percentage in the

country behind Toronto (42.9%), Vancouver (41.7%) and Abbotsford (22.8%). Only one

in three visible minority residents were Canadian-born, while two-thirds were

immigrants. 27

Within the area under study, there were a total of 20,150 who identified as visible

minority in 2006, or 32.6%, which is a higher rate than the average rate for Calgary.

There are significant differences within the communities, with Panorama Hills having

27 Statistics Canada, Canada's Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census: Canada's major census metropolitan

areas. Calgary: Nearly one in four belonged to a visible minority group (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, n.d.)

Web. 30 October 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-562/p23-

eng.cfm.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-562/p23-eng.cfm




over half of its population identifying as visible minority (52.6%), followed by Sandstone

Valley (45.3%) and Country Hills (24.4%). The community with the lowest percentage of

visible minority residents was Country Hills Village (15.1%), which was the only

community to report a percentage lower than the Calgary average.

Table 14: Visible Minority Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)

Community Number Percentage

Country Hills 885 24.4%

Country Hills Village 175 15.1%

Coventry Hills 3,150 25.0%

Harvest Hills 1,655 22.5%

Panorama Hills 5,375 52.6%

Evanston/Creekside 840 28.3%

Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) 3,725 30.8%

MacEwan Glen 1,340 26.0%

Sandstone Valley 3,005 45.3%

Total 20,150 32.6%

Aboriginal Residents28

As reported in the 2006 federal census, there were 26,575 Aboriginal people living in

the Calgary census metropolitan area, which includes the Tsuu T’ina Nation. The term

“Aboriginal” used here includes North American Indian, Métis or Inuit, and/or those

who reported being a Treaty Indian or a registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of

Canada, and/or those who reported they were members of an Indian band or First

Nation. Unfortunately, the community level data does not provide a further breakdown

of the Aboriginal population as to these groups.

The Aboriginal population is widely distributed across Calgary, with no one community

having an Aboriginal population exceeding 12%.29 Within the communities in the study

28 Statistics Canada, 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile for Calgary (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, n.d.) Web.

30 October 2012. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-638-x/2010003/article/11076-eng.htm>.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-638-x/2010003/article/11076-eng.htm



area, the Aboriginal population is quite small at 2% of the area’s population. The largest

population of Aboriginal residents lives in Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (325

or 2.8%). There were no Aboriginal residents living in Country Hills Village.

Table 15: Aboriginal Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)

Community Number Percentage

Country Hills 90 2.4%

Country Hills Village 0 0.0%

Coventry Hills 280 1.8%

Harvest Hills 110 1.5%

Panorama Hills 110 0.6%

Evanston/Creekside 45 0.8%

Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) 325 2.8%

MacEwan Glen 135 2.6%

Sandstone Valley 120 2.0%

Totals 1,215 2.0%

Residents with Disabilities30

As of 2006, there were 7,260 residents with disabilities living in the area, which equates

to 11.7% of the total population in the study area. This is less than the 16.3% rate across

the City of Calgary. Not surprisingly, due to its older population, Country Hills Village has

the highest rate of residents with disabilities, with a rate of 27.3%. By numbers, the

largest population of residents with disabilities lives in Hidden Valley (including Hanson

Ranch) (1,425). Evanston/Creekside has the lowest rate at 7.9% or 235 individuals.

29 Our City; Our Budget; Our Future: Aboriginal Calgarian Consultation (Calgary: City of Calgary, April

2011), p. 1. Web. 30 October 2012.

<http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgary.ca%2

FCA%2Ffs%2FDocuments%2FPlans-Budgets-and-Financial-Reports%2FBusiness-Plans-and-Budgets-2012-

2014%2FStakeholder-Engagement%2FCommunity-Conversation-Calgary-Urban-Aboriginal-

Initiative.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1>

30 The data from this section are drawn from the 2006 federal census and the 2010 Civic census (which

provides the 2006 population figures.



Table 16: Residents with Disabilities in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)

Older Adults and Seniors

The City of Calgary provides very good community-level information on seniors.31

Unfortunately, the population figures in these profiles do not reflect the most current

2011 civic census figures. To ensure the most accurate population numbers, the 2011

civic census numbers were analyzed and used for this section. 32

There is a total population of 4,591 residents who were 65 or over in the study area, as

of 2011, which equates to 5.9% of the total area population. This is slightly lower than

the average Calgary rate of 9.8%. There are more women over 65 (2,495) than men

(2,096). Country Hills Village has the highest percentage rate of seniors resident in their

community, with 28%. There are also significantly more senior women (401) than men

(255) who are resident in Country Hills Village. Sandstone Valley is next with 10.6%.

Evanston/Creekside (2.3%) and Coventry Hills (2.8%) have the smallest percentages.

31Community Profiles on Seniors (Calgary: City of Calgary, 2012). Web. 30 October 2012.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Seniors/Community-Profiles-on-Seniors.aspx






Table 17: Populations of Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)

Hidden

Valley CA

Evanston

Creekside

CA

Data PointHarvest

Hills Country Hills

Country

Hills Village

Coventry

Hills

Panorama

Hills

Hidden

Valley

Evanston/

Creekside

MacEwan

Glen

Sandstone

ValleyTotal Area

City of

Calgary

Population (2011)

Number 577 301 656 438 943 494 138 390 654 4,591 106,515

% of Total Population 7.7% 8.1% 28.0% 2.8% 4.8% 4.2% 2.3% 7.6% 10.6% 5.9% 9.8%

Northern Hills CA Sandstone MacEwan CA

The median income rates for seniors were last reported as part of the 2006 federal

census and are taken from 2005 data. As seniors often live on fixed incomes, it seems

fair to assume that the rapid increase in household income that occurred within the rest

of Calgary households did not occur with seniors’ incomes. The median income for

seniors in the study area ($20,518) is slightly lower than the Calgary average ($22,625).

Panorama Hills has the lowest median income for seniors at $15,468, while the highest

is found in Country Hills at $25,429. Country Hills Village is next at $24,322.

Table 18: Median Income for Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005)



Modes of Transportation33

The 2011 civic census was the first time Calgarians were canvassed as to how they

travelled to work. It is not surprising that in these suburban communities that are far

from the downtown core that residents drive alone to work more regularly than

residents in the rest of Calgary. In these communities, 78.9% drive alone to work, while

the rate is 69.6% across all of Calgary. They do act as a driver of a car pool more often

than other Calgarians, although are passengers of a car pool less often. The use of public

transit is also less than the Calgary average, at 13.24% as opposed to 17.15%. In general,

residents of North Central Calgary walk or bike to work much less than residents of

other Calgary communities.

Table 19: Transportation in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)

Evanston

Creekside

CA

Hidden

Valley

CA

Mode of

Transport

Harvest

Hills

Country

Hills

Country

Hills

Village

Coventry

Hills

Panorama

Hills

Evanston/

Creekside

Hidden

Valley

MacEwan

Glen

Sandstone

Valley

Total

Area%

City of

Calgary%

Bicycle 10 0 2 7 2 5 13 5 7 51 0.22% 2,923 0.87%

Carpool - driver 24 14 18 179 225 68 107 16 32 683 2.95% 5,471 1.62%

Carpool/taxi -

passenger 16 27 4 71 81 19 84 32 44 378 1.63% 8,622 2.56%

Drive a lone 1,778 916 579 3,825 4,539 1,537 2,699 1,138 1,226 18237 78.87% 234,585 69.58%

Motorcycle 4 1 1 2 5 0 0 0 2 15 0.06% 179 0.05%

Trans i t 293 148 117 628 797 130 390 203 355 3061 13.24% 57,806 17.15%

Walk 28 20 19 18 24 7 11 8 13 148 0.64% 17,196 5.10%

Work from home 50 19 6 89 79 47 126 33 29 478 2.07% 8,907 2.64%

Other 1 13 3 15 25 5 8 2 1 73 0.32% 1,438 0.43%

Northern Hill CA

Sandstone MacEwan

CA






Crime

The data for crimes committed in the communities comes from the Calgary Police

Service Crimes Web Mapping Application

(http://crimemap.calgarypolice.ca/content/DisclaimerPage.aspx). This application can

report crimes that occurred in individual communities for up to the past six months. The

data used for this report were accessed on October 15, 2012.

Table 20: Police-reported Crimes Committed in Calgary's North Central Communities

(April 15-October 15, 2012)

Evanston

Creekside

CA

Hidden

Valley CA

Harvest

Hills

Country

Hills

Country

Hills

Village

Coventry

Hills

Panorama

Hills

Evanston/

Creekside

Hidden

Valley

MacEwan

Glen

Sandstone

Valley

Crimes in past 6 months 96 40 47 97 141 58 118 21 42

Arson 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

Assault 7 2 7 6 13 6 4 2 1

Attempted Murder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Commercial Break-in 4 4 2 2 2 1 0 0 0

Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Residential Break-in 3 2 0 11 21 3 15 2 5

Robbery 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1

Sex offence 3 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0

Theft 24 9 21 28 21 21 26 2 7

Theft from Vehicle 21 18 7 36 51 19 49 8 17

Vandalism 27 5 7 12 32 7 20 7 8

Vehicle Theft 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1

Northern Hills Community Association

Sandstone MacEwan

CA

Calculating the crime rate for this time period can be achieved by taking the total number of crimes committed and dividing by the community population. Although just a snapshot, it does give a representation of crime based on population of the area.

http://crimemap.calgarypolice.ca/content/DisclaimerPage.aspx



Table 21: Crime Rates



Assessment of Spaces and Community Services

This assessment of available community spaces and services was designed to provide

information about what services currently exist in Calgary’s North Central communities.

The size of the organization or health practice does not matter. Services can include

practices comprised of numerous people or self-employed individuals.

The assessment covered all the communities included in the study area.

How the Assessment of Community Spaces and Services was Conducted

When we began this piece of our project, we assumed it would be a relatively

straightforward process to identify the spaces and community services (e.g. social and

human services) available to residents of Calgary’s North Central communities. This

assumption proved to be false. In fact, we ended up employing a comprehensive

methodology to piece together all the parts of the puzzle. We used a variety of methods

to develop this report including:

1) Conducting a web search - We used Internet search terms that a typical resident

of a community might use such as “Dentist Country Hills Calgary”.

2) Conducting supplementary research through phone calls – In cases where

Internet research returned incomplete results, we followed up with phone calls.

For example, a researcher spoke with a representative from Harvest Hills

Alliance Church to learn more about the community services and programs that

take place at the church through room rentals.

3) Gathering participatory feedback - A draft of this report was circulated to other

stakeholders in the Creating Space for Strength project. The feedback received

helped us to further shape the report into its final version.

4) Informing the report with additional research – This survey is only one

component of the Creating Space project. We also took into account what we

learned through interviews with residents and community consultations.



Limitations of the Assessment

The individuals and organizations listed in this survey are those that are physically

located in the communities studied. So, for example, there are no pediatricians listed in

this survey because at the time the research was conducted, we were unable to identify

pediatric specialists whose offices were physically located within the jurisdictions under

study.

Key Learnings

Through the process of putting together this research, we gained some deep insights

into services and spaces in Calgary’s North Central communities.

Existence of Services vs. Availability of Services

Simply because a service exists in a community does not necessarily mean it is available

to the people who live there. For example, we were able to identify medical clinics that

offered walk-in service. Interviews with community residents revealed that there is a

perception that walk-in services at clinics in Calgary’s Northern Hills communities, in

particular, may exist, but are not actually available.

Similarly, community residents also expressed frustrations around renting space at

public schools to use for

community events. While schools

may have policies and procedures

that make allowances for

community residents to book

school space for a fee, residents

commented that the process was

cumbersome and there was a

perception that the schools were

already too booked up with other

programs to actually be available to residents as a viable option.

