Final Report - Creating Space For Strength

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report
Creating Space for Strength

An Asset-Based Community Development and Research Project for Calgary's North Central Communities
Final Report
Eaton International Consulting Inc.
May 2013
For information about this report, please contact Eaton International Consulting Inc. or the authors: Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D. Lee Tunstall, Ph.D. Vilma Dawson SarahEaton@eatoninternationalconsulting.com Lee.Tunstall@eatoninternationalconsulting.com vilma.dawson@eatoninternationalconsulting.com
Citation information: Eaton, S.E., Tunstall, L. and Dawson, V. (2013). Final Report - Creating Space for Strength: An Asset-Based Community Development and Research Project. Aspen Family and Community Network Society
Copyright 2013 Aspen Family and Community Network Society
Any omissions (within the parameters of our study) or errors are purely unintentional. Every effort has been made to present valid and reliable data.
June 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 9 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 11 Project Goals ................................................................................................................. 11 Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)................................................................ 12 What Makes Our Community Vibrant .............................................................................. 13 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 14 A Modified Participatory Action Research (PAR) Approach ......................................... 14 Demographic Data ............................................................................................................ 15 Overview of Calgarys North Central Communities ...................................................... 15 Data Sources Consulted ................................................................................................ 17 A Typical Resident ......................................................................................................... 18 Key Learnings: Demographics ....................................................................................... 19 Population Data ............................................................................................................ 19 Assessment of Spaces and Community Services .............................................................. 42 How the Assessment of Community Spaces and Services was Conducted .................. 42 Limitations of the Assessment ...................................................................................... 43 Key Learnings ................................................................................................................ 43 Interviews with Community Residents ............................................................................. 46 Informal Interview Structure ........................................................................................ 46 Identifying Potential Interviewees ................................................................................ 47 Interview Weighting and Community ........................................................................... 47 Interview Results............................................................................................................... 51 What Community Means .............................................................................................. 51 Community Achievements ............................................................................................ 54 Community Strengths ................................................................................................... 61 Community Space ......................................................................................................... 62 The Three Best Aspects of the Community .................................................................. 64 Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
What Makes Our Community Vibrant .......................................................................... 65 Community Consultation with Working-Age Adults......................................................... 66 World Caf Conversation Format ..................................................................................... 68 What the Community Had to Say ................................................................................. 69 The Four Questions ....................................................................................................... 72 Community Consultation with Seniors ............................................................................. 79 Meeting Format ............................................................................................................ 79 Seniors Concerns About Income Data ......................................................................... 80 Seniors Consultation Results........................................................................................ 81 Seniors Top Priorities ................................................................................................... 85 Community Consultation with Youth ............................................................................... 89 Online Survey .................................................................................................................... 91 Models of Community Multipurpose Sites ....................................................................... 95 Characteristics of Community Multipurpose Sites ....................................................... 95 Communities of Space .................................................................................................. 96 What we already know about spaces in Calgarys North Central Communities .......... 97 Calgary Models of Multi-purpose Spaces ..................................................................... 98 Models of Multi-purpose, Multi-agency Facilities Outside Calgary ............................. 99 Models of Community Spaces: Additional Observations ........................................... 100 Models of Community Spaces: Next Steps ................................................................. 101 Recommended Action Plan............................................................................................. 102 Phase One: Form a Planning Group ............................................................................ 102 Phase Two: Planning ................................................................................................... 103 Phase Three: Preparing ............................................................................................... 104 Phase Four: Building the Space for Strength .............................................................. 105 Appendix A Research Tools .......................................................................................... 106 Interview Schedule...................................................................................................... 106 Informed Consent ....................................................................................................... 108 Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
Appendix B Supplementary Reports and Resources .................................................. 110 Appendix C Ward Maps of Study Area......................................................................... 112 Appendix D: Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces ........................................... 115 Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces in Calgary ........................................... 115 Community Resource Centres .................................................................................... 121 Bibliography .................................................................................................................... 126 Acknowledgements......................................................................................................... 132
June 2013
Table of Figures
Table 1: What Makes a Community Vibrant? ............................................................................................ 13 Table 2: Calgary's North Central Communities........................................................................................... 16 Table 3: Community Populations (2011) .................................................................................................... 19 Table 4: Northern Calgary Community Five-Year Population Changes ...................................................... 20 Table 5: Age Ranges by Community (2011)................................................................................................ 22 Table 6 : Highest Level of Education in Calgary North Central Communities (2006) ................................. 24 Table 7: Median Household Income in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005 and 2010) ............... 26 Table 8: Marital Status of Persons in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) .................................. 27 Table 9: Average Number of People per Dwelling in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) .......... 30 Table 10: Prices for Single Family Homes in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) ....................... 31 Table 11: Prices for Condominiums in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) ................................ 32 Table 12: Number of Recent Immigrant in Calgary's North Central Communities..................................... 33 Table 13: Origin Country of Immigrants in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) ......................... 33 Table 14: Visible Minority Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) ............................... 35 Table 15: Aboriginal Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) ....................................... 36 Table 16: Residents with Disabilities in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) .............................. 37 Table 17: Populations of Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)..................................... 38 Table 18: Median Income for Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005) ............................. 38 Table 19: Transportation in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011) ................................................ 39 Table 20: Police-reported Crimes Committed in Calgary's North Central Communities (April 15October 15, 2012) ....................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 21: Crime Rates ................................................................................................................................. 41 Table 22: Interviews Weighted by Community Demographics................................................................... 48 Table 23: Interviews Weighted by Special and Diverse Populations .......................................................... 49 Table 24: Interviews Weighted by Gender (percentage) ............................................................................ 49
June 2013
Table 25: Interviews Weighted by Visible Minority (percentage) .............................................................. 49 Table 26: Interview Results: What does Community Mean to You? .......................................................... 52 Table 27: Interview Results: What We Mean When We Talk About "People" ........................................... 53 Table 28: Interview results: Community Association Achievements .......................................................... 55 Table 29: Interview Results: Citizen-led Achievements .............................................................................. 57 Table 30: Interview Results: Additional Community Achievements ........................................................... 58 Table 31: Interview Results: Community Services and Programs ............................................................... 60 Table 32: Interview Results: What Residents Believe is Working Well ....................................................... 61 Table 33: Interview Results: Existing Available Spaces for Community Use............................................... 62 Table 34: Interview Results: Three Best Aspects of Calgary's North Central Communities, as Identified by Residents................................................................................................................................ 64 Table 35: Interview results: What Makes a Community Vibrant? .............................................................. 65 Table 36: Priorities Identified by Residents at the Community Consultation ............................................. 71 Table 37: Community Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in Our Community?................................................................................................................................................ 73 Table 38: Community Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better? ..................................... 75 Table 39: Community Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five Years? ......................................................................................................................................................... 76 Table 40: Community Consultation Results: Question 4 - How do We Get There? .................................... 77 Table 41: Community Consultation Aggregate Results .............................................................................. 78 Table 42: Seniors First Priority ................................................................................................................... 85 Table 43: Seniors' Second Priority............................................................................................................... 86 Table 44: Seniors' Third Priority .................................................................................................................. 87 Table 45: Youth Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in our Community?........... 89 Table 46: Youth Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better? .............................................. 90 Table 47: Youth Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five Years? ......................................................................................................................................................... 90
June 2013
Table 48: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in our Community? ................................................................................................................... 91 Table 49: MacEwan- Sandstone Online Survey: Question 2 - What Could be Better? ............................... 92 Table 50: MacEwan-Sandstone Online Survey: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five Years? .................................................................................................................................................. 93 Table 51: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 4 - How do We Get There? .................................................................................................................................................. 94
June 2013
Executive Summary
This section presents the highlights of common themes that emerged through the variety of methods we used to collect data including interviews, community consultations and surveys. These results are presented as broad, general themes that recurred throughout the study. Our Communities Our study included nine North Central Calgary neighbourhoods: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Harvest Hills Coventry Hills Country Hills Country Hills Village Panorama Hills Evanston / Creekside Hidden Valley MacEwan Glen Sandstone Valley
4 Key Questions We asked residents four key questions that guided our work: 1. What is good and strong in your community? 2. What could be better? 3. What do you want to see happen in five years? 4. How do we get there? Strengths of Calgarys North Central Communities People Safety and security Natural green spaces Community association events and sports programs Commercial amenities
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report What Needs to be Improved in Calgarys North Central Communities Affordable, accessible community gathering space Emergency medical services Diagnostic medical services Affordable recreation, leisure and personal interest programs Public transportation Public high school Services and support for vulnerable populations
10
June 2013
11
Introduction
This innovative Calgary project was designed to find out about community strengths and assets, what can be improved, and how. The study focused on these communities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Harvest Hills Coventry Hills Country Hills Country Hills Village Panorama Hills Evanston / Creekside Hidden Valley MacEwan Glen Sandstone Valley
Project Goals
This project had five main goals: 1. Identify pre-existing community assets such as community spaces, services, programs and space. 2. Collect neighbourhood information and data. 3. Highlight untapped community strengths and assets that could be better utilized in Calgarys north central communities. 4. Determine what services and programs are currently available in the identified communities. 5. Develop an action plan to move forward. The project included collecting data from primary sources such as interviews and community meetings, and secondary data, such as demographic data.
June 2013
12
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)

Using an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach, we focused on the strengths of a community. The idea behind this approach is that if you focus on needs, problems and challenges that is exactly what you will find. In any social system, problems always exist. The unrelenting focus on needs has monopolized community conversations for decades, yet despite the efforts of community organizers and agencies, help continues to evaporate and the perception continues to be that help from the outside will arrive only when a convincing story of emptiness and need has been told.1 Often, when we focus only on problems, we fail to identify what is actually working. A strength-based approach does not deny the existence of problems, but re-focuses the conversation. An asset-based approach seeks to re-discover and mobilize the strengths, capacities and assets that already exist within a community; then build on the foundation of what is already working well to construct an even stronger community that understands not only its vibrancy, but also its capacity for further development. Communities are a source of deep wisdom. Therefore, participation from individuals, informal groups and formal associations is not only desirable - it is necessary. By identifying what is currently working, we build solutions from a foundation of strength. We look at how to build a community from the inside out, by turning inward to the community to build on its social, physical, financial assets. This approach seeks to empower communities and build relationships among community members, agencies and organizations in order to build on civic capacity to plan for long-term impact and growth. Using an asset-based approach, we started by asking, Whats working? We use what we learned from that as a point of departure to build a viable plan to: 1. Identify, recognize and mobilize existing assets. 2. Link local assets to opportunities (e.g. economic opportunities, new relationships, etc.) 3. Continue sustainable community building over a long period of time.
See: Kretzmann, 1995.
June 2013
13
What Makes Our Community Vibrant

Residents we interviewed often reported that they made a choice to live in these communities. Their sense of satisfaction and comfort comes from having most of their needs and expectations met. Community residents emphasized in their interviews that it is people who make the community vibrant. A sense of connection, belonging and safety all contribute to the communitys strength. In addition to this, having access to a variety of events, activities and programs that include programs for families, seniors, single adults, youth and children give citizens a sense that their community is strong and vibrant. It was noted that events and activities need to include free or low-cost programs in order to make them truly accessible to all members of the community. Table 1: What Makes a Community Vibrant?
June 2013
14
Methodology
The Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) approach provided the foundation for the values and the philosophy that guided our work. Using ABCD as a starting point, we designed the study to gather data in a number of ways including: Overview of demographic data to help us understand who lives in the communities in the study area Interviews with community residents to hear individual points of view, stories and perspectives Community consultations to gather data from groups of residents.
A Modified Participatory Action Research (PAR) Approach

The research methodology used during the interviews was modified participatory action research (PAR). A true PAR approach would have entailed training citizens to conduct the interviews themselves, and then working alongside them to interpret, analyze and present the data. Due to the compressed timelines of the project, which allowed us approximately six weeks to identify interview participants and conduct the interviews, the research team used a modified PAR approach. We consulted with our Steering Committee (which included a large community association), seeking advice and input to develop the interview schedule and to identify prospective interviewees. The steering committee approved the process and methodology in the fall of 2012, and the data collection with residents began in December 2012.
June 2013
15
Demographic Data
Collecting the demographic data first allowed us to understand whom we should focus on for our interview and community meetings in order to ensure that the populations of the communities included in the study were represented fairly. The data provided in this report are exclusive to the communities that the Steering Committee for this project identified in the early stages of the project. The statistics included are by no means exhaustive.
Overview of Calgarys North Central Communities

