Framework for Development and Evaluation of Community Engagement

ABSTRACT This paper examines Australia's first Neighbourhood Justice Centre (NJC) which is based Melbourne and was established in 2007. It outlines the history of the centre and proposes a framework for its evaluation. The paper discusses three extant models for community engagement and identifies a common theme of development and evolution in both process and structure. The paper identifies and discusses five phases for the development and evolution of the NJC and relates these to existing models. The paper also discusses the shifting emphasis of resource allocation during this development process. The paper concludes by proposing a series of questions to evaluate the development of a Community.

Community engagement refers to the process by which community benefit organizations and individuals build ongoing, permanent relationships for the purpose of applying a collective vision for the benefit of a community.It is closely related to community organizing, which involves the process of building a grassroots movement involving communities, community engagement primarily deals with the practice of moving said communities towards change, usually from a stalled or otherwise similarly suspended position. 6hile this definition makes a fine and possibly slightly confusing definition of community-based organizations, General models of community engagement commonly involve the of development of engagement (or citizen participation) from relatively simple forms to situations where citizens' groups exercise complete control over the structures, processes and decision-making in their specific area of concern.This control represents an end point of a developmental process that begins with relatively simple processes and grows to more sophisticated and inclusive forms of engagement.In discussing community engagement, the paper argues that the development of structure and governance is critical to community development in general and in the development of Community Justice in particular.This idea of progression or development of community engagement is inherent in Sherry Arnstein's (1969) "ladder of citizen participation" that describes the various levels of participation citizens can have in social governance.Arnstein distinguishes between citizen power and citizen participation and notes that participation often allows citizens to advise or plan but "retains for powerholders the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice" (1969).Arnstein's concerns are with the redistribution of power and powerholders' accountability to the community.
Progression is inherent in iap2, a five-step process for CE that was developed by the International Association for Public Participation.The five steps are: 1. Inform To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

Consult
To obtain Public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

Involve
To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

Collaborate
To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

Empower
To place final decision-making in the hands of the public. 7ung (2006) outlines three dimensions of engagement each of which contains the idea of development.
1. Participation Some participatory processes are completely open to all who wish to engage while others invite only elite stakeholders such as representatives of peak associations.

Decision-making
Here participants exchange information and make decisions whether by simply receiving information from officials or through debate and discourse within the citizen organizations

Policy Development
Links are now established between discussions on one hand and policy action on the other.Here Fung (2006) proposes three levels the first where, citizens gain individual, educative benefits from participation, the second where citizens provide advice to officials and the third where participatory deliberation is vested with authority While the NJC did not consciously develop its activities within any of these frameworks, there are commonalities between them and the way the NJC has developed.This paper relates the NJC's development to these frameworks as a first step towards the definition of a general "pattern of progress" for neighborhood justice.There is also a focus on the involvement of the community in achieving community level outcomes (Lee, 2000).Winick & Wexler, (2003) and Reddel (2004) see this in the context of broader movement towards shared responsibility which seeks engagement between the courts and the community, Ross (2010) states that a foundational part of the thinking about community justice is the framework outlined by Karp and Clear (2000) and that three elements of their community justice model (operating at a neighborhood level, giving priority to the community's quality of life, involving citizens in the justice process) specifically require the involvement of the community.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN JUSTICE
Fundamental to this is the idea that criminal behavior grows out of the social conditions and interactions of the communities in which people live.It follows that the mitigation of criminal behavior and the restoration of offenders and victims is best placed within the context of the community.
Repairing the harm to individuals and the community caused by criminal behavior requires has four components: 1. the engagement of willing community stakeholders in the restorative process, 2. the offender taking responsibility for the crime, 3. the reintegration of the offender into the community and 4. some form of reparation.
Some definitions of Community Engagement are deliberately limited.Mazerolle et al see the process as "Greater community engagement using principles of procedural justice leading to enhanced perceptions of police legitimacy and a greater capacity of police to control inter-group conflict and violence"9 The NJC has a wider definition of Community Engagement.The NJC was established to create a justice system which is "more integrated, responsive, accessible, and more effective in reducing crime, addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior and increasing access to justice" (Department of Justice (Victoria), 2007).
While the concept of community engagement is generally well agreed, the practice will be significantly different in different jurisdictions.This is because the practice is an emergent phenomenon that is the result of the local interaction of complex personal, social and political systems.This leads to two important propositions about the practice and implementation of Community Engagement.
The first is that its manifestation will vary according to the context in which it is put into practice.The second is that the practice and definition of Community Engagement will be a work in progress because the social and political context in which it is delivered is dynamic and requires frequent adjustment.In the early stages of the development of Community Engagement at the NJC, it was necessary to understand and assess the needs and capabilities of the community of the City of Yarra in relation to the Community Engagement process.While this was being developed, the far more clearly defined processes of Restorative Justice and the associated rehabilitation of offenders, as seen in the professional activities of the Client Services group were developing around support for offenders who were brought before the court.This paper is a case study that details the emergent process of the delivery of community and restorative justice by the Neighbourhood Justice Centre in the City of Yarra.
The cornerstone of the NJC's activities was a belief that the Court should redefine what a court means in the community and differentiate itself from its traditional counterparts by being involved in crime prevention and early intervention on one hand and in restorative practices leading to the re-entry of offenders into the community on the other.