It is not enough for community services to exist. Residents must believe that they are

actually available to them. This perception is important. If residents do not believe that

spaces or services (including medical and social services) are readily available and easily

accessible, they may simply give up trying.

It is not enough for community spaces and

services to exist. Residents must believe that

the existing spaces and services are readily

available to them. This perception is important.

If residents do not believe that spaces or

services (including medical and social services)

are readily available and easily accessible, they

may simply give up trying.



Residents expressed frustrations about the length of time and amount of effort it would

require for them to access services

and spaces in their community. This

was compounded by procedures and

policies they did not necessarily

understand, such as all the forms it

may be necessary to fill out to book

space at a school outside of regular school times.

Usefulness of Readily Available Information

In conducting this research, we asked ourselves, “What steps would a community

resident take to find out information on services and spaces?” We started by following

those same steps, which meant starting with an Internet search.

The information that was easily found regarding community spaces (e.g. via Google and

Internet searches) did not produce results that were entirely useful, or were often quite

limited in their usefulness. For example, it is easy to find information on doctor’s offices

in the area, but it is much harder to find information on specialists who may work in the

communities we studied. Information on the services that exist is not relevant or

helpful, unless it is useful.

Without personal relationships or knowing others who live in the community, it may be

difficult for residents to find out what services actually exist in their community or if the

services they need are not available to them, where they might go to get what they

need.

“Walk-in clinics are too full with scheduled

appointments. There is a long wait time to

see a doctor as a walk-in patient.”

- Coventry Hills resident.



Social and Family Services are Largely Invisible

Unlike other areas of the city, we found little evidence of a highly prominent presence of

social service agencies working in the nine communities we studied. While we know that

the City of Calgary provides social

services to residents of the study area,

there is an opportunity for additional

non-profit service agencies to increase

service offerings in the area.

Community residents also commented that they did not know what social services they

could access or how they could access them. While some social, family and community

services are offered in the communities studied in this project, there is no “storefront”

that is visible to community residents. For that reason, such services may appear to

community residents not to exist or not be accessible to them. The building that houses

police and fire services located at 11955 Country Village Link N.E. (across from Cardel

Place) is seen to be a significant asset to the community, principally because the building

has high visibility and is easily accessible by personal vehicles, public transit and even by

foot.

Because this report focuses on spaces and services that are physically located within the

area of study, and none were found to have a “store front”, they have not been

included in this survey. However, in talking with community residents, there is an

appetite to have such services be both visible and accessible by residents.

Services Need to be Accessible by Public Transit or by Foot

In talking with community residents we learned that there is a desire for services that

are not only available by car, but are also accessible by public transit or on foot. This is

particularly important for seniors, youth and others in the community who may not

drive.

While there is an assumption that everyone who lives in the suburbs has a car, those

who do not may be those who most need to access services in the community including

medical services, family services and community-based services.

“There is no Boys and Girls Club in our area.

We need services like that.” - resident



Interviews with Community Residents

The method we used to develop the interview schedule (questions) was based largely

on the appreciative inquiry method.34

The interviews themselves also included participatory elements. For example:

1. Participants were given the option of choosing the location of the interview (in

person or by phone.)

2. The guided, but open-ended and informal interview structure allowed

participants to control, to some degree, the content and process of the interview

itself.35 The interviewers raised some points for discussion to guide the

discussion and ensure consistency. Interviewees were also given the option to

decline to answer questions if they did not wish to discuss them.

The objectives of this approach were:

1. To enable community members to identify and recognize existing strengths and

assets, particularly in terms of services and spaces.

2. To enable the community to identify to capacity to direct and drive its own

development.

3. To analyze what is already working well in Calgary’s North Central communities.

4. To develop confidence among community members to drive its own

development.

Informal Interview Structure

Eighteen sample interview questions were developed to help guide each

interview.

A form requesting demographic data was e-mailed/handed out before the

interview began.

Guidelines for prospective interviewees to help participants understand what is

expected of them during the interview were also handed/e-mailed out -- and

what they can expect from us.

34 See: Cooperrider & Whitney, 2008; Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2003; Eliot, 1999; Faure, 2006.

35 See: Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009).



A Project overview and a consent form were also some of the handouts that

were articulated and handed over to each participant prior to each interview (a

copy of the consent form was retained to ensure credibility of the process).

Along with input from the steering committee, the process and methodology was

approved and rolled out in December 2012.

Identifying Potential Interviewees

Our methodology incorporated a multi-pronged approach to identifying people to interview:

1. Snowball sampling;

2. Open invitations;

3. Identifying key informants with the help of the project Steering Committee.

Interview Weighting and Community

Researchers sought to achieve fair representation of the demographic groups living in

the nine (9) communities:

1. Harvest Hills

2. Country Hills


4. Coventry Hills

5. Panorama Hills

6. Evanston/Creekside

7. Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch)

8. MacEwan Glen

9. Sandstone Valley

We allocated a particular number of interviews per community, based on the population

size of each community.

Members of the Steering Committee and the Community Association Boards of

Directors and other individuals directly connected with this study were not interviewed.



Table 22: Interviews Weighted by Community Demographics

Harvest

Hills

Country

Hills

Country

Hills

Village

Coventry

Hills

Panorama

Hills

Evanston/

Creekside

Hidden

Valley

MacEwan

Glen

Sandstone

Valley

Total

Area

Population

(2011)

7,485 3,720 2,342 15,722 19,851 5,889 11,657 5,138 6,142 77,946

Weight 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.20 0.25 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.08

9.60% 4.77% 3.00% 20.17% 25.47% 7.56% 14.96% 6.59% 7.88% 100.0%

To be

interviewed

2.9 1.4 0.9 6.1 7.6 2.3 4.5 2.0 2.4 30.0

3 1 1 6 8 2 5 2 2 30

Interviewed 1 2 0 8 6 1 5 2 2 27

Variance -2 0 -1 2 -2 -1 0 0 0

In addition to demographic weighting, we also strove to achieve representation in our

interviews that reflected community demographics in terms of the percentage of men

versus women, seniors, persons with disabilities and persons who consider themselves a

visible minority.



Table 23: Interviews Weighted by Special and Diverse Populations

Demographic % of Total Population

(See our demographic

report for details

Number of interviewees

Persons with a disability 12% 3

Immigrants 30% 9

Visible minorities 30% 9

Seniors (65+ years) 6% 1

We aimed to have equal representation of men and women take part in the interviews,

as the demographic data we collected suggested an even split between genders in our

study area. Ultimately, more women than men participated in the interviews.

Table 24: Interviews Weighted by Gender (percentage)

Demographic % of Total Population % of interviewees

Male 50% 33.3%

Female 50% 66.7%

Our demographic research revealed that approximately one in three adults living in the

study area self-identified as being a visible minority. We set a goal that at least one-third

of our respondents would be visible minorities. This goal was achieved.

Table 25: Interviews Weighted by Visible Minority (percentage)

Demographic % of Total Population % of interviewees

Visible minority 30% 28%

Not a visible minority 70% 72%

We conducted twenty-seven (27) interviews, between December 2012 and January

2013.



In terms of representation from the communities, the response rates included:

More women than men (70% -30%);

Inclusion of visible minorities (30% of respondents);

More highly educated;

More married than single;

All owners; no renters.

Fewer 45-54 age range.



Interview Results

The charts indicate how the participants responded (and prioritized) in response to the

following questions:

What does community mean to you?

What are some achievements of your community that you have either been

involved in or know about?

Services/ programs that define and engage citizens of the community?

What is already working well in your community?

What spaces do you know of that are available for community use?

What spaces do you already access for community events, programs and

services?

What are the three best things about your community?

What makes a community vibrant?

What Community Means

While interviewees valued the many assets in the community, what mattered most of

all are the people who live and work in their communities:

Neighbours

Residents who lived in and around the neighbourhood

Small business owners

Volunteers who run the Community Associations

Children and youth who attend the schools in and around the area

People who operate key services in the area e.g. Police, Firefighters, leaders of

community sports and leisure programs, elected officials, etc.



Table 26: Interview Results: What does Community Mean to You?

“Other” includes: Household; Cleanliness; Diversity (people/buildings); Professional community;

Buildings; Culture; Ethnicity; Faith; Pride; Online; Role models for children; Respect; Civil;

Municipal; Collaboration; social structures.

What we mean when we talk about “people”

Overall, it was the healthy presence of the people who lived in the communities, e.g.

families, youth, seniors, culturally diverse people from all backgrounds, professionals,

stay-at-home mums and dads, and owners of properties who contributed to the

vibrancy, cleanliness and safety of the specific communities, as well as connected staff

who ran many of the services.

“Family and friends” were also high on the list. This was important to many of the

interviewees because it provided and created a sense of belonging and a comfort level

to many for social reasons.

The service providers (volunteers, staff and business owners) of Community

Associations and businesses were important because they expanded what community

residents look for in healthy communities, e.g. a chance to network, contribute skills and

time through volunteerism, promote local business ideas, interact on a social level at



the organized events, and create opportunities for people who take pride in their living

and working communities.

Neighbours provide a sense of safety and security, particularly if the community is one

that takes care of each other.

Table 27: Interview Results: What We Mean When We Talk About "People"



Community Achievements

Residents identified two types of achievements in their communities:

Community association achievements

Citizen-led achievements

Community associations, as well as informal community groups, are at the heart of the

community. Together, they amplify the gifts, talents and skills of individual community

members.36 That is why the involvement of community associations is important to our

work. They are key to identify, map and continue to build a community by focusing

more deeply on assets, rather than deficiencies.

Community Association Achievements

These are services and programs being offered by the individual Community

Associations, NHCA, Cardel Place, churches, City of Calgary, offices of elected officials

and volunteer committees.

36 Turner, McKnight, & Kretzmann, 1999, p. 2



Table 28: Interview results: Community Association Achievements

“Other” includes: Communications; Community Association office space; Outreach to

community; Hazardous waste collection; Recycling; Comfort level contacting Community

Association; Community Association meetings.

It should be noted that interview respondents did not always discriminate between

formal community associations, such as the Northern Hills Community Association or

other informal community groups. During the research process, we did not insist that

respondents identify a particular association. The data presented here reflects the

interviewees responses and their perceptions of goals achieved by their community

associations and groups.



Citizen-led Achievements

Community Associations are important for residents who wish to create an opportunity

to lobby for important changes necessary for healthy growth and participation. From

many of the interviewees and participants at the seniors’ consultation, this avenue

needs to be built on. Suggestions were:

Elected officials reaching out to their constituents (beyond the door knocking

prior to elections) to get a stronger “pulse” on the community.

Community Associations recruiting volunteers to help organize Block Parties.

This has proven very beneficial in some communities. More citizen involvement

is required to help build on what a small group of citizens have been able to

achieve.

Traffic solutions remained consistent during the interviews. With the new

schools in the NH Communities, traffic has become somewhat of a “nightmare”

for residents/parents/students and business owners. Beyond phoning/writing to

elected officials, citizens do not know what else to do.

Costs associated with maintenance of ice rinks and gathering spaces for parents

to drop off/wait/collect their children from these outdoor activities remains of

concern in some communities e.g. Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch).



Table 29: Interview Results: Citizen-led Achievements

“Other” includes: Childcare; Playground; Mothers’ group; Block parties.



Additional Community Achievements

Interviewees were generally happy about many of the amenities in communities,

including retail stores, restaurants and Police and Fire Services. It was noted that while

there are numerous medical and dental clinics in these neighborhoods, many residents

still left the area to access their own medical providers because of history with these

practitioners. It was further noted that while walk-in medical clinics exist in the

neighborhood, a number of them are effectively inaccessible to patients, due to long

wait times or lack of availability due to scheduled appointments.

Signage for all types of services (political forums, start-up of programs etc.) was

identified as a community strength. Calgary Public Library and Cardel Place were seen as

major assets in the community. There were, however, comments about the high costs

associated with the programs operated by Cardel Place, indicating that programs maybe

inaccessible to lower income individuals and families.

