Agenda of Community Development and Safety Committee

Community Development and Safety Committee

13 August 2014

Kai Auckland - Accelerating the Community Food Movement

File No.: CP2014/16931

Councillor Wayne Walker will introduce this item to the meeting.

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the ‘Kai Auckland’ initiative and seek endorsement of its five strategic action areas.

Executive summary

2. Kai Auckland aims to support and amplify the community food movement in the region. A truly effective and resilient community food movement requires not only grass roots initiatives but also a supporting infrastructure (such as funding, communication, networks, resources and information) and strong cross-sectoral relationships with business, the community and voluntary sector, central and local government.

3. There is significant community food related activity occurring in Auckland, from home gardening, food swapping and community gardens, to larger scale urban agricultural initiatives and social enterprises. Kai Auckland’s focus is on connecting, promoting, supporting and enabling this activity to grow and strengthen.

4. Based on comprehensive discussion with people at all levels of the community food movement in Auckland, plus a review of international experience, five strategic actions have been identified to activate Auckland‘s community food system:

· create a virtual on-line hub that becomes a clearinghouse for the movement

· encourage and enable the presence of physical food hubs

· support schools as a key part of the food system in the community

· revitalise community gardening in all its forms

· Auckland fruit trees for all.

5. A presentation to the committee will expand on these actions and the approach being taken in this initiative.

Recommendation

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) endorse Kai Auckland’s five strategic action areas.

Comments

6. The creation, sharing and enjoyment of healthy food is essential for us all. Community food initiatives support health, community, economic, cultural, spiritual and environmental outcomes. Community food initiatives support key strategic priorities of council including accelerating prospects for children and young people, significantly lifting Maori wellbeing; raising living standards, especially for those most in need; and radically improving the quality of urban living.

7. The Kai Auckland initiative is also a key means for delivering on the Thriving Communities Strategic Action Plan and I Am Auckland.

8. More specifically, key drivers for council involvement in the community food movement include:

· significant levels of food insecurity in Auckland, child hunger and inadequate access to fresh healthy food

· poor nutrition across the age spectrum

· rising levels of obesity and poor health outcomes

· the ability of food to support community and social outcomes, for example social connection, community building, neighbourhood development and improved health.

9. The Community Development and Safety team has facilitated a wide range of engagement processes over the last 18 months to understand what is happening in Auckland, strengths and opportunities and how council can best support this vibrant movement in Auckland. Key engagement processes include:

· a cross-council project team focused on understanding council’s current roles in this field, what is working well and areas to strengthen or open up

· a community food project team involving council and external stakeholders, meeting regularly to uncover strengths, issues and opportunities in Auckland

· four sub regional hui with key stakeholders across sectors, including many grass roots community food workers

· a regional food hui on 5 June 2014, which attracted around 200 participants from a wide range of sectors, including schools, community food share schemes, marae and community gardeners. A highlight of this event was keynote speaker Julia Milne from Lower Hutt, speaking about the Common Unity project, in which a low decile school’s soccer field was converted into community food production, including a community kitchen.

10. These processes and the rich discussion they have provoked have led to the identification of five key strategic action areas for council in the next three years:

· create a virtual online hub that becomes a clearinghouse for the movement - a dynamic space for local communities to learn, share and get motivated about growing and enjoying good food

· encourage and enable the presence of physical food hubs - where members of the community can connect and learn and reduce costs by working together to buy, grow and share.

· recognise that schools are at the heart of the food system in the community - work with existing environmental programmes such as Enviro Schools to grow the already active food movement within schools and their communities.

· revitalise community gardens – broaden current views of community gardening, support willing existing gardens to strengthen, support interested current and new gardens to evolve into knowledge gardens where members learn new skills, grow food and potentially cook together.

· Auckland fruit trees for all – working with owners and administrators of public and private land and residents to enable purposefully planted fruit trees, especially on school routes, food poor areas and in highly frequented spaces, for community members to access.

11. At the heart of Kai Auckland is very simple approach that connects the three vital elements of a healthy food system – knowing about food, growing and harvesting food and sharing food. When these three elements work together well communities can expect their members to:

· learn how to grow, buy and prepare good healthy food

· easily connect with food initiatives and each other

· meet in gardens that are more than just places, as they act as social/educational hubs to grow food, offer learning, cooking and sharing opportunities

· engage with all aspects of food from an early age through integrated school programmes

· create healthy eco systems and habitat for wildlife including growing for bees, composting and water harvesting

· have good access to local food and enterprising opportunities that create jobs and income

· eat, share and celebrate food in a variety of ways.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

12. For the period 2013/14, 14 out of 21 local boards had community food related initiatives in their work programmes. Local Boards have been involved to varying degrees in the development of Kai Auckland and workshops with local boards will be offered in September 2014. Guidance for local boards as to how they can best support community food initiatives is almost completed.

Maori impact statement

13. Kai Auckland is reflective of all communities. Maori are therefore likely to benefit alongside other groups in the community.

Implementation

14. Over the next three years, five strategic actions are proposed to strengthen the community food system in Auckland.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Cissy Rock – Senior Community Development Project Leader
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Develoment Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

13 August 2014

Auckland Regional Injury Prevention Update

File No.: CP2014/16603

Purpose

1. To provide an update on the progress of regional injury prevention work since February 2014.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council’s injury prevention team is funded by the Ministry of Health (MOH) via a contractual agreement from July 2013 to June 2016. An end-of-year report outlining the key achievements was recently completed and sent to the MOH.

3. Key achievements over the past six months are:

· A signed Memorandum of Understanding between the Guiding Coalition for Injury Prevention and Auckland Council.

· The delivery of two Results Based Accountability (RBA) workshops to the coalition in March and July 2014.

· The development of a framework for a regional action plan.

· Staff involvement in a number of child injury prevention initiatives, including driveway safety, child restraints and water safety.

· Translation of regional child injury statistics for the Auckland region to local board level.

Recommendations

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) note the work of the Guiding Coalition

b) endorse the proposal for local board members to attend a workshop to discuss the child injury data with the regional injury prevention team.

Comments

4. The injury prevention team is funded by the Ministry of Health and has a contractual agreement from July 2013 to June 2016. One of the key roles of the injury prevention team is to collect data to build an overview in relation to injury and fatality rates across Auckland, so that effective and tailored responses can be developed within the injury prevention sector.

5. The latest injury statistics were presented to the February 2014 meeting of the Community Development and Safety Committee. It was suggested that a more detailed breakdown of data by vulnerable populations, especially children, would be helpful to inform strategies.

6. The injury prevention team has been working in partnership with Safekids Aotearoa, to develop child injury profiles for the Auckland region. This project strongly aligns with Priority One of the Auckland Plan - putting children and young people first, as well as the target to decrease child hospitalisations because of injury, by 20% by 2025.

7. The child injury data from 2008 - 2013 was provided by Otago University’s Injury Prevention Research Unit (IPRU) and Auckland Council’s Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU). Data was analysed by Safekids Aotearoa and has been broken down to local board level. An infograph has been designed for quick and easy understanding of current local trends.

8. The key findings from the child injury profiles show that the leading causes of child injuries across the region are:

· falls

· crush/ struck by/ cuts and piercings

· cycling and pedestrian injuries

· burns

· transport related injuries.

· There were 14,843 child injuries, which led to hospital admission from 2008 - 2012.

· Every year 19 children are killed in Auckland due to an unintentional injury.

· Overall, child injury hospital admissions are decreasing, but could be reduced still further.

9. Local boards can implement evidenced-based strategies to help prevent child injuries in their areas, such as:

· ensuring playgrounds, parks and open spaces are well maintained and meet required standards

· ensuring transport systems enable children to access services and facilities safely

· insisting driveway design is considered in consenting processes

· supporting activities to reduce child injury in their area, e.g. cycle safety days and water safety programmes.

10. The child injury profiles were peer reviewed by the Guiding Coalition and will be reviewed by two local boards before they are launched. This will help ensure that the messaging and data is clear. The profiles will be launched in early August 2014 and a joint media release will be developed between Safekids Aotearoa and Auckland Council.

11. While this work has been progressing, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Guiding Coalition and Auckland Council has been signed, and a Terms of Reference for the group has been developed. The coalition has been meeting monthly to develop clear outcomes for the sector. A strategic framework for a regional action plan has been developed by Alcohol Healthwatch and this has been supported by the coalition.

12. Two Results Based Accountability workshops were delivered to the Guiding Coalition in March 2014 and July 2014. These workshops focused the coalition on the high level population outcomes and results that we collectively want to achieve. It also provides a framework to measure the difference we are making.

13. Council staff are working with interested local boards to identify injury prevention priorities for their areas. The Mangere-Otahuhu Local Board has consequently included support for injury prevention in their draft local board plan by stating “We want our communities to live injury free and enjoy safer roads”.

14. There is a growing need to look at new and innovative ways of working to address complex injury issues, while still being evidenced-based. Staff are working across council and the community to look at new ways to address issues such as driveway safety and increasing the use of child restraints among more vulnerable populations.