Figure 2: The NJC model of Community Engagement
A unique aspect of this model was the population, or community wide, focus on activities expanding to a wider context in terms of local prevention and early intervention programs designed to address the pre-cursors of crime.While the restorative and rehabilitation programs were not unique to the NJC, the integrated and coordinated nature of these programs was.

Goals and Objectives
Inherent in the NJC's Strategic Plan is the idea that the NJC will be accountable to government for the achievement of its stated goals.This accountability will necessarily include an evaluation of the efficacy of specific activities of the NJC in achieving these goals.
The specific NJC objectives relating to community engagement should be seen in the light of the three broader goals of the organization, two of which, Goals 1 and 2, have a strong emphasis on Community Engagement. 1. Prevent and reduce criminal and other harmful behavior in the Yarra community 2. Increase confidence in, and access to, the justice system for the Yarra communities 3. Strengthen the NJC community justice model and facilitate the transfer of its practices to other courts and communities The specific NJC objectives relating to community engagement are: • Increase the capacity of the community to prevent and manage the impacts of crime and other harmful behavior • Increase the capacity of the community and the local justice system to resolve conflicts through Appropriate Dispute Resolution and restorative justice practices • Build connections between the justice system and the wider community and community development programs that contribute to justice system goals and outcomes • Provide efficient, transparent, accessible and inclusive justice services in the Yarra Communities While many activities within the NJC, such as throughput rates in court, recidivism and successfully completed Court Orders are easily assessed by a numerically based evaluation.Other activities such as those listed above are less easy to measure.Despite this, funding authorities require some justification for monies invested in these activities.The challenge for organizations such as the NJC is develop processes within which they can develop the "harder to measure" activities and also provide a framework to evaluate these activities.
This discussion develops a framework for the evaluation of Community Engagement that uses the progress currently made by the NJC in this area, the requirements of government and the views of the professionals with inside the NJC to provide a developmental framework.

Framework fundamentals
Community Engagement is a two-way process between the NJC and its various communities.In the first instance the NJC was engaged with external organizations and communities as time progressed the engagement became a two-way process in that the external communities were increasingly involved in the "way the NJC did justice".For the sake of this framework, the external communities are divided into professional communities and local communities.The professional communities are the service providers and agencies providing professional support for the core activities of the NJC.The local communities are those community-based groups, committees, and working parties which are formed by local citizens and which focus on specific issues related to specific communities.

Figure 3: The Two-way Nature of the Community Engagement Process
From the beginning of the NJC, the professional communities have significant involvement in the processes of Court.Initially, the engagement with the local communities involved the NJC and its staff being involved in community-based activities, often of a one-off nature sometimes on a more ongoing basis.The engagement of the local communities in the core processes of NJC was, necessarily, a longer process and typically took the form of community engagement and involvement in the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.