The first phase of the project was to understand the parameters of the study, and in particular to understand the overall demographic information available for the communities under study. For the purposes of this report, the study area includes: Northern Hills: Coventry Hills, Panorama Hills, Harvest Hills, Country Hills, and Country Hills Village; Evanston/Creekside2; Hidden Valley3; Sandstone Valley/MacEwan Glen.
Currently, these communities fall into the following civic wards and provincial ridings4, with current government representatives listed also. Maps of electoral divisions may be found at: http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/
A call to 311 confirmed that Creekside would be located in Ward 2.
The Hidden Valley Community Association notes that the sub-community of Hanson Ranch is part of Calgary Northern Hills and is located in Ward 3.
4
Electoral divisions do not exactly match municipal communities.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 2: Calgary's North Central Communities
Community Association Community Ward Councillor Electoral Division2 MLA
16
Northern Hills Community Association
Harvest Hills
Jim Stevenson
Calgary Northern Hills
Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)
Coventry Hills
Jim Stevenson
Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)
Country Hills
Gael MacLeod
Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)
Country Hills Village
Jim Stevenson
Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)
Panorama Hills 3
Jim Stevenson
Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)
Evanston /Creekside Community Association
Evanston
Gord Lowe
Calgary MacKay Nose-Hill4
Neil Brown (PC)
Creekside
Gord Lowe
Calgary Foothills5
Len Webber (PC)
Hidden Valley CA
Hidden Valley6
Gael MacLeod
Calgary Foothills5
Len Webber (PC)
Sandstone MacEwan Community Association
MacEwan
Gael MacLeod
Calgary MacKay Nose-Hill
Neil Brown (PC)
Sandstone
Gael MacLeod
Calgary MacKay Nose-Hill
Neil Brown (PC)
June 2013
17
Data Sources Consulted

The data for this report was drawn mainly from the City of Calgarys Community Profiles, as reported by the social research policy department of the City of Calgary using the 2011 civic census and 2006 federal census.5 The most recent federal census was conducted in 2011 but community level data will unfortunately not be available until fall 2013, so in some categories the 2006 census data is the most recent available. In some cases, the community profiles do not include all 2011 civic census data, in which case, the original census report was consulted.6 For home prices, reporting from the Calgary Real Estate Board (CREB) was used, and for crime, the Calgary Police Service Crimes Web Mapping Application was consulted for the most recent six-month period.
Social Policy and Planning Division, Community Profiles (Calgary: Community Neighbourhood Services, City of Calgary, 2012). Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Social-researchpolicy-and-resources/Community-profiles/Community-Profiles.aspx>
6
City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results (Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 35; 12332. Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-informationservices/Civic-Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf>.
June 2013
18
A Typical Resident
Of course, there can be no typical residents of the communities under study. Each one of the 77,946 people who live there is unique and is a result of both genes and upbringing. However, when considering the demographic data available for the communities, a composite profile can be collected from the available data when considering averages and medians across the nine communities. A composite profile of a typical resident of these communities finds the person: Is between 35 and 44; Is employed; Drives alone to work; Has one child living at home (1.1); Has a household income of approximately $106,254;7 Has either a high school diploma or a university degree; Is married; Is Canadian born and Caucasian; Owns his/her own home.
This figure is extrapolated from 2006 census data, which showed a median income for the communities of $79,830. However, by 2010, the median income for Calgary had gone up to $89,490 or 33.1% (www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil107a-eng.htm) which would be in 2010 dollars adjusted for inflation. Therefore, because of the vast change in median income since last data available in 2005, the median income has been increased by 33.1% for this report. This can be framed only as a best guess number and actual 2006 income figures can be found in the Appendix.
June 2013
19
Key Learnings: Demographics

Beyond these high-level composite characteristics, more detailed observations about this area of Calgary can be made. These are gleaned from various population characteristics, including age, gender, education, employment, income, households, dwellings, etc. There are also certain special populations that are highlighted within this report, as an attempt to uncover some of the more diverse aspects of the areas population.
Population Data
Community Populations The total population for the study area is 77,946, or 7.1% of Calgarys total 2011 population. Panorama Hills is the largest community with 19,851 residents, followed by Coventry Hills (15,722) and Hidden Valley (11,657). The smallest community is Country Hills Village with 2,342 residents, followed by Country Hills at 3,720. Three of the largest 20 communities in Calgary are found within this study area: Panorama Hills (1); Coventry Hills (7) and Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (16). Table 3: Community Populations (2011)
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Population Changes8 The communities included in the study are also a mixture between older, established communities and newer, growing communities. In general, Harvest Hills and Country Hills have remained with a constant population over the past five years. Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch), MacEwan Glen and Sandstone Valley have actually lost residents during this time period. Coventry Hills, Panorama Hills and Evanston/Creekside have experienced rapid growth.
20
Table 4: Northern Calgary Community Five-Year Population Changes
Northern Hills CA Data Point