Table 30: Interview Results: Additional Community Achievements

“Other” includes: Stores, commercial businesses; LRT planning forums; Emergency services;

Notre Dame football; Services (doctor).



Community Association events and programs such as sports, Christmas light showcases

and Easter egg hunts appealed to numerous interviewees, as did informal events

organized by citizens, such as block parties.

The Northern Hills Community Association (NCHA) newsletter was identified by

numerous interviewees as being both valuable and informative.

For New Canadians, English as a Second or Additional Language (ESL or EAL) programs

run by or at some of the churches e.g. Harvest Hills Alliance Church and others were

seen to be important. Some interviewees commented on the need for increased

services for New Canadians, noting that as the growth of the community increases, so

does its multicultural population.

Retail stores and other businesses were identified as being both convenient and

accessible, though it was noted that some seniors who do not drive may have difficulty

accessing even local amenities due to limited transit services during off-peak hours.



Table 31: Interview Results: Community Services and Programs

Note: CA = Community association

“Other” includes: Diversity; Police; Seniors’ housing; After-school care; Recycling.



Community Strengths

Listed below are some of the assets in the communities that residents identified.

It was noted that there are differences among the communities in terms of how

established they are. The communities of Sandstone Valley and MacEwan Glen were the

most established of the nine communities studied. Residents of these communities

noted that the established nature of these communities was a strength.

Table 32: Interview Results: What Residents Believe is Working Well

“Other” includes: City of Calgary Community Recreation Coordinator; churches; multi-

generational homes; Mailbox system; most things working well; diversity; City Councillor.



Community Space

We asked residents to identify spaces that already existed in the community that were

available for use. While the table below shows the responses, it does not tell the whole

story.

Respondents often noted that while spaces may exist and be available in theory, there

are numerous barriers to access including, but not limited to:

Cost

Bureaucratic process or lengthy applications

Membership requirement (e.g. Panorama E-centre is available only to residents

of that community.

Table 33: Interview Results: Existing Available Spaces for Community Use

“Other” includes: Creekside Co-Op grocery store; baseball diamond; a specific community cul-

de-sac; golf course; seniors’ lodge.

Four residents identified that their community would be further strengthened by a community

meeting or gathering space (often referred to as a “community hall”).



These spaces were identified by residents who were aware of these facilities through

the following:

Personal use

Word of mouth

Signage

Newsletters

Long-time residents or have families/friends who are also residents

While space may exist in Calgary’s North Central communities, that space is not always

financially accessible or easily available to residents.



The Three Best Aspects of the Community

Residents consistently reported that they feel safe in their community. There

was a sense that crime in these communities is mainly petty crime such as

vandalism and graffiti. Respondents commented that they felt that neighbours

look out for each other. It was further noted that the Calgary Police Service office

located near Superstore was a definite asset in the community.

Transportation infrastructure was identified as being both an asset and a liability.

In terms of a community strength, residents responded that they felt there was

good access to major thoroughfares such as Stoney Trail, Beddington Trail and

even Deerfoot Trail. However, residents also identified that the community

would be greatly strengthened by increased bus services (particularly during off

peak hours) and the establishment of LRT service in the area.

Commercial amenities were identified as a strength, particularly in the Northern

Hills area. This includes major grocery stores and other retail shops, along with

family-style restaurants. Other amenities identified as strengths included

neighborhood schools, particularly elementary and middle schools, as well as

medical and health services (including massage and chiropractic care).

Table 34: Interview Results: Three Best Aspects of Calgary's North Central

Communities, as Identified by Residents



What Makes Our Community Vibrant

All of these responses came from interviewees who stated that they made a choice to

live in these communities. Their sense of satisfaction and comfort comes from having

most of their needs and expectations met.

As stated elsewhere in this report, the respondents to our interviews noted that people

make the community vibrant. A sense of connection, belonging and safety all contribute

to the community’s strength. In addition to this, having access to a variety of events,

activities and programs that include programs for families, seniors, single adults, youth

and children give citizens a sense that their community is strong and vibrant. It was

noted that events and activities need to include free or low-cost programs in order to

make them truly accessible to all members of the community.

Table 35: Interview results: What Makes a Community Vibrant?



Community Consultation with Working-Age Adults

The Northern Hills Community Association (NHCA), which represents the communities

of Harvest Hills, Panorama Hills, Country Hills, Country Hills Village and Coventry Hills,

stepped up to organize a community consultation for this project. Although Northern

Hills organized the event, it was open to all communities considered part of this study,

which included Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch), Evanston, Creekside, MacEwan

Glen and Sandstone Valley.

Prior to the consultation itself, four members of the NHCA participated in a three-hour

training session on how to conduct an asset-based community conversation. The

training session was offered jointly by the project consultants and the Community

Assets for Education (CAFÉ) Institute.

Recruiting advertisment distributed by NHCA. The notice was subsequently displayed in the

windows of local businesses and on notice boards throughout the community. In addition, the

adverstisement was sent out via e-mail and community-based newspapers.



The community consultation was advertised widely by NHCA, in the newsletter and on

their website. Registration was required for numbers, as the room had a maximum size

and we were offering refreshments, because the consultation occurred over the dinner

period. This registration was primarily conducted online via Eventbrite and the NHCA

website, but people could call in and register by phone as well. We also had 12 people

who registered at the door.

This community consultation was held on Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., in

the community room of the Country Hills Superstore at 5251 Country Hills Blvd. N.W.

The community consultation had 30 registered participants (not including the three

consultants) and 12 walk-ins, for a total of 42 registered participants. Six people who

registered did not show up and so there were a total of 36 people who participated.

Eight were from the Steering Committee and seven of those people took part, as they

were also representing their communities as well. This was a strong turnout for such an

event.

Two local politicians also attended: Hon. Teresa Woo-Paw (MLA, Calgary Northern Hills)

and Jim Stevenson (Councillor, Ward 3). At the request of NHCA, they were asked not to

give any opening remarks, but they did participate in the consultation and gave some

concluding remarks. Both are members of the Steering Committee for the project.

The evening proceeded to wrap up earlier than the 9:00 p.m. estimated end time, but

many of the participants stayed to talk and network, yet another good sign that people

felt engaged by the process.



World Café Conversation Format

The consultation was held using a World Café conversation format, which is conducive

to both a PAR and an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach. In this

format, participants break into small groups and hold semi-structured conversations

about the topic in question. The premise is that people already have the expertise,

wisdom and creativity to address any issues and/or challenges they identify in their

communities. The value of this exercise lies in the conversation itself. Participants

engage with issues in concert with their neighbours and try to uncover their own

strengths and solutions to any pressing issues.

In order to create an appropriate atmosphere, food and beverages were also provided

to the participants. They were encouraged to eat throughout the evening, as they

desired.

At the beginning of the consultation, a brief

questionnaire was disseminated to each participant

and they were asked to rank pre-identified issues

that the Steering Committee had formulated. These

questionnaires were then collated and the results

reported back to the participants at the end of the

consultation.

After this questionnaire had been conducted, the

consultation moved into the conversation format,

guided by pre-selected questions. There were four

questions posed to the participants throughout the

evening:

Q1: What is good and strong in our community?

Q2: What could be better?

Q3: What do we want to see happen in 5 years?

Q4: How do we get there?

These questions were chosen to reflect the asset-based approach. Each question was

introduced and then the tables were asked to discuss the question and place their ideas

and responses on post-it notes. After about 15-20 minutes of discussion, these notes

were gathered by NHCA volunteers and organized into themes for each question. This



process continued for all four questions. After the second question, participants were

asked to move tables in order to inject fresh ideas

and personalities into each table’s discussions.

After all questions had been discussed and all post-it

notes organized into themes, the NHCA volunteers

reflected these themes back to the participants. This

was both for reporting and verification purposes.

After the evening consultation ended, the consulting

team took the post-it notes and transcribed them as

per the themes identified on the evening. This was

then presented to members of the organizing team

at NHCA to validate the data at an afternoon

meeting. This is the data that appears in Appendix A.

What the Community Had to Say

Prioritizing Community Issues

The brief questionnaire on community priorities was administered at the beginning of

the consultation, after a brief overview of the project was given. The pre-identified

issues on the questionnaire were (in no particular order):

Community gathering space

Emergency health services

Diagnostic services

Baby clinic

Traffic solutions

Public transit

Space for seniors to meet

Space for youth to meet

A public high school

Access to human services (e.g. parenting assistance, in-home assistance)

Cultural services (dance, art, etc.)

Recreation services



Participants were asked to rank the top three of these issues in importance to them.

Some chose to rank more than the top three issues, but only the top three issues were

tabulated.

The results were collated and presented to the participants at the end of the session.

After the consultation, the collated results were weighted as to priority, to give a more

accurate vision of the priorities. The top three issues were clearly ahead of the others

and were: community gathering space; emergency health services; and recreation

services.

If you add in “Space for youth to meet” and “Space for seniors to meet” (which are

arguably also community gathering space) this category moves far further ahead, from a

total weighting of 45 to a total weighting of 69. If “diagnostic health services” are added

“emergency health services” this further consolidates health care’s second position at

56.



Table 36: Priorities Identified by Residents at the Community Consultation

Issue 1st priority 2nd priority 3rd priority Total

Weighting

Weighting

x 3

Weighting

x 2

Weighting

x 1

Community gathering space 10 6 3 45

Emergency health services 10 2 1 35

Recreation services 5 4 4 27

Public transit 2 4 4 18

Space for youth to meet 1 4 3 14

Public high school 0 2 1 14

Traffic solutions 1 4 2 13

Diagnostic health services 2 1 3 11

Cultural services 0 3 5 11

Baby clinic 1 2 3 10

Space for seniors to meet 1 3 1 10

Human services 0 0 1 1



The Four Questions

After the questionnaire was conducted, the consultation moved into discussion around

the four questions.


The chart below reflects the number of post-it notes that appeared as a separate

thought under each theme. This gives some idea as to the weighting and importance of

each theme to the study area.

The first question was designed as an introductory asset-based question, which some of

the tables had trouble with conceptualizing early in the discussion.

For this question the theme of “community spirit” was extremely prevalent. This

included such things as the NHCA and its newsletter, other community associations,

pride, and volunteers. Community services, such as good policing (low crime), fire and

EMS were seen as the strongest services available in the study area. Transportation

infrastructure related mainly to the area’s easy access to major road arteries, making it

easy to get around the city. There were a few mentions of good transit routes also.

People were seen as a key strength in the community too, with young families, nice

people and support from neighbours mentioned. Amenities such as shopping and the

Country Hills Village Cineplex were also seen as strengths, as were the various sports

programs available.



Table 37: Community Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in

Our Community?




This question garnered more discussion as people were engaged in what they wanted to

improve in their community. Again the chart reflects the number of post-it notes per

theme.

Although transportation infrastructure is seen as a strength of the communities under

study, it also comes out as the number one priority that could be improved. Improved

transit formed the bulk of this theme, with C-Train access and better bus routes leading

the numbers of desired improvements. Better and more effective traffic enforcement,

as well as speed bumps, were also mentioned.

The next area for improvement was for healthcare and social services. Urgent care and

emergency services were mentioned quite often, as were improved diagnostic services.

More social services and programs (ESL, basic needs, immigrant and seniors’ services)

were also mentioned.

Outdoor spaces were viewed as the third possible area of improvement, especially

beautification and maintenance, followed by ice rinks, parks and playgrounds. Schools

and childcare were next, followed by community facilities. This included accessible and

affordable community meeting places (referred to as centres) as well as more or better

library spaces and programs.

At the validation session, it was mentioned that information on one or more post-it

notes seemed to be missing. One of the participants mentioned there had been a

discussion at the table on the fact that not one level of elected politician (municipal,

provincial, federal) who currently represents the Northern Hills area actually lives there.

