HSSW511 Assessment 2: Community Engagement
HSSW511 Assessment 2: Community Engagement
Must Complete:Yes
Weighting (%):50
Assessment Notes:Written paper
No. Words:2000Relates to Learning Outcomes:ULO2, ULO3, ULO4Due date:27 October 2023
Assessment Task
Read the case studywhich is located at the bottom of this page, beneath the marking rubric, and then complete the following tasks.
Part A: Identify the issues (600 words)
Identify and describe the issues identified in the case study, from a community development perspective (300 words)
Identify the barriers and enablers to developing a plan to secure funding for a bore and for an evacuation plan for Gumleaf Village. (300 words).
Part B: Stakeholder AnalysisThen, imagine you are a community develop worker hired by Cindertown LGA to conduct a whole community consultation in relation to the bore proposal and evacuation plan for Gumleaf Village?The community engagement process must uphold the principles of inclusivity, power and participation. The first step in doing this is to identify the relevant stakeholders and consider the power relations between the different stakeholders.Using the resource fromMurrindindi Shire Council, conduct a stakeholder analysis.Identify and describe the stakeholders with the highest stake in the outcome of the project, to lowest stake in the outcome of the project.
Using the resource below, position the stakeholders in the relevant section (you may also identify key organisations that are not mentioned in the case study such as the local RFS).
Critically analyse the power relations between the stakeholders and how this may impact decision making. How would this determine the outcome of the project? (400 words).
Consider how the above exercise could inform your engagement process with the different stakeholders. How does it contribute to upholding the principles of inclusivity and participation moving forward? (400 words).
https://moodle.une.edu.au/pluginfile.php/4002772/mod_assign/intro/HSSW311-511 Stakeholder Analysis.pngResource taken fromHYPERLINK "https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CAQQw7AJahcKEwjovI2-iqX9AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.murrindindi.vic.gov.au%2Ffiles%2Fassets%2Fpublic%2Fdocuments%2Fgovernance%2Fcommunity-engagement-toolkit.doc&psig=AOvVaw3oXxrma0HgXtU7JAcN5QEQ&ust=1677015649784637" t "_blank"Murrindindi Sire Council Community Engagement ToolkitAppendix 2 Stakeholder Analysis.
Assignment 2: Community Consultation (Marks Out of 50)
demonstrate an ability to practise community and group work in professional contexts;
articulate a critical understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of community work;
link skills needed for group work and community work in a range of settings;
Criteria 85 100% (High Distinction) 75-84% (Distinction) 65-74% (Credit) 50-64% (Pass) 0-49% (Fail)
Written expression. The assignment is written in an academic style that is coherent and easy to follow.
(mark out of 10) Excellent written expression that is clear, concise and easy to read with little or no grammatical errors.
Assignment within word count. Very good written expression that is clear, concise and easy to read with few grammatical errors.
Assignment within word count. Reasonable written expression that is clear, concise and easy to read. Some grammatical errors, but did not distract from main points.
Assignment within word count. Basic written expression that is mostly coherent although several points made are unclear. Grammatical errors distract from the main points at times.
Assignment within word count. Poor written expression that is incoherent. Grammatical errors distract from the main points.
Assignment not within word count.
The student identifies relevant issues in the context of bushfire preparedness
(mark out of 10) Excellent outline of the issues outlined in the case study in relation to the community and the disaster response in the short, medium and long term.
Very good outline of the issues outlined in the case study in relation to the community and the disaster response in the short, medium and long term.
Sound outline of the issues outlined in the case study in relation to the community and the disaster response in the short, medium and long term.
Basic outline of the issues outlined in the case study in relation to the community and the disaster response in the short, medium and long term.
Poor outline of the issues outlined in the case study in relation to the community and the disaster response in the short, medium and long term.
Relevant stakeholders and critically analysis of the power relations between stakeholders
(mark out of 10) All relevant stakeholders are identified and the power relations between them are fully explored. Relevant stakeholders are identified and the power relations between them are explored. Most relevant stakeholders are identified and the power relations between them are explored. Most relevant stakeholders are identified but the power relations between them are not explored. Relevant stakeholders are not identified and the power relations between them are not explored.