Population (2011) Population change from 2010-2011 (two-year) Population change from 2007-2011 (five-year)
Evanston Hidden Sandstone Macewan Creekside CA Valley CA CA
Country Harvest Country Coventry Panorama Evanston/ Hidden MacEwan Sandstone City of Hills Total Area Hills Hills Hills Hills Creekside Valley Glen Valley Calgary Village
7,485 74 2 3,720 46 78 2,342 15,722 24 879 -4 1,832 19,851 1,952 7,955 5,889 706 2,620 11,657 -123 -153 5,138 24 -244 6,142 -237 -415 77,946 1,090,936 2,462 12,554 25,481 99,177
The data in this section is drawn from the 2011 civic census. City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results (Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 81-89. Web. 30 October 2012. http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/CivicCensus/2011_census_result_book.pdf
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Age Profiles9
21
The age profile of the communities mirrors that of Calgary quite closely. The only slight difference is that the most common age range for the area under study is between 35 and 44, while for Calgary it is slightly younger at between 25 and 34. The only two communities that mirror Calgarys most common age range are Country Hills Village and Evanston/Creekside. Country Hills Village has the lowest number (250) and percentage (10.7%) of children, while also being home to the highest percentage of seniors (28%) and the second highest number at 656. Panorama Hills actually has the highest number of residents over 65 living in the community (943), although this only equates to 4.8% of the total community population. Panorama Hills is also the community with the highest number children (6,201 or 31.2% of the community population), although Evanston/Creekside actually has the highest percentage of children living there at 32.4% or 1,909 children. Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) also has a high percentage of children at 31.9% or 3,714. There are also 6,099 (7.8% of the total area population) children under the age of four living in all of the communities.
June 2013
22
Table 5: Age Ranges by Community (2011)
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Gender Profiles10 The gender breakdown of the population is very close to 50-50 for the area, as it is for Calgary in general (39,016 female; 38,930 male). There is a notable difference in children under 19, where males (11,763) outnumber females (11,126) by 637 individuals. There is a contrasting difference found at the other end of the age spectrum, where women 65 and older (2,495) outnumber men of the same age range (2,096) by some 400 individuals. Education Profiles11
23
The educational status of the residents in the study area tracks very closely with those of Calgary in general. In 2006, close to one-quarter of residents had either a high school diploma (25%) or a university degree (23.3%) listed as their highest level of education. This is very similar to the average Calgary rates of high school (25.6%) and university education (25.3%). There was a 17.3% rate of area residents who held no degree, diploma or certificate, which was again close to the 18.1% Calgary average. Within the communities, Evanston/Creekside has the most highly educated residents, with 30.9% holding a university degree, and an additional 25.4% hold a college diploma. Only 10.9% had no degree, diploma or certificate and 18.5% had only high school. Country Hills Village had the lowest percentage of university-educated residents (16.9%), followed by Harvest Hills (17.6%) and Sandstone Valley (19.9%). Country Hills Village also had the highest percentage of residents with trades certifications.
10
11
The data in this section is drawn from the 2006 federal census, from the City of Calgary Community Profiles.
June 2013
24
Table 6 : Highest Level of Education in Calgary North Central Communities (2006)
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Employment Profiles12 The employment rate in 2011 for those over the age of 15 in the study area (69.5%) is slightly higher than overall rate for Calgary (65.3%). The highest rates are in Evanston/Creekside (79.6%), Coventry Hills (76.5%) and Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (72.9%). Country Hills Village, with its large senior population, has the lowest employment rate at just 50.6%, followed by Sandstone Valley (65.4%) and MacEwan Glen (68.6%). Income Profiles13
25
The median household income figures come from 2005 data, as reported in the 2006 census. Calgary experienced a significant economic boom after 2005, and as such the 2005 figures are not reflective of current conditions. Statistics Canada reported in 2006 that the Calgary average household income was $67,238; by 2010, this figure had increased to $89,49014, which represents a 33.1% increase. As a result, two versions of the median income are presented here: one is the 2005 data, which is firm, while the other is the 2010 figures which we extrapolated to indicate an increase of 33.1%. Although this is not scientific (as for example, Country Hills Village With few exceptions, residents in Calgarys North Central communities have a higher household has a higher percentage of income than the Calgary average. seniors on fixed incomes), it will provide a closer reflection of current estimated median incomes.
12
The data in this section are drawn from the 2011 civic census. City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results (Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 35; 123-32. Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/CivicCensus/2011_census_result_book.pdf>.
13
The data in this section are drawn from the 2006 federal census, from the City of Calgary Community Profiles.
14
Statistics Canada, Family income and income of individuals, related variables: Sub-provincial data, 2010 (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, June 27, 2012). Web. 31 October 2012. < http://www.statcan.gc.ca/dailyquotidien/120627/dq120627b-eng.pdf>
June 2013
26
The highest median income rates are found in Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) ($89,044 2005; $119,419 - 2010), Panorama Hills ($89,044 2005; $118,518 - 2010), MacEwan Glen ($87,943 2005; $117,052 - 2010) and Harvest Hills ($87,200 2005; $116,063 - 2010). The lowest rates by far are found in Country Hills Village ($50,960 2005; $67,828 - 2010), again because of the high population of seniors living on fixed incomes. There is a significantly lower rate of low-income households in the study area (7.3%) than across Calgary (14.2%). The highest rates of low-income households are found in Sandstone Valley (8.5%) followed by MacEwan Glen (8.3%) and Evanston/Creekside (8.3%). The lowest rates are found in Panorama Hills (5.1%) and Harvest Hills (5.9%).
Table 7: Median Household Income in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005 and 2010)
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Marital Status Profiles15
27
The vast majority of residents over the age of 15 in the study area are married couples (59.8%) as of 2006, while those who were never married are next at 29.8%. This differs from the average across Calgary, as 35.6% were never married, while 49.7% were married. There was a 7.9% divorce or separation rate, while 7.8% of couples were living common law. Only 2.6% of residents were widowed, as of 2006. Panorama Hills and Evanston/Creekside had the highest rate of married couples at 64.9%. Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) was next at 62.6%. Country Hills Village had the lowest percentage of married couples at 48.8%, and also the highest percentage of widowed individuals at 14.1%, which is not surprising considering the profile of older residents living in the community. Table 8: Marital Status of Persons in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)
15
The data in this section is drawn from the 2006 federal census, from the City of Calgary Community Profiles.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Household Structure
28
As reported in the 2006 federal census, 5% of residents of the area live alone, with the highest rate being 28.8% in Country Hills Village. The lowest rate for individuals living alone occurs in Evanston/Creekside (2.7%) and Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (3.9%). All communities in the study area have lower rates of single-person households than the Calgary average (10.2%). 16 There is also a lower percentage of lone-parent families with children living in this area. There is an average of 16.4% of households headed by a lone parent, compared to 23.5% for all of Calgary. There is a high percentage living in Country Hills Village (36.8%), which is the only community higher than the Calgary average. The lowest percentage of lone-parent families are found in Evanston/Creekside (9.7%), followed by Panorama Hills (11.4%).17 There are a considerable number of children living at home. There were 16,845 children under the age of 18 (77.7%) living at home in 2006, while the remaining 4,830 (22.3%) were over 18. There are fewer children over the age of 18 living at home in the communities under study than in Calgary (28.3%). There are quite substantial differences between communities. Sandstone Valley has the highest percentage of children over 18 living at home at 35.9%, followed by MacEwan Glen at 31%. The lowest percentage of children over 18 living at home is found in Coventry Hills at just 14.5%, followed by Evanston/Creekside at 15.6%. 18
16
17
18
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Housing and Dwellings19
29
There were 27,324 dwellings in the study area in 2011, which is distributed in a manner that closely mirrors the populations of the nine communities. There are far more singlefamily homes (SFH) in this area (78.3%) than exist on average across Calgary (57.9%). Conversely, there are also fewer apartments (8.1%), townhouses (8.5%), and duplexes (4.4%) than in the rest of Calgary. Coventry Hills has the highest percentage of SFH with 94.6%, followed by Evanston/Creekside at 90.8% and Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) at 89%. Country Hills Village has no SFH, only apartments and townhouses. Ownership rates are also higher in the study area (86.8%) than in the rest of Calgary (72.8%). The outlier in percentage of ownership is again Country Hills Village (69%). The average number of individuals per dwelling ranges between 1.84 (Country Hills Village) and 3.17 (Panorama Hills), with an average for the area of 2.86.
19
The data in this section are drawn from the 2011 civic census. City of Calgary, 2011 Civic Census Results (Calgary: Election and Information Services, 2011), p. 35; 123-32. Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-and-information-services/CivicCensus/2011_census_result_book.pdf>.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 9: Average Number of People per Dwelling in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)
30
House Prices20 In 2011, average prices for single family home (SFH) ($380,609)21 and condo ($270,248)22 prices in the study area are generally lower than the Calgary average ($453,845 SFH; $288,291 condo),23 although the median price for condos is slightly
20
The data in this section are drawn from Calgary Real Estate Board (CREB) statistics.
21
CREB, Community Statistics Year Summary 2011: Single Family Homes (Calgary: CREB, 2012). Web. 30 Oct. 2012. http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_SF_PB.pdf.
22
CREB, Community Statistics Year Summary 2011: Condominiums (Calgary: CREB, 2012). Web. 30 Oct. 2012. <http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Community_CO_PB.pdf>
23
CREB, Calgary Regional Housing Market Statistics (Calgary: CREB, January 2012), p. 2. Web. 30 October 2012. http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2012/package/res-stats-2012_January.pdf.
June 2013
31
higher ($260,100 area; $255,000 Calgary).24 The exception to this is Panorama Hills, where the average SFH price was $471,257, which is slightly higher than the average.25 Table 10: Prices for Single Family Homes in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)
24
Community Statistics Year Summary 2011: Condominiums and Calgary Regional Housing Market Statistics, January 2012.
25
Community Statistics Year Summary 2011: Single Family Homes, p.1.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 11: Prices for Condominiums in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)
32
Diverse and Special Populations There are numerous sub-populations, or groups of people, within these communities that can be revealed using both federal and civic census data. There is a demonstrated desire on the part of the community to include these residents in the study. Diversity is a term that includes a variety of different personal characteristics. For the purposes of this report, the focus will be on the following categories: immigrant, visible minority, Aboriginal, disability, and seniors. Immigrant residents Calgary has experienced tremendous growth in population over the past decade, and much of this growth is due to immigrants choosing the city as their new Canadian home. In 2010, the total immigrant population of Calgary was estimated to be 304,000, or almost 30%, and is expected to climb to 500,000 by 2020.26
26
Diversity in Calgary: Looking Forward to 2020 (Calgary: City of Calgary, 2011.) Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/Social-research-policy-and-resources/diversity-inCalgary.pdf>
June 2013
33
As of 2006, the communities in this study have on average27.9% of their residents identified as immigrants. The highest rates of immigrants are found in the communities of Panorama Hills (41.7%) and Sandstone Valley (38.8%). The lowest percentage of immigrant residents is found in Harvest Hills (19.4%). When considering numbers, again Panorama Hills leads the way with 4,255 immigrant residents, followed by Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (3,130) and Coventry Hills (2,900). Table 12: Number of Recent Immigrant in Calgary's North Central Communities
5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0
C ou nt ry H C ills ou nt ry H ills C ov en H try ar ve st H ills Pa no ra m a Ev an st on / H id de n M ac Ew an Sa nd st on e
Number of residents
Additional to this overall data, the federal census also provides more detailed information on the breakdown of the origin country of most recent immigrants. From 2001 to 2006, the top 10 countries of origin were reported on at the community level. Within the study area, immigrants from China were the most common, followed by those from the Philippines, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The highest numbers of Chinese immigrants live in Sandstone, while the highest numbers of Pakistani immigrants live in Panorama Hills and Harvest Hills. There is also a large population of Afghans in Coventry Hills. The largest numbers of immigrants from the Philippines live in Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) and Panorama Hills.
June 2013
34
Table 13: Origin Country of Immigrants in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)
The number of immigrants from locations that were unspecified is significant. This makes it difficult to project what the demographics of these communities may look like, in terms of immigrant populations, in the coming years. Visible Minority Residents
Residents who identify as visible minority can be either immigrant or Canadian-born. According to the 2006 federal census, 22.2% of Calgarys population, or 237,900, belonged to a visible minority group, which is the fourth highest percentage in the country behind Toronto (42.9%), Vancouver (41.7%) and Abbotsford (22.8%). Only one in three visible minority residents were Canadian-born, while two-thirds were immigrants. 27 Within the area under study, there were a total of 20,150 who identified as visible minority in 2006, or 32.6%, which is a higher rate than the average rate for Calgary. There are significant differences within the communities, with Panorama Hills having
27
Statistics Canada, Canada's Ethnocultural Mosaic, 2006 Census: Canada's major census metropolitan areas. Calgary: Nearly one in four belonged to a visible minority group (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, n.d.) Web. 30 October 2012. http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-562/p23eng.cfm.
June 2013
35
over half of its population identifying as visible minority (52.6%), followed by Sandstone Valley (45.3%) and Country Hills (24.4%). The community with the lowest percentage of visible minority residents was Country Hills Village (15.1%), which was the only community to report a percentage lower than the Calgary average. Table 14: Visible Minority Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) Community Country Hills Country Hills Village Coventry Hills Harvest Hills Panorama Hills Evanston/Creekside Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) MacEwan Glen Sandstone Valley Total Aboriginal Residents28 As reported in the 2006 federal census, there were 26,575 Aboriginal people living in the Calgary census metropolitan area, which includes the Tsuu Tina Nation. The term Aboriginal used here includes North American Indian, Mtis or Inuit, and/or those who reported being a Treaty Indian or a registered Indian as defined by the Indian Act of Canada, and/or those who reported they were members of an Indian band or First Nation. Unfortunately, the community level data does not provide a further breakdown of the Aboriginal population as to these groups. The Aboriginal population is widely distributed across Calgary, with no one community having an Aboriginal population exceeding 12%.29 Within the communities in the study Number Percentage 885 24.4% 175 3,150 1,655 5,375 840 15.1% 25.0% 22.5% 52.6% 28.3%
3,725 1,340 3,005 20,150
30.8% 26.0% 45.3% 32.6%
28
Statistics Canada, 2006 Aboriginal Population Profile for Calgary (Ottawa: Statistics Canada, n.d.) Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-638-x/2010003/article/11076-eng.htm>.
June 2013
36
area, the Aboriginal population is quite small at 2% of the areas population. The largest population of Aboriginal residents lives in Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (325 or 2.8%). There were no Aboriginal residents living in Country Hills Village. Table 15: Aboriginal Residents in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006) Community Country Hills Country Hills Village Coventry Hills Harvest Hills Panorama Hills Evanston/Creekside Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) MacEwan Glen Sandstone Valley Totals Residents with Disabilities30 As of 2006, there were 7,260 residents with disabilities living in the area, which equates to 11.7% of the total population in the study area. This is less than the 16.3% rate across the City of Calgary. Not surprisingly, due to its older population, Country Hills Village has the highest rate of residents with disabilities, with a rate of 27.3%. By numbers, the largest population of residents with disabilities lives in Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) (1,425). Evanston/Creekside has the lowest rate at 7.9% or 235 individuals. Number Percentage 90 2.4% 0 0.0% 280 1.8% 110 1.5% 110 0.6% 45 0.8%
325 135 120 1,215
2.8% 2.6% 2.0% 2.0%
29
Our City; Our Budget; Our Future: Aboriginal Calgarian Consultation (Calgary: City of Calgary, April 2011), p. 1. Web. 30 October 2012. <http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calgary.ca%2 FCA%2Ffs%2FDocuments%2FPlans-Budgets-and-Financial-Reports%2FBusiness-Plans-and-Budgets-20122014%2FStakeholder-Engagement%2FCommunity-Conversation-Calgary-Urban-AboriginalInitiative.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1>
30
The data from this section are drawn from the 2006 federal census and the 2010 Civic census (which provides the 2006 population figures.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 16: Residents with Disabilities in Calgary's North Central Communities (2006)
37
Older Adults and Seniors The City of Calgary provides very good community-level information on seniors.31 Unfortunately, the population figures in these profiles do not reflect the most current 2011 civic census figures. To ensure the most accurate population numbers, the 2011 civic census numbers were analyzed and used for this section. 32 There is a total population of 4,591 residents who were 65 or over in the study area, as of 2011, which equates to 5.9% of the total area population. This is slightly lower than the average Calgary rate of 9.8%. There are more women over 65 (2,495) than men (2,096). Country Hills Village has the highest percentage rate of seniors resident in their community, with 28%. There are also significantly more senior women (401) than men (255) who are resident in Country Hills Village. Sandstone Valley is next with 10.6%. Evanston/Creekside (2.3%) and Coventry Hills (2.8%) have the smallest percentages.
31
Community Profiles on Seniors (Calgary: City of Calgary, 2012). Web. 30 October 2012. http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Seniors/Community-Profiles-on-Seniors.aspx
32
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 17: Populations of Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)
38
Data Point
Hidden Valley CA Northern Hills CA Harvest Country Coventry Panorama Hidden Country Hills Hills Hills Village Hills Hills Valley
Evanston Creekside CA Sandstone MacEwan CA Evanston/ MacEwan Sandstone City of Total Area Creekside Glen Valley Calgary
Population (2011) Number % of Total Population
577 7.7%
301 8.1%
656 28.0%
438 2.8%
943 4.8%
494 4.2%
138 2.3%
390 7.6%
654 10.6%
4,591 106,515 5.9% 9.8%
The median income rates for seniors were last reported as part of the 2006 federal census and are taken from 2005 data. As seniors often live on fixed incomes, it seems fair to assume that the rapid increase in household income that occurred within the rest of Calgary households did not occur with seniors incomes. The median income for seniors in the study area ($20,518) is slightly lower than the Calgary average ($22,625). Panorama Hills has the lowest median income for seniors at $15,468, while the highest is found in Country Hills at $25,429. Country Hills Village is next at $24,322. Table 18: Median Income for Seniors in Calgary's North Central Communities (2005)
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Modes of Transportation33
39
The 2011 civic census was the first time Calgarians were canvassed as to how they travelled to work. It is not surprising that in these suburban communities that are far from the downtown core that residents drive alone to work more regularly than residents in the rest of Calgary. In these communities, 78.9% drive alone to work, while the rate is 69.6% across all of Calgary. They do act as a driver of a car pool more often than other Calgarians, although are passengers of a car pool less often. The use of public transit is also less than the Calgary average, at 13.24% as opposed to 17.15%. In general, residents of North Central Calgary walk or bike to work much less than residents of other Calgary communities. Table 19: Transportation in Calgary's North Central Communities (2011)
Evanston Hidden Creekside Valley Sandstone MacEwan CA CA CA
Mode of Transport
Bicycle Carpool - driver Carpool/taxi passenger Drive alone Motorcycle Transit Walk Work from home Other
Northern Hill CA Country Harvest Country Coventry Panorama Evanston/ Hidden MacEwan Sandstone Total Hills Hills Hills Hills Hills Creekside Valley Glen Valley Area Village
10 24 16 1,778 4 293 28 50 1 0 14 27 916 1 148 20 19 13 2 18 4 579 1 117 19 6 3 7 179 71 3,825 2 628 18 89 15 2 225 81 4,539 5 797 24 79 25 5 68 19 1,537 0 130 7 47 5 13 107 84 2,699 0 390 11 126 8 5 16 32 1,138 0 203 8 33 2 7 32 44 2 355 13 29 1
City of Calgary
51 0.22% 683 2.95% 378 1.63% 15 0.06% 3061 13.24% 148 0.64% 478 2.07% 73 0.32%
2,923 0.87% 5,471 1.62% 8,622 2.56% 179 0.05% 57,806 17.15% 17,196 5.10% 8,907 2.64% 1,438 0.43%
1,226 18237 78.87% 234,585 69.58%
33
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Crime
40
The data for crimes committed in the communities comes from the Calgary Police Service Crimes Web Mapping Application (http://crimemap.calgarypolice.ca/content/DisclaimerPage.aspx). This application can report crimes that occurred in individual communities for up to the past six months. The data used for this report were accessed on October 15, 2012. Table 20: Police-reported Crimes Committed in Calgary's North Central Communities (April 15-October 15, 2012)
Evanston Creekside CA Hidden Sandstone MacEwan Valley CA CA Hidden Valley MacEwan Sandstone Glen Valley
Northern Hills Community Association Country Harvest Country Hills Coventry Panorama Evanston/ Hills Hills Village Hills Hills Creekside Crimes in past 6 months Arson Assault Attempted Murder Commercial Break-in Homicide Residential Break-in Robbery Sex offence Theft Theft from Vehicle Vandalism Vehicle Theft
96 0 7 0 4 0 3 3 3 24 21 27 4
40 0 2 0 4 0 2 0 0 9 18 5 0
47 0 7 0 2 0 0 2 0 21 7 7 1
97 0 6 0 2 0 11 0 1 28 36 12 1
141 1 13 0 2 0 21 0 0 21 51 32 0
58 0 6 0 1 0 3 0 0 21 19 7 1
118 0 4 0 0 0 15 1 2 26 49 20 1
21 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 8 7 0
42 2 1 0 0 0 5 1 0 7 17 8 1
Calculating the crime rate for this time period can be achieved by taking the total number of crimes committed and dividing by the community population. Although just a snapshot, it does give a representation of crime based on population of the area.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 21: Crime Rates
41
June 2013
42
Assessment of Spaces and Community Services