This was deemed to be an issue and we note it here in absence of the post-it notes.



Table 38: Community Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better?



Q3: What do we want to see happen in five years?

The next question was designed to try and list achievable goals for the improvements

needed. Sports, recreation and leisure were seen as the top achievable goal. This

included more ice rinks, expanded pool (Cardel expansion), indoor soccer pitch, and

more programs. Health care and social services were the next priority, including urgent

and primary care and an increase in social services. Transportation infrastructure was

also seen as an achievable goal, which included progress towards a north C-Train line,

better transit and road improvements. Community facilities were next, including a

community/multi-purpose/multicultural centre, a place for seniors, and improved

knowledge of existing spaces. Advocacy and community pride was also mentioned, as

was community maintenance (aesthetics).

Table 39: Community Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See

Happen in Five Years?




The final question was framed as a call to action. If these are the things you want for

your community, what do you need to do to achieve these goals? Communication and

engagement was the top idea mentioned, including social and traditional media,

strengthening the community voice, and doing door-to-door visits to engage more

people. Money is always an issue, and came in second. Government funding at all three

levels was mentioned, along with fundraising from local businesses and individuals, as

well as holding events.

Closely related to communication and engagement was community advocacy and

leadership, which was followed by volunteerism. This is really “people power” and will

be the outcome of communication and engagement, if done right. Community

leadership included the active involvement of political leadership at the municipal and

provincial levels.

Table 40: Community Consultation Results: Question 4 - How do We Get There?

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Communication/Engagement

Funding

Community Advocacy and Leadership

Volunteerism

Planning/Prioritizing

Question #4: How do We Get There?



Aggregate results

When aggregating the top three issues and priorities for each of the four questions and

the questionnaire, a clearer vision of the community assessment emerges:

What the community sees as its assets

What it sees as possible improvements

What it sees as achievable goals

How it envisions possible actions to achieve these goals

What the community sees as its priorities

Table 41: Community Consultation Aggregate Results

Q1: What is

good and

strong in our

community?

Q2: What could

be better?

Q3: What do we

want to see

happen in five

years?

Q4: How do we

get there?

Questionnaire

Assets Improvements Goals Actions Priorities

Top issue Community

Spirit

Traffic/Transit Sports/Recreation/

Leisure

Communication/

Engagement

Community

gathering space

Second

priority

Community

Services

Social

Services/health

care

Health care/Social

services

Funding Emergency health

services

Third

priority

Transportation

Infrastructure

Outdoor Spaces Transportation

Infrastructure

Community

Advocacy and

Leadership

Recreation services



Community Consultation with Seniors

As part of “Creating Space for Strength: An Asset-Based Community Development and

Research Project for Calgary's North Central Communities”, we wanted to incorporate

the voices of senior citizens in the Northern Hills area.

The SPRY in the Hills group, run by Dell Sudnik, invited us to one of their regular

meetings at the Panorama e-Community Centre. As the group meets regularly on

Tuesday afternoons, we coordinated with Northern Hills Community Association (NHCA)

to schedule the community consultation for Tuesday, January 22, 2013.

Meeting Format

Before the meeting, the agenda was e-mailed to Dell Sudnik and the Steering

Committee members who planned to attend.

The meeting started with an introduction of the members of the Steering Committee

who were there: Moraig McCabe (NHCA), Matt Pechey (Northern Hills Constituency

Office), Sarah Elaine Eaton and Vilma Dawson (Eaton International Consulting Inc.).

Then, we went around the room and each of the seniors introduced themselves and

told us which community they lived in. It was noted that there were no participants

present from MacEwan Glen, Sandstone Valley, Creekside or Evanston. In other words,

all the participants lived in the Northern Hills communities. Approximately 17 seniors

took part in the afternoon consultation.

We presented an overview of the project with a slide presentation. Conversation about

some of the demographic data occurred and in particular, the participants wanted to

know how we got our information about the median income of seniors in the

communities we are studying. In this report we have provided more details about how

we accessed our information.

Then the seniors broke into two groups, each of eight or nine participants. Each group

then discussed these four questions:

1. What is good and strong in our community?

2. What could be better?



3. What do we want to see happen in 5 years?

4. How do we get there?

The participants’ responses to these four questions are shared in the pages that follow.

Finally, the seniors were asked to fill out a questionnaire that asked them to select their

top priorities from a list that was given to them. Each person was asked to put a number

one next to their top priority, a number two next to their second-most important

priority and a number three next to their third most important priority.

Seniors’ Concerns About Income Data

During the introductory presentation, a few of the participants asked how we got our

demographic information about the median income level of seniors in the community.

The median income rates for seniors were last reported as part of the 2006 federal

census and are taken from 2005 tax data. As seniors often live on fixed incomes, it

seems fair to assume that the rapid increase in household income that occurred within

the rest of Calgary households between 2006 and 2011 did not occur with seniors’

incomes. The median income for seniors in the study area ($20,518) is slightly lower

than the Calgary average ($22,625).

It is interesting to note that Panorama Hills has the lowest median income for seniors at

$15,468, while the highest is found in Country Hills at $25,429. Country Hills Village is

next at $24,322. As this consultation had seniors from only Northern Hills, many

probably came from the Panorama Hills community, which did have the lowest income

rates at $15,468. This probably contributed to the surprise at the study area median.



Seniors’ Consultation Results

In this section of our report, we share key highlights of seniors’ responses to the four

questions we asked them.


Participants listed numerous strengths in their communities. Though we did not ask

them to do so, they chose to talk about the strengths of their individual neighborhoods,

as well as the overall Northern Hills area.

Highlights of what the seniors shared follows:


Participants noted the good work done by the community association and mentioned

that they appreciated the good relationship that they have with NHCA.

Commercial amenities

Participants talked about good shopping in the area and in particular:

Superstore

T & T supermarket

Movie theatres

Banks

Participants also commented that there were some doctors and dentists in their

community, but noted that they are not all taking new patients.

Natural spaces

These participants saw the green spaces, parks, walking and biking paths as being a

definite asset in the community.



Quality of life

Participants commented on a variety of factors relating to the overall quality of life in

the community including good value for housing prices and low crime rates. There was a

sense that the Northern Hills is a good place to raise a family.


The participants identified numerous priorities that focused around a few central

themes:

Affordable programming

Participants commented that they would benefit from having more programs like those

run by the Kerby Centre. But it is not enough for the programs to exist; they must also

be affordable for seniors, who live on a limited budget.

Meeting space for seniors

The participants talked about how their group cannot grow in size because they have

nowhere else to go. Their current meeting space at the Panorama e-Community Centre

works well for smaller gatherings, but is not big enough for their growing needs.

The seniors talked about the importance of being able to socialize with others around

their own age in a safe, affordable space that is easy for them to access.

Improved public transportation

Some participants expressed frustration around the public transit system. They

commented that buses do not run frequently enough in their area. Those who do not

drive are dependent on either family members to give them rides or on the public

transit system. Having more buses running more frequently would increase their sense

of independence and mobility.

Medical services

Participants discussed the need for improved medical services at length. They

highlighted diagnostic and urgent care as being of particular importance to them. Some

felt that Airdrie had more accessible health services for seniors those currently available

in the Northern Hills area.



Seniors’ housing and long-term care

Some participants commented on the growing need for affordable seniors’ housing and

the increasing need for long-term care for seniors in their community.

Q3: What do we want to see happen in 5 years?

In general, the participants demonstrated great wisdom when it came to talking about

what might be realistic to expect over the next five years. Highlights include:

Prioritizing goals

Participants talked about the need to identify and then prioritize realistic goals that

relate specifically to seniors.

Increase affordable programming for seniors

One participant noted that with the population growing in the North Central

communities, the number of seniors is likely to grow, too.

Improved public transit

Participants were adamant that having more frequent bus service to their community

would benefit them greatly. They felt that this was achievable over the next five years.

Increased participation and community engagement

The seniors commented that they wanted more of their peers to get involved in

programs in the community. This group realized that they are a small, but engaged

group of citizens. They wanted to reach out more to other seniors in their communities

and get them more involved.

Improved medical services

The participants came back to the issue of medical services for seniors repeatedly. They

noted that the need for medical services would only increase as population in the

community increases. They commented that this is an issue that needs to be addressed

before it becomes a crisis for the community.



Help with odd jobs around the house

Participants at one of the two tables talked in some detail about their need to have a list

of reputable people whom they could trust to help them with small, ad hoc projects

around the house such as putting up pictures and other odd jobs.


The final question generated both general and concrete ideas.

Lobby politicians

The seniors talked about letter-writing campaigns, petitions and talking with local

politicians as a way to have their voice heard in order to get their needs met. This

particular group demonstrated a clear understanding of how, when and why to lobby

elected officials.

Advocate for more affordable seniors’ programs

Participants talked about the possibility of entering into discussions with Cardel Place

around the need to have free, low-cost or subsidized programming for seniors.

Advocate for improved public transit

The participants talked about lobbying the City of Calgary and Calgary Transit for

improved bus service in their community.

Directory of handymen and volunteers to help with odd jobs

One of the most inspiring results of the afternoon came from the table where they

identified a need to have help around the house for odd jobs. One participant suggested

that the group put together its own guide of local handymen and volunteers that they

could trust to come into their homes.

They identified that services would need to be affordable for seniors and that they

wanted to feel safe and secure knowing that whoever was in their home was

trustworthy and reputable.

One participant stepped up and volunteered to lead an initiative to put together an

informal “Trusted Guide of Handymen”. Others offered to help her. Suggestions came in

from participants and others around resources they could access including contacting



the Arusha Calgary to learn about their barter program, as well as contacting the

Hillhurst-Sunnyside Community Association, as someone had heard they already had a

similar initiative.

Seniors’ Top Priorities

The seniors identified their top three priorities through the questionnaire they filled out.

First priority

This group of seniors is actively engaged in regular meetings and feel they are

outgrowing their current space at the Panorama e-Community Centre. They noted that a

community space to gather, socialize and enjoy programs that are designed especially for

them was very important.

After that, access to emergency health services was identified as a key priority for seniors

in the community.

Table 42: Seniors’ First Priority



Second priority

Seniors clearly identified access to health services as a top priority for them including

access to diagnostic services (such as blood tests, X-rays, etc.) and access to emergency

health services.

In addition to health services, participants also identified access to recreation services as

being important to them. As we talked with participants, they clarified that although there

are ample recreation services available in the community through Cardel Place, they were

particularly interested in low-cost, affordable programs that are specifically designed for

seniors. Several participants commented that they are unable to afford the programs

offered at Cardel Place.

Table 43: Seniors' Second Priority



Third priority

As a group, the participants did not have consensus around a third priority. Instead, they

continued to emphasize that it was important to them to have a community space in

which to meet, good access to health services and affordable recreation programs.

They also identified traffic solutions, public transportation and cultural services as being

important to them.

Table 44: Seniors' Third Priority



Researchers’ Observations

We noted that while the group of 17 seniors present included two or three immigrants,

none appeared to be visible minorities and all appeared to be mostly able-bodied (i.e.

no wheelchairs, no walkers).

We understand that the results of our small consultation are not generalizable to the

entire population of seniors living in the north central communities, due to the limited

sample size. Nevertheless, the insights gained from this group of seniors are relevant.

They are an informed and engaged group of senior citizens who brought significant

depth to their discussion and shared much wisdom around what matters to them. The

data gathered were reliable in the sense that we posed specific questions that resulted

in clear and comprehensible results.

From our experience as social science researchers, the SPRY in the Hills seniors’ group

provided much needed insights about what is important to seniors in the Northern Hills

communities that had never before been gathered scientifically.



Community Consultation with Youth

The Youth Council of the Northern Hills Community Association held their own group

consultation with youth ages fourteen to nineteen.

The youth asked a group of more than thirty of their peers three of the four same

questions used in the adult group consultations.