Community engagement and principles of inclusivity and participation.
(Marks out of 10) Excellent understanding of community engagement and principles of inclusivity/participation demonstrated. Very good understanding of community engagement and principles of inclusivity/participation demonstrated. Sound understanding of community engagement and principles of inclusivity/participation demonstrated. Basic understanding of community engagement and principles of inclusivity/participation demonstrated. Little or no understanding of community engagement and principles of inclusivity/participation demonstrated.
Demonstrated research skills and utilisation of Toolkit.
Correct referencing conventions using APA7.
(mark out of 10) Excellent use of research and utilisation of the Community Engagement Tool Kit.
All references cited correctly using APA7. Very good use of research and utilisation of the Community Engagement Tool Kit.
All references cited correctly using APA7. Sound use of research and utilisation of the Community Engagement Tool Kit.
All references cited correctly using APA7. Basic use of research and utilisation of the Community Engagement Tool Kit.
Most references cited correctly using APA7. Poor use of research and utilisation of the Community Engagement Tool Kit.
References not cited correctly using APA7.
Total Mark out of 50
HSSW 311/511: Assignment 2: Community Engagement
Stakeholder analysis case study.
Read the case study This case study written by Dr Louise Morley and Dr Stuart Robertson. They presented it as a workshop at the World Community Development Conference, Darwin, June 2023. It presents a profile of a real village and events and is based on the lived experience of a fire that came through the village in November 2019. The real name of the village has been replaced with the fictional name, Gumleaf Village. Identifying details in the account have been changed to protect the identity of community and individuals.
The University of New England acknowledges the traditional owners of all the lands in Australia and pays respect to Elders in different places past present and emerging.
Gumleaf Village: Community Profile
Gumleaf Village a small rural community in NSW that experienced a catastrophic bushfire in 2019. It is a village within the Local Government Area (LGA) of Cindertown.
According to the 2021 ABS Census, which was conducted 21 months following the fire, the usual resident population was 77 persons. 53% of the population identified as male and 47% as female with the median age being 64 years (ref 2021 QS). This was a change from the 2016 Census which found the population of Gumleaf Village was 81 with a median age of 55, and with 49.5% identifying as female and 50.6% as male (ref 2016 QS). Even though there was a reduction in population, the 2021 Census recorded that there were 73 private dwellings compared to 48 in 2016. The difference seems to be in the count of unoccupied dwellings as there were 40 occupied dwellings in 2021 compared to 39 in 2016 (ref 2021;2016 CP). This difference may be explained by changes in definitions of what constitutes a dwelling in the 2021 Census by the Census collectors in the area.
There were other changes in the make-up of Gumleaf Village between the 2 Census periods, which may be attributable to the fire.
The number of families recorded in 2016 was 24 and this was reduced to 14 in 2021.
The weekly median household income increased from $492.00 in 2016 to $612.00 in 2021 (ref 2016,2017 QS).
The median monthly mortgage payment reduced from $992.00 in 2016 to $650.00 in 2021, there was no recorded median rent in 2021, though there were only 4 properties rented in 2016 (ref 2021 QS; 2026 CP).
The 2016 Census for Gumleaf Village showed that there were 68.1% (55) of the population residing at the same address in 2016 as 2015. However, according to the 2016 Census only 38 been at the same residence in 2011. This means that up to 53.1% of the 2016 population had moved to Gumleaf Village since the 2011 Census compared with up to 31.3% of the population of the broader Cindertown LGA. This highlights that there has been a large migration both in and out of Gumleaf Village between 2011 and 2016.
According to the 2021 Census, there were 64 persons who were resident in 2020 and who were still there in 2021, constituting a change of up to 11.7%. According to the 2016 Census, only 46 (or 59.74%) of the residents were still resident in Gumleaf Village in 2021, indicating that up to 40.26% of the population moved to Gumleaf Village since 2016, in comparison with the broader Cindertown LGA there was a change of up to 44.75% of the resident population between the 2016 and 2021 Censuses.
Question to Reflect on.
How do changing demographics and populations impact small rural communities?