15. An example of this work is the Safer Car Journeys project, which concentrates on increasing the use of child restraints among vulnerable families in Counties Manukau. It was initially established to respond to new legislation for child car restraints and to test design-thinking for regional cross-sector collaborations. The injury prevention team has been participating in this working group.

Next steps

16. Local boards will be offered the opportunity to attend a workshop to discuss the child injury data with the regional injury prevention team. The data will be made available on the Auckland Council website through an online dashboard. A breakdown of data by local board will also be available in a one-page infograph format.

17. The Guiding Coalition will continue to meet monthly to collectively identify outcomes and initiatives for the sector. The coalition will build on the work already achieved and take it back to the wider sector for consultation in October 2014.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. The injury data will be shared with all local boards and they will be offered the opportunity to workshop the data and suggested strategies.

19. Staff will continue to broker partnerships for the delivery of programmes with local boards and will prioritise working with boards, which have the highest injury and fatality rates.

20. This report does not invoke Auckland Council’s Significance Policy.

Maori impact statement

21. Maori are generally over-represented in fatality and serious injury statistics for most types of injuries and, as a result, have been identified as a priority group in the regional plan. Injury data shows that Maori are more likely to die from injury than people from any other ethnic group in New Zealand.

22. To assist in ensuring that the needs of Maori are adequately addressed, there is Maori representation on the Guiding Coalition and Maori are identified as a priority group in the injury prevention annual plan. Treaty of Waitangi training will be scheduled later in the year for the coalition.

23. Staff are prioritising local boards that have both a significant Maori population and high injury rates. These boards include all of the boards in The Southern Initiative area.

Implementation

24. The implementation of this work relies on the strength of networks and relationships across the Auckland region. The Guiding Coalition is looking at building capacity and strengthening ways of working across the injury prevention sector.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Author	Amanda Kelly - Senior Advisor Injury Prevention
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott - Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

13 August 2014

Housing for Older Persons - Work Programme 2014/2015

File No.: CP2014/17018

Purpose

1. To seek the Community Development and Safety Committee’s endorsement for the Social Housing, Housing for Older Persons (HFOP) work programme for 2014/2015.

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council as a provider of social housing owns and operates 1412 Housing for Older Persons (HFOP) dwellings. The dwellings are unevenly distributed across the city, with provision concentrated in the south, west and north.

3. Social housing is a discretionary activity for local government in New Zealand. Council chooses to provide the HFOP service and by offering safe and affordable housing tenancies to low income, older persons. This supports them in being active and independent within their communities. This approach is commonly referred to as “aging in place”, and recognises the social and economic advantages of enabling citizens to be part of mainstream community into old age.

4. Staff have developed a draft work programme for 2014/2015 which aligns with the Auckland Plan and the Housing Action Plan. The work programme comprises community (village) development initiatives, an asset renewal programme and delivery of actions from the Housing Action Plan.

5. Auckland Council’s Social Housing Asset Management Plan records the asset value of the social housing portfolio to be $149 million. The depreciation of this portfolio generates an annual asset renewal fund which is approximately $1.34 million in 2013/2014.

6. Following strong feedback from tenants across the region, the 2014/2015 renewals and refurbishment work will be focussed on enhanced safety and accessibility, with an estimated cost of $1,339,636.

Recommendations

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) endorse the housing for older persons work programme 2014/2015, including asset renewal works totalling $1.34 million.

b) forward this report to local boards for their information.

Comments

7. Auckland Council as a provider of social housing owns and operates 1412 Housing for Older Persons dwellings (excluding those in the Wilsher redevelopment). The dwellings are unevenly distributed across the city, with provision concentrated in the south, west and north.

8. Social housing is a discretionary activity for local government in New Zealand. Council chooses to provide the HFOP service and by offering safe and affordable housing tenancies to low income, older persons. This supports them in being active and independent within their communities. This approach is commonly referred to as “aging in place”, and recognises the social and economic advantages of enabling citizens to be part of mainstream community into old age.

9. Staff have developed a draft work programme for 2014/2015 which aligns with the following Auckland Plan strategic directions:

· Strategic Direction 1:

Create a strong, inclusive and equitable society that provides opportunity for all Aucklanders.

· Strategic Direction 10:

Create a stunning city centre, with well-connected quality towns, villages and neighbourhoods.

· Strategic Direction 11:

House all Aucklanders in secure, healthy homes they can afford.

· Strategic Direction 12:

Plan, deliver and maintain quality infrastructure to make Auckland liveable and resilient.

10. The work programme comprises community (village) development initiatives, an asset renewal programme and delivery of actions from the Housing Action Plan.

11. Auckland Council rental units are provided at lower than market rates to older persons who are not able to afford their own homes or rent privately

12. Key service activities include:

· Providing and managing tenancies including enquiries, interviews and screening of applicants

· Oversight of tenant wellbeing

· Co-ordination of services and support for tenants e.g. needs assessments by district health boards for installation of ramps etc

· Monitoring the standard of accommodation provided to meet defined service needs

· Planned and reactive maintenance of properties

· Creation of future housing developments options.

13. Auckland Council’s Social Housing Asset Management Plan records the asset value of the social housing portfolio to be $149 million. The depreciation of this portfolio generates an annual asset renewal fund which is approximately $1.34 million in 2013/2014.

14. The 2014/2015 work programme is made up of three areas of work:

· Community (village) development initiatives

· Asset renewal programme

· Housing action plan activities.

15. The community development initiatives are focussed on creating a sense of neighbourhood within each housing village as well as overseeing resident’s wellbeing and enhancing their ability to age in place. Initiatives typically comprise of physical fitness, learning and connection opportunities.

16. In 2013/2014 the key focus of the community development initiative was partnerships with community organisations to enhance feelings of safety for our tenants by supporting and delivering effective Neighbourhood Support and Connect 4 Networks across the region, focussing on areas of concern. Tenants actively engaged in this work and provided strong feedback on safety and access issues within their villages. Accordingly, the 2014/2015 renewals work focussed on work to enhance safety and accessibility across the region. Table 1 lists renewal and refurbishment works planned for the 2014/2015 year.

Table 1: Asset renewal works planned for 2014/2015

Physical works	Villages	Costs
Install security doors	Install security doors at all units throughout region	350,000
Renew paving	Review all villages as to acceptable footpaths for condition, width and level grade	451,950
Install security gate	Inverell Court and Otara Court	80,000
Fence Replacement	10 Karaka, 19 Karaka, Flagstaff Village, Jack Smyth Village, Torbay Flats and Windsor Court	136,186
Washing line replacements	Cockayne Court	13,125
Replace switchboards	Fraser Court and Parkway	20,625
Replace decks	Torbay Flats	57,000
Install security lighting	Topping Court	27,000
Curb and channel replacement	19 Karaka and Harmony Village	25,625
Gutter Replacement	Hutchinson Village	18,125
Refurbishment on vacant unit	~$40K per unit x 4	160,000
	Total costs	1,339,636

17. The Housing Action Plan contains three specific actions that focus on Auckland Council housing for older persons portfolio that will be continued in the 2014/2015 year, in conjunction with Auckland Council Long Term Plan planning. They are:

· Action 5

Enable redevelopment projects on existing Council Housing for Older Persons sites while maintaining at least the existing number of units for the older persons in the Council property portfolio.

· Action 9

Use existing Council-owned housing stock to help grow the Community Housing sector by investigating the management options of Council-owned housing stock including transfer of assets to existing community housing providers or forming a specialist housing provider for older persons.

· Action 23

Undertake a retrofit assessment of Council owned stock.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

18. Social housing is an activity determined by the governing body, which is acknowledged to be of interest to local boards. In 2014/2015 several local boards noted this within their local board agreements. Local boards have not been specifically consulted regarding the development of this programme. The intention is for officers to advise local boards of the final programme and provide information reports on progress as part of the local work programme reporting.

Maori impact statement

19. According to a recent survey of social housing tenants (Auckland Council/Colmar Brunton, 2012), residents of HFOP dwellings are more likely to identify as Maori or with a Pacific Island ethnic group, relative to Auckland region population aged 60 years plus. In the survey of 804 tenants, 11 per cent identified as Maori, compared to the population age group figure of 4 per cent, taken from the 2006 census.

20. Current policy and practise guiding the HFOP service, stipulates that eligibility criteria should be applied in assessing need and making tenancy offers. The criteria are focused on qualifying age, ability to live independently, an ongoing need for housing, New Zealand residential status, connection to the local area, income and equity.

21. The 2014/2015 work programme is focused on optimising building condition and performance and, as such, will have a beneficial impact on Maori.

Implementation

22. No implementation issues have been identified.

23. The process of scoping the physical works described in this report has begun. Given the renewal nature of these works, consenting considerations are not likely to be significant and it is anticipated that the full programme of works will be completed within this financial year.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Report also going to

Community Development and Saftey commitee on 13/082014 (Housing for Older - work programmee 2014/2015)

Signatories

Author	Kat Tierney - Team Leader – Community Facilities, South
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott - Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

13 August 2014

Participation in Early Childhood Learning – Auckland Wide Service Provision

File No.: CP2014/16949

Purpose

1. This report presents participation rates in early learning across all local boards and identifies the concentration of children and the spread of early learning service delivery. The report also provides a central government perspective on early learning and outlines Auckland Council’s current role in supporting participation.