At the time of writing this report, the youth were in the midst of preparing their own

report back to the community. Our report includes highlights of their findings.

Table 45: Youth Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in our

Community?



Table 46: Youth Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better?

Table 47: Youth Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in

Five Years?



Online Survey

MacEwan Sandstone Community Association conducted an online survey in March and

April, 2013 asking residents the same four questions that we asked in our interviews and

group community consultations. They shared the data with all members of the Steering

Committee, giving us permission to analyze the qualitative data they collected and

include it in our report. We have compared the results of the online survey to the

results of our community consultations, highlighting common themes, as well as new

themes that were evident only in the online survey.

Table 48: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 1 -

What is Good and Strong in our Community?

Online survey results Community Consultation results

Community Spirit 50 Community Spirit 27

People 32 Community Services 18

Green Space 25 Transportation Infrastructure 10

Schools 20 People 10

Transportation Infrastructure 14 Amenities 9

Community Spaces 13 Sports 9

Sports 11 Community Spaces 7

Amenities 7 Support from Local Business 6

Community Aesthetic 7 Cultural Diversity 6

Community Initiatives 6 Green Space 6

Community Services 4 Schools 3

No answer 2 Community Initiatives 2

Cultural Diversity 1 Community Aesthetic 1

Support from Local Business 0



Table 49: MacEwan- Sandstone Online Survey: Question 2 - What Could be Better?


Traffic/Transit 34 Traffic/Transit 36

Community aesthetic* 23 Social Services/health care 30

Community Facilities 20 Outdoor Spaces 30

Outdoor Spaces 19 Schools and Childcare 21

Community Pride 12 Community Facilities 21

Social Services/health care 11 Retail/Restaurants/Commercial 7

Schools and Childcare 10 Government 6

Communication 10 Community Pride 4

Retail/Restaurants/Commercial 8 Communication 4

No answer* 6 Expand Cardel 3

Other* 5

Government 4

Expand Cardel 3

* New category



Table 50: MacEwan-Sandstone Online Survey: Question 3 - What do We Want to See

Happen in Five Years?


Transportation Infrastructure 29 Sports/Recreation/Leisure 15

Advocacy and Community

Pride

23 Health care/Social services 12

Community Maintenance 21 Transportation Infrastructure 12

Urban Community

Development

14 Community Facilities 11

Sports/Recreation/Leisure 13 Advocacy and Community Pride 10

Programs/events* 13 Community Maintenance 9

No answer* 13 Urban Community Development 8

Schools/Childcare 11 Schools/Childcare 8

Community Facilities 8

Safety* 7

Health care/Social services 3

* New category



Table 51: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 4 -

How do We Get There?


Communication/Engagement 40 Communication/Engagement 16

No answer* 24 Funding 15

Volunteerism 19 Community Advocacy and

Leadership 14

Community Advocacy and

Leadership

16

Volunteerism 7

Funding 14 Planning/Prioritizing 5

Planning/Prioritizing 7

Other* 5

* New category



Models of Community Multipurpose Sites

During much of the discussions surrounding the Creating Space for Strength project, the

term “multi-purpose space” has been used by members of the Steering Committee as a

possible desired building outcome. At first blush this sounds a fairly self-explanatory

term, but when conceptualizing it further, a few issues and questions arise:

What exactly does “multi-purpose” mean?

Whom would it serve?

What is its purpose(s)?

What kind of governance structure would it have?

Who are the funders?

Who are the partners?

What is the difference between funders and partners?

What is the process to develop such a facility?

Community gathering places can be whatever the community dreams, envisions and

acts upon. There are many examples of what other communities, both within Calgary

and outside, have developed and created over the years.

We have researched existing models of “multi-purpose spaces” that exist currently in

Calgary, as well as models that have been built, or are emerging, across Canada.

Characteristics of Community Multipurpose Sites

There are many iterations and variations of multi-purpose spaces, but most have a few

common elements:

1. They are anchored or led by one or more lead agencies or organizations from a

sector such as:

Recreation;

public library;

non-profit social service agency;

healthcare facility;

school;

protective services (fire; EMS, etc.)



Sometimes, there can be more than one lead agency, as in the Genesis Centre, with a

recreation, library, a community association coalition and social service agencies as

partners.

2. They are funded jointly, usually in partnership with one, two or three levels of

government and private donors.

3. There is shared space, either purpose built or retro-fitted.

Management and governance of these facilities can vary greatly.

Communities of Space

Building and developing a sense of community can take place in a number of

environments. Connecting and creating community can take place with or without a

built environment or a structure.

Think of people and their dogs socializing at an off-leash dog park, running and walking

clubs that take advantage of the natural environment, soccer games, or a mothers’ ad

hoc babysitting cooperative run by the mothers themselves. Neighbours gather, meet

one another, and develop a sense of familiarity with others who share the physical

outdoor space. Green spaces, parks and other outdoor community environments create

opportunities to enjoy and build a sense of community.

There are also emerging models of virtual communities in which people collaborate in

an online space. Such communities

are not bound by geographical

boundaries and are often formed

based on hobbies, profession or other

common interests. In our

consideration of models of

community spaces, virtual spaces

were intentionally omitted, as the

focus of our project has been

primarily about people who live in

particular neighbourhoods

connecting in a traditional, face-to-face environment.

Social Capital

The expected collective or economic

benefits derived from the preferential

treatment and cooperation between

individuals and groups.



There is no doubt, however, that an indoor space, such as a room, hall or centre, helps

to provide a central hub for people to gather for a variety of purposes. The United Way

of Greater Toronto’s Task Force on Access to Space put it succinctly in 2002 when it

stated as one of its themes, “Space is a building block of effective services and healthy

communities.”37 However, it is important to remember that it is people who make the

gathering, not the space. You can build a community space, but without individuals to

interact within it and utilize it, it is just bricks and mortar. In a sense, a community needs

to regard such space as a tool to build its social capital.

What we already know about spaces in Calgary’s North Central

Communities

In a previous report, we identified the spaces and services that are currently available in

the nine communities covered in our study area.

The major indoor community spaces available in study area include the following:

1) Cardel Place

2) Public and Separate schools

3) Churches

4) Panorama Hills e-Community Centre (Residents’ or Home Owners’ Association)

5) Superstore

All of these spaces are currently being used to capacity or above. Some have limited

accessibility (members only) and some are viewed as cost prohibitive. Also, religious

spaces are not ideal community gathering spaces as some people of other or no

religions might feel uncomfortable using them.

37United Way of Greater Toronto’s Task Force on Access to Space, Opening the Doors: Making the Most of

Community Space (Toronto: United Way of Toronto, 2002), p. 3.



Calgary Models of Multi-purpose Spaces

There are a number of models of multi-purpose community centres in Calgary, and the

concept is gathering political interest and momentum. Only multi-purpose, multi-agency

centres are profiled here. Implicit in this decision is that any multi-purpose space would

require more than one non-profit partner. It would also require significant planning

(lead time) and inter-organizational collaboration.

Community Associations often have buildings attached to their organization, but they

do not often partner with other organizations in these buildings. Many such centres in

Calgary are experiencing challenges with capital upkeep and renovations, as available

funding has decreased significantly over the past decade. In fact, at least six community

associations have given their buildings back to the City because of this. The City

therefore has little appetite to continue building stand-alone community association

buildings. Not one of the communities involved in this study currently has access to such

a building. Hidden Valley’s community association does have its “Hidden Hut” but it is

only six by 10 metres.38 Community associations are also realizing that operational costs

are rising and volunteer time is dwindling. All of these issues are leading to the need for

a major revisioning of community gathering spaces.

The report highlighted and explained certain models of community spaces already in

existence in Calgary, under the main headings:

Multi-hub model (e.g. Genesis Centre of Community Wellness)

Cluster model (e.g. Village Square)

Recreation model (e.g. Cardel Place)

Social and human services model (e.g. Community Resource Centres)

Education model (e.g. Calgary Learning Village Collaborative)

Co-located non-profit social service model (e.g. Storehouse 39-3-10, Kahanoff

Centre)

38 Trevor Howell, “Community associations don't want aging buildings,” Fast Forward Weekly, June 23,

2011. Web. http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/news/community-associations-struggle-

with-aging-buildings-decreased-funding-7692/



Models of Multi-purpose, Multi-agency Facilities Outside Calgary

Many other urban centres outside of Calgary, and Alberta, have experimented with

multi-purpose spaces and community gathering spaces to varying degrees of success.

They are similar to some Calgary models, but there are new ways of thinking too, such

as with the United Way of Toronto’s Community Hubs, or the Community Service

Village, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Some of these models may provide inspiration and potential for community gathering

spaces in Calgary’s North Central communities within the study area.

They include:

Multi-tenant Non-profit Centres (e.g. Community Service Village, Saskatoon, SK;

Jerry Forbes Centre for Community Spirit, Edmonton, AB; Redpoll Centre, Fort

McMurray, AB)

Health-based Centres (e.g. Community Health Centres, ON)

Community Hubs (e.g. Community Hubs of United Way of Toronto; The Family

Centre, Kitchener, ON)

School-based Centres (e.g. Neighbourhood Learning Centres, BC)

Recreation-based Centres

Other Models (e.g. Forest Heights Community Centre, Kitchener, ON; Cambie

Gathering Place, Richmond, BC)



Models of Community Spaces: Additional Observations

In discussions with the Steering Committee for the Creating Space for Strength project,

we have often heard the phrase “The community doesn’t know what it doesn’t know.”

In other words, because the community residents in the area under study do not know

what is available in other areas, they do not have a sense of the kind of space they want

in their own community.

Although the models report may provide some ideas for discussion, what it shows more

than anything is that a community space can be whatever the community wants it to be.

The community just needs a little imagination and creativity, sprinkled with a heavy

dose of persistence and hard work. The communities that now enjoy landmark facilities,

such as the Genesis Centre, spent many years working on their model and then

implementing their ideas.

It is important then, that the ABCD approach used in this project has begun community

dialogue and discussion, which is vital to the process of deciding what they community

wants from a gathering space. There were a few additional observations that became

clear from this study:

Co-location as a trend – Non-profit agencies are looking to collaborate more and

more often, especially when it comes to shared services and spaces. Having one

agency build or renovate a space is not a realistic expectation given this trend.

Accessibility – Although many people in the study area have cars, often the ones

who most need programs and services do not (seniors, new immigrants, lower-

income, single mothers, etc.) Taking into consideration accessibility to public

transit when deciding on potential locations of gathering spaces makes good

sense. The co-location trend includes not only organizations, agencies and

services, but also co-location with public transit in order to increase accessibility.

Costs – Accessibility is not just in terms of location; it also relates to whether or

not the programs and services are affordable to those on lower incomes. Costs

should also be a key consideration when moving forward with any project.

Time frames – Collaboration and partnership inevitably take longer than

expected. Time frames for some larger facilities (Genesis Centre) can take longer

than a decade of dedicated community work; while smaller initiatives

(Community Hubs) can take less time.

Funding – One or more levels of government are often key funders, especially if

the gathering place will be newly built.



Models of Community Spaces: Next Steps

Considering that the two most viable models currently being considered for the study

are Family Care Centres and Community Hubs, the following next steps could be

considered:

Invite AHS and United Way to a discussion on how a Family Care Centre could be

a lead agency for a Community Hub in the area.

Invite someone with experience in developing one of these models to speak at

an event in the community.

Start the visioning process – Engage in facilitated conversation around which

Calgary agencies would be potential partners, what potential funding could be

found, and what form of governance or organization do you need to move

forward?

Further potential “next steps” will be outlined in our Action Plan or Final Report,

once all the data gathered throughout the research phase of the Creating Space for

Strength project has concluded. What is clear at this point is that:

There is an identified need for a multi-purpose facility in Calgary’s North Central

communities that addresses community needs for health, community, family

and human services, along with affordable rental facilities for community groups

and residents.