The population in Gumleaf Village was relatively stable between 2020 and 2021. The high turnover in population in previous years may not have been conducive to establishing strong connections between residents, shifts may also create conflict between the different priorities of the longer-term residents versus new residents. This conflict was seen during and following the fires of 2019. It is worth noting that the Cindertown LGA experienced larger change of population between 2016 and 2021 than between 2011 and 2016. As the Cindertown LGA was severely impacted by fires in 2019 it provides an indication of the impact of fires had on the population with a high change over population, even though there was an overall increase of 182 person between the 2016 and 2021 censuses.
Question to Reflect on.
What is the impact of disaster on communities?
The reported high turnover of population could influence the resilience of communities as the Natural Hazards Research Australia disaster resilience (2021) highlights. The disaster index highlights overall disaster resilience at the Local Government Area level, which is made up of the areas coping and adaptive capacity.
The disaster resilience scale ranges from 0 to 1 and is divided into 3 classes; being 0 to 0.4461 for Low; Moderate 0.4462 to 0.6598 and High 0.6599 to 1.000. For the Cindertown LGA the overall disaster resilience is classed as low with a sore of 0.3740. For adaptive capacity the low range is from 0 to 0.4515 and for coping capacity the low range is 0 to 0.3945 and moderate 0.3946 to 0.6311. For the Cindertown LGA is rated as (just) moderate with a score of 0.4534 for adaptive capacity and low for coping capacity at a score of 0.3510.
The factors recorded as strengths in relation to disaster resilience for the Cindertown LGA are; social character, community capital and social and community engagement. The barriers are economic capital, information access, planning and built environment, governance and leadership and emergency services. Access to emergency services is relevant to Gumleaf Village as they only have a small and voluntary Rural Fire Service (RFS) brigade. The closest Fire and Rescue NSW stations are in Cindertown and Peterton, both at least 50 minutes away. There is also a lack of access to reliable water sources in the case of fires in Gumleaf Village.
The disaster resilience barrier of economic capital can be seen in the Socio-Economic Index For Areas (SEIFA) ADDIN EN.CITE <EndNote><Cite><Author>Australian Bureau of Statistics</Author><Year>2018</Year><RecNum>553</RecNum><DisplayText>(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018)</DisplayText><record><rec-number>553</rec-number><foreign-keys><key app="EN" db-id="0ve9ftz9ivawzpevew7v9rxzzr5wdzrtvxxe" timestamp="1611014762">553</key></foreign-keys><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author>Australian Bureau of Statistics,</author></authors></contributors><titles><title>2033.0.55.001 Socio-Economic Indexes for Australia (SEIFA), State Suburb, Indexes, SEIFA 2016 </title></titles><dates><year>2018</year></dates><urls><related-urls><url>https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/2033.0.55.0012016?OpenDocument</url></related-urls></urls></record></Cite></EndNote>(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). Gumleaf Village is in the lowest 18% of communities for relative disadvantage in Australia for access material and social resources and the ability to participate in society (ABS, 2018, para 1). There are no shops, pubs, industry or post-office located in the village. These are all located in Deepcreek (approximately 30kms away). Until 2022, so the period after the fire, there was no mobile reception in the village. Some fibre to the node internet access is available, although most people rely on NBN satellite services.
On the index of economic resources, the level of disadvantage in Gumleaf Village is further highlighted with the area being in the nineteenth percentile for Australia and the eighteenth percentile for NSW, which is low. However, for education and occupation it is the sixty-sixth percentile nationally and sixtieth in NSW, indicating that the residents of the Gumleaf Village have a high level of education. Gumleaf Village was not included in the 2011 Census as a state suburb as a result there is no SEIFA data from the 2011 Census as a comparison and the SEIFA data for 2021 Census is not yet available at the time of writing. However, on the indexes Gumleaf Village is relatively more advantaged than the whole Cindertown LGA which it is a part of. Cindertown is in the twelfth lowest percentile of Australia for relative disadvantage with the index for education and occupation being in the twenty-fourth percentile. The higher ranking on the disadvantage for Gumleaf Village could be partially explained by its location in the southern edge of the Cindertown LGA and equal distance between Cindertown and a larger centre with more services.