Structural Engagement
The central structure of the NJC is the treatment, sentencing and rehabilitation of offenders.This is supported by broad and targeted activities in the court aimed at creating a strong environment in which the community can participate in crime prevention as well as manage the effects of crime and other unwanted behaviors.This is the structure that will be at the heart of the two-way Community Engagement process.The extent of Community Engagement varies across the systems and has changed over time.Direct community engagement in the administration of justice is difficult given the nature of the legal system.However, this should not overshadow the fact that there is significant Community input into the treatment and contextual rehabilitation plans that come before the Magistrate.

Figure 4: Core processes of Community Engagement
Underpinning the two-way nature of the community engagement process is the nature of the engagement with the fundamental structure of the NJC processes.At the heart of the NJC process is the Court where offenders sentenced.The unique aspect of the NJC is that the court sits within a broader and formal process of treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.In addition, the is an engagement in crime prevention which addresses the precursors of crime such as drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness and issues that this advantage.The community engagement process sees the professional local communities involved in a two-way interaction with the NJC in each of these key elements of the NJC's activities.

The Development of Community Engagement
During the time of the NJC operations, there has been considerable development of the understanding of restorative justice and community engagement.These concepts have been defined within the NJC through the actions of the people on the front line of the treatment and rehabilitation activities of offenders.There has been significant learning in terms of the process and in terms of the development of the philosophy underpinning these activities.While this has been primarily at individual rather than at a group or organizational level, it is important that the NJC develop a formal structure for drawing together the individual learning and experience as it prepares to move its practices and processes into the mainstream.It is equally important that the development and dissemination of the work done in the NJC is supported by professional practice groups that are engaged in a formal action learning processes.To support this process a general framework for the development process was developed and is shown in Figure 5.

Goal Setting and Strategic Planning
Community Engagement Activities

Monitoring and Evaluation
Feedback

Using the Developmental Framework
The framework can be used to provide a tabular representation of the progress in the sophistication and impact of Community Engagement projects along the developmental hierarchy.

Table 1: NJC Phase 1 comparison with other models
Both iap2 and Arnstein recognize this phase although Arnstein has two earlier stages, Manipulation and Therapy, that were not present in the development of the NJC model.When the NJC was initially established, the concept of Community Engagement was not widely understood by the majority of the new staff.As result, much of the innovative activity of the core assessment team located within NJC team was focused on providing support and services for offenders appearing before the court.Many of these services involved establishing relationships with well-established agencies within the City of Yarra in such areas as drug and alcohol counseling.This activity itself was indicative of the early process of defining "community".These agencies represented the professional communities in which the NJC would base its work.One long-serving NJC staff member observed that the new re-establish NJC was the "new kid on the block" and that many agencies have been delivering the services similar to those that the NJC proposed, although not with the specific focus on the activities of a court of rules.
In parallel with establishing these professional relationships was the process of making the NJC known within the broader community.Initially, this involved meeting with a wide range of community groups many of whom were not necessarily going to be associated with process of Community Engagement.However, it was felt necessary to do this for two separate reasons.First to engage with a broad range of groups to get a sense of the space within which the NJC would be able to operate.Second, to gain a sense of the community needs particularly in terms crime prevention and rehabilitation.
It was during this early phase of development that a number of community groups were identified as being particularly important to the NJC mission.Two particular groups were significant.The first were the Neighbourhood Houses 10 that were community funded outreach organizations providing educational services and social support.The second was the community groups within the housing estates that consisted of community-based committees and action groups dealing with the social problems of the housing estates within the City of Yarra.
The developmental phases of the NJC are described using causal loop diagrams that were also used in an earlier analysis of the NJC's activities and outlined in Haslett et al (2010).The first stage is, like all the other stages, a balancing loop where the balance of the activity comes into balance as the aims of the phase are met.In a CLD, causation is identified with an arrow.At the end of the arrow there is an O or an S. The letter O indicates that the dependent variable moves in the Opposite direction to the independent variable.The letter S indicates that the dependent variable moves in the Same direction to the independent variable.In the example provided, the relationship between house prices and effective demand is demonstrated in balancing loop.In Figure 8, as recognition for the NJC grows, the resource allocation for this specific activity will decline.