This assessment of available community spaces and services was designed to provide information about what services currently exist in Calgarys North Central commu nities. The size of the organization or health practice does not matter. Services can include practices comprised of numerous people or self-employed individuals. The assessment covered all the communities included in the study area.
How the Assessment of Community Spaces and Services was Conducted

When we began this piece of our project, we assumed it would be a relatively straightforward process to identify the spaces and community services (e.g. social and human services) available to residents of Calgarys North Central communities. This assumption proved to be false. In fact, we ended up employing a comprehensive methodology to piece together all the parts of the puzzle. We used a variety of methods to develop this report including: 1) Conducting a web search - We used Internet search terms that a typical resident of a community might use such as Dentist Country Hills Calgary. 2) Conducting supplementary research through phone calls In cases where Internet research returned incomplete results, we followed up with phone calls. For example, a researcher spoke with a representative from Harvest Hills Alliance Church to learn more about the community services and programs that take place at the church through room rentals. 3) Gathering participatory feedback - A draft of this report was circulated to other stakeholders in the Creating Space for Strength project. The feedback received helped us to further shape the report into its final version. 4) Informing the report with additional research This survey is only one component of the Creating Space project. We also took into account what we learned through interviews with residents and community consultations.
June 2013
43
Limitations of the Assessment

The individuals and organizations listed in this survey are those that are physically located in the communities studied. So, for example, there are no pediatricians listed in this survey because at the time the research was conducted, we were unable to identify pediatric specialists whose offices were physically located within the jurisdictions under study.
Key Learnings
Through the process of putting together this research, we gained some deep insights into services and spaces in Calgarys North Central communities. Existence of Services vs. Availability of Services Simply because a service exists in a community does not necessarily mean it is available to the people who live there. For example, we were able to identify medical clinics that offered walk-in service. Interviews with community residents revealed that there is a perception that walk-in services at clinics in Calgarys Northern Hills communities, in particular, may exist, but are not actually available. Similarly, community residents also expressed frustrations around renting space at public schools to use for It is not enough for community spaces and community events. While schools services to exist. Residents must believe that may have policies and procedures the existing spaces and services are readily that make allowances for available to them. This perception is important. community residents to book school space for a fee, residents If residents do not believe that spaces or commented that the process was services (including medical and social services) cumbersome and there was a are readily available and easily accessible, they perception that the schools were may simply give up trying. already too booked up with other programs to actually be available to residents as a viable option. It is not enough for community services to exist. Residents must believe that they are actually available to them. This perception is important. If residents do not believe that spaces or services (including medical and social services) are readily available and easily accessible, they may simply give up trying. Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
44
Residents expressed frustrations about the length of time and amount of effort it would require for them to access services and spaces in their community. This Walk-in clinics are too full with scheduled was compounded by procedures and appointments. There is a long wait time to policies they did not necessarily see a doctor as a walk-in patient. understand, such as all the forms it - Coventry Hills resident. may be necessary to fill out to book space at a school outside of regular school times. Usefulness of Readily Available Information In conducting this research, we asked ourselves, What steps would a community resident take to find out information on services and spaces? We started by following those same steps, which meant starting with an Internet search. The information that was easily found regarding community spaces (e.g. via Google and Internet searches) did not produce results that were entirely useful, or were often quite limited in their usefulness. For example, it is easy to find information on doctors offices in the area, but it is much harder to find information on specialists who may work in the communities we studied. Information on the services that exist is not relevant or helpful, unless it is useful. Without personal relationships or knowing others who live in the community, it may be difficult for residents to find out what services actually exist in their community or if the services they need are not available to them, where they might go to get what they need.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Social and Family Services are Largely Invisible
45
Unlike other areas of the city, we found little evidence of a highly prominent presence of social service agencies working in the nine communities we studied. While we know that the City of Calgary provides social services to residents of the study area, There is no Boys and Girls Club in our area. there is an opportunity for additional We need services like that. - resident non-profit service agencies to increase service offerings in the area. Community residents also commented that they did not know what social services they could access or how they could access them. While some social, family and community services are offered in the communities studied in this project, there is no storefront that is visible to community residents. For that reason, such services may appear to community residents not to exist or not be accessible to them. The building that houses police and fire services located at 11955 Country Village Link N.E. (across from Cardel Place) is seen to be a significant asset to the community, principally because the building has high visibility and is easily accessible by personal vehicles, public transit and even by foot. Because this report focuses on spaces and services that are physically located within the area of study, and none were found to have a store front, they have not been included in this survey. However, in talking with community residents, there is an appetite to have such services be both visible and accessible by residents. Services Need to be Accessible by Public Transit or by Foot In talking with community residents we learned that there is a desire for services that are not only available by car, but are also accessible by public transit or on foot. This is particularly important for seniors, youth and others in the community who may not drive. While there is an assumption that everyone who lives in the suburbs has a car, those who do not may be those who most need to access services in the community including medical services, family services and community-based services.
June 2013
46
Interviews with Community Residents

The method we used to develop the interview schedule (questions) was based largely on the appreciative inquiry method.34 The interviews themselves also included participatory elements. For example: 1. Participants were given the option of choosing the location of the interview (in person or by phone.) 2. The guided, but open-ended and informal interview structure allowed participants to control, to some degree, the content and process of the interview itself.35 The interviewers raised some points for discussion to guide the discussion and ensure consistency. Interviewees were also given the option to decline to answer questions if they did not wish to discuss them. The objectives of this approach were: 1. To enable community members to identify and recognize existing strengths and assets, particularly in terms of services and spaces. 2. To enable the community to identify to capacity to direct and drive its own development. 3. To analyze what is already working well in Calgarys North Central communities. 4. To develop confidence among community members to drive its own development.
Informal Interview Structure

Eighteen sample interview questions were developed to help guide each interview. A form requesting demographic data was e-mailed/handed out before the interview began. Guidelines for prospective interviewees to help participants understand what is expected of them during the interview were also handed/e-mailed out -- and what they can expect from us.
34
See: Cooperrider & Whitney, 2008; Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2003; Eliot, 1999; Faure, 2006. See: Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009).
35
June 2013
47
A Project overview and a consent form were also some of the handouts that were articulated and handed over to each participant prior to each interview (a copy of the consent form was retained to ensure credibility of the process).
Along with input from the steering committee, the process and methodology was approved and rolled out in December 2012.
Identifying Potential Interviewees

Our methodology incorporated a multi-pronged approach to identifying people to interview: 1. Snowball sampling; 2. Open invitations; 3. Identifying key informants with the help of the project Steering Committee.
Interview Weighting and Community

Researchers sought to achieve fair representation of the demographic groups living in the nine (9) communities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Harvest Hills Country Hills Country Hills Village Coventry Hills Panorama Hills Evanston/Creekside Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch) MacEwan Glen Sandstone Valley
We allocated a particular number of interviews per community, based on the population size of each community. Members of the Steering Committee and the Community Association Boards of Directors and other individuals directly connected with this study were not interviewed.
June 2013
48
Table 22: Interviews Weighted by Community Demographics
Harvest Hills
Country Hills
Country Hills Village 2,342
Coventry Hills
Panorama Hills
Evanston/ Creekside
Hidden Valley
MacEwan Glen
Sandstone Valley
Total Area
Population (2011) Weight
7,485
3,720
15,722
19,851
5,889
11,657
5,138
6,142
77,946
0.10 9.60%
0.05 4.77% 1.4
0.03 3.00% 0.9
0.20 20.17% 6.1
0.25 25.47% 7.6
0.08 7.56% 2.3
0.15 14.96% 4.5
0.07 6.59% 2.0
0.08 7.88% 2.4 100.0% 30.0
To be interviewed
2.9
30
Interviewed Variance
1 -2
2 0
0 -1
8 2
6 -2
1 -1
5 0
2 0
2 0
27
In addition to demographic weighting, we also strove to achieve representation in our interviews that reflected community demographics in terms of the percentage of men versus women, seniors, persons with disabilities and persons who consider themselves a visible minority.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 23: Interviews Weighted by Special and Diverse Populations Demographic % of Total Population (See our demographic report for details Persons with a disability Immigrants Visible minorities Seniors (65+ years) 12% 30% 30% 6% 3 9 9 1 Number of interviewees
49
We aimed to have equal representation of men and women take part in the interviews, as the demographic data we collected suggested an even split between genders in our study area. Ultimately, more women than men participated in the interviews. Table 24: Interviews Weighted by Gender (percentage) Demographic Male Female % of Total Population 50% 50% % of interviewees 33.3% 66.7%
Our demographic research revealed that approximately one in three adults living in the study area self-identified as being a visible minority. We set a goal that at least one-third of our respondents would be visible minorities. This goal was achieved. Table 25: Interviews Weighted by Visible Minority (percentage) Demographic Visible minority Not a visible minority % of Total Population 30% 70% % of interviewees 28% 72%
We conducted twenty-seven (27) interviews, between December 2012 and January 2013. Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report In terms of representation from the communities, the response rates included: More women than men (70% -30%); Inclusion of visible minorities (30% of respondents); More highly educated; More married than single; All owners; no renters. Fewer 45-54 age range.
50
June 2013
51
Interview Results
The charts indicate how the participants responded (and prioritized) in response to the following questions: What does community mean to you? What are some achievements of your community that you have either been involved in or know about? Services/ programs that define and engage citizens of the community? What is already working well in your community? What spaces do you know of that are available for community use? What spaces do you already access for community events, programs and services? What are the three best things about your community? What makes a community vibrant?
What Community Means

