Policy Uses of Community Indicator Projects:

Social and Policy learning from Seattle to

Vancouver

Meg Holden, Ph.D.Urban Studies Program

Simon Fraser University

CSIN Learning Event, 8 December 2005URBAN STUDIES PROGRAM

Outline of presentation1. Expectations of Policy Uses of Community and

Sustainability Indicators Depend on the Policy Model in Use

• The Rational Model• The Ideal Policy Cycle• The Take-Off Point Model• The Deep Measures Model• The Pyramid Model

2. Lessons about Policy Uses of Indicators from Sustainable Seattle

3. A New Experiment: The Regional Vancouver Urban Observatory

What impacts are expected of community and sustainability indicator

studies?The Rational Model:

H1: Indicator trends are used to inform policy decisions.

H2: Improving indicator trends is a major policy objective.

Better Information

Better Cities

The Ideal Policy Cycle

Define Goals & Set

Agendas

SelectPolicyOption

ImplementOption

Research &Analyze

Alternatives

Monitor &Evaluate Results

. . . Where do indicators fit?

  

              

         

   

The Take-Off Point Model of Indicator Uptake via Social

Learning

Status QuoDevelopment

SustainableDevelopment?

1970 1990 2000

1st EarthDay

S2 CivicForum

1st Indicator Report(1993)

2nd IndicatorReport (1995)

3rd IndicatorReport (1998)

SO

CIA

L L

EA

RN

ING

TIME2005

4th IndicatorReport (2006?)

Neighborhood Indicators Project (2003)

The Deep Measures Model for Embedding Sustainability Indicators

in Social Institutions

A process of “Beach Head Work” that is:

•Collaborative

•Linkage-oriented

•Power-sensitive

• In addition to focusing on measuring and monitoring

TAKE-OFF: “Getting out of the shallows”

DEEP MEASURES:

•Learning that is social

•Attitude-shifting in all 4 dimensions

•Effective across professional networks

•Form new norms and institutions

INDICATORS INCEPTION:

Codifiedand Tacit

Knowledge

Communitiesof Inquirers

Codes of Practice

Systems of Policy Practice

The Pyramid Model of Policy and Social Learning

insights in social learning

• Information becomes knowledge through a process of coding that is not transparent.

• Knowledge and knowledge transfer hold people and groups together in different ways.

• Agents in a community of inquirers are bound to one another by a commitment to enhance a particular codebook of knowledge.

• Knowledge and the community of inquirers are constantly in a state of flux.

• Knowledge spreads differently outside a knowledge community.

insights in policy learning

• Fluid boundaries among government, ngo, and private sectors enable exchange and innovation

• Policy areas with poorly defined jurisdictions of responsibility can be opportunities for sharing the risk and recognition for innovation

• Policy makers’ imaginations are captured by demonstrable ideas that fit within the conceptual language of committed frameworks

• Policy windows of opportunity for innovation and anchoring of new approaches and information can arise unexpectedly

S2 Policy Impacts 1: Identify communities of inquirers as units of analysis, recognizing mixed jurisdictions

Nov. 8, 1993: 20 indicators, 200 volunteers, over 2500 copies sold

Nov. 15, 1995: 40 indicators, 250 volunteers, over 4500 copies sold

Apr. 20, 1998: 40 indicators, 75 volunteers, approx. 1000 copies sold

S2 Policy Impacts 2: Investigate tacit knowledge by studying group routines and imaginations

In September 1991, S2 established a set of seven goals:

1. To educate ourselves and other citizens about the values, principles, and practices of sustainability;

2. To provide a forum for dialogue about the meaning and practice of sustainability;

3. To seek to establish sustainability as a key criterion in planning and decision-making;

4. To facilitate the development of cooperative partnerships in efforts to move toward sustainability;

5. To monitor sustainability through developing indicators of economic, cultural and environmental health;

6. To identify, encourage, and link existing efforts for sustainability; 7. To work together to build a more sustainable way of life.