In terms of the villages social character, the Gumleaf Village Hall Committee organises weekly gatherings open for all community members to join in and throughout the year larger social events are often organised. Whilst people in the village do connect socially, the community is somewhat divided by ideological differences, which tend not to be openly discussed, but, which in the past, have resulted in disagreement on issues such as; land management practices, the keeping of stock on common land, as well as hazard reduction and fire-fighting practices (Argent, 2011) and ,changing the old dynamics of the politics of the rural (p. 189).
Background: The Day of the Fire
The fire had been burning for weeks in the nearby state forest. Residents had been receiving warnings for some time that the risk of the fire coming through the village was extremely high. As the psychological notion of fight/flight or freeze responses to danger suggests, different people reacted to the warnings differently; some were frantically cleaning around their houses in order to protect them; others fled the village in order to seek refuge in a safe environment; others seemed to freeze, probably hoping the problem would go away. As the fire approached, some people, not feeling safe in their homes any longer, sought shelter in the local RFS fire shed. As the fire ball destroyed the houses behind the fire shed, scrap cars in one of the yards began to explode and old tyres ignited bellowing toxic smoke towards the direction of the fire shed. Inside the shed, toxic smoke and embers blew inside through the gap between walls and the roof and quickly filled the confined space. One of the media reports of that day said that people in the shed were huddled together scared for their lives, but this was far from the truth. The tasks at hand were many. People were actively engaged in ensuring the embers inside the shed did not ignite; sealing a space in the bathroom area to minimise the smoke for a person who was suffering from severe asthma; and going outside to help put out the many spot fires that were burning in the tall grass and threatening property.
Outside the fire shed about ten or twelve fire trucks queued to in order to refill with water. This was also accompanied by a sense of confusion and panic because the water that the fire fighters were accessing had run out and fire trucks were being turned away and told to drive back to back to a larger town, 70kms away, to refill. Many individuals were offering water from their own personal tanks to help. But the equipment needed to get the water out of these tanks was not available. There was a dam on public land in the village, yet there was confusion surrounding the OH&S rules about pumping the water out. One of the local residents resorted to cutting the fence down with bolt cutters so the trucks could access the little water that was left owing to the draught. But by the time this issue had been resolved, the fire had passed and most of the damage had already been done.
Recovery and Preparedness
After the fire, services and volunteers descended on Gumleaf Village to help: for those who lost their houses there was immediate financial support and accommodation as well as emotional support. In the village mental health workers, financial counsellors and charities payed visits and volunteers offered food parcels and fresh water; there was no shortage of kindness and goodwill.
This was not the case with the clean-up, which was the responsibility of the local council. Their response was slow. Approximately six months had passed and the remains of peoples burnt houses, several of which were contaminated with asbestos, were still laying as burnt remnants, of empty shells of sadness and destruction. The roads in and out of the village were still littered with the burnt trees that had been bulldozed. Many residents became anxious and understandably angry: not only were the burnt houses posing a health hazard, but after such a devastating event, people needed to see a physical recovery and hope for the future. To boost morale, state government funded several community events at the village hall (which thankfully was not destroyed). These events were important because they allowed people to tell and re-tell their stories, share their disbelief, their anger, and their gratitude for being alive.
Approximately nine months following the fire, there was a consultation visit from Federal and State officials. The purpose was to visit Gumleaf Village was to check-in with residents and hear their stories of recovery. The visit was not advertised to the whole community, so only a select few people who were lucky enough to hear about it attended. Community communication has always been a problem in the village. Poor mobile reception limits communication and the monthly newsletter distributed via letterbox is not timely. Those community members that did attendant aired their concerns about the clean-up, about hazard reduction management, and about the safety issues experienced. In response, the visitors shared information about the funding available for bushfire recovery and preparedness projects and that the local council was responsible for assistance in preparing funding applications. This information was uplifting because it signalled hope and inspired the formation of the Gumleaf Village Bushfire Recovery Group.
The Recovery Group consisted of both longstanding locals from Gumleaf Village and newcomers, all bought ideas to the table. Based on the chaotic and traumatic experience on the day of the fire, group members agreed that a good starting point for the group was two pronged. First, establish a designated evacuation point in the village so all people knew where they should go in the event of another fire. Second, to secure funding for a village bore for fire-fighting purposes only, so that in the event of another drought, there would always be water available to fire fighters.