Executive summary

2. The Auckland Plan and Central Government’s (Better Public Service) early childhood education (ECE) participation targets are aligned. Central government plays a significant role in influencing the sector through policy settings for education in the early years. This mainly involves regulation and monitoring of services and teachers, licensing, curriculum development, funding mechanisms, and professional development.

3. The Ministry of Education has no statutory responsibility to provide ECE services. These are predominantly provided by the private sector and to a lesser degree the community sector. The community sector provides ECE mostly in South Auckland and this is impacting on local board decision making on access to public open space.

4. The Auckland Plan recognises the importance of early learning participation. The council role is different to that of central government. Council’s role relates to connecting and supporting local communities; for example as a direct provider of early learning services, by leasing council facilities (land and buildings) and as an indirect provider through council services such as libraries.

5. Participation in ECE is increasing steadily both nationally and in Auckland. However participation is low in the south, west and parts of central Auckland. These areas also have high densities of young children, many of whom are of Māori and Pacifika ethnicity.

6. The supply of services varies across local boards. The under- supply of quality, culturally appropriate services is a key factor in influencing participation rates. This impacts the most in areas where Māori and Pasifika communities live.

Recommendations

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) forward the report to all local boards with a suggestion that local boards workshop the issues in the report.

b) request a report on findings from local board workshops later in 2014.

Comments

7. The Auckland Plan recognises the importance of early learning and the impact this has on educational and social outcomes.

8. The Auckland Plan aims to increase the early childhood learning participation rate in Auckland, particularly in the Southern Initiative area. The early childhood learning target identifies all 3-4 year olds to participate in, and have access to quality, culturally appropriate early learning services by 2020.

9. The central government Better Public Services (BPS) target is, 98% of children starting school will have participated in quality early childhood education by 2016.

10. Recent data on early childhood participation indicates participation rates are steadily tracking up (both nationally and in Auckland). Central government maintains a strong focus on Māori and Pasifika children in communities where participation is low and continues to monitor progress. Overall increases are predicted to continue. However, intense effort is still required to ensure the national and local targets are met.

Definition of Early Learning/Education Services

11. Early learning services are predominantly provided by the private sector and to a lesser degree, the community sector. ‘Service’ includes all types of childcare and education for young children i.e. delivered from home, centre based or group settings.

12. The following table describes types of regulated delivery.

TEACHER – LED SERVICES	PARENT – LED SERVICES
Education and care centres. Licensed by MoE all day or part day services include church based, workplace and childcare centres. Run by community or private owners.	Playcentres. Parents and whānau (family) caregivers lead learning through play from birth to school age. Most are licensed. Centres and are parent run. They are linked to a regional association which belongs to a national federation.
Kindergartens. Licensed by MoE run by a Kindergarten Association, most offering half day sessional services to children aged 2 to 5 years. (Some offering all day sessions and may take children under 2) Run by a committee which reports to a kindergarten association.	Te Kōhanga Reo. Managed and operated by parents and whānau. Focused on building children and parents’ knowledge of te reo Māori.and Tikanga,(language and culture). The Te Kōhanga National trust is the umbrella organisation.
Home-based education and care. Lead educator caring for up to 4 young children in a home setting providing a part or all day service. Educators are supported by a teacher qualified coordinator. E.g. Barnardos and PORSE.	Playgroups. Provided by parent, whānau and caregiver groups who actively participate in play programmes with their children. Sessions are usually up to 4 hours a day. This service is not licensed.
Nga Puna Kōhangahunga. A type of play group - facilitates learning in te reo Māori and tikanga.	Pacific Island Early Childhood Groups. A type of play group based on growing children’s knowledge of their own Pasifika language and culture and usually church and community based. Some are licensed

Role of Central Government

13. The Ministry of Education (MoE) has no statutory responsibility to provide early learning services. It is however responsible for policy, regulation and licensing of early learning services. MoE also provides a curriculum, substantial funding assistance and professional development to the sector.

14. While there is no ministry led provision of early learning services, the ministry may lease land and/or provide buildings to providers. The ministry considers all early learning providers as ‘private’, regardless of their governance arrangements.

15. The Government vision for early childhood learning services, is articulated in Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki, A 10-year Strategic Action Plan for Early Childhood Education.

16. It states that all New Zealand children should have the opportunity to participate in ‘quality’ ECE. Within the plan there are three main goals:

· increase participation in ‘quality early childhood learning services’

· improve quality of ECE services

· promote collaborative relationships.

17. To achieve the BPS targets the MoE has projects in targeted communities to reduce overall disparities. These projects to increase participation are:

· focused on communities where participation is low, particularly for Māori, Pasifika, and children in low socio-economic and rural communities

· driven by the needs of those individual communities

· supporting early learning services to be more responsive to the needs of children, parents, families and whānau.

Funding

18. Government funding helps to establish new services and/or places in those communities where they are needed most. Funding is available as grants, incentives, and partnerships to address participation needs of target communities.

19. Some of this funding is provided for capital works. This has created increased demand for public open space land, particularly in the South. MoE recognise that land is an issue and work is being done around providing access to land on school sites for early learning services, particularly when planning for new schools.

20. Another funding mechanism, such as 20 Hours ECE enables 3, 4 and 5 year old children to attend 20 hours a week at no charge. This applies to teacher-led ECE services, Kōhanga Reo and Playcentres.

Quality

21. MoE is committed to ensuring that the provision of early learning services is ‘quality’ based where ‘care’ and ‘education’ are inseparable. There is a strong focus on:

· the development of literacy, numeracy and logical problem-solving competencies

· teacher qualifications and ongoing professional development

· delivering the curriculum.

22. The Education Review Office (ERO) evaluates and reports on the education and care of students and early childhood services. Early childhood services are reviewed on average once every three years.

23. Questions have been raised in the public domain and across the sector on the rationale for changes to requirements for qualified registered teachers^{^[1]} and the impact on quality and access. Other concerns relate to how early childhood centres operationalise the curriculum (particularly as it relates to language development) and create the conditions for quality care and learning.

Role of Auckland Council

24. The Auckland Plan early learning participation target is aspirational. Delivery is a shared responsibility for central and local government as well as community organisations and the private sector. There are currently no policies or directives in place that provide an overarching rationale for early learning activity and decision making. Actions that would deliver on council’s support to early learning are yet to be determined.

Current state

25. The council’s main involvement in supporting early learning services is through being a direct provider, by leasing council facilities (land and buildings) and as an indirect provider through council services such as libraries. Council also supports the sector through the community development function, local events, community networking and funding.

Direct Provider

26. Council is currently a direct provider of 10 council run licensed ECE services (teacher – led up to age five), offering a total of 342 licensed places. There are 650 families enrolled for casual, part time or full time care. The council also contracts out three early learning services. These services are in the South and parts of the North Shore and East Auckland and function under the brand name of Kauri Kids. These early learning services operate as an extension within council owned leisure centres^{^[2]} and are legacy services.

Leasing of Land and Buildings - Community leases

27. Community leases are highly valued and sought after by the wider community sector, and have been the preferred option for many community-led early learning services.

28. Council currently holds 42 leases with the Auckland Kindergarten Association and 36 with Plunket. Council also holds leases with Te Kōhanga Reo, language nests and other providers such as Barnardos, churches and community trusts. Parent led playgroups, both formal and informal, usually occur in bookable spaces in council venues for hire and community centres.

Impact of demand for council owned land and leases

29. Early learning services are considered to be a community facility and are most appropriately located on suitably zoned (under the District Plan/Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan) and classified (under the Reserves Act 1977) land.

30. Requests from early learning service providers to establish or expand existing services on local reserve or open space land, come under the delegation of the local board to approve or decline requests as the landowner. This is presenting local boards with challenges as they are now receiving applications for early learning services on land which is for recreation use (informal and active/sports).

31. This creates tension between user demand and the cumulative loss of public open space that will likely impact as areas intensify over time. These sites have not been planned or developed for early learning services. This raises issues for council with regard to loss of public open space for general use by the community and the appropriateness of that land for early learning service use.

32. The southern local boards are currently considering options on supporting early learning with a view to developing a position and guidelines to help them in their decision making. Workshops to address the issue will be completed in August.

33. At the first workshop, the southern local board cluster agreed that early learning provision was central government’s role and that reserve land should be protected.

34. This raises the issue of whether there is a need for a region wide policy framework and/or guidelines on how council would like to support early learning in the future. A wider discussion with other local boards would provide a useful vehicle for identifying their local issues and position and provide a regional overview on early learning needs.

Indirect support

35. Auckland Libraries is a vital part of Auckland’s learning system. Support to literacy (of all types – reading, information, digital, numerical) is possibly the single most important contribution that a public library can make to the social, cultural and economic life of its community.

36. Libraries are well connected to the early learning sector. They work with others to determine the gaps in provision and seek to work in partnership to achieve shared outcomes with education providers and voluntary sector organisations.

37. Libraries make a valuable contribution to building early literacy through key programmes such as Wriggle and Rhyme, community outreach and ‘story time’ at Kōhanga Reo. They also build tools and resources to support these programmes.