While interviewees valued the many assets in the community, what mattered most of all are the people who live and work in their communities: Neighbours Residents who lived in and around the neighbourhood Small business owners Volunteers who run the Community Associations Children and youth who attend the schools in and around the area People who operate key services in the area e.g. Police, Firefighters, leaders of community sports and leisure programs, elected officials, etc.
June 2013
52
Table 26: Interview Results: What does Community Mean to You?
Other includes: Household; Cleanliness; Diversity (people/buildings); Professional community; Buildings; Culture; Ethnicity; Faith; Pride; Online; Role models for children; Respect; Civil; Municipal; Collaboration; social structures.
What we mean when we talk about people Overall, it was the healthy presence of the people who lived in the communities, e.g. families, youth, seniors, culturally diverse people from all backgrounds, professionals, stay-at-home mums and dads, and owners of properties who contributed to the vibrancy, cleanliness and safety of the specific communities, as well as connected staff who ran many of the services. Family and friends were also high on the list. This was important to many of the interviewees because it provided and created a sense of belonging and a comfort level to many for social reasons. The service providers (volunteers, staff and business owners) of Community Associations and businesses were important because they expanded what community residents look for in healthy communities, e.g. a chance to network, contribute skills and time through volunteerism, promote local business ideas, interact on a social level at Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
53
the organized events, and create opportunities for people who take pride in their living and working communities. Neighbours provide a sense of safety and security, particularly if the community is one that takes care of each other.
Table 27: Interview Results: What We Mean When We Talk About "People"
June 2013
54
Community Achievements
Residents identified two types of achievements in their communities: Community association achievements Citizen-led achievements
Community associations, as well as informal community groups, are at the heart of the community. Together, they amplify the gifts, talents and skills of individual community members.36 That is why the involvement of community associations is important to our work. They are key to identify, map and continue to build a community by focusing more deeply on assets, rather than deficiencies. Community Association Achievements These are services and programs being offered by the individual Community Associations, NHCA, Cardel Place, churches, City of Calgary, offices of elected officials and volunteer committees.
36
Turner, McKnight, & Kretzmann, 1999, p. 2
June 2013
55
Table 28: Interview results: Community Association Achievements
Other includes: Communications; Community Association office space; Outreach to community; Hazardous waste collection; Recycling; Comfort level contacting Community Association; Community Association meetings.
It should be noted that interview respondents did not always discriminate between formal community associations, such as the Northern Hills Community Association or other informal community groups. During the research process, we did not insist that respondents identify a particular association. The data presented here reflects the interviewees responses and their perceptions of goals achieved by their community associations and groups.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Citizen-led Achievements
56
Community Associations are important for residents who wish to create an opportunity to lobby for important changes necessary for healthy growth and participation. From many of the interviewees and participants at the seniors consultation, this avenue needs to be built on. Suggestions were: Elected officials reaching out to their constituents (beyond the door knocking prior to elections) to get a stronger pulse on the community. Community Associations recruiting volunteers to help organize Block Parties. This has proven very beneficial in some communities. More citizen involvement is required to help build on what a small group of citizens have been able to achieve. Traffic solutions remained consistent during the interviews. With the new schools in the NH Communities, traffic has become somewhat of a nightmare for residents/parents/students and business owners. Beyond phoning/writing to elected officials, citizens do not know what else to do. Costs associated with maintenance of ice rinks and gathering spaces for parents to drop off/wait/collect their children from these outdoor activities remains of concern in some communities e.g. Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch).
June 2013
57
Table 29: Interview Results: Citizen-led Achievements
Other includes: Childcare; Playground; Mothers group; Block parties.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Additional Community Achievements
58
Interviewees were generally happy about many of the amenities in communities, including retail stores, restaurants and Police and Fire Services. It was noted that while there are numerous medical and dental clinics in these neighborhoods, many residents still left the area to access their own medical providers because of history with these practitioners. It was further noted that while walk-in medical clinics exist in the neighborhood, a number of them are effectively inaccessible to patients, due to long wait times or lack of availability due to scheduled appointments. Signage for all types of services (political forums, start-up of programs etc.) was identified as a community strength. Calgary Public Library and Cardel Place were seen as major assets in the community. There were, however, comments about the high costs associated with the programs operated by Cardel Place, indicating that programs maybe inaccessible to lower income individuals and families. Table 30: Interview Results: Additional Community Achievements
Other includes: Stores, commercial businesses; LRT planning forums; Emergency services; Notre Dame football; Services (doctor).
June 2013
59
Community Association events and programs such as sports, Christmas light showcases and Easter egg hunts appealed to numerous interviewees, as did informal events organized by citizens, such as block parties. The Northern Hills Community Association (NCHA) newsletter was identified by numerous interviewees as being both valuable and informative. For New Canadians, English as a Second or Additional Language (ESL or EAL) programs run by or at some of the churches e.g. Harvest Hills Alliance Church and others were seen to be important. Some interviewees commented on the need for increased services for New Canadians, noting that as the growth of the community increases, so does its multicultural population. Retail stores and other businesses were identified as being both convenient and accessible, though it was noted that some seniors who do not drive may have difficulty accessing even local amenities due to limited transit services during off-peak hours.
June 2013
60
Table 31: Interview Results: Community Services and Programs
Note: CA = Community association Other includes: Diversity; Police; Seniors housing; After-school care; Recycling.
June 2013
61
Community Strengths
Listed below are some of the assets in the communities that residents identified. It was noted that there are differences among the communities in terms of how established they are. The communities of Sandstone Valley and MacEwan Glen were the most established of the nine communities studied. Residents of these communities noted that the established nature of these communities was a strength. Table 32: Interview Results: What Residents Believe is Working Well
Other includes: City of Calgary Community Recreation Coordinator; churches; multigenerational homes; Mailbox system; most things working well; diversity; City Councillor.
June 2013
62
Community Space
We asked residents to identify spaces that already existed in the community that were available for use. While the table below shows the responses, it does not tell the whole story. Respondents often noted that while spaces may exist and be available in theory, there are numerous barriers to access including, but not limited to: Cost Bureaucratic process or lengthy applications Membership requirement (e.g. Panorama E-centre is available only to residents of that community.
Table 33: Interview Results: Existing Available Spaces for Community Use
Other includes: Creekside Co-Op grocery store; baseball diamond; a specific community culde-sac; golf course; seniors lodge. Four residents identified that their community would be further strengthened by a community meeting or gathering space (often referred to as a community hall).
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report These spaces were identified by residents who were aware of these facilities through the following: Personal use Word of mouth Signage Newsletters Long-time residents or have families/friends who are also residents
63
While space may exist in Calgarys North Central communities, that space is not always financially accessible or easily available to residents.
June 2013
64
The Three Best Aspects of the Community

Residents consistently reported that they feel safe in their community. There was a sense that crime in these communities is mainly petty crime such as vandalism and graffiti. Respondents commented that they felt that neighbours look out for each other. It was further noted that the Calgary Police Service office located near Superstore was a definite asset in the community. Transportation infrastructure was identified as being both an asset and a liability. In terms of a community strength, residents responded that they felt there was good access to major thoroughfares such as Stoney Trail, Beddington Trail and even Deerfoot Trail. However, residents also identified that the community would be greatly strengthened by increased bus services (particularly during off peak hours) and the establishment of LRT service in the area. Commercial amenities were identified as a strength, particularly in the Northern Hills area. This includes major grocery stores and other retail shops, along with family-style restaurants. Other amenities identified as strengths included neighborhood schools, particularly elementary and middle schools, as well as medical and health services (including massage and chiropractic care).
Table 34: Interview Results: Three Best Aspects of Calgary's North Central Communities, as Identified by Residents
June 2013
65
What Makes Our Community Vibrant

All of these responses came from interviewees who stated that they made a choice to live in these communities. Their sense of satisfaction and comfort comes from having most of their needs and expectations met. As stated elsewhere in this report, the respondents to our interviews noted that people make the community vibrant. A sense of connection, belonging and safety all contribute to the communitys strength. In addition to this, having access to a variety of events, activities and programs that include programs for families, seniors, single adults, youth and children give citizens a sense that their community is strong and vibrant. It was noted that events and activities need to include free or low-cost programs in order to make them truly accessible to all members of the community. Table 35: Interview results: What Makes a Community Vibrant?
June 2013
66
Community Consultation with Working-Age Adults

The Northern Hills Community Association (NHCA), which represents the communities of Harvest Hills, Panorama Hills, Country Hills, Country Hills Village and Coventry Hills, stepped up to organize a community consultation for this project. Although Northern Hills organized the event, it was open to all communities considered part of this study, which included Hidden Valley (including Hanson Ranch), Evanston, Creekside, MacEwan Glen and Sandstone Valley.
Recruiting advertisment distributed by NHCA. The notice was subsequently displayed in the windows of local businesses and on notice boards throughout the community. In addition, the adverstisement was sent out via e-mail and community-based newspapers.
Prior to the consultation itself, four members of the NHCA participated in a three-hour training session on how to conduct an asset-based community conversation. The training session was offered jointly by the project consultants and the Community Assets for Education (CAF) Institute. Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
67
The community consultation was advertised widely by NHCA, in the newsletter and on their website. Registration was required for numbers, as the room had a maximum size and we were offering refreshments, because the consultation occurred over the dinner period. This registration was primarily conducted online via Eventbrite and the NHCA website, but people could call in and register by phone as well. We also had 12 people who registered at the door. This community consultation was held on Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 6:00 p.m., in the community room of the Country Hills Superstore at 5251 Country Hills Blvd. N.W. The community consultation had 30 registered participants (not including the three consultants) and 12 walk-ins, for a total of 42 registered participants. Six people who registered did not show up and so there were a total of 36 people who participated. Eight were from the Steering Committee and seven of those people took part, as they were also representing their communities as well. This was a strong turnout for such an event.
Two local politicians also attended: Hon. Teresa Woo-Paw (MLA, Calgary Northern Hills) and Jim Stevenson (Councillor, Ward 3). At the request of NHCA, they were asked not to give any opening remarks, but they did participate in the consultation and gave some concluding remarks. Both are members of the Steering Committee for the project. The evening proceeded to wrap up earlier than the 9:00 p.m. estimated end time, but many of the participants stayed to talk and network, yet another good sign that people felt engaged by the process.
June 2013
68
World Caf Conversation Format

The consultation was held using a World Caf conversation format, which is conducive to both a PAR and an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach. In this format, participants break into small groups and hold semi-structured conversations about the topic in question. The premise is that people already have the expertise, wisdom and creativity to address any issues and/or challenges they identify in their communities. The value of this exercise lies in the conversation itself. Participants engage with issues in concert with their neighbours and try to uncover their own strengths and solutions to any pressing issues. In order to create an appropriate atmosphere, food and beverages were also provided to the participants. They were encouraged to eat throughout the evening, as they desired. At the beginning of the consultation, a brief questionnaire was disseminated to each participant and they were asked to rank pre-identified issues that the Steering Committee had formulated. These questionnaires were then collated and the results reported back to the participants at the end of the consultation. After this questionnaire had been conducted, the consultation moved into the conversation format, guided by pre-selected questions. There were four questions posed to the participants throughout the evening: Q1: What is good and strong in our community? Q2: What could be better? Q3: What do we want to see happen in 5 years? Q4: How do we get there?
These questions were chosen to reflect the asset-based approach. Each question was introduced and then the tables were asked to discuss the question and place their ideas and responses on post-it notes. After about 15-20 minutes of discussion, these notes were gathered by NHCA volunteers and organized into themes for each question. This Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report process continued for all four questions. After the second question, participants were asked to move tables in order to inject fresh ideas and personalities into each tables discussions. After all questions had been discussed and all post-it notes organized into themes, the NHCA volunteers reflected these themes back to the participants. This was both for reporting and verification purposes. After the evening consultation ended, the consulting team took the post-it notes and transcribed them as per the themes identified on the evening. This was then presented to members of the organizing team at NHCA to validate the data at an afternoon meeting. This is the data that appears in Appendix A.
69
What the Community Had to Say

Prioritizing Community Issues The brief questionnaire on community priorities was administered at the beginning of the consultation, after a brief overview of the project was given. The pre-identified issues on the questionnaire were (in no particular order): Community gathering space Emergency health services Diagnostic services Baby clinic Traffic solutions Public transit Space for seniors to meet Space for youth to meet A public high school Access to human services (e.g. parenting assistance, in-home assistance) Cultural services (dance, art, etc.) Recreation services June 2013
70
Participants were asked to rank the top three of these issues in importance to them. Some chose to rank more than the top three issues, but only the top three issues were tabulated. The results were collated and presented to the participants at the end of the session. After the consultation, the collated results were weighted as to priority, to give a more accurate vision of the priorities. The top three issues were clearly ahead of the others and were: community gathering space; emergency health services; and recreation services. If you add in Space for youth to meet and Space for seniors to meet (which are arguably also community gathering space) this category moves far further ahead, from a total weighting of 45 to a total weighting of 69. If diagnostic health services are added emergency health services this further consolidates health cares second position at 56.
June 2013
71
Table 36: Priorities Identified by Residents at the Community Consultation Issue 1st priority 2nd priority 3rd priority Total Weighting
Weighting x3 Community gathering space Emergency health services Recreation services Public transit Space for youth to meet Public high school Traffic solutions Diagnostic health services Cultural services Baby clinic Space for seniors to meet Human services 10 10 5 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0
Weighting x2 6 2 4 4 4 2 4 1 3 2 3 0
Weighting x1 3 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 5 3 1 1 45 35 27 18 14 14 13 11 11 10 10 1
June 2013
72
The Four Questions