Resources for Establishing NJC Concept
Recognition of NJC S S

Figure 8: Early resource allocation
The resources devoted to this phase of the NJC's activities declined as the objectives of Phase 1 were met.This second phase had three aspects.The first was the extent to which the SART team, now Client Services, developed the community engagement aspect of the work of the professional agencies providing support for the Court.The second aspect was that the community-based work became far more focused on assuring that the activities were related to the goals of the NJC.The third aspect was the extent to which the problem solving activities of the NJC, which constituted a unique function of this Court, developed local community was engagement in the formal processes of the NJC.
One of the informal aims of the Client Services group was to develop the community of professional providers to a point where they were capable of delivering these services independently of NJC support.The downside of this particular approach was that the delivery of services to clients runs the danger of becoming fragmented and uncoordinated.In addition to this, there was a very strong emphasis on the role of service providers and of Client Services in providing local community support for offenders.The emphasis of this work was always on relocating the offender back into a supportive community that contained not only the community of professional support but also the community in which the offender lived.
During this period, there was a sharper focus on the extent to which community groups with which the NJC was involved were actually contributing to the central goals and objectives of the NJC.The increasing workloads off the NJC staff meant that the relationships that were nurtured with the ones that provide the highest leverage for meeting the NJC's goals.
In addition, the Problem Solving services were focusing on finding solutions to problems that were community-based, effectively engaging the community in the formal NJC processes.The Problem Solving Conferences were meetings of the number of people who were stakeholders in the future of the offender, always lawyers often members of the community, effectively a community of support.These meetings sought to establish consent amongst stakeholders and the offender about what would be done to resolve the particular problem, often a case of non-compliance with a court order.The process involved to the offender and the community of support reaching an agreement that could be taken to the Magistrate as an alternative to a jail sentence.A related activity from the Problem-solving service involved Conflict Resolution providing skills training for community groups and in particular panels all of "Respected Community Members" in conflict resolution processes.This activity was essentially proactive designed to defuse potentially dangerous conflicts within specific ethnic communities within the City of Yarra.
These activities were significant in that they represented a shift in focus from the rehabilitation process to the crime prevention aspects of the Community Engagement of the NJC.
The commencement of Phase 2 saw a movement in resources away from Phase 1 to Phase 2 as shown in the CLD.As recognition of the NJC is established, resources to Community development increased with a corresponding decrease for Concept Establishment.Phase 2: Evaluation questions • Describe the goals and strategy for this phase and how they relate to the NJC goals?
• Describe the contribution that NJC has made to the development of community groups and organizations that were contacted in Phase 1 and how these relationships contribute to the Goals of the NJC.
• Describe the relationships that have been developed with professional communities and how these relationships contribute to the Goals of the NJC and to specific aspects (ie crime prevention, treatment, administration of justice, rehabilitation) of the NJC justice process?• What resources were allocated to this phase?• List the tangible outcomes that these professional and community relationships have made to the goals for this phase and to the Goals of the NJC.What was the learning derived from this Phase and how was it incorporated into the Goals and strategy for this phase?
Phase 3: Resilience and Independence of Local Communities This phase of the development of Community Engagement within the NJC was characterized by: 1.A focus on the systemic causes of crime 2. A systemic approach to crime prevention 3. Building resilience and independence in community groups 4. Decisions on resource allocation between Phases 2 and 3 Comparison with other models The emphasis in Phase 2 of the NJC's development was on the treatment and rehabilitation of the individual offender.Such an approach tends to deal with the symptoms rather than the root causes of the social problems contributing to crime.As the NJC became increasingly involved with community groups, particularly the Neighbourhood Houses and community governance groups on the housing estates, it became obvious that the concerns of these groups would only to be solved by long-term systemic interventions rather than one-off solutions.
In developing the resilience and independence of community groups, The NJC's initial involvement was necessarily extensive both in terms of time and funding.As well as developing the specific activities of these groups, the NJC has worked on the governance structures and funding processes to help these organizations towards independence.Such processes are difficult for both sides and are akin to children leaving home, a difficult but necessary step, Resource allocation to Phase 2 was reduced and maintained at a lower level with the introduction of Phase 3. The shift in resources is shown in the CLD.The behavior over time is shown in Figure 14.• What steps have been taken to develop resilience and independence in community partners?
• How is that resilience and independence characterized?
• List the tangible outcomes that these professional and community relationships have made to the goals for this phase and to the Goals of the NJC.Only two of the comparative models recognized this Phase.The iap2 Level 5 focuses on working with the public rather than with specific policy oriented organizations and does not include the emphasis on structural change.
Arnstein does not deal with this phase of development.iap2's level 5 of collaboration is more concerned with the collaboration of the agency with the community groups.This phase of development is now focused on the collaboration between NJC and other agencies with a policy advice role.There are two aspects of this phase; the NJC's involvement with other policy agencies and the extent to which the NJC is able to bring its fledgling community groups to the table with these policy advice agencies.
Such systemic interventions include changes to legislation, changes to regulations and requirements for public housing and the provision of accommodation for rehabilitating offenders.Given the multi-causational nature of the social problems leading to criminal offences, there is normally a wide range of agencies involved in dealing with these problems meaning that the NJC was unwilling to act unilaterally to the extent that had been the case in the provision of treatment and rehabilitation services.It was now necessary to work in partnership with a wide range of other agencies such as the Victorian Police, local government, universities, Office of Housing and the Department of Health.In fact, the more entrenched and severe the problem the wider the range of agencies involved.Each of these agencies was likely to bring a different perspective to the solution to the problems and as a consequence the influence of the NJC was mediated by the political realities off diverse stakeholder interests.
There are advantages in this system as the diminished influence is balanced by the increased political muscle of a more diverse and influential group of stakeholders.In fact, it could be argued that social, political and legal change in the area of crime prevention will only be achieved through the actions of such coalitions of interest.• Describe the goals and strategy for this phase and how they relate to the NJC goals?