38. A culture of continuous improvement ensures quality programmes are delivered and new ideas for programmes emerge. Library staff are currently exploring ‘Meaningful Play’ in young children and looking at how this might be applied in libraries.

Participation

39. Attendance in an early learning service is indicated when a child enrols at primary school. The MoE is currently working on improving the data on enrolment and attendance. The new system will clearly identify where children live and where they are attending services.

Participation rates in Auckland

40. The 2013 census shows a large proportion of children under the age of five live in areas of high social deprivation and in the most economically deprived households in Auckland.

41. More children starting school without prior participation live in deprived areas in Auckland.

Table 1 Local Board areas with lower participation rates December 2013

Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	83.9	Papakura	90.7
Manurewa	87.8	Whau	92.4
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	88.7	Puketāpapa	92.1
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	90	Henderson-Massey	95.1

42. The Southern local boards and pockets in Central and West of Auckland all show lower participation rates. Some census area units within these local board areas have large numbers of resident under five year olds with high concentrations per sq. kilometer these are:

· Manurewa - Burbank,Clendon, Rowandale, Hyperion, Homai

· Māngere-Ōtāhuhu - Harania, Favona, Aorere, Ōtāhuhu North, Viscount, Fairburn

· Ōtara-Papatoetoe – Ferguson, Clover Park, Ōtara South/East Papatoetoe West

· Maungakiekie-Tāmaki - Oranga

· Papakura - East

· Henderson Massey - Starling Park, Ranui Domain, Urlich, McLaren Park

· Albert-Eden – Sandringham East and West

43. Map 1 shows the 0-5 year old population density per km² across the whole of Auckland. (Attachment A).

44. Table 2 shows MoE data on the change in non-participation in ECE by new school entrants at the local board level. The extent of change varied across the areas. The area with the highest non-participation rates Māngere-Ōtāhuhu had little change. In contrast, non-participation rates fell noticeably in Papakura and Manurewa^{^[3]}. Some of this is attributed to an increased supply of services in parts of Manurewa and intensive activity with non-participating families in Papakura provided through the Papakura Marae.

Table 2: Auckland Local Boards and percentage of non-participating children

	Non-Participation rate			Non-Participation number
	YE Jun 13	YE Dec 13	Change	YE Jun 13	YE Dec 13	Change
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	16.4	16.1	-0.3	238	226	-12
Manurewa	13.5	12.2	-1.3	226	195	-31
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	11.2	11.3	0.1	103	101	-2
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	11.1	10.0	-1.1	159	139	-20
Papakura	12.0	9.3	-2.7	95	74	-21
Whau	7.2	7.6	0.4	71	74	3
Henderson-Massey	5.8	4.9	-0.9	94	79	-15
Puketāpapa	4.9	5.9	1.0	43	48	5
Waitemata	3.3	4.4	1.1	22	27	5
Franklin	3.7	3.6	-0.1	43	39	-4
Waitakere Ranges	3.4	3.4	0.0	31	29	-2
Rodney	2.4	2.6	0.2	19	21	2
Howick	2.7	2.6	-0.1	53	49	-4
Kaipātiki	2.2	2.5	0.3	23	26	3
Orākei	1.9	2.3	0.4	20	25	5
Albert-Eden	2.2	1.7	-0.5	29	22	-7
Upper Harbour	1.6	1.4	-0.2	13	11	-2
Hibiscus and Bays	1.1	1.3	0.2	13	16	3
Waiheke	0.9	1.0	0.1	1	1	0
Devonport-Takapuna	0.1	0.8	0.7	1	6	5
Great Barrier	n	n	n	0	0	0

45. Nationally, MoE has identified 10 likely target areas based on the following two conditions:

· More than 65 of their new-entrants had not attended ECE before starting school

· Their non-participation rate was over 6.0%.

46. Of the 10 target areas identified in March 2013, six are in Auckland local board areas. However, both the number and percentage of non-participating children have since fallen. As a result, the Whau local board area is now included. Although Henderson-Massey appears to have dropped out of the target cluster, the ministry remains very interested in finding ways to work with existing agencies in that area. They are particularly interested in the Mclaren Park, Ranui, Birdwood and West Harbour areas.

Barriers to participation

47. The ECE Participation Programme Evaluation^{^[4]} commissioned by MoE identified key barriers to participation. The key barriers are

· cost, high waiting lists and lack of transport

· provision not meeting needs e.g. hours and location, culture and language

· personal barriers such as shyness, lack of confidence and staying ‘under the radar’.

48. Information from early learning providers and community, identify successive recurrence of ill health among young children as a barrier to regular attendance.

Other Indicators

49. The matching of supply and demand is complex and requires a high degree of community knowledge and understanding of local community and family needs. The mix of services within communities and the gaps also change over time. For example, in the southern local board areas, there are more ‘community’ providers of early learning services compared to other parts of the city.

50. The sector provides a range of services within the various settings (home, centre based and group) falling into two broad categories (teacher-led and parent-led). Table 3 below shows the number of services, number of enrolments (including ethnicity) and occupancy rates of services. The data although subject to minor caveats (such as enrolment counts) presents a clear picture of supply across local board areas.

ECE services and enrolments for Auckland as at end June 2013

	Number of services	Number of enrolments	Occupancy rate	% Māori enrolments	% Pasifika enrolments
Māngere-Ōtāhuhu	69	3,394	85%	19%	60%
Manurewa	79	3,713	85%	37%	30%
Maungakiekie-Tāmaki	55	2,595	78%	20%	22%
Ōtara-Papatoetoe	84	3,776	84%	23%	47%
Papakura	47	2,463	83%	35%	12%
Whau	55	2,834	85%	13%	18%
Henderson-Massey	97	5,360	82%	21%	18%
Puketāpapa	34	1,748	88%	7%	18%
Waitemata	82	4,152	80%	8%	6%
Franklin	63	3,100	79%	16%	3%
Waitakere Ranges	36	1,889	86%	16%	11%
Rodney	45	2,250	75%	15%	3%
Howick	82	5,028	83%	7%	7%
Kaipātiki	62	2,940	87%	12%	6%
Orākei	63	3,582	80%	7%	4%
Albert-Eden	82	4,183	79%	9%	8%
Upper Harbour	58	3,623	76%	8%	3%
Hibiscus and Bays	61	3,015	83%	11%	3%
Waiheke	6	288	77%	14%	1%
Devonport-Takapuna	53	3,015	80%	7%	2%
Great Barrier Island	1	25	76%	12%	4%
New Zealand	4,284	200,942	80%	22%	7%

51. Services in most of the highlighted areas do not appear to be well matched to the needs of Māori and Pasifika children. In addition, the low number of licensed places in these areas such as Mangere - Ōtāhuhu is likely to be a factor constraining the extent that non-participation can be reduced, especially as many of the services are also full.

52. Areas where there is an oversupply tend to be in commercial/industrial areas (including hospitals) where workers choose to enroll their children near places of work. Interestingly there is an undersupply in Mangere south compared to the amount of employment around the airport.

Consideration

Local board views and implications

53. The southern local boards are currently work shopping their position on the direction they wish to take relating to this matter. The issues of participation and support to early learning in the community are of equal significance to other local boards.

Maori impact statement

54. The national prior-participation rate for Māori children has increased to 93.0% for the year ending March 2014, up 1.2 percentage points on the March 2013 rate. However, in some hard to reach communities in Auckland, the Māori participation is significantly lower. The Ministry of Education is implementing the Engaging Priority Families initiative which seeks to provide intensive early learning support to families and whānau of three and four year olds in target communities. The priority for this initiative is Māori, Pasifika and low socio-economic status families.

55. While many Māori families choose to place their children in universally provided education and care centres, there is an overall undersupply of reo and tikanga based providers. Parents therefore are restricted in their choice of provider and often have to travel to get their child into an appropriate service.

Implementation

56. Further workshops with interested local boards will be implemented with existing staff resources.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	0-5 year old population density map	31

Signatories

Author

Teena Abbey - Principal Policy Analyst Forums and Engagement

Authorisers

Grant Barnes - Manager - Auckland Strategy and Research

Kevin Marriott - Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

13 August 2014

The Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement between the Auckland Council group and Immigration New Zealand

File No.: CP2014/15837

Purpose

1. To update the Community Development and Safety Committee on the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement for the attraction and retention of migrants between the Auckland Council family and Immigration New Zealand within the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

Executive summary

2. Auckland Council, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) and Immigration New Zealand are jointly developing the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement for the attraction and retention of migrants.

3. The purpose of the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement is to establish a new way of working collaboratively to improve and lift the contribution of migrant attraction, retention and settlement within Auckland.

4. The Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement is a three year relationship agreement commencing from 2014, based on the shared priorities of Auckland Council, ATEED and Immigration New Zealand. It will identify how to leverage tools and resources that Immigration New Zealand can provide to support the Auckland Council group’s key sectors of priority for migrant attraction, settlement and retention.

5. Recommendations from the final Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy action plan reports as well as the Martin Jenkins report on the review of the Auckland and Wellington Regional Settlement Strategies were considered in the development of the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement for the attraction and retention of migrants.