After the questionnaire was conducted, the consultation moved into discussion around the four questions. Q1: What is good and strong in our community? The chart below reflects the number of post-it notes that appeared as a separate thought under each theme. This gives some idea as to the weighting and importance of each theme to the study area. The first question was designed as an introductory asset-based question, which some of the tables had trouble with conceptualizing early in the discussion. For this question the theme of community spirit was extremely prevalent. This included such things as the NHCA and its newsletter, other community associations, pride, and volunteers. Community services, such as good policing (low crime), fire and EMS were seen as the strongest services available in the study area. Transportation infrastructure related mainly to the areas easy access to major road arteries, making it easy to get around the city. There were a few mentions of good transit routes also. People were seen as a key strength in the community too, with young families, nice people and support from neighbours mentioned. Amenities such as shopping and the Country Hills Village Cineplex were also seen as strengths, as were the various sports programs available.
June 2013
73
Table 37: Community Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in Our Community?
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Q2: What could be better?
74
This question garnered more discussion as people were engaged in what they wanted to improve in their community. Again the chart reflects the number of post-it notes per theme. Although transportation infrastructure is seen as a strength of the communities under study, it also comes out as the number one priority that could be improved. Improved transit formed the bulk of this theme, with C-Train access and better bus routes leading the numbers of desired improvements. Better and more effective traffic enforcement, as well as speed bumps, were also mentioned. The next area for improvement was for healthcare and social services. Urgent care and emergency services were mentioned quite often, as were improved diagnostic services. More social services and programs (ESL, basic needs, immigrant and seniors services) were also mentioned. Outdoor spaces were viewed as the third possible area of improvement, especially beautification and maintenance, followed by ice rinks, parks and playgrounds. Schools and childcare were next, followed by community facilities. This included accessible and affordable community meeting places (referred to as centres) as well as more or better library spaces and programs. At the validation session, it was mentioned that information on one or more post-it notes seemed to be missing. One of the participants mentioned there had been a discussion at the table on the fact that not one level of elected politician (municipal, provincial, federal) who currently represents the Northern Hills area actually lives there. This was deemed to be an issue and we note it here in absence of the post-it notes.
June 2013
75
Table 38: Community Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better?
June 2013
76
Q3: What do we want to see happen in five years? The next question was designed to try and list achievable goals for the improvements needed. Sports, recreation and leisure were seen as the top achievable goal. This included more ice rinks, expanded pool (Cardel expansion), indoor soccer pitch, and more programs. Health care and social services were the next priority, including urgent and primary care and an increase in social services. Transportation infrastructure was also seen as an achievable goal, which included progress towards a north C-Train line, better transit and road improvements. Community facilities were next, including a community/multi-purpose/multicultural centre, a place for seniors, and improved knowledge of existing spaces. Advocacy and community pride was also mentioned, as was community maintenance (aesthetics). Table 39: Community Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five Years?
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Q4: How do we get there?
77
The final question was framed as a call to action. If these are the things you want for your community, what do you need to do to achieve these goals? Communication and engagement was the top idea mentioned, including social and traditional media, strengthening the community voice, and doing door-to-door visits to engage more people. Money is always an issue, and came in second. Government funding at all three levels was mentioned, along with fundraising from local businesses and individuals, as well as holding events. Closely related to communication and engagement was community advocacy and leadership, which was followed by volunteerism. This is really people power and will be the outcome of communication and engagement, if done right. Community leadership included the active involvement of political leadership at the municipal and provincial levels. Table 40: Community Consultation Results: Question 4 - How do We Get There?
Question #4: How do We Get There?

Planning/Prioritizing Volunteerism Community Advocacy and Leadership Funding Communication/Engagement 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
June 2013
78
Aggregate results When aggregating the top three issues and priorities for each of the four questions and the questionnaire, a clearer vision of the community assessment emerges: What the community sees as its assets What it sees as possible improvements What it sees as achievable goals How it envisions possible actions to achieve these goals What the community sees as its priorities
Table 41: Community Consultation Aggregate Results

Q1: What is good and strong in our community? Assets Top issue Community Spirit Community Services Q2: What could be better? Q3: What do we want to see happen in five years? Goals Sports/Recreation/ Leisure Health care/Social services Q4: How do we get there? Questionnaire
Improvements Traffic/Transit
Actions Communication/ Engagement Funding
Priorities Community gathering space Emergency health services
Second priority
Social Services/health care Outdoor Spaces
Third priority
Transportation Infrastructure
Transportation Infrastructure
Community Advocacy and Leadership
Recreation services
June 2013
79
Community Consultation with Seniors

As part of Creating Space for Strength: An Asset-Based Community Development and Research Project for Calgary's North Central Communities, we wanted to incorporate the voices of senior citizens in the Northern Hills area. The SPRY in the Hills group, run by Dell Sudnik, invited us to one of their regular meetings at the Panorama e-Community Centre. As the group meets regularly on Tuesday afternoons, we coordinated with Northern Hills Community Association (NHCA) to schedule the community consultation for Tuesday, January 22, 2013.
Meeting Format
Before the meeting, the agenda was e-mailed to Dell Sudnik and the Steering Committee members who planned to attend. The meeting started with an introduction of the members of the Steering Committee who were there: Moraig McCabe (NHCA), Matt Pechey (Northern Hills Constituency Office), Sarah Elaine Eaton and Vilma Dawson (Eaton International Consulting Inc.). Then, we went around the room and each of the seniors introduced themselves and told us which community they lived in. It was noted that there were no participants present from MacEwan Glen, Sandstone Valley, Creekside or Evanston. In other words, all the participants lived in the Northern Hills communities. Approximately 17 seniors took part in the afternoon consultation. We presented an overview of the project with a slide presentation. Conversation about some of the demographic data occurred and in particular, the participants wanted to know how we got our information about the median income of seniors in the communities we are studying. In this report we have provided more details about how we accessed our information. Then the seniors broke into two groups, each of eight or nine participants. Each group then discussed these four questions: 1. What is good and strong in our community? 2. What could be better?
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report 3. What do we want to see happen in 5 years? 4. How do we get there?
80
The participants responses to these four questions are shared in the pages that follow. Finally, the seniors were asked to fill out a questionnaire that asked them to select their top priorities from a list that was given to them. Each person was asked to put a number one next to their top priority, a number two next to their second-most important priority and a number three next to their third most important priority.
Seniors Concerns About Income Data

During the introductory presentation, a few of the participants asked how we got our demographic information about the median income level of seniors in the community. The median income rates for seniors were last reported as part of the 2006 federal census and are taken from 2005 tax data. As seniors often live on fixed incomes, it seems fair to assume that the rapid increase in household income that occurred within the rest of Calgary households between 2006 and 2011 did not occur with seniors incomes. The median income for seniors in the study area ($20,518) is slightly lower than the Calgary average ($22,625). It is interesting to note that Panorama Hills has the lowest median income for seniors at $15,468, while the highest is found in Country Hills at $25,429. Country Hills Village is next at $24,322. As this consultation had seniors from only Northern Hills, many probably came from the Panorama Hills community, which did have the lowest income rates at $15,468. This probably contributed to the surprise at the study area median.
June 2013
81
Seniors Consultation Results

In this section of our report, we share key highlights of seniors responses to the four questions we asked them. Q1: What is good and strong in our community? Participants listed numerous strengths in their communities. Though we did not ask them to do so, they chose to talk about the strengths of their individual neighborhoods, as well as the overall Northern Hills area. Highlights of what the seniors shared follows: Northern Hills Community Association Participants noted the good work done by the community association and mentioned that they appreciated the good relationship that they have with NHCA. Commercial amenities Participants talked about good shopping in the area and in particular: Superstore T & T supermarket Movie theatres Banks
Participants also commented that there were some doctors and dentists in their community, but noted that they are not all taking new patients. Natural spaces These participants saw the green spaces, parks, walking and biking paths as being a definite asset in the community.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Quality of life
82
Participants commented on a variety of factors relating to the overall quality of life in the community including good value for housing prices and low crime rates. There was a sense that the Northern Hills is a good place to raise a family. Q2: What could be better? The participants identified numerous priorities that focused around a few central themes: Affordable programming Participants commented that they would benefit from having more programs like those run by the Kerby Centre. But it is not enough for the programs to exist; they must also be affordable for seniors, who live on a limited budget. Meeting space for seniors The participants talked about how their group cannot grow in size because they have nowhere else to go. Their current meeting space at the Panorama e-Community Centre works well for smaller gatherings, but is not big enough for their growing needs. The seniors talked about the importance of being able to socialize with others around their own age in a safe, affordable space that is easy for them to access. Improved public transportation Some participants expressed frustration around the public transit system. They commented that buses do not run frequently enough in their area. Those who do not drive are dependent on either family members to give them rides or on the public transit system. Having more buses running more frequently would increase their sense of independence and mobility. Medical services Participants discussed the need for improved medical services at length. They highlighted diagnostic and urgent care as being of particular importance to them. Some felt that Airdrie had more accessible health services for seniors those currently available in the Northern Hills area. Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Seniors housing and long-term care
83
Some participants commented on the growing need for affordable seniors housing and the increasing need for long-term care for seniors in their community. Q3: What do we want to see happen in 5 years? In general, the participants demonstrated great wisdom when it came to talking about what might be realistic to expect over the next five years. Highlights include: Prioritizing goals Participants talked about the need to identify and then prioritize realistic goals that relate specifically to seniors. Increase affordable programming for seniors One participant noted that with the population growing in the North Central communities, the number of seniors is likely to grow, too. Improved public transit Participants were adamant that having more frequent bus service to their community would benefit them greatly. They felt that this was achievable over the next five years. Increased participation and community engagement The seniors commented that they wanted more of their peers to get involved in programs in the community. This group realized that they are a small, but engaged group of citizens. They wanted to reach out more to other seniors in their communities and get them more involved. Improved medical services The participants came back to the issue of medical services for seniors repeatedly. They noted that the need for medical services would only increase as population in the community increases. They commented that this is an issue that needs to be addressed before it becomes a crisis for the community.
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Help with odd jobs around the house
84
Participants at one of the two tables talked in some detail about their need to have a list of reputable people whom they could trust to help them with small, ad hoc projects around the house such as putting up pictures and other odd jobs. Q4: How do we get there? The final question generated both general and concrete ideas. Lobby politicians The seniors talked about letter-writing campaigns, petitions and talking with local politicians as a way to have their voice heard in order to get their needs met. This particular group demonstrated a clear understanding of how, when and why to lobby elected officials. Advocate for more affordable seniors programs Participants talked about the possibility of entering into discussions with Cardel Place around the need to have free, low-cost or subsidized programming for seniors. Advocate for improved public transit The participants talked about lobbying the City of Calgary and Calgary Transit for improved bus service in their community. Directory of handymen and volunteers to help with odd jobs One of the most inspiring results of the afternoon came from the table where they identified a need to have help around the house for odd jobs. One participant suggested that the group put together its own guide of local handymen and volunteers that they could trust to come into their homes. They identified that services would need to be affordable for seniors and that they wanted to feel safe and secure knowing that whoever was in their home was trustworthy and reputable. One participant stepped up and volunteered to lead an initiative to put together an informal Trusted Guide of Handymen. Others offered to help her. Suggestions came in from participants and others around resources they could access including contacting Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
85
the Arusha Calgary to learn about their barter program, as well as contacting the Hillhurst-Sunnyside Community Association, as someone had heard they already had a similar initiative.
Seniors Top Priorities