Participation in groups with the capability to bring about long-term systemic change
• Who were seen as major stakeholders in the solution of these problems?
• What was the nature of the relationships developed with these stakeholders?
• What community groups has NJC sponsored to take on a policy development tole?
• What was the NJC's role and relative influence in these relationships?
• What systemic interventions were affected?
• What resources were allocated to this phase?
• List the tangible outcomes that these systemic relationships have made to the Goals of the NJC.
• What was the learning derived from this Phase and how was it incorporated into the Goals and strategy for this phase?
Phase 5: Change within the Justice System This next phase of the NJC activities was characterized by: 1.The development of a strategic plan for dissemination of NJC practices.2. Working with other jurisdictions to adapt NJC best practice to new environments.None of the comparative models included the equivalent of the NJC's activities to mainstream community engagement activities into other jurisdictions.This may be a reflection of the innovative nature of the NJC model in this setting.The NJC's strategic plan included Goal 3 Strengthen the NJC community justice model and facilitate the transfer of its practices to other courts and communities which highlighted the "incubator" aspect of the NJC.One of the original concepts had been that the NJC would be a Court where new ideas, new processes and new approaches were trial and the successful ones disseminated through other jurisdictions.There was general agreement that other jurisdictions have not been enthusiastic about adopting NJC processes.With the change of government in 2010, the NJC lost an important sponsor in Attorney General, Rob Hulls.The new government decided that it was time to place greater emphasis on Goal 3 and that the NJC needed to devote more time and resources to disseminating and encouraging the adoption of the processes that have been developed over the previous four years.
While the initial activities of the NJC, particularly in Phases 1 and 2 were on the differentiation and definition of the unique character of the NJC, it is now necessary to integrate the activities and philosophy of the NJC into the broader justice administration system.This process has begun in Phase 3 and 4 and will continue in Phase 5.The CLD shows the development of balance between Phases 4 and 5.  • What aspects of NJC practice were transferable to other Jurisdictions and within the DOJ?
• What was the nature of the relationships developed with the stakeholders in this change process?
• What aspects of the NJC's operations were transferred to other Jurisdictions and the DOJ?
• What was the learning derived from this Phase and how was it incorporated into the Goals and strategy for this phase?