Recommendations

That the Community Development and Safety Committee:

a) note that Auckland Council group officers are working with Immigration New Zealand to finalise the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement

b) note the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy community and economic action plan reports and their recommendations.

Discussion

6. Auckland Council, Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED), and Immigration New Zealand are jointly finalising the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement for the attraction and retention of migrants.

The purpose and priorities of the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement

7. The purpose of the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement is to establish a new way of working collaboratively to improve and lift the contribution of migrant attraction, retention and settlement within Auckland. It will identify how to leverage tools and resources that Immigration New Zealand can provide to support the Auckland Council group’s key sectors of priority for migrant attraction, settlement and retention.

8. The priorities of the Auckland Council group are based on Auckland-specific plans and strategies, which include the Auckland Plan, the Auckland Economic Development Strategy, the Thriving Communities Strategic Action Plan, the Shared Agenda (2014-2017) and ATEED Business and Competitiveness Framework. The Skilled and Safe Workplaces work stream in the government’s Business Growth Agenda is an overarching strategy for Immigration New Zealand to secure the skills and investment New Zealand needs.

9. The Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement is a three year relationship agreement commencing from 2014. The Auckland Council group and Immigration New Zealand have identified shared priority areas for collaboration in the 2014/2015 financial year.

10. In this Agreement, Immigration New Zealand and the Auckland Council group will share research intelligence and best attraction and retention practices across regional, domestic and international settings.

11. The parties in the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement will be working on joint communications in relation to the agreement.

Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy final reports and recommendations

12. Central and local government, and business agencies have collaborated since 2007 to implement the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy, to support better settlement and economic outcomes for new migrants in Auckland. The strategy and its associated action plans were completed in June 2014.

13. The action plan final reports highlighted recommendations for central and local government to:

· consider further strengthening collaboration with a clear purpose to support migrant settlement and retention

· consider the development of a language approach so that information and resources can be provided in a more consistent way

· consider economic attraction, settlement and retention actions and models that would showcase best practice, and address the information and knowledge barriers for both employers and migrants, with the goal of helping to improve labour productivity

· investigate potential gaps and opportunities available to Auckland businesses and skilled migrants. Should, for example, an OMEGA-type mentoring/internship organisation be considered as a possible solution for maximising migrants’ skills’ use in Auckland, then an appropriate business model would need to be developed first, with input from former OMEGA board members

· organise more civic engagement events for international students and migrants

· consider developing a 2015 Westpac Business Award to showcase best practice for hiring and retaining skilled migrants, and frame this around innovation to address areas of skills shortage and increase business growth.

14. The recommendations of the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy action plan reports have been considered during the shaping of Regional Partnership Agreement priorities.

The Martin Jenkins Review Report and Recommendations

15. In 2013, Auckland Council, Hutt City Council and Immigration New Zealand commissioned Martin Jenkins to complete an independent review of the both Auckland and Wellington Regional Settlement Strategies. The review made recommendations for future arrangements that could follow the completion of the Auckland and Wellington Regional Settlement Strategies. These include that:

· the national settlement strategy be refreshed with the addition of a stronger ‘economic lens’, and a broader focus, covering attraction, settlement and retention, as well as enhanced monitoring and evaluation

· separate strategies and approaches for regions, reflecting distinctive regional contexts be considered. These could be supported by streamlined and future-proofed governance arrangements that respond to variations in both national and regional priorities and resources

· Immigration New Zealand enters into ‘Regional Partnership Agreements for Settlement’ with regions. The content of the Agreements should be ‘bespoke’ for each region, influenced and determined by unique regional contexts, and priorities

· As part of the proposed Regional Partnership Agreement approach, Immigration New Zealand would coordinate central government relationships and actions nationally, and the regional partner would coordinate regional relationships and actions (including regional offices of central government, NGOs and private sector representatives).

16. The development of the Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement has been informed by the recommendations outlined in the Martin Jenkins review report.

Consideration

Local Board Views and Implications

17. The Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement expects to have a particular focus on the City Centre Masterplan and the Southern Initiative. This is to support international students and young migrants residing in, mainly but not limited to, the Waitemata Local Board, and the local boards in the Southern initiative area including Mangere-Otahuhu, Otara-Papatoetoe, Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards.

Māori Impact Statement

18. The Auckland Regional Partnership Agreement expects to foster the culture of respect and learning between Tāngata Whenua and Tāngata Hou in the workplace and in community settings in Auckland. It will also continue to broker opportunities for migrants to enhance their understanding of Te Ao Māori, and gain an appreciation of kaitiakitanga.

Implementation

19. There are no implementation issues to address.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Attachment A - Final Community Settlement Action Leadership Team Summary Report	37
b View	Attachment B - Final Economic Settlement Action Leadership Team Summary Report	49

Signatories

Author	Austin Kim – Strategic Advisor (Diversity)
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott - Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Community Development and Safety Committee

13 August 2014

Report on the C-SALT Action Plan (Final)

18 June 2014

Immigration New Zealand

Auckland Council

Executive Summary

The Community Settlement Leadership Team (CSALT) Action Plan was co-led by Immigration New Zealand and Auckland Council to improve social cohesion and connectedness for new migrants.

A strategic leadership group (SLG) oversaw the development of this action plan and monitored progress.

Three pilot projects were developed and delivered as part of the plan:

1. Welcoming Neighbourhoods: The cultural tour in Manukau

2. A better use of public spaces: The Albany Newbies Playgroup

3. Settlement in Schools: Building bridges for Mt Roskill parents

The following outcomes were achieved:

· Alignment of local board priorities and central government initiatives

The CSALT Action Plan was aligned with the priorities of three selected council local boards. This increased local board knowledge of relevant central government initiatives for new migrants. At the same time, CSALT members from central government learned about the priorities of these local boards. This increased the understanding between the parties involved and made better use of existing resources across CSALT member organisations.

· Connection with new migrants

The projects provided additional ways to identify new migrants, particularly those who were marginalised, and to build platforms for them to effectively engage and participate in community activities.

· Flexible project design based on the needs of the participants

While CSALT members made the overarching decisions on the broad focus of the projects, the actual project formats were designed by participants. This approach resulted in more open and active participation and an increase in the level of participant engagement right from the beginning of each project.

Evaluation (Stop / Keep / Start)

The CSALT action plan was evaluated through participants providing feedback on comment on what we should stop doing, what activities we should continue with, and those we should start doing when collaborating for future initiatives.

The conclusions were that CSALT participants had achieved and learned more by working together and that the parties would like to continue to work collaboratively on other projects. However, participants felt that more clarity when CSALT was initially established would have been useful regarding:

- the purpose of the projects and the approach required, and

- the roles and responsibilities of the CSALT members in terms of leadership, resources and time allocated.

Recommendations

In order to continue to enhance effective and efficient settlement outcomes and social cohesion for new migrants, the CSALT members agreed on the following recommendations in three broad areas:

1. All future collaborative work in the community settlement area should:

· Have clearer purposes and objectives at the preparation and development stage.

· Be clear at the start on the actual approach that will be used (e.g. for some projects a ‘think tank’ or theorising approach is appropriate, whereas other projects are about ‘concrete actions’).

· If ‘concrete actions’ are required, then the recommendation is to start with small, localised pilot projects to test ideas and models. Adjustments can be made to these pilots at early stages to ensure longer-term success and to manage expectations from all stakeholders. A bigger project takes a lot of time to get off the ground, whereas smaller projects can build on their successes and keep growing.

· Have pragmatic leadership from those who have experience in the subject matter (i.e. improving social cohesion and connectedness for migrants), are well-connected to migrant communities and are also prepared to champion the work.

· Develop evaluation tools and evaluative questions at the start of the process to monitor and assess the success of the collaboration and the outcomes. The evaluative questions are sometimes difficult to answer, as they require evaluative judgements rather than just observation or ‘ticking a box’, but they are still essential.

· It takes a lot of time in the beginning stages of any collaborative project to get commitment and traction. Develop evaluative milestones ahead-of- time for this stage, monitor appropriately and take corrective action as required.

· Have more opportunities for ground-up involvement, input and design by migrants and community groups.

2. That central and local government should:

· Align any future retention and settlement work with central and local government strategies, including Auckland Council’s recently released Thriving Communities Strategic Action Plan.

· Ensure a three-way relationship of: local government staff, who work in the region; central government staff, who also work in the region and central government staff who work nationally. Central government staff that work in Auckland have the local intelligence and relationships, as well as the understanding of national policies and initiatives. As such, they act as a bridge between central government staff based in Wellington and local government. Central government staff based in the region will benefit from the connectedness that local government staff have with communities, as well as the national overview that central government staff based in Wellington bring. So there are several benefits to be gained if these three groups can all work together.

· Collaborate more on the provision of information and resources for migrants.

· Consider the development of a language policy so that information and resources can be provided in a more consistent way in terms of culture and language. This could include shared decision making on which languages should be translated (for specific projects), the number of languages to be translated and the use of consistent terminology.

3. That these recommendations be presented to the Strategic Leadership Group at their next meeting, which will be held on 24 June 2014.