The seniors identified their top three priorities through the questionnaire they filled out. First priority This group of seniors is actively engaged in regular meetings and feel they are outgrowing their current space at the Panorama e-Community Centre. They noted that a community space to gather, socialize and enjoy programs that are designed especially for them was very important. After that, access to emergency health services was identified as a key priority for seniors in the community.
Table 42: Seniors First Priority
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Second priority
86
Seniors clearly identified access to health services as a top priority for them including access to diagnostic services (such as blood tests, X-rays, etc.) and access to emergency health services. In addition to health services, participants also identified access to recreation services as being important to them. As we talked with participants, they clarified that although there are ample recreation services available in the community through Cardel Place, they were particularly interested in low-cost, affordable programs that are specifically designed for seniors. Several participants commented that they are unable to afford the programs offered at Cardel Place. Table 43: Seniors' Second Priority
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Third priority
87
As a group, the participants did not have consensus around a third priority. Instead, they continued to emphasize that it was important to them to have a community space in which to meet, good access to health services and affordable recreation programs. They also identified traffic solutions, public transportation and cultural services as being important to them.
Table 44: Seniors' Third Priority
June 2013
88
Researchers Observations We noted that while the group of 17 seniors present included two or three immigrants, none appeared to be visible minorities and all appeared to be mostly able-bodied (i.e. no wheelchairs, no walkers). We understand that the results of our small consultation are not generalizable to the entire population of seniors living in the north central communities, due to the limited sample size. Nevertheless, the insights gained from this group of seniors are relevant. They are an informed and engaged group of senior citizens who brought significant depth to their discussion and shared much wisdom around what matters to them. The data gathered were reliable in the sense that we posed specific questions that resulted in clear and comprehensible results. From our experience as social science researchers, the SPRY in the Hills seniors group provided much needed insights about what is important to seniors in the Northern Hills communities that had never before been gathered scientifically.
June 2013
89
Community Consultation with Youth

The Youth Council of the Northern Hills Community Association held their own group consultation with youth ages fourteen to nineteen. The youth asked a group of more than thirty of their peers three of the four same questions used in the adult group consultations. At the time of writing this report, the youth were in the midst of preparing their own report back to the community. Our report includes highlights of their findings. Table 45: Youth Consultation Results: Question 1 - What is Good and Strong in our Community?
June 2013
90
Table 46: Youth Consultation Results: Question 2 - What Could be Better?
Table 47: Youth Consultation Results: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five Years?
June 2013
91
Online Survey
MacEwan Sandstone Community Association conducted an online survey in March and April, 2013 asking residents the same four questions that we asked in our interviews and group community consultations. They shared the data with all members of the Steering Committee, giving us permission to analyze the qualitative data they collected and include it in our report. We have compared the results of the online survey to the results of our community consultations, highlighting common themes, as well as new themes that were evident only in the online survey. Table 48: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 1 What is Good and Strong in our Community?
Online survey results Community Spirit People Green Space Schools Transportation Infrastructure Community Spaces Sports Amenities Community Aesthetic Community Initiatives Community Services No answer Cultural Diversity Support from Local Business 50 32 25 20 14 13 11 7 7 6 4 2 1 0 Community Consultation results Community Spirit Community Services Transportation Infrastructure People Amenities Sports Community Spaces Support from Local Business Cultural Diversity Green Space Schools Community Initiatives Community Aesthetic 27 18 10 10 9 9 7 6 6 6 3 2 1
June 2013
92
Table 49: MacEwan- Sandstone Online Survey: Question 2 - What Could be Better?
Online survey results Traffic/Transit Community aesthetic* Community Facilities Outdoor Spaces Community Pride Social Services/health care Schools and Childcare Communication 34 23 20 19 12 11 10 10 Community Consultation results Traffic/Transit Social Services/health care Outdoor Spaces Schools and Childcare Community Facilities Retail/Restaurants/Commercial Government Community Pride Communication Expand Cardel 36 30 30 21 21 7 6 4 4 3
Retail/Restaurants/Commercial 8 No answer* Other* Government Expand Cardel 6 5 4 3
* New category
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 50: MacEwan-Sandstone Online Survey: Question 3 - What do We Want to See Happen in Five Years?
Online survey results Transportation Infrastructure Advocacy and Community Pride Community Maintenance Urban Community Development Sports/Recreation/Leisure Programs/events* No answer* Schools/Childcare Community Facilities Safety* Health care/Social services 29 23 21 14 13 13 13 11 8 7 3 Community Consultation results Sports/Recreation/Leisure Health care/Social services Transportation Infrastructure Community Facilities Advocacy and Community Pride Community Maintenance Urban Community Development Schools/Childcare 15 12 12 11 10 9 8 8
93
* New category
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Table 51: MacEwan-Sandstone Community Association Online Survey: Question 4 How do We Get There?
Online survey results Communication/Engagement No answer* Volunteerism 40 24 19 Community Consultation results Communication/Engagement Funding Community Advocacy and Leadership
94
16 15
14
Community Advocacy and Leadership Funding Planning/Prioritizing Other*
16 Volunteerism 14 7 5 Planning/Prioritizing 7 5
* New category
June 2013
95
Models of Community Multipurpose Sites

During much of the discussions surrounding the Creating Space for Strength project, the term multi-purpose space has been used by members of the Steering Committee as a possible desired building outcome. At first blush this sounds a fairly self-explanatory term, but when conceptualizing it further, a few issues and questions arise: What exactly does multi-purpose mean? Whom would it serve? What is its purpose(s)? What kind of governance structure would it have? Who are the funders? Who are the partners? What is the difference between funders and partners? What is the process to develop such a facility?
Community gathering places can be whatever the community dreams, envisions and acts upon. There are many examples of what other communities, both within Calgary and outside, have developed and created over the years. We have researched existing models of multi-purpose spaces that exist currently in Calgary, as well as models that have been built, or are emerging, across Canada.
Characteristics of Community Multipurpose Sites

There are many iterations and variations of multi-purpose spaces, but most have a few common elements: 1. They are anchored or led by one or more lead agencies or organizations from a sector such as: Recreation; public library; non-profit social service agency; healthcare facility; school; protective services (fire; EMS, etc.) June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Sometimes, there can be more than one lead agency, as in the Genesis Centre, with a recreation, library, a community association coalition and social service agencies as partners. 2. They are funded jointly, usually in partnership with one, two or three levels of government and private donors. 3. There is shared space, either purpose built or retro-fitted. Management and governance of these facilities can vary greatly.
96
Communities of Space
Building and developing a sense of community can take place in a number of environments. Connecting and creating community can take place with or without a built environment or a structure. Think of people and their dogs socializing at an off-leash dog park, running and walking clubs that take advantage of the natural environment, soccer games, or a mothers ad hoc babysitting cooperative run by the mothers themselves. Neighbours gather, meet one another, and develop a sense of familiarity with others who share the physical outdoor space. Green spaces, parks and other outdoor community environments create opportunities to enjoy and build a sense of community. There are also emerging models of virtual communities in which people collaborate in an online space. Such communities are not bound by geographical Social Capital boundaries and are often formed based on hobbies, profession or other The expected collective or economic common interests. In our benefits derived from the preferential consideration of models of treatment and cooperation between community spaces, virtual spaces individuals and groups. were intentionally omitted, as the focus of our project has been primarily about people who live in particular neighbourhoods connecting in a traditional, face-to-face environment.
June 2013
97
There is no doubt, however, that an indoor space, such as a room, hall or centre, helps to provide a central hub for people to gather for a variety of purposes. The United Way of Greater Torontos Task Force on Access to Space put it succinctly in 2002 when it stated as one of its themes, Space is a building block of effective services and healthy communities.37 However, it is important to remember that it is people who make the gathering, not the space. You can build a community space, but without individuals to interact within it and utilize it, it is just bricks and mortar. In a sense, a community needs to regard such space as a tool to build its social capital.
What we already know about spaces in Calgarys North Central Communities

In a previous report, we identified the spaces and services that are currently available in the nine communities covered in our study area. The major indoor community spaces available in study area include the following: 1) Cardel Place 2) Public and Separate schools 3) Churches 4) Panorama Hills e-Community Centre (Residents or Home Owners Association) 5) Superstore All of these spaces are currently being used to capacity or above. Some have limited accessibility (members only) and some are viewed as cost prohibitive. Also, religious spaces are not ideal community gathering spaces as some people of other or no religions might feel uncomfortable using them.
37
United Way of Greater Torontos Task Force on Access to Space, Opening the Doors: Making the Most of Community Space (Toronto: United Way of Toronto, 2002), p. 3.
June 2013
98
Calgary Models of Multi-purpose Spaces

There are a number of models of multi-purpose community centres in Calgary, and the concept is gathering political interest and momentum. Only multi-purpose, multi-agency centres are profiled here. Implicit in this decision is that any multi-purpose space would require more than one non-profit partner. It would also require significant planning (lead time) and inter-organizational collaboration. Community Associations often have buildings attached to their organization, but they do not often partner with other organizations in these buildings. Many such centres in Calgary are experiencing challenges with capital upkeep and renovations, as available funding has decreased significantly over the past decade. In fact, at least six community associations have given their buildings back to the City because of this. The City therefore has little appetite to continue building stand-alone community association buildings. Not one of the communities involved in this study currently has access to such a building. Hidden Valleys community association does have its Hidden Hut but it is only six by 10 metres.38 Community associations are also realizing that operational costs are rising and volunteer time is dwindling. All of these issues are leading to the need for a major revisioning of community gathering spaces. The report highlighted and explained certain models of community spaces already in existence in Calgary, under the main headings: Multi-hub model (e.g. Genesis Centre of Community Wellness) Cluster model (e.g. Village Square) Recreation model (e.g. Cardel Place) Social and human services model (e.g. Community Resource Centres) Education model (e.g. Calgary Learning Village Collaborative) Co-located non-profit social service model (e.g. Storehouse 39-3-10, Kahanoff Centre)
38
Trevor Howell, Community associations don't want aging buildings, Fast Forward Weekly, June 23, 2011. Web. http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/news-views/news/community-associations-strugglewith-aging-buildings-decreased-funding-7692/
June 2013
99
Models of Multi-purpose, Multi-agency Facilities Outside Calgary

Many other urban centres outside of Calgary, and Alberta, have experimented with multi-purpose spaces and community gathering spaces to varying degrees of success. They are similar to some Calgary models, but there are new ways of thinking too, such as with the United Way of Torontos Community Hubs, or the Community Service Village, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Some of these models may provide inspiration and potential for community gathering spaces in Calgarys North Central communities within the study area. They include: Multi-tenant Non-profit Centres (e.g. Community Service Village, Saskatoon, SK; Jerry Forbes Centre for Community Spirit, Edmonton, AB; Redpoll Centre, Fort McMurray, AB) Health-based Centres (e.g. Community Health Centres, ON) Community Hubs (e.g. Community Hubs of United Way of Toronto; The Family Centre, Kitchener, ON) School-based Centres (e.g. Neighbourhood Learning Centres, BC) Recreation-based Centres Other Models (e.g. Forest Heights Community Centre, Kitchener, ON; Cambie Gathering Place, Richmond, BC)
June 2013
100
Models of Community Spaces: Additional Observations

In discussions with the Steering Committee for the Creating Space for Strength project, we have often heard the phrase The community doesnt know what it doesnt know. In other words, because the community residents in the area under study do not know what is available in other areas, they do not have a sense of the kind of space they want in their own community. Although the models report may provide some ideas for discussion, what it shows more than anything is that a community space can be whatever the community wants it to be. The community just needs a little imagination and creativity, sprinkled with a heavy dose of persistence and hard work. The communities that now enjoy landmark facilities, such as the Genesis Centre, spent many years working on their model and then implementing their ideas. It is important then, that the ABCD approach used in this project has begun community dialogue and discussion, which is vital to the process of deciding what they community wants from a gathering space. There were a few additional observations that became clear from this study: Co-location as a trend Non-profit agencies are looking to collaborate more and more often, especially when it comes to shared services and spaces. Having one agency build or renovate a space is not a realistic expectation given this trend. Accessibility Although many people in the study area have cars, often the ones who most need programs and services do not (seniors, new immigrants, lowerincome, single mothers, etc.) Taking into consideration accessibility to public transit when deciding on potential locations of gathering spaces makes good sense. The co-location trend includes not only organizations, agencies and services, but also co-location with public transit in order to increase accessibility. Costs Accessibility is not just in terms of location; it also relates to whether or not the programs and services are affordable to those on lower incomes. Costs should also be a key consideration when moving forward with any project. Time frames Collaboration and partnership inevitably take longer than expected. Time frames for some larger facilities (Genesis Centre) can take longer than a decade of dedicated community work; while smaller initiatives (Community Hubs) can take less time. Funding One or more levels of government are often key funders, especially if the gathering place will be newly built. June 2013
101
Models of Community Spaces: Next Steps