There are a variety of models that are possible if such a centre were to be built.

Community development and engagement (preferably an asset-based approach)

must continue in order to support any potential project.

The Steering Committee and key community stake holders would want to consider

entering into a long-term visioning and planning process, asking key questions

around what would work, how would be involved and how to proceed.



Recommended Action Plan

To help the Steering Committee move forward with its work of serving community

residents, we consulted with key stakeholders of the committee to draft this action

plan:

Phase One: Form a Planning Group

Step 1: Confirm organizational stakeholder support.

Step 2: Decide which other organizations to include.

Step 3: Formalize a committee.

Step 4: Designate a lead organization or agency.

Step 5: Decide on a governance structures and processes.

Step 6: Determine membership criteria.

Step 7: Engage in asset-mapping in order to better understand how to mobilize and

leverage existing assets.

Step 8: Visioning: Identify guiding principles, values and mission.

Step 9: Engage in strength-based community leadership capacity building.

Step 10: Demonstrate success working together.



Phase Two: Planning

Step 1: Identify planning priorities of the group and achieve consensus around

what needs to be done and timelines for completion.

Step 2: Create project benchmarks and milestones to create accountability.

Step 3: Establish concrete action steps and outcomes.

Step 4: Establish working groups.

Step 5: Conduct a capital campaign study to ascertain fundraising feasibility and

goals, which may be established by costs and government contributions.

Step 6: Develop a communications and marketing plan.

Step 7: Develop a community engagement plan.

Step 8: Build community partnerships.

Step 9: Develop a Partnership Plan to work with the City of Calgary.

Step 10: Conduct a building feasibility study (NB: To be completed after capital

campaign study.)



Phase Three: Preparing

Step 1: Identify potential location(s). Establish a plan to secure land.

Step 2: Conduct a land development and conceptual site plan. Designate a lead

person to work with Calgary Planning Commission.

Step 3: Develop a capital campaign.

Step 4: Engage a professional capital campaign manager (fundraiser).

Step 5: Conduct a financial analysis – Complete financial statements from each

member organization.

Step 6: Determine legal aspects of ownership (e.g. non-profit, business, etc.)

Step 7: Develop legal documentation (e.g. By-Laws, incorporation documents).

Step 8: Determine building costs and finance models (e.g. Determine if a

commercial mortgage is appropriate or needed.)

Step 9: Develop a pro-forma operating budget that includes ongoing revenue

streams for maintenance and operations (e.g. occupancy tenants, facility

rental income, etc.)

Step 10: Determine management and governance issues that may affect building

design (e.g. sharing of utilities, infrastructure assets.)

Step 11: Assess tax implications for each of the decisions made during this phase.



Phase Four: Building the Space for Strength

Step 1: Conduct a technical study “Space for Strength”: Architect.

Step 2: Secure development permits.

Step 3: Determine facility operational management.

Step 4: Determine processes and guidelines for occupancy.

Step 5: Conduct an analysis of insurance needs.

Step 6: Secure all necessary insurance.

Potential short cuts

Two potential decisions would help to shorten this Action Plan process:

1. Family Care Clinic announcement on AHS land. 2. United Way announcement of Community Hub for area.

For each, the community needs to be ready to input their ideas for improvements and

spaces that will work for the community into the planning process.



Appendix A – Research Tools

Interview Schedule

This list of questions offered a general framework for the open-ended conversations the

interviewers had with the research participants:

What communities are you involved in?

What does community mean to you?

Tell me about some of the achievements of your community that you have either been

involved in or know about.

What was it about that experience that made it successful?

What services and programs does your community currently offer?

How does your work foster relationships among the people that you serve and residents

in your community?

What is your organization’s relationship to community residents?

How does your organization / service / program define and engage citizens of the

community?

What is already working well in your community?

What spaces do you know of that are available for community use?

What spaces do you already access for community events, programs and services?

What strategies have you used in the past to overcome challenges in your community?

Why did the strategy work?

What resources or tools did you use to help you overcome that challenge?

How could you use strategies that have proven successful for you in the past to help you

improve your current services and space challenges?



What tools or resources do you already have to help you achieve this? (If respondents

answer “I don’t know”, the interviewer can probe further by adding, “If you think back

to the previous challenge you told me about, you identified some tools and resources

as....”)

What are the 3 best things about your community?

What is one way that you can link the resources of people, organizations and services to

accomplish your goals?

What makes a community vibrant?



Informed Consent

Research Project title: Community strengths, services and spaces in Calgary’s North

Central Communities.

Research Team: Sarah Eaton (Principal), Lee Tunstall (Consultant), Vilma Dawson

(Consultant)

Sponsoring Organizations: Aspen Family Services, Community Facility Enhancement

Program (CFEP), Calgary United Way.

This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is part of the process of

informed consent. It should give you a basic idea of what the research is about and what

your participation will involve.

Project Description

The project will be explained to you verbally and there is a one‐page description of it for

you to read. Please feel free to ask any questions you have about the project. If you

have further questions concerning this research project, please contact:

Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Tel.: (403) 244‐9015

Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood the information

regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate. You are free to

withdraw from the interview at any time. Your continued participation should be

informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new

information throughout your participation.

In addition, a consent form was reviewed and signed by the interviewee and witnessed

by the researcher before the process began.

I, _______________________________________ agree to be interviewed for the

research project on community strengths, services and spaces in Calgary’s North Central

communities.

I have read a description of the project and I have had the project explained to me

verbally.



I understand I may withdraw at any time during the interview and that I may refuse to

answer any questions that I do not wish to answer.

I understand that all information given in the interview will be anonymous and kept

confidential. I will not be identified in any reports.

________________________________________ ___________________

Participant’s signature Date

________________________________________ ___________________

Investigator’s signature Date



Appendix B – Supplementary Reports and Resources

A number of additional reports and documents were produced throughout the duration

of this project. These may be requested directly from Eaton International Consulting Inc.

(www.eatoninternationalconsulting.com) or from the project’s organizational

administrator, Aspen Family and Community Network Society.

Tunstall, L. A., Eaton, S. E., & Dawson, V. (2013). Interim Final Report (Slide

Presentation). Creating space for strength: An asset-based community

development and research project for Calgary's north central communities.

Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society.

Tunstall, L. A., Eaton, S. E., & Dawson, V. (2013). Community conversation: Reporting

back on what residents had to say: Creating space for strength: An asset-based

community development and research project for Calgary's north central

communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society.

Tunstall, L. A., Eaton, S. E., & Dawson, V. (2013). Models of community multipurpose

sites, integrated services and collaboration between service providers: A report for

Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research

project for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and

Community Network Society.

Dawson, V., Eaton, S. E., & Tunstall, L. A. (2013). Interviews with community residents:

Reporting what citizens had to say: Creating space for strength: An asset-based

community development and research project for Calgary's north central

communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society.

Eaton, S. E., Dawson, V., & Tunstall, L. A. (2013). What SPRY seniors have to say: Report

on the community consultation with the seniors’ group ‘SPRY in the Hills': Creating

space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project

for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community

Network Society.

Tunstall, L. A., & Eaton, S. E. (2012). Demographic Report: Creating space for strength:

An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north

central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society.

http://www.eatoninternationalconsulting.com/



Eaton, S. E.. (Producer). (2012, November 29) Introductory Webinar for Creating space

for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for

Calgary's north central communities. Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e90Ifs9_H7I&feature=share&list=UUINdBOYA

xEJRxxgya5yiYJg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e90Ifs9_H7I&feature=share&list=UUINdBOYAxEJRxxgya5yiYJg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e90Ifs9_H7I&feature=share&list=UUINdBOYAxEJRxxgya5yiYJg



Appendix C – Ward Maps of Study Area


Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013 June

2013

Appendix D: Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces

Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces in Calgary

Lead Agency Governance Partners Funding Tenants

Multi-hub

Genesis Centre of Community Wellness

NECCS

YMCA

Calgary Public Library

1000 Voices (Community and

Human Services Area)

Community-appointed NECCS Board of Directors; 1000 Voices – Trustee Agency = Aspen

$120 million total cost:

City of Calgary

($70 million)

Government of Canada

($15 million)

NECCS “Completing the

Dream Together

campaign

($15 million)

YMCA

($12.5 million)

Province of Alberta ($10

million)

Genesis Land

Development

($5 million)

Jugo Juice

Genesis Physiotherapy

Genesis Medical Clinic



2013

Cluster

Village Square

Community Health Centre

(AHS)

Leisure Centre (City of Calgary)

Public Library (City of Calgary)

Heart of the NE (Aspen)

Village Square Mall (Colliers)

Separate governance for each organization

Recreation Anchor

Cardel Place (community hub/regional recreational facility)

Nose Creek Sports and Recreation Association (NCSRA)

Nose Creek Sports and Recreation Association (NCSRA) Board of Directors

Cardel Homes

City of Calgary


Northern Hills CA

Sandstone/MacEwan CA

Huntington Hills CA

Hidden Valley CA

Beddington Heights CA

Simons Valley Hockey

Association

City of Calgary ($28.75 million) Building Community Fundraising Campaign ($6.5 million) Naming rights negotiated with Cardel Homes in 2004.

Panther Sports Medicine

Jugo Juice

NSD Sports and Fitness

Club

Talisman Centre (multi-sport complex)

Lindsay Park Sports Society Lindsay Park Sports Society Board of Directors

Opened in July 1983 to host the Western Canada Summer Games ($24.7 million). Talisman Centre donates $10 million for naming rights for 20 years in 2002. $22 million renovation in 2003 as part of AB Centennial.

Good Earth

Jugo Juice

Cardiac Wellness

Lifemark Physiotherapy

Priori Epee



2013

South Fish Creek Recreation Complex (community hub/regional recreational facility)

Alliance partners:

The City of Calgary


South Fish Creek Recreation

Association

Calgary Roman Catholic

Separate School District No. 1

Calgary Board of Education

YMCA Calgary

Community Board of Directors

$42.5 million total project cost: City of Calgary ($25 million)

Panther Sports Medicine

Located in Shawnessy

Town Centre

Westside Recreation Centre

Westside Regional Recreation

Society

Westside Regional Recreation Society Board of Directors

The Parks Foundation

Calgary

2000 - City of Calgary (primary contributor) 2006: City of Calgary ($10 million) 2008: Province of Alberta ($8 million) 2010 renovation: Federal government ($1 million) Province and City ($1.5 million)

Trico Centre (formerly Family Leisure Centre)

Trico Centre (formerly Family

Leisure Centre Association of

Southeast Calgary (FLCASC))

Trico Centre Board of Directors (Each of the 30 community associations has a representative on the Board)

30 community

associations in SW

Calgary

Built in 1983 by four owner communities of Willow Ridge, Bonavista Downs, Parkland and Deer Ridge

Renovated in 2005 ($5 million)

New arena and renovations in 2009 ($15.5 million)

$6 million from Province; $9.5 million from City; $300 K from Southcentre Mall and $1.5 million from Trico.