Background

The Community Settlement Leadership Team (CSALT) Action Plan developed out of the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy (ARSS).

The ARSS was launched in January 2007. It set out commitments from central and local government to jointly lead and work collaboratively with non-government organisations and communities across Auckland to better support migrants to settle and contribute to the region.

A strategic leadership group (SLG) oversaw 48 collaborative activities in the ARSS action plan from 2007 to 2010.

In 2011, a re-focussed strategy resulted in the establishment of Settlement Action Leadership Teams (SALTs), which would be co-led by Immigration New Zealand and Auckland Council to steer action for new migrants in Auckland in the following targeted areas over 2012 - 2014:

· Community SALT (CSALT): Improved social cohesion and connectedness

· Economic SALT (ESALT): Improved labour productivity.

The Community Asset Mapping for Settlement in Auckland (CAMSA) report^{^[5]} was developed by Immigration New Zealand, which helped to inform and prioritise CSALT themes and actions.

CSALT members developed the action plan on three major themes:

1. Welcoming neighbourhoods

2. A better use of public spaces

3. Settlement in schools.

Three of Auckland Council’s local board areas, which had high numbers of migrant residents, were selected for pilot projects as part of the CSALT action plan. These areas were Albany (Upper Harbour Local Board), Mt. Roskill (Puketapapa Local Board) and Howick (Howick Local Board). The projects were developed (under the umbrella of the themes listed above) to align with each these local board’s priorities.

Auckland Council was the lead agency to develop the pilot projects, with guidance from Immigration New Zealand, other members of CSALT and the SLG.

The Three Pilot Projects

1. Welcoming Neighbourhoods: The cultural tour

Many new migrants obtain settlement information and local knowledge through their own cultural and faith-based institutions. The purpose of the cultural tour was to provide opportunities for a wider range of migrants and locals to visit these institutions, which would foster a greater understanding of the activities and information provided for newcomers by these institutions. This initiative started in Howick and expanded to the wider Manukau region, which is home to many different faith-based institutions and cultural organisations.

Designed by the Community Development and Safety team at Auckland Council, the first cultural tour happened in September 2013 and was available for council staff. Forty employees participated, visiting four sites including Fo Guang Shan Buddhist Temple in Howick, Swaminarayan Hindu Temple in Papatoetoe, Masjid Mosque in Otahuhu and Tzu Chi Foundation in East Tamaki. One of the key outcomes of the tour was that the staff from Auckland Council Local Board Services had an opportunity to strengthen their engagement with the various cultural institutions.

The second cultural tour took place on 5 Februrary 2014, with forty-five people from the Howick and Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board areas. The range of ethnicities included Maori, European, Chinese, Korean, Indian, African and Pakistani. Representatives from central government agencies, including New Zealand Police and Department of Corrections, also joined the tour. The sites visited on the tour were extended beyond faith-based institutions to include Te Tahawai Marae in Pakuranga and the Papatoetoe Museum.

After the pilot tours finished and were assessed, the Auckland Council Community Development unit decided to run four more cultural tours including a youth cultural tour, which was held during Youth Week in May 2014. These later cultural tours followed much the same route as the pilot tours and attracted more than 120 participants. The tour programme enabled newcomers and residents to better understand what cultural facilities offer and how they operate. The Howick and Otara-Papatoetoe Local Boards have endorsed the cultural tour programme, and plan to include more tours in their 2014/2015 Local Board programmes.

IMG_20140502_160635

2. A better use of public spaces: The Albany Newbies Playgroup

Albany attracts many young migrant families due to the availability of relatively new and affordable housing units. Migrant parents with pre-school children do not have the same opportunities to meet and share information, as parents of older children do through the school network.

The Albany Newbies Playgroup was established in the Albany Community Centre to assist those migrant parents, who had younger children. The playgroup was targeted, but not limited to newcomer parents residing in the Upper Harbour Local Board area.

The playgroup was developed by the Albany Community Co-ordinator in collaboration with a council senior community facilitator in the local area. The initiative was endorsed by the Upper Harbour Local Board and Albany Community Coordinator Trust Board. The participating parents created weekly programmes for their children and also used the opportunity to share their settlement experiences and their local knowledge.

The playgroup was available every Thursday from 9.30 to 11.30am. By the end of 2013, 19 families had participated with an average of five families in each session. Participant’s nationalities are diverse and include: Australian, Chinese, English, Indonesian, Pakistani, South African, Taiwanese, Zimbabwean and New Zealand. The residential areas they come from are: Albany, Coatesville, Dairy Flat, Riverhead, Greenhithe, Birkenhead, Unsworth Heights and Browns Bay. The parents found out about the playgroup via library notice boards, community centre notice boards, coffee groups, schools and through friends.

Since its successful development as a pilot programme, the playgroup has now been rolled into the Big Tree Thursdays programme for outdoor activities. This initiative provides free preschool play, storytelling, toys and music for the children, organises outdoor activities for both the children and parents, while connecting the playgroup with mainstream activities.

The Upper Harbour Local Board and Albany Community Co-ordinator Trust have endorsed the Albany Newbies Playgroup. The format of the playgroup will continue to be assessed and evaluated by the Upper Harbour Local Board and Albany Community Coordinator Trust Board, as part of their annual review process.

3. Settlement in Schools: Building bridges for Mt Roskill parents

The CAMSA report^{^[6]} highlighted the need for more community initiatives in schools for new migrant parents and students to encourage better participation in school and community activities. Greater parental engagement with schools would also positively affect the academic performance of students.

Under the guidance of CSALT, Auckland Council organised the Building Bridges for Mt Roskill Parents event at Mount Roskill Primary School on Saturday 16 November 2013. The objective of the event was to provide information on New Zealand education and the homework centre programmes. The event also aimed to build stronger connections between school staff and newcomer parents.

The project was developed in collaboration with Mount Roskill Grammar School and Connect2Sport. CSALT members provided additional support – the Ministry of Education staff participated as panel members to provide information on the New Zealand education system and the Ministry of Social Development provided resources about parenting teenagers.

The event was promoted through local community networks and ethnic groups as well as through online social media and the distribution of flyers. The event was supported by NGOs including Watersafe, Refugee Youth Action Network, YMCA and YWCA. Sporting activities were provided for children such as indoor soccer, hockey, basketball and badminton.

More than 50 parents and 50 children attended the event and the programme consisted of presentations and a panel discussion. The panel members included school teachers, Ministry of Education staff and migrant graduates.

Participants proactively engaged in the panel discussion and the Question and Answer session. Key areas of interest included the need for more:

· opportunities for interaction with teachers

· structured approaches to better understand the NCEA process

· multi-lingual educational resources and interpreting services.

Following on from this successful pilot event, the Auckland Council, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Social Development adopted the engagement model of the Building Bridges for Mt. Roskill Parents initiative for the Youth Guarantee programme.

An initial workshop was held in March to promote Youth Guarantee, and to bring together refugee co-ordinators in more than 20 schools with refugee community leaders. This workshop helped school staff to better understand where there were gaps and needs for the refugee community.

Follow-up forums are being planned in Waitakere and Auckland Central to have more effective engagement between schools and refugee parents.

Key achievements

These three projects have been delivered since June 2013 as part of the CSALT Action Plan. The following outcomes have been achieved:

1. Alignment with local board priorities / central government initiatives

The CSALT Action Plan was aligned with the priorities of three selected local boards. This increased local board knowledge of relevant central government initiatives for new migrants. At the same time, CSALT members from central government agencies in Auckland learned about the priorities of these local boards. This increased the understanding between the parties involved and made better use of existing resources across CSALT member organisations.

Local board	Local board plan (2011-2013)
Howick	Identify and support ethnic events that will enhance and enrich our local cultures.
Puketapapa	Increase local events that provide opportunities for our ethnically diverse communities to connect and build a shared identity.
Upper Harbour	Ensure that our community infrastructure is appropriate to our migrant communities and meets their needs.

2. Connection with new migrants

Government agencies and NGOs provide a number of settlement programmes for new migrants including seminars and events. Many newcomers, however, still find it challenging to access settlement activities and information, particularly those who are not closely associated with their own ethnic communities, and/or those who do not speak English as a first language. Therefore, one of the aims of the CSALT Action Plan was to identify new migrants, particularly those who were marginalised, and to build platforms for them to effectively engage and participate in community activities.

Existing engagement tools were used to promote the projects and to attract participants, rather than developing new promotional channels. Auckland Council’s internal newsletters and communication channels were used, as were those of other CSALT members. Community centres, libraries and schools displayed and distributed information. Collaboration and partnership with local community co-ordinators, NGOs, central government agencies and CSALT members was crucial in shaping project formats and content.

Community Development and Safety facilitators in Auckland Council played a key role in connecting with migrant communities as well as being conduits to the local boards to provide updates on the projects and ensure these dove-tailed with local board priorities.

3. Flexible project design based on the needs of the participants

While CSALT members made the overarching decisions on the broad focus of the projects, the actual project formats were designed by participants. The project formats were flexible, and not bound by pre-determined factors except to achieve the outcomes sought.