Figure 1 :
Figure 1: Eight Rungs on a Ladder of Citizen Participation (reproduced from Arnstein 1969).

Figure 5 :
Figure 5: Learning Structure for each phase of the CE processThe critical aspect of this model is that each phase of CE development is preceded by a goal setting and strategic planning phase.This serves not only to direct the activities of each phase but also to provide a basis for the monitoring, evaluation and feedback processes inherent in the learning processes set This process applies to each of the five phases in the development of the CE framework:1.Establishing the NJC concept 2. Development of communities 3. Independence and resilience of communities

Figure 6 :
Figure 6: The developmental phases of Community Engagement Figure 6 demonstrates how Establishing the NJC Concept and Development of Communities are the fundamental building blocks for the development of Community Engagement.The subsequent phases of development are dependent on these earlier stages and cannot be developed without the basic building blocks being in place.

Figure 7 :
Figure 7: Development of Community Engagement

Figure 9 :
Figure 9: Pattern of resource allocation to Phase 1 Phase 1: Evaluation questions • What community groups and organizations have been visited?• What professional groups and organizations have been visited?• How long did this phase last?• What resources were allocated?• Which professional and community groups have an ongoing relationship with NJC? • What was the learning derived from this Phase and how was it incorporated into the Goals and strategy for this phase?Phase 2: Development of Communities This phase of the development of Community Engagement within the NJC was characterized by: 1.The engagement of the professional community in the work of the NJC. 2. A sharper focus on the efficacy of community relationships.3. A development of the engagement of the local community in the formal processes of the NJC. 4. Participation in citizens action groups.Comparison with other models iap2 Arnstein's ladder Fung Level 2 and 3: Consult and Involve Level 6: Partnership Level 1: Participation Figure 10: Phase 2 resource allocation Phase 2 comparison with other modelsAll of the comparative models recognized this Phase 3 of the NJC's development indicating the importance of this stage in the development of community engagement.
Figure 12: Phase 3 shift in resource allocation

Figure 13 :
Figure 13: Pattern of resource allocation to Phase 3 Phase 3: Evaluation questions• Describe the goals and strategy for this phase and how they relate to the NJC goals?•What steps have been taken to develop resilience and independence in community partners?•How is that resilience and independence characterized?• List the tangible outcomes that these professional and community relationships have made to the goals for this phase and to the Goals of the NJC.• What was the learning derived from this Phase and how was it incorporated into the Goals and strategy for this phase?

Figure 14 :
Figure 14: Phase 4 shift in resource allocation 3. The establishment of professional practice learning groups 4. Increasing clarity in the definition of Community Engagement 5. Decisions on resource allocation between Phases 2, 3 and 4

Figure 17 :
Figure 17: Pattern of resource allocation to Phase 4 Phase 5: Evaluation questions• Describe the goals and strategy for this phase and how they relate to the NJC goals?•What aspects of NJC practice were transferable to other Jurisdictions and within the DOJ?• What was the nature of the relationships developed with the stakeholders in this change process?•What aspects of the NJC's operations were transferred to other Jurisdictions and the DOJ?• What was the learning derived from this Phase and how was it incorporated into the Goals and strategy for this phase?

•
What was the learning derived from this Phase and how was it incorporated into the Goals and strategy for this phase?Phase 4: Systemic and Policy Related Interventions This phase of the development of Community Engagement within the NJC was characterized by:1.Developing policy positions on relevant aspect of crime prevention 2. Working with organizations involved in policy advice to Government 3. Decisions on resource allocation between Phases 3 and 4