Renamed Trico Centre in 2009

Panther Sports Medicine Clinic

Massage for Health Clinic

South Calgary Primary Care Network

KUMON Math and Reading Centre

Green Door Nursery School

Heart Fit

Bow Valley Hockey Society

Lifetime Smiles Dental Hygiene Clinic

JUGO Juice



2013

Education Anchor

Calgary Learning Village Collaborative (Forest Lawn)

No identified lead agency – impetus for initiative came from school principals within Forest Lawn schools

CLVC Board of Directors Alberta Health Services

Calgary (AHS)

Aspen Family and

Community Network

Society

Big Brothers and Big

Sisters of Calgary and

Area (BBBS)

Boys and Girls Clubs of

Calgary (BGCC)

Calgary Bridge

Foundation for Youth

Calgary Board of

Education (CBE)

Calgary Catholic School

District (CCSD)

Calgary Family Services

Calgary YMCA

The City of Calgary –

Community &

Neighbourhood Services

Hull Child and Family

Services

United Way of Calgary

through Upstart

Clay and Vi Riddell through United Way ($4.5 million) Mike and Sue Rose since 2012



2013

Non-profit Social Service Anchor

Storehouse 39-3-10 (Multi-tenant non-profit centre/shared services model)

Storehouse 39-3-10 is umbrella non-profit company for three founding agencies

Founding agencies:

Community Kitchen

Program of Calgary

NeighbourLink Calgary

Calgary Eye Way Society

Capital Funding Partners: Anonymous Donors Alberta Lottery Fund – Community Facility Enhancement Program Alberta Lottery Fund – Major Facility Enhancement Program ARC Financial Calgary Homeless Foundation Kahanoff Foundation Norlien Foundation Professional Excavators Schikedanz West Service Canada The Calgary Foundation United Way of Calgary

Kahanoff Centre

Owned by the Kahanoff Centre for Charitable Activities, a charitable foundation formed by Kahanoff Foundation

Board of Kahanoff Centre for Charitable Activities

Kahanoff Foundation Alberta Ecotrust Alberta Women Entrepreneurs Alliance Jeunesse-Famille de L’alberta Society Burns Memorial Fund Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations Canada West Foundation Canadian Mental Health Association Centre for Suicide Prevention Conseil de développement économique de l’Alberta Junior Achievement of



2013

Southern Alberta Nature Conservancy of Canada (Alberta) Rotary Club of Calgary Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership United Way of Calgary and Area Victoria Park Volunteer Calgary Youth Central

Non-profit Arts

King Edward Arts Hub and Incubator (in development)

cSpace Projects (non-profit real estate enterprise; subsidiary of Calgary Arts Development Authority)

TBD. Entrepreneurial, non-profit structure that reflects the CADA/TCF partnership and the broader community.

The Calgary Foundation and Calgary Arts Development Authority

$19-$21 million: $5 million City of Calgary $8 million Calgary Foundation (loan – for school purchase) $3 million Calgary Foundation (grant)



2013

Community Resource Centres

Name of CRC Communities served

Address Programs Website Funders

North of McKnight Community Resource Centre

Castleridge, Coral Springs, Falconridge, Martindale, Saddle Ridge, and Taradale, Sky View Ranch

95 Falshire Drive NE Calgary, AB T3J 1P7 403-293-0424

* Basic Needs *2 Outreach Counsellors (Aboriginal and Immigrant Families in partnership with Calgary Family Services) *Support for Parents *CHR Well Baby Clinic as well as the Magic Carpet Ride (Calgary Learning Centre) for families with kids 3-5 years. In-house Parenting Support (partnership with Hull Family Initiative) *Informal Support *Youth Drop-In Program as well as Youth Leadership/Mentor Program (in partnership with the YWCA) *Various Youth and Adult Programs e.g. ESL Coffee & Conversation (in partnership with the Calgary Public Library) and a Computer Lab *Good Food Box (Community Kitchen of Calgary Program) The Northern Lights Small Grants initiative aims to build a stronger sense of community in the neighbourhoods of Castleridge , Coral Springs, Falconridge, Martindale, Saddle Ridge, Sky View Ranch &

Taradale.

www.northofmcknightcrc.ca

Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority, Region 3 PROGRAM PARTNERS ALONG WITH NMCRC: The Calgary Foundation United Way of Calgary & Area

http://www.northofmcknightcrc.ca/

http://www.northofmcknightcrc.ca/



2013

South West Communities

Acadia, Bayview, Bel Aire, Braeside, Bridlewood, Canyon Meadows, Cedrebrae, Chinook Park, Eagle Ridge, Evergreen, Fairview, Haysboro, Kelvin Grove, Kingsland, Mayfair, Meadowbrook Park, Millrise, Oakridge, Palliser, Pump Hill, Shawnee Slopes, Shawnessy, Silverado, Somerset, Southland, Windsor Park, Woodbine and Woodlands

Unit 42, 2580 Southland Drive SW Calgary, AB T2V 4J8 Melody Wharton, Executive Director Telephone: 403-238-9222

*Counselling, parenting * Basic needs provision * One-stop shop

Website under construction. For information contact, [email protected]

Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority, FCSS Private donors

Millican-Ogden Community Association Family Resource Centre

Millican Ogden, Riverbend

2734 76th Ave SE Calgary, AB T2C 0H3 403-720-3322

* English Classes * Legal Clinics * Wellness Centre * Kids Clubs * Men's Group * Mother Goose Program * Knit & Natter * Planning For Your Children’s Education *Free Clothing Room & Donations * Playroom and Toy lending library * Computer lab *Clothing Exchange *Good Food Box Program * Affordable Rentals Needed YWCA Youth Advocate Program Food Hampers Bread Distribution Referrals

www.moca-frc.org

Alberta Lottery Fund Calgary and area Child and Family Services Authority The Calgary Foundation; United Way of Calgary and Area; United Way Donor Choice Program; Family & Community Support Services (FCSS)


http://www.moca-frc.org/



2013

Sunrise Community Link

Sunrise Community Link Resource Centre (Sunrise) is a grassroots community development agency and resource centre engaged in poverty reduction and community economic capacity building in east Calgary. This includes the communities of Abbeydale, Albert Park/Radisson Heights, Applewood, Dover, Erin Woods, Forest Heights, Forest Lawn, Franklin/Meridian Business Park, Marlborough, Marlborough Park, Mayland Heights, West Dover, Dover Glen, Penbrooke Meadows, Red Carpet, and Southview.

3303 17th Avenue S.E., Calgary, Alberta T2A 0R2 403-204-8280

* Information about services and programs in all of Calgary * Referrals for basic needs Support and crisis intervention Housing advocacy (evictions, disconnections, damage deposits) * Employment search resources * Free fax, phone, photocopying * Community closet of emergency food, hygiene products and other supplies * Work with agencies, government departments, and other services to meet the community's needs * Community Advocates * Weekly money management workshops We have recently started offering money management workshops at Sunrise. Topics include Budgeting, Banking, Consumerism, Assets and Credit. We try to arrange services in your language if you do not speak English.

www.sunriselink.org

Basic Needs: 10:00am to 12:45pm Monday to Friday Basic needs such as Emergency Hampers and Referrals MUST be done between 10:00 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. Monday to Friday on a walk in basis.

Region 3 Calgary and Area Child and Family Services; Alberta Lottery Fund; Individual and NGO Donors; The Calgary Foundation

http://www.sunriselink.org/

http://www.sunriselink.org/



2013

Bow West Community Resource Centre

Bowness, Greenwood village, Dalhousie, Montgomery, Ranchlands, Silver Springs, Varsity and surrounding areas

Bowness Sportsplex 7904 43 Ave NW Calgary AB T3B 4P9 403-216-5348 Ranchlands branch: Ranchlands Way NE Calgary AB T3G 1R5 403-374-0448

Bowness: * Good Food Box * Ripples Grants Ranchlands: * Tax Clinic * Money Management Workshop * Drop-in Program * Good Food Box Cooking with Friends Mandarin Mother Goose

www.bowwest.com

Calgary and area Child and Family Services Authority FCSS United Way of Calgary and Area

Inner City Community Resource Centre (Calgary Family Services)

Bankview, Cliff Bungalow/Mission, Lower Mount Royal, Sunalta, Eau Claire, Chinatown, Inglewood, Ramsay, Downtown, East Village, Beltline, Erlton, Bridgeland/Riverside, Renfrew, Crescent Heights and Winston Heights/Mountview

1-1922 - 9th Avenue SE Calgary, AB T2G 0V2 403.536.6558

* Basic needs referrals and assistance, such as food, clothing , shelter, recreation and transportation * Programs and resources for new parents, particularly those with children ages 0-2. * Good Food Box • Healthy Babies Network • Primetime Program • Seasonal Programming (please call directly to inquire) Support and crisis intervention Housing advocacy (evictions, disconnections, damage deposits) Employment search resources Free fax, phone, photocopying Community closet of emergency food, hygiene products and other supplies Work with agencies, government departments, and other services to meet the community's needs Weekly money management workshops

http://www.calgaryfamily.org/youthfamily/iccrc.html

AB Human Services

http://www.bowwest.com/






2013

West Central Resource Centre

Aspen Ridge, Christie Park, Coach Hill, Cougar Ridge, Patterson, Killarney, Rosscarrock, Strathcona Park, Richmond Hill, Wildwood, Discovery Ridge, West Springs, Glendale, Shaganappi, Glamorgan, Glenbrook, Spruce Cliff, Lincoln Park, Signal Hill

3507A 17th Avenue SW Calgary AB, T3E OB6 403.543.0555

Family Programs: * Early literacy * Aboriginal * Parenting/Family Support * Sheriff King Domestic Violence Outreach Worker Aboriginal Programs: * Kiwehtata Parenting Program • Access to Elders and cultural activities • Sharing group/story telling/Aboriginal crafts • In-Home Family Support New Canadians: * English as a second language referrals • Resettlement referrals and integration services Youth Programs: * Homework Clubs * Girl Talk * Boys’ Group * Babysitting Safety Course * Summer camps * Youth mentoring * Wellness centre Resources: * Food, Computers, Recreation subsidies, Housing registry and Volunteer opportunities

http://calgaryclosertohome.com/programs-and-services-overview/west-central-resource-centre Email: [email protected]

Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority FCSS Calgary Foundation Calgary After School Nickle Family Foundation Kiwanis International CMHC CIP (Lottery Board – Alberta) Excellence in Literacy Foundation FRP Canada Baxter’s Welding Calgary Academy About Staffing Harvest Energy Harry & Martha Cohen Foundation

North Central Community Resource Centre (Huntington Hills Community Association)

Beddington Heights, Greenview, Highland Park, Highwood, Huntington Hills, Mount Pleasant, North Haven, Sandstone Valley, MacEwan, Cambrian Heights, Winston Heights, Thorncliffe and Tuxedo Park

520 - 78 Ave. N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2K 0S2 (403) 275-6668

Food Programs: * Food Bank * Good Food Box Parent Link: * Early Childhood Education * Ages & Stages Developmental Screening (3 months to 5 years) * Parent education * Family Support * Volunteer Centre and Info and Referrals

www.weconnectyou.ca/north_central/index.htm

Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority FCSS Huntington Hills CA (is the fiscal agent) Parent Link – AB Human Services

http://calgaryclosertohome.com/programs-and-services-overview/west-central-resource-centre








http://www.weconnectyou.ca/north_central/index.htm



Creating Space for Strength: Final Report 126 126


Bibliography

Association for Community Education in British Columbia. (2007). Community schools: A

handbook of “best practices”. Available from

http://www.acebc.org/pdf/ComSchoolsBESTPracticesJuly2007.pdf

Born, P. (2008). Community conversations: Mobilizing the ideas, skills and passion of

community organizations, governments, businesses and people. Toronto: BPS

Books.

Brown, J. (n.d.). A resource guide for the world café. Available from

http://meadowlark.co/world_cafe_resource_guide.pdf

Brown, J. (2005). The world café: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Calgary Real Estate Board. (2012). Calgary regional housing market statistics: Calgary:

CREB January 2012. Available from

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2012/package/res-stats-

2012_January.pdf

Calgary Real Estate Board. (2012). Community statistics: Year summary 2011:

Condominiums. Available from

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Co

mmunity_CO_PB.pdf

Calgary Real Estate Board. (2012). Community statistics: Year summary 2011: Single

family homes. Available from

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Co

mmunity_SF_PB.pdf

Cardel Place. (2012). Customer Service and Facility Satisfaction Survey, February 10-24,

2012. Calgary.

Cardel Place. (2012). Cardel Place Expansion Business Case: 2013 Culture, Parks and

Recreation Infrastructure Investment Plan (CPRIIP). Calgary.