For example:

· The participating parents in the Albany Newbies Playgroup developed programmes and activities themselves. Activities were customised and suitable for their children.

· The programme format and content for the Building Bridges for Parents in Mt Roskill project was discussed and agreed by school staff and the migrants in the community.

· The faith and cultural organisation leaders decided what they wanted to show and explain for the Cultural Tours.

This approach resulted in more open and active participation and an increase in the level of participant engagement right from the beginning of each project.

Evaluation of CSALT

A CSALT evaluation workshop was held on Wednesday 26 February 2014. The members reflected on the CSALT background, process, format and achievements through a ‘Stop, Keep, Start’ exercise. The CSALT members provided feedback and comment on what we should stop doing, what activities we should continue with, and those we should start doing when collaborating for future initiatives.

Stop

Keep

Start

· Creating structures and meetings without clear objectives

· Under-resourcing important projects

· Developing high level frameworks that do not link with migrant needs

· Burning goodwill

· Working together

· Aligning with existing services

· Supporting migrants and their needs

· Learning from the CSALT projects

· Starting small projects and identifying ways to collaborate for big projects

· Umbrella statements under which projects can sit

· The action-oriented focus of supporting projects with tangible outcomes

· Having clearer purposes, expected outcomes and responsibilities

· Clear communications

· Responding to identified migrant needs

· Assessing and monitoring activities

· Doing more collaborative projects

· Aligning with other existing strategies in central and local government

· Involving the right people and leadership for collaborative projects, especially for the role of the chair.

· Involving more community stakeholders outside central and local government.

The conclusions were that we had achieved and learned more by working together and that the parties would like to continue to work collaboratively on other projects. However, participants felt that more clarity when CSALT was initially established would have been useful regarding:

· the purpose of the projects and the approach required, and

· the roles and responsibilities of the CSALT members in terms of leadership, resources and time allocated.

Recommendations

In order to continue to enhance effective and efficient settlement outcomes and social cohesion for new migrants in Auckland, the CSALT members recommended that:

1. All future collaborative work in the community settlement area should:

· Have clearer purposes and objectives at the preparation and development stage of the collaboration.

· Be clear at the start on the approach that will be used (e.g. for some projects a ‘think tank’ or theorising approach is appropriate, whereas other projects are about ‘concrete actions’).

· Have more opportunities for ground-up involvement, input and design by migrants and community groups.

2. That central and local government should:

· Align any future retention and settlement work with central and local government strategies including Auckland Council’s recently released Thriving Communities Strategic Action Plan. This plan includes:

- providing capacity and capability building to support community initiatives at neighbourhood level

- improving migrant communities’ access to facilities

- highlighting community initiatives in our internal and external communications

- increasing work-experience opportunities

- improving council engagement with communities.

· Collaborate more on the provision of information and resources for migrants.

· Consider the development of a language approach so that information and resources can be provided in a more consistent way in terms of culture and language. This could include shared decision making on which languages should be translated (for specific projects), the number of languages to be translated and the use of consistent terminology.

3. That these recommendations be presented to the Strategic Leadership Group at their next meeting, which will be held on 24 June 2014.

Community Development and Safety Committee

13 August 2014

Final Summary Report on the ESALT Action Plan

24 June 2014

Executive Summary

The concept for an Economic Settlement Leadership Team (ESALT) developed from the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy (AuckRSS), at the point when most actions in the Strategy Action Plan had been completed.

ESALT was established in 2011 and co-led by Immigration New Zealand and Auckland Council. Its purpose was to focus on how good migrant settlement contributes to the region’s labour productivity and to work collaboratively with the business community to better identify and address challenges to migrants’ contribution to Auckland.

ESALT members decided on two areas for a focused Action Plan: integrating migrant labour and welcoming Auckland work places.

The strategic leadership group (SLG) oversaw the development of this action plan and monitored progress.

Three projects were chosen for the 2013/14 period:

1. Introduce a “Welcoming Auckland Workplaces” category for SME’s into the 2014 Westpac Business Awards to showcase good workplace integration practice for new migrant workers

2. Host a series of employment-focussed events for graduating international students.

3. Develop a case study on how to develop successful migrant SMEs and entrepreneurs. (This action was incorporated into the Auckland Council RIMU’s “Ethnic Precincts in Auckland Project 2013/14”.)

Outcomes:

Project 1:

The project got off to a good start with ESALT members developing the concept for this new category and the criterion for judging it.

In November, a decision was made by ATEED (Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development) to review the delivery model and approach for the 2014 Westpac Business Awards.

This review took some time and the decision to merge the existing categories and measures of the four different geographical awards eventually meant that introducing a new category was not possible for 2014.

However, the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, who will now deliver the Awards, have advised that they would consider a proposal to introduce the new category in the 2015 Awards, framed from a smart, business growth perspective.

Project 2:

Three out of the four events in the series have successfully taken place in 2013/14 with the fourth event scheduled for 23 July 2014. Evaluative feedback from participants at each of the events will be consolidated to inform potential future events.

Project 3:

increase Council’s understanding of experiences of business owners/operators in ethnic precincts. It was named: RIMU Ethnic Precincts in Auckland 2013/14 project.

As such, ESALT decided not to have a separate case study as RIMU’s project would collect the required information.

In May 2014, a decision was made by Auckland Council to withdraw a mail-out survey connected with this project, after some negative feedback was received about questions that focused on respondents’ perceptions of different ethnic groups. As a consequence, the Ethnic Precincts in Auckland 2013/14 project as a whole is under review.

This review will be completed by the end of June and will provide clarity around the continuation of the other parts of the project.

Evaluation

The ESALT action plan has not yet been evaluated.

Recommendations

To continue to improve labour productivity and to better support migrants to settle and contribute to Auckland, ESALT makes the following recommendations to the Strategic Leaders Group (SLG):

That the following activities be considered for inclusion in the proposed Regional Partnership Agreement (between Auckland Council and Immigration NZ):

a) Introduce a category into the 2015 Westpac Business Awards to showcase best practice for hiring and retaining skilled migrants, and frame this around innovation to address areas of skills shortage and increase business growth.

b) Consider other economic attraction, settlement and retention action and models that would showcase best practice and address the information and knowledge barriers for both employers and migrants, with the goal of helping to improve labour productivity.

c) Investigate potential gaps in support available to Auckland businesses and skilled migrants. Should, for example, an OMEGA-type mentoring/internship organisation be considered as a possible solution for maximising migrants’ skills’ use in Auckland, then an appropriate business model would need to be developed first, with input from former OMEGA board members.

d) Use evaluative feedback from the graduating, international student events, as described in Project 2, to continue with these types of events and also the partnering with the NZ Chinese Youth Federation.

Background

The AuckRSS was launched in January 2007. It set out commitments from central and local government to jointly lead and work collaboratively with government, non-government organisations and communities across Auckland to better support migrants to settle and contribute to the region.

The strategic leadership group (SLG) oversaw 48 collaborative activities in the Auckland Settlement Action Plan from 2007 to 2010.

In 2011, a re-focussed strategy resulted in the establishment of Settlement Action Leadership Teams (SALTs), which would be co-led by Immigration New Zealand and

Auckland Council to steer action for new migrants in Auckland in the following targeted areas over 2012 - 2014:

· Economic SALT (ESALT): Improved labour productivity.

· Community SALT (CSALT): Improved social cohesion and connectedness

ESALT members decided on two focus areas for their Action Plan: integrating migrant labour and welcoming Auckland work places.

The following guiding documents were referred to when ESALT members considered what they could collaboratively work on:

· The draft ESALT Action Plan

· Auckland Council’s “The Auckland Plan”

· Auckland Council’s Economic Development Strategy

As a result, three projects were selected for 2013/14 period:

1. Introduce a “Welcoming Auckland Workplaces” category for SME’s into the Westpac Business Awards to showcase good workplace integration practice for new migrant workers

2. Host a series of employment-focussed events for graduating international students.

3. Develop a case study on how to develop successful migrant SMEs and entrepreneurs (This action was incorporated into the Auckland Council RIMU’s “Ethnic Precincts in Auckland Project”)

The Three Projects

1. Introduce a “Welcoming Auckland Workplaces” category for SME’s into the Westpac Business Awards to showcase good workplace integration practice for new migrant workers

The objectives of this project were to:

· Showcase best practice in terms of how to hire, welcome and settle migrants into the workplace.

· Assist employers with reducing the skills shortage.

· Provide capacity building and support for SMEs to hire and retain migrants.

· Better employee retention.

· Reduce workplace injury and accidents by migrant workers.

The project also responded to the following actions and initiatives in Auckland Council’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS):

· EDS Action 2.3: Showcase innovation and the advantages of Auckland’s innovation system.

· EDS Key Initiative 2.3.1: Support innovation as a key criterion in the regional business awards.

The project got off to a good start with ESALT members developing the concept for this new category and the criterion for judging it. The concept was focussed on

workplace innovation and on-going business growth, rather than a one-off diversity award.

In November, a decision was made by ATEED (Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development) to review the delivery model and approach for the 2014 Westpac Business Awards. At that stage, ATEED delivered the North, South and West awards (inherited from the previous legacy councils) and The Auckland Chamber of Commerce (a member of ESALT and a supporter of Project 1) delivered the Central awards.