S2 Policy Impacts 3: Study processes of change within communities and across fluid boundaries

“[Sustainable Seattle] was great because frankly, I would call them up and say, you know, we’ve got to do an indicator in this area, do you guys have some ideas? And they would because they had thought about it and tried out some things . . .they were the beginners, we all learned from them. . . And so we literally borrowed some of their ways to track things. We had to make it pretty much up as we went along.”-- Cynthia Moffitt, Director of Growth Management Benchmark program

Observable but Indirect Policy Impacts:

• Comprehensive Planning Process: Toward a Sustainable Seattle (1994)• New city Office of Sustainability and Environment (2000)• “Sustainability” Job Titles in 5 Other City Departments•Series of New Sustainability Indicator Projects

S2 Diffusion of Board Members in Government, NGO, For Profit Sectors

S2 Policy Impacts 4: The diffusion of knowledge to a system of policy practice

2ND GEN. 3RD GEN. ‘NEXT’ GEN.STATE Sustainable

Washington Panel (2003)

COUNTY/ REGION

Growth Mgmt Benchmarks (‘96, ‘03)

PSRC Regional Review (’97, ’98)

Communities Count (2000,2002)

Puget Sound Milestones (2001)

CITY Comprehensive Plan indicators (’96, ’98, ’03)

Dept. of Information Technology Indicators (2002)

Environmental Action Agenda (2002)

NGO Cascadia Scorecard ‘04

S2 Neighborhoods Project (2003) + S2 Regional Rebirth ‘05

RVu VisionRVu will be a long term observatory for our region with integrated public engagement, research, and reporting functions. Its outlook is toward continuous learning and action for sustainable development. At RVu, we believe better information will build our region stronger when indicators and information systems reflect our region’s many faces and voices, deepest feelings and highest goals.

RVu Goals – “The 3 Cs”At RVu, we’re counting on a Vancouver region that is up for the challenge of urban sustainable development. Our goals are to:

•Connect and coordinate critical indicators for the region;•Capacity-Build via partnerships with existing indicator projects in the region and existing community and research networks;•Communicate our process and results to local decision makers and others via multiple media and learning channels.

• RVu is a member of the Global Urban Observatory Networkhttp://www.unchs.org/programmes/guo/

• Headquartered at UN-Habitat in Nairobi, Kenya with over 100 member local urban observatories

• Established in 1997 to support local partners, authorities, private sector & communities evaluate & monitor performance, at first in housing indicators/shelter

• LUOs have provided a unique technical-assistance based link between UN-Habitat and member cities

• Network’s effectiveness has been limited by the lack of expertise/lack of reliable comparable data and lack of capacity of the GUO to provide sufficient technical and strategic assistance

Global Connections and Divergent Views

Better Information Better Cities

Diverse Perspectives

Different Priorities

Social, Community, and Political Capacity for Change

Alliances among existing networks & communities of inquirers

New consensus for strategies and action

Developing habits of appreciative and challenging inquiry

RVu: A New Model for Indicator Policy Effects

Project Team

Research Advisors

CommitteeInformation

Phase 1

Phase 3Public Process/Study Groups

Advisory Board

Committee

Sponsors

Committee

Phase 2

RVu Organizational StructureRVu Organizational Structure

Membership/Resources

RESEARCH ADVISORY PROCESS (JUN – DEC 05): Focusing our Existing View

ICURS

FBC Regional Reports

City FoodSecurity

Index GVRDSRI

Reporting

United Way Communities

in Action

GPI

City SocialIndicators

FCM QOLIndicators

RVu

BC Sprawl Report

SE False Creek Public Investment

Model

RIIM

ICSC Cities +30

STUDY GROUP PROCESS(Oct 24 – Apr 3):Expanding Our View

• Formation of 8 study groups of 8-15 participants around self-selected priority issues or focal points;

• 6-month process of face-to-face workshops, on-line discussion and events toward citizen-based indicator recommendations;

• Build on existing body of work in focus areas for the region;

• Identify 1-3 headline indicators to track performance by 2015

CRUNCH & COMMUINCATION PROCESS (MAR – JUN 06 and beyond):Relating and Reflecting on Our View

• World Urban Forum 3: pre-workshop, launch and networking events with local residents and international GUO members;• Counting on Vancouver: Our view of the region, mixing process and outcome lessons of RVu;• Special issue of Cities Journal reporting on the expert process;• Work with partners to communicate key indicator results widely, in different languages (including policy language!) and education formats;• Work with SFU graduate students and other partners to develop plans for original data collection;• Renewed engagement cycles and ongoing monitoring.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!

FIND OUT MORE AT www.rvu.ca

CONTACT US AT info@rvu.ca

OR 604.291.5948

The RVu Project Team thanks our funders, Western Economic Diversification Canada, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research

Council, and the SFU Urban Studies Program; our Advisory Board members, our Research Advisors, and all our participants and partners.