Many challenges were involved in achieving these goals. Contrary to the advice given at the community consultation, the group found out that the grants on offer were not available for infrastructure projects, only social development initiatives; the infrastructure funding had already closed. In addition, contrary to being informed that the local council would assist with preparing a grant proposal, Council informed the group that resources were limited. They were not in a position to assist with grant writing for recovery preparedness efforts, but they were able to provide information about further funding. The group decided to prepare a proposal so it would be ready for when the next round of funding came available.
Like any community project, the process needed to begin with the whole of community and include ALL relevant stakeholders, including the committees that function to manage and maintain the village infrastructure, the local Rural Fire Service and the local council. This process was also fraught with complication. The newly formed bushfire recovery group was made up of like-minded people who, in addition to the practical steps needed for future fire preparedness, all agreed that climate change was a major contributing factor to the severity of the fire. But not everyone in the village, and certainly not all key stakeholders, agreed with this position; many saw the drought and the fire as a one off event not associated with climate change. In addition, the social and material resources in the village were fragmented by differing ideologies and thus split between different committees and groups. In addition, there were also perceived territorial tensions surrounding the existing committees roles and responsibilities in the village. Navigating such complexity was exhausting for the Bushfire Recovery Group members and the group died a quick death. This was not for want of effort, but finding a way to work through such seemingly intractable differences was seen as too difficult in the context of the lack of Council support, and for some the trauma arising from the experience of being in Gumleaf Village on the day of the fire.
Rationale for the Assessment Task
The purpose of this assignment is to carefully consider key processes and principles involved in engaging with communities to ensure the principles of inclusivity and participation in decision making are upheld and made explicit in the planning process. Community engagement is fundamental to community development practice. It is a strategic and complex process. At the heart of this practice is the social workers capacity to appropriately identify, initiate and build sustainable relationships with key stakeholders for the duration of the project. In this assessment task you are required to apply one of the integral processes in community engagement planning processes: a stakeholder analysis.
In order to ensure you are engaging the right individuals and groups, it is important to identify who the stakeholders are for your project.
Task
Begin by gaining a good understanding of community engagement principles and practices. You will find these in:
learning guide and readings in modules 5 and 6.
download and review Murrindindi Shire Council Community Engagement Toolkit. Pay particular attention to completing Appendix 2- Stakeholder Analysis as preparation for your report.
Gain an understanding of bushfire recovery in other isolated communities by viewing Insights from Mallacoota on community-led recovery after disaster | People's Republic of Mallacoota Select the most relevant videos to watch.
Read the case study on Gumleaf Village
Imagine you are a community development worker hired by Cindertown LGA. Your job is to conduct a whole community consultation in relation to the bore proposal and evacuation plan for Gumleaf Village. Remember; a community engagement process must uphold the principles of inclusivity, power and participation. The first step in doing this is to identify the relevant stakeholders and consider the power relations between the different stakeholders.
Structure for your Stakeholder Analysis Report
To help you organise your thinking use headings and subheadings throughout your report. A stakeholder analysis like an essay, includes narrative sections. You may also use lists and tables were appropriate.
Start with an introduction that provides a brief background to this particular report as well as a rationale and need for the report (100 words).
There are 2 parts to this report.
Part A: Identify the issues (500 words)
Identify and briefly describe the issues outlined in the case study, from a community development perspective.
Identify the barriers and enablers to developing a plan to secure funding for a bore and for an evacuation plan for Gumleaf Village.
Part B: Stakeholder Analysis(800 words)
Use the Stakeholder analysis grid from Murrindindi Shire Council to:
Identify and describe the stakeholders with the highest stake in the outcome of the project, to lowest stake in the outcome of the project. Use the resource below to position the stakeholders in the relevant section (you may also identify key organisations that are not mentioned in the case study such as the local RFS).
Critically analyse the power relations between the stakeholders and how this may impact decision making. How would this determine the outcome of the project?
Outline how the above exercise could inform your engagement process with the different stakeholders. How does it contribute to upholding the principles of inclusivity and participation moving forward?
Finish your report with a brief conclusion (75-100 words)