This review took several months and the decision was made in February 2014 to have just one organisation delivering the Awards – The Auckland Chamber of Commerce.

By April the possibility of introducing a new category had to be declined by the Auckland Chamber, due to the difficulties in merging the existing categories and measures from the four different geographical awards. However, the Auckland Chamber confirmed that they would consider a proposal in the future to introduce the new category in 2015 Awards, framed from a smart, business growth perspective.

The consensus from ESALT members was that they would like to see this happen in 2015, as it would provide a way to help employers with skills shortages, encourage ongoing capability-building within businesses to hire and retain migrants with the right skills, and to showcase best practice examples.

In the meantime, ESALT members agreed that the issues that prompted the suggestion for a new category remained for employers, especially as skills shortages are returning to the critical levels of pre-2008. The solutions would be in how best practice can be identified and showcased so that other businesses become aware of and can learn from such examples.

As part of the ESALT discussion on possible solutions, it was suggested that this was what the OMEGA (Opportunities for Migrant Employment in Greater Auckland) migrant mentoring service had been set up to do. Professor Paul Spoonley, a member of ESALT and board member for OMEGA, outlined a number of reasons why OMEGA didn’t continue. He recommended that, if there is any future action around developing a similar organisation or funding an existing one with the same objective, then an appropriate business model would need to be developed first.

The recommendation from ESALT members to the SLG is that the following activities be considered for inclusion in the proposed Regional Partnership Agreement (between Auckland Council and Immigration NZ):

2. Host a series of employment-focussed events for graduating international students.

The objectives of this project were to:

· Provide opportunities for graduating, international students to consider employment prospects in Auckland and to understand the New Zealand work place.

· Provide capacity building and support for these students in terms of CV preparation and interview techniques.

· Positively influence decisions by these students to stay on or return to Auckland and also to recommend Auckland to graduating students from other centres/cities.

· Provide insights to encourage coordination of policy (between local and central government) and ways for local and central government to work closer with business, community and student groups on further integrating the migrant labour market.

The project responded to the following actions and initiatives in Auckland Council’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS):

· EDS Key Initiative: 3.1.4 Support development of the international education sector through aligning international marketing efforts, building business capability and leveraging alumni.

· EDS Action: 3.2 Ensure Auckland is globally connected and engaged in order to leverage business, investment and cultural opportunities.

· EDS Key Initiative: 3.2.2. Facilitate linkages between business and migrants, NZ expats, and overseas students to leverage offshore expertise and investment.

Four ESALT member organisations worked with the NZ Chinese Youth Federation (NZCYF) to create a series four events in 2014 for graduating, international students. The objective was to encourage the graduates to remain and work in New Zealand after their studies.

· 16 April: Auckland Chamber of Commerce: A 3-hour workshop on “Job hunting in Auckland” with a focus on CV development and work placements/job seeking. 24 attended from a range of different countries. At the end of the workshop, qualifying students were offered a place on the 2.5-day New Kiwi

Career Success Programme. All participants were also offered the opportunity to register on the ‘New Kiwis’ free job search website (funded by Immigration NZ), which the Auckland Chamber promotes to New Zealand businesses. The feedback was very positive.

· 16 May: Immigration New Zealand: A half-day seminar on: ‘Stay, Work and Live in NZ”. This was a mix of presentations, Q&A and networking, with information on the visa pathway from student to resident and how to settle into the New Zealand work place. 135 attended from a variety of countries. The areas of study for these students were wide-ranging: Commerce, Business, Design, Psychology, Chemistry, Hospitality and Education. The evaluative feedback was entirely positive, with many asking when the next event would be hosted.

· 11 June: Auckland Council: A 1-hour address by the mayor followed by a question and answer session, which focussed on issues and opportunities important to international students who want to remain in Auckland to live and work. 75 attended, along with the Consul General from China and the Vice Consul General from Columbia. The students were particularly interested in public transport and housing affordability, as factors that would influence their decision to settle in Auckland. Analysis of the evaluation forms is underway and initial feedback suggests that the students valued the opportunity.

· 23 July: Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA): Topic: “Business Opportunities in Auckland”. EMA’s Chief Executive will discuss opportunities for potential migrant entrepreneurs and businesses and there will also be a presentation by a migrant entrepreneur.

· There is a possibility that another ESALT member, the Auckland branch of the Human Resources Institute of NZ (HRINZ), will host a fifth event in August. The idea is still under discussion.

The partnering with NZCYF has been low-cost, productive and positive. NZCYF liaised with a number of international student organisations to ensure a full attendance at each event and also handled the registration process ahead of time and at the event. The Secretary General of this organisation, Ken Liu, was a very able MC at all of the events to date and encouraged questions from the floor at the Q&A sessions.

Evaluative feedback from participants at each of the events will be consolidated to inform potential future events.

The recommendation from ESALT members to the SLG is for the events described in project 2 to continue, along with the partnering with the NZ Chinese Youth Federation and that this these types of events be considered for inclusion in the proposed Regional Partnership Agreement (between Auckland Council and Immigration NZ).

The objectives of this project were to:

· Identify success factors for SMEs that are owned by migrants.

· Provide what these migrant SMEs say they need (i.e. information, training, help and/or support) to run their business and become more successful.

· Grow micro businesses owned by migrants into bigger SMEs.

· Identify an integrated approach between central and local government and also with industry and agencies to spark economic growth.

The project responded to the following actions and initiatives in Auckland Council’s Economic Development Strategy (EDS):

· EDS Priority 5: Develop a vibrant, creative international city

· EDS Action 5.3: Promote Pacific and migrant cultures to create a unique visitor, talent and investment proposition.

· EDS Key initiative 5.3.1: Support Pacific Peoples’ entrepreneurship initiatives that build on rich cultural heritage and connections to countries of origin, and create cultural innovation for commercialisation.

· EDS Key Initiative 5.3.2: Support migrant entrepreneurship initiatives that leverage talent and international connections in a cultural capacity.

ESALT members initially considered developing a case study. However, in November 2013 Auckland Council’s Research, Investigations and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) started a research project involving ethnic SME’s in the retail sectors on Dominion Road and in Northcote. The objective was to increase council’s understanding of experiences of business owners/operators in ethnic precincts. It was named: RIMU Ethnic Precincts in Auckland 2013/14 project.

ESALT decided not to have a separate case study as RIMU was open to including relevant business support and networking elements into their research. This would add to the evidence base for the Auckland Regional Settlement Strategy and, in particular would address a number of key questions for ESALT:

- What are the main barriers to the growth of migrant SMEs?

- What information sources would help migrant SMEs to grow?

- What information sources and networks do migrant SMEs engage in to develop business connections?

One member from ESALT and another from the Community Settlement Action Leadership Team (CSALT) joined the steering committee for RIMU’s research.

By February, the RIMU project had been scoped and had made good progress with conducting:

· Business owner surveys

· Marketview data collection and collation

· Intercept surveys

· Shopper surveys

The mail out survey was finalised in April.

In May, a decision was made by Auckland Council to withdraw the mail out survey after some negative feedback was received about questions that focused on respondents’ perceptions of different ethnic groups. As a consequence, the Ethnic Precincts in Auckland 2013/14 project as a whole is under review.

This review will be completed by the end of June and will provide clarity around the continuation of the other parts of the project. These include the Business Owner

Survey (data collection with 31 participants complete); the Intercept Survey (data collection with 300+ respondents complete); the Marketview Analysis (data on

purchases and preliminary analysis complete); and the Shopper Survey (Interviews in English with 20 participants complete, 10 interviews in English yet to be undertaken).

An update on the outcomes of Project 3’s review will be provided to representatives of the Regional Partnership Agreement.

Evaluation of ESALT

The ESALT action plan has not yet been evaluated.

[1] Change in requirement for qualified registered teachers drop from 100% qualified to 80%

[2] Clendon Community Centre, Howick Recreation Centre, Papatoetoe - Allan Brewster Nathan Homestead, Otara Pool, Glenfield, East Coast Bays Reserve, Takapuna Pool, Birkdale, Beach Haven

[3] It is important to note, that these figures can be quite volatile over time.

[4] Delivery of ECE Participation Initiatives: Baseline Report University of Waikato 2013 – Linda Mitchell, Patricia Meagher-Lundberg, Maretta Taylor, Toia Caulcutt, Telesia Kalavite, Helena Kara and Vanessa Paki.

[5] Immigration New Zealand (2012) Community Asset Mapping for Settlement in Auckland Report

Chairperson	Cr Dr Cathy Casey
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
Members	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP
	Cr Alf Filipaina
	Member Kris MacDonald
	Cr Calum Penrose
	Member Josie Smith
	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr John Watson
	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Ex-officio	Mayor Len Brown, JP
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse

Author	Sophia Beaton - Community Safety Project Leader (Homelessness)
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Author	Valerie Proud - Principal Policy Analyst
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture

Author	Maureen Koch - Democracy Advisor
Authoriser	Kevin Marriott – Acting Manager Community Development Arts and Culture