City of Calgary & Community Neighborhood Services. (2012). Community profiles: Social

policy and planning division. Retrieved from

http://www.acebc.org/pdf/ComSchoolsBESTPracticesJuly2007.pdf

http://meadowlark.co/world_cafe_resource_guide.pdf



http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_CO_PB.pdf

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_CO_PB.pdf

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_SF_PB.pdf

http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_SF_PB.pdf



http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Social-research-policy-and-

resources/Community-profiles/Community-Profiles.aspx

City of Calgary & Community Neighborhood Services. (2012). Community profiles on

seniors. Retrieved from

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Seniors/Community-Profiles-on-

Seniors.aspx

City of Calgary. (2011). Civic census results: Election and information services, 2011.

Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-

information-services/Civic-Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf

City of Calgary. (2011). Diversity in Calgary: Looking forward to 2020. Available from

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/Social-research-policy-and-

resources/diversity-in-Calgary.pdf

City of Calgary. (2011). Our city; our budget; our future: Aboriginal Calgarian

consultation. Available from

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3A%2F

%2Fwww.calgary.ca%2FCA%2Ffs%2FDocuments%2FPlans-Budgets-and-Financial-

Reports%2FBusiness-Plans-and-Budgets-2012-2014%2FStakeholder-

Engagement%2FCommunity-Conversation-Calgary-Urban-Aboriginal-

Initiative.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1

City of Calgary. (2010). Recreational amenities gap analysis: Area 8 summary report. .

Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-

and-development/RAGA-Area-8-Report.pdf.

City of Calgary. (n.d.). New recreation facilities: Rocky Ridge. . Retrieved from

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-

development/Rocky-Ridge-info-sheet.pdf.

City of Calgary. (n.d.). Recreation Master Plan 2010-2020. Retrieved from

http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=LL.Login&NextURL=%2Flld

m01%2Flivelink.exe%3Ffunc%3Dccpa.general%26msgID%3DXygTyssyeT%26msgAc

tion%3DDownload.

Clark, M. (2002). Saskatoon Community Village: A Co-Location Case Study. Available

from

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Social-research-policy-and-resources/Community-profiles/Community-Profiles.aspx

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Social-research-policy-and-resources/Community-profiles/Community-Profiles.aspx





http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/Social-research-policy-and-resources/diversity-in-Calgary.pdf

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/Social-research-policy-and-resources/diversity-in-Calgary.pdf

http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgary.ca%2FCA%2Ffs%2FDocuments%2FPlans-Budgets-and-Financial-Reports%2FBusiness-Plans-and-Budgets-2012-2014%2FStakeholder-Engagement%2FCommunity-Conversation-Calgary-Urban-Aboriginal-Initiative.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1





http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-development/RAGA-Area-8-Report.pdf.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-development/RAGA-Area-8-Report.pdf.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-development/Rocky-Ridge-info-sheet.pdf.

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-development/Rocky-Ridge-info-sheet.pdf.

http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=LL.Login&NextURL=%2Flldm01%2Flivelink.exe%3Ffunc%3Dccpa.general%26msgID%3DXygTyssyeT%26msgAction%3DDownload.





http://www.muttart.org/sites/default/files/Clark_M_Saskatoon%20Community%2

0Service%20Village.pdf

Coady Institute. (n.d.). An asset-based approach to community development: A manual

for village organizers. Available from

http://coady.stfx.ca/tinroom/assets/file/resources/abcd/SEWA%20ABCD%20Man

ual.pdf

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2008). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative

inquiry. Retrieved March 27, 2008, 2008, from

http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/whatisai.pdf

Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2003). Appreciative inquiry handbook.

Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore Publishers.

Cramer, K. D., & Wasiak, H. (2006). Change the way you see everything through asset-

based thinking. Philadelphia: Running Press.

Dyson, D. (2011). Community hubs: A scan of Toronto – Summary report. Available from

http://icecommittee.org/reports/Community_Hubs_in_Toronto.pdf

Eliot, C. (1999). Locating the Energy for Change: An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry.

Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development / Institut

International du Developpment Durable.

Embedding Enterprise at Newcastle University (author). World café creativity exercise.

Available from:

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/WorldCafeCreativityExercise.pdf

Faure, M. (2006). Problem solving was never this easy: Transformational change through

appreciative inquiry. Performance Improvement, 45(9), 22-31.

Graves, D. (2011). Exploring schools as community hubs: Investigating application of the

community hub model in the context and closure of the Athabasca School, Regina,

Saskatchewan, Canada and other small schools. Available from

http://ourspace.uregina.ca/bitstream/handle/10294/3397/Community%20Hub%2

0Final%20Report.pdf;jsessionid=0C6FF704CFEEBE505EC6E02E62665336?sequenc

e=3

HarGroup Management Consultants Inc. (2009). Cardel Place: Market Study.

http://www.muttart.org/sites/default/files/Clark_M_Saskatoon%20Community%20Service%20Village.pdf

http://www.muttart.org/sites/default/files/Clark_M_Saskatoon%20Community%20Service%20Village.pdf

http://coady.stfx.ca/tinroom/assets/file/resources/abcd/SEWA%20ABCD%20Manual.pdf

http://coady.stfx.ca/tinroom/assets/file/resources/abcd/SEWA%20ABCD%20Manual.pdf

http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/whatisai.pdf

http://icecommittee.org/reports/Community_Hubs_in_Toronto.pdf

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/WorldCafeCreativityExercise.pdf

http://ourspace.uregina.ca/bitstream/handle/10294/3397/Community%20Hub%20Final%20Report.pdf;jsessionid=0C6FF704CFEEBE505EC6E02E62665336?sequence=3





HarGroup Management Consultants Inc., & K. Knights and Associated Ltd. (2010).

Recreation Amenities Gap Analysis I & II. Available from

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-

development/Gap-analysis-report.pdf

Howell, T. (2011). Community associations don’t want aging buildings. Fast Forward

Weekly, (June 23). Retrieved from http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-

views/news/community-associations-struggle-with-aging-buildings-decreased-

funding-7692/

Koch, J. (2005). The Efficacy of Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) in the

Educational Context. University of Calgary, Calgary.

Kretzmann, J. P. (1995). Building communities from the inside out. Shelterforce Online,

(September/October). Retrieved from

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/83/buildcomm.html

Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A

Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. Skokie, IL: ACTA

Publications.

Kretzmann, J. P., McKnight, J. L., Dobrowolski, S., & Puntenney, D. (2005). Discovering

Community Power: A Guide to Mobilizing Local Assets and Your Organization's

Capacity. Asset-Based Community Development Institute, School of Education and

Social Policy, Northwestern University:

http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/kelloggabcd.pdf

Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (2004). “The 'inside' and 'outside': Finding realities in

interviews.” In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and

practice (2nd ed., pp. 125-139). London: Sage Publications.

Miller, S. (n.d.). Asset-based community development. Retrieved October 15, 2012,

from http://www.slideshare.net/sadierynmiller/asset-based-community-

development

Nelson, B., Campbell, J., & Emanuel, J. (2011). Development of a Method for Asset Based

Working. Available from

http://www.nwph.net/phnw/writedir/da0dNW%20JSAA.pdf

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-development/Gap-analysis-report.pdf

http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-and-development/Gap-analysis-report.pdf

http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/news/community-associations-struggle-with-aging-buildings-decreased-funding-7692/



http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/83/buildcomm.html

http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/kelloggabcd.pdf

http://www.slideshare.net/sadierynmiller/asset-based-community-development

http://www.slideshare.net/sadierynmiller/asset-based-community-development

http://www.nwph.net/phnw/writedir/da0dNW%20JSAA.pdf



Northwestern University. (n.d.). The Asset-Based Community Development Institute:

School of Education and Social Policy. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from

http://www.abcdinstitute.org

Slocum, N. (2005). Participatory methods toolkit: A practitioner's manual: The world

café: a joint publication of the King Baudouin Foundation and the Flemish Institute

for Science and Technology Assessment (viWTA). Available from http://www.kbs-

frb.be/uploadedFiles/KBS-FRB/Files/EN/PUB_1540_Toolkit_13_WorldCafe.pdf

Statistics Canada. (2012). Family income and income of individuals, related variables:

Sub-provincial data, 2010. Available from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-

quotidien/120627/dq120627b-eng.pdf

Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Canada's ethnocultural mosaic, 2006 Census: Canada's major

census metropolitan areas. Calgary: Nearly one in four belonged to a visible

minority group. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-

recensement/2006/as-sa/97-562/p23-eng.cfm

Statistics Canada. (n.d.). 2006 Aboriginal population profile for Calgary. Retrieved from


The World Café. (2008). Café to go: A quick reference guide for putting conversations to

work. Available from http://www.theworldcafe.com/pdfs/cafetogo.pdf

Tholl, B., & Grimes, K. (2012). Strengthening primary health care in Alberta through

Family Care Clinics: From concept to reality. Available from

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/PHC-FCC-Concept-to-Reality-2012.pdf

Turner, N., McKnight, J. L., & Kretzmann, J. P. (1999). A guide to mapping and mobilizing

associations in local neighborhoods. Retrieved from

http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/MappingAssociations(2).pdf

United Way of Calgary and Area. (2010). 1000 Voices: Strengthening the fabric of the

North of McKnight Communities. Available from

http://www.calgaryunitedway.org/sites/default/files/1000voices_2010.pdf

United Way of Calgary and Area. (2011). Constellation Model of Governance: Community

and Human Services Area: Genesis Centre of Community Wellness. Available from

http://1000voices.ca/_pdfs/Constellation-Model-of-Governance.pdf

http://www.abcdinstitute.org/

http://www.kbs-frb.be/uploadedFiles/KBS-FRB/Files/EN/PUB_1540_Toolkit_13_WorldCafe.pdf

http://www.kbs-frb.be/uploadedFiles/KBS-FRB/Files/EN/PUB_1540_Toolkit_13_WorldCafe.pdf

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120627/dq120627b-eng.pdf

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120627/dq120627b-eng.pdf




http://www.theworldcafe.com/pdfs/cafetogo.pdf

http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/PHC-FCC-Concept-to-Reality-2012.pdf

http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/MappingAssociations(2).pdf

http://www.calgaryunitedway.org/sites/default/files/1000voices_2010.pdf

http://1000voices.ca/_pdfs/Constellation-Model-of-Governance.pdf



United Way of Greater Toronto’s Task Force on Access to Space. (2002). Opening the

doors: Making the most of community space. Available from

http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/Open_door_

main_report.pdf

Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). “Unstructured interviews.” In B. M. Wildemuth

(Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and

library science (pp. 308-319). Libraries Unlimited: University of Texas.

http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/Open_door_main_report.pdf

http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/Open_door_main_report.pdf



Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge those organizations that have made this work possible:

Project Origins

Northern Hills Constituency, Hon. Teresa Woo-Paw, MLA

Project Funders

Government of Alberta (CFEP Grant)

United Way of Calgary and Area

Aspen Family and Community Network Society


Project Supporters

Northern Hills Constituency, Hon. Teresa Woo-Paw, MLA

City of Calgary – Community and Neighbourhood Services

Aspen Family and Community Network Society


United Way of Calgary and Area

Special thanks to these additional organizational supporters

Calgary Board of Education, Area II Office

Cardel Place


Communities First Association

Evanston Creekside Community Association

Harvest Hills Alliance Church

Heart of the Northeast Resource Centre

Genesis Centre of Community Wellness

Hidden Valley Community Association

MacEwan Sandstone Community Association

Northern Hills Community Association Youth Council

The Office of Alderman Jim Stevenson (Ward 3)

SPRY in the Hills Seniors’ Group

Transform our Communities

final report - creating space for strength

Documents

community services

community vibrant

assessment of community

research project

sarah elaine eaton

assessment of spaces

reliable data

demographic data