| Feedback: Social Policy Forum |
|
|
|
|
Feedback on the proposed Social Policy Forum Discussion Document was due on Friday May 21st.
13 May 2010
Auckland Social Policy Forum Feedback
Feedback on the Auckland Social Policy Forum Discussion Document To the Minister of Social Development Introduction North Shore Community & Social Services (NSCSS) has a membership base of over 150 community groups on Auckland’s North Shore including arts, environment, health, migrants, Maori, Pacific peoples, seniors, family, education, community, youth and disability sectors. This submission is from the Executive Officer of NSCSS and is strongly informed by many discussions with community agencies over 2009 and continuing workshops and meetings in 2010. NSCSS also assisted in organising the Passing Go Conference at the end of 2009 with Raeburn House and North Shore City Council to consider how to promote social wellbeing in the new Auckland Council. Follow up work in this area continues to educate, inform and engage community agencies in the reform of local government in Auckland. The primary concern of NSCSS is to ensure, through the local government reforms, that the social structures established in North Shore City remain to support community needs and the community agencies. NSCSS wants to ensure that the mechanisms to engage and promote the voices of communities remain intact and are indeed strengthened both locally and regionally Our Feedback 1) We support the development of a Social Policy Forum and see it playing a pivotal role in identifying and responding to social issues in the Auckland region. Every effort should be made to develop the forum into a body that has strong engagement with all sectors, communities, Local Boards, Maori, Pacific and migrant communities, government ministries and other relevant agencies. The SPF needs a clear mandate to address Auckland’s social problems; to do this the structure as well as mechanisms for engagement have to be right. The SPF needs to be clear about knowing what it wants to achieve and have a strong mandate from all organisations involved about how this is to be actioned. This will only happen if there is organisational alignment around agreed social priorities with multi-agency responses and solutions. 2) Mechanisms for community dialogue should not be Council controlled but budgeted for and resourced by both council and Local Boards, be scheduled in advance, be regular and relevant, and have accurate, timely information flows to the community in forms that are accessible; enables effective participation in policy decision-making and responding to solutions with appropriate action. 3) Communities need to be resourced to participate as this is over and above already busy and often under-resourced workloads. The Council must invest in building the organisational capacity of community-based membership organisations, Associations, Alliances, and networks so that they can fulfil their roles of connecting with each other across diverse communities. New boundaries and new regional networks have created a new whole area of workload for community agencies which to be more effective locally will also have to engage and work regionally. 4) The proposed SPF forum membership needs to be broadened to include participation of ministers from other relevant Government Departments, such as Health, Housing, Education, Police, Finance and others when matters of concern to their portfolio are agenda items at the SPF meeting. 5) It is important that the Maori Statutory Board and Pacific and Ethnic Advisory Panels are represented at the Form table. 6) The Advisory Group should comprise senior people from government agencies, key Auckland council staff as well as Community and Voluntary sector representatives. 7) Key regional bodies such as the Auckland Community Development Alliance supported by the Auckland Region Council of Social Service organisations (or an effective combination) should be represented on the advisory group. These organisations/positions should be resourced for the cost of arranging community meetings, collecting information, preparing for meetings and attending meetings. The community representatives cannot commit to represent all the diverse communities in Auckland but they can be ‘reflective’ of community views and provide an interactive information channel to the grass roots organisations. ACDA supported by the COSS agencies that operate across the region will be able to explore mechanisms to engage with the ‘hard to reach’ groups that are disproportionally affected by social disadvantage. The COSS agencies work at the ‘grass roots’ level. 8) There has been some discussion around having bi-annual meetings between the SPF and a community regional body as well as a community annual summit reporting into the Forum. The exact arrangements for this representation should be decided in partnership with the community sector to find agreement on what would be the most effective method for their engagement with and feedback to all the diverse communities. 9) It should not be assumed that Local Board representatives on their own represent communities. Broader engagement is required across the community sectors. Specific processes will need to be set up to enable a two way dialogue and information sharing between Local Boards and their communities in order for Local Boards to be an effective mechanism for communicating local social issues and the development of strategic solutions. 10) The Social Policy Forum and the new Auckland Council offers a unique opportunity to address Auckland’s social issues in an integrated way. The new systems and processes developed should offer the possibility of integrated planning in the region, and that all plans take into account any potential social impacts and a consideration of the four well beings be fully integrated into each area of the new Council including all the CCO’s. Social issues should not be seen to be as an isolated concern dealt with by SPF alone. 11) The SPF and Advisory group will require the support of up to date evidence - based research and data collection and objective information to help inform the issues, activities and solutions. The Forum needs adequate resourcing to develop this skill base. Dedicated staff from the Auckland Council, augmented by contracted key academics, and secondments from community sector research could work. Joint problem solving will yield the best results. To quote Peter McKinlay (Director of Local Government Centre, AUT) "The drivers include a growing recognition that it is often the community that holds the missing link to deal with complex social problems" 12) A well designed and well resourced Auckland Social Policy Forum, advisory group and associated Auckland Council social well being committee will provide an important new focus on social development and wellbeing in Auckland.
Yours sincerely,
|