Considering that the two most viable models currently being considered for the study are Family Care Centres and Community Hubs, the following next steps could be considered:
Invite AHS and United Way to a discussion on how a Family Care Centre could be
a lead agency for a Community Hub in the area. Invite someone with experience in developing one of these models to speak at an event in the community. Start the visioning process Engage in facilitated conversation around which Calgary agencies would be potential partners, what potential funding could be found, and what form of governance or organization do you need to move forward?
Further potential next steps will be outlined in our Action Plan or Final Report, once all the data gathered throughout the research phase of the Creating Space for Strength project has concluded. What is clear at this point is that: There is an identified need for a multi-purpose facility in Calgarys North Central communities that addresses community needs for health, community, family and human services, along with affordable rental facilities for community groups and residents. There are a variety of models that are possible if such a centre were to be built. Community development and engagement (preferably an asset-based approach) must continue in order to support any potential project.
The Steering Committee and key community stake holders would want to consider entering into a long-term visioning and planning process, asking key questions around what would work, how would be involved and how to proceed.
June 2013
102
Recommended Action Plan

To help the Steering Committee move forward with its work of serving community residents, we consulted with key stakeholders of the committee to draft this action plan:
Phase One: Form a Planning Group

Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: Step 7: Confirm organizational stakeholder support. Decide which other organizations to include. Formalize a committee. Designate a lead organization or agency. Decide on a governance structures and processes. Determine membership criteria. Engage in asset-mapping in order to better understand how to mobilize and leverage existing assets. Visioning: Identify guiding principles, values and mission. Engage in strength-based community leadership capacity building. Demonstrate success working together.
Step 8: Step 9: Step 10:
June 2013
103
Phase Two: Planning

Step 1: Identify planning priorities of the group and achieve consensus around what needs to be done and timelines for completion. Create project benchmarks and milestones to create accountability. Establish concrete action steps and outcomes. Establish working groups. Conduct a capital campaign study to ascertain fundraising feasibility and goals, which may be established by costs and government contributions. Develop a communications and marketing plan. Develop a community engagement plan. Build community partnerships. Develop a Partnership Plan to work with the City of Calgary. Conduct a building feasibility study (NB: To be completed after capital campaign study.)
Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5:
Step 6: Step 7: Step 8: Step 9: Step 10:
June 2013
104
Phase Three: Preparing

Step 1: Step 2: Identify potential location(s). Establish a plan to secure land. Conduct a land development and conceptual site plan. Designate a lead person to work with Calgary Planning Commission. Develop a capital campaign. Engage a professional capital campaign manager (fundraiser). Conduct a financial analysis Complete financial statements from each member organization. Determine legal aspects of ownership (e.g. non-profit, business, etc.) Develop legal documentation (e.g. By-Laws, incorporation documents). Determine building costs and finance models (e.g. Determine if a commercial mortgage is appropriate or needed.) Develop a pro-forma operating budget that includes ongoing revenue streams for maintenance and operations (e.g. occupancy tenants, facility rental income, etc.) Determine management and governance issues that may affect building design (e.g. sharing of utilities, infrastructure assets.) Assess tax implications for each of the decisions made during this phase.
Step 9:
Step 10:
Step 11:
June 2013
105
Phase Four: Building the Space for Strength

Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: Conduct a technical study Space for Strength: Architect. Secure development permits. Determine facility operational management. Determine processes and guidelines for occupancy. Conduct an analysis of insurance needs. Secure all necessary insurance.
Potential short cuts Two potential decisions would help to shorten this Action Plan process: 1. Family Care Clinic announcement on AHS land. 2. United Way announcement of Community Hub for area. For each, the community needs to be ready to input their ideas for improvements and spaces that will work for the community into the planning process.
June 2013
106
Appendix A Research Tools Interview Schedule

This list of questions offered a general framework for the open-ended conversations the interviewers had with the research participants: What communities are you involved in? What does community mean to you? Tell me about some of the achievements of your community that you have either been involved in or know about. What was it about that experience that made it successful? What services and programs does your community currently offer? How does your work foster relationships among the people that you serve and residents in your community? What is your organizations relationship to community residents? How does your organization / service / program define and engage citizens of the community? What is already working well in your community? What spaces do you know of that are available for community use? What spaces do you already access for community events, programs and services? What strategies have you used in the past to overcome challenges in your community? Why did the strategy work? What resources or tools did you use to help you overcome that challenge? How could you use strategies that have proven successful for you in the past to help you improve your current services and space challenges?
June 2013
107
What tools or resources do you already have to help you achieve this? (If respondents answer I dont know, the interviewer can probe further by adding, If you think back to the previous challenge you told me about, you identified some tools and resources as....) What are the 3 best things about your community? What is one way that you can link the resources of people, organizations and services to accomplish your goals? What makes a community vibrant?
June 2013
108
Informed Consent
Research Project title: Community strengths, services and spaces in Calgarys North Central Communities. Research Team: Sarah Eaton (Principal), Lee Tunstall (Consultant), Vilma Dawson (Consultant) Sponsoring Organizations: Aspen Family Services, Community Facility Enhancement Program (CFEP), Calgary United Way. This consent form, a copy of which has been given to you, is part of the process of informed consent. It should give you a basic idea of what the research is about and what your participation will involve. Project Description The project will be explained to you verbally and there is a onepage description of it for you to read. Please feel free to ask any questions you have about the project. If you have further questions concerning this research project, please contact: Sarah Elaine Eaton, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Tel.: (403) 2449015
Your signature on this form indicates that you have understood the information regarding participation in the research project and agree to participate. You are free to withdraw from the interview at any time. Your continued participation should be informed as your initial consent, so you should feel free to ask for clarification or new information throughout your participation. In addition, a consent form was reviewed and signed by the interviewee and witnessed by the researcher before the process began. I, _______________________________________ agree to be interviewed for the research project on community strengths, services and spaces in Calgarys North Central communities. I have read a description of the project and I have had the project explained to me verbally.
June 2013
109
I understand I may withdraw at any time during the interview and that I may refuse to answer any questions that I do not wish to answer.
I understand that all information given in the interview will be anonymous and kept confidential. I will not be identified in any reports. ________________________________________ Participants signature Date ___________________
________________________________________ Investigators signature Date
___________________
June 2013
110
Appendix B Supplementary Reports and Resources

A number of additional reports and documents were produced throughout the duration of this project. These may be requested directly from Eaton International Consulting Inc. (www.eatoninternationalconsulting.com) or from the projects organizational administrator, Aspen Family and Community Network Society. Tunstall, L. A., Eaton, S. E., & Dawson, V. (2013). Interim Final Report (Slide Presentation). Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society. Tunstall, L. A., Eaton, S. E., & Dawson, V. (2013). Community conversation: Reporting back on what residents had to say: Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society. Tunstall, L. A., Eaton, S. E., & Dawson, V. (2013). Models of community multipurpose sites, integrated services and collaboration between service providers: A report for Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society. Dawson, V., Eaton, S. E., & Tunstall, L. A. (2013). Interviews with community residents: Reporting what citizens had to say: Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society. Eaton, S. E., Dawson, V., & Tunstall, L. A. (2013). What SPRY seniors have to say: Report on the community consultation with the seniors group SPRY in the Hills': Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society. Tunstall, L. A., & Eaton, S. E. (2012). Demographic Report: Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north central communities. Calgary: Aspen Family and Community Network Society.
June 2013
111
Eaton, S. E.. (Producer). (2012, November 29) Introductory Webinar for Creating space for strength: An asset-based community development and research project for Calgary's north central communities. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e90Ifs9_H7I&feature=share&list=UUINdBOYA xEJRxxgya5yiYJg
June 2013
112
Appendix C Ward Maps of Study Area
June 2013
113
June 2013
114
June 2013
115
Appendix D: Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces Models of Community Multi-purpose Spaces in Calgary
Lead Agency Multihub
Genesis Centre of Community Wellness NECCS YMCA Calgary Public Library 1000 Voices (Community and Human Services Area) Community-appointed NECCS Board of Directors; 1000 Voices Trustee Agency = Aspen $120 million total cost: City of Calgary ($70 million) Government of Canada ($15 million) NECCS Completing the Dream Together campaign ($15 million) YMCA ($12.5 million) Province of Alberta ($10 million) Genesis Land Development ($5 million) Jugo Juice Genesis Physiotherapy Genesis Medical Clinic
Governance
Partners
Funding
Tenants
Eaton International Consulting Inc. 2013
June 2013
June
116
Cluster Village Square Community Health Centre (AHS) Leisure Centre (City of Calgary) Public Library (City of Calgary) Heart of the NE (Aspen) Village Square Mall (Colliers) Separate governance for each organization
Recreation Anchor Cardel Place (community hub/regional recreational facility)
Nose Creek Sports and Recreation Association (NCSRA)
Nose Creek Sports and Recreation Association (NCSRA) Board of Directors
Cardel Homes City of Calgary Calgary Public Library Northern Hills CA Sandstone/MacEwan CA Huntington Hills CA Hidden Valley CA Beddington Heights CA Simons Valley Hockey Association
City of Calgary ($28.75 million) Building Community Fundraising Campaign ($6.5 million) Naming rights negotiated with Cardel Homes in 2004.
Panther Sports Medicine Jugo Juice NSD Sports and Fitness Club
Talisman Centre (multi-sport complex)
Lindsay Park Sports Society
Lindsay Park Sports Society Board of Directors
Opened in July 1983 to host the Western Canada Summer Games ($24.7 million). Talisman Centre donates $10 million for naming rights for 20 years in 2002. $22 million renovation in 2003 as part of AB Centennial.
Good Earth Jugo Juice Cardiac Wellness Lifemark Physiotherapy Priori Epee
June 2013
June
117
South Fish Creek Recreation Complex (community hub/regional recreational facility)
Alliance partners: The City of Calgary Calgary Public Library South Fish Creek Recreation Association Calgary Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 1 Calgary Board of Education YMCA Calgary Westside Regional Recreation Society
Community Board of Directors
$42.5 million total project cost: City of Calgary ($25 million)
Panther Sports Medicine Located in Shawnessy Town Centre
Westside Recreation Centre
Westside Regional Recreation Society Board of Directors
The Parks Foundation Calgary
Trico Centre (formerly Family Leisure Centre)
Trico Centre (formerly Family Leisure Centre Association of Southeast Calgary (FLCASC))
Trico Centre Board of Directors (Each of the 30 community associations has a representative on the Board)
30 community associations in SW Calgary
2000 - City of Calgary (primary contributor) 2006: City of Calgary ($10 million) 2008: Province of Alberta ($8 million) 2010 renovation: Federal government ($1 million) Province and City ($1.5 million) Built in 1983 by four owner communities of Willow Ridge, Bonavista Downs, Parkland and Deer Ridge Renovated in 2005 ($5 million) New arena and renovations in 2009 ($15.5 million) $6 million from Province; $9.5 million from City; $300 K from Southcentre Mall and $1.5 million from Trico. Renamed Trico Centre in 2009
Panther Sports Medicine Clinic Massage for Health Clinic South Calgary Primary Care Network KUMON Math and Reading Centre Green Door Nursery School Heart Fit Bow Valley Hockey Society Lifetime Smiles Dental Hygiene Clinic JUGO Juice
June 2013
June
118
Education Anchor Calgary Learning Village Collaborative (Forest Lawn)
No identified lead agency impetus for initiative came from school principals within Forest Lawn schools
CLVC Board of Directors
Alberta Health Services Calgary (AHS) Aspen Family and Community Network Society Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Calgary and Area (BBBS) Boys and Girls Clubs of Calgary (BGCC) Calgary Bridge Foundation for Youth Calgary Board of Education (CBE) Calgary Catholic School District (CCSD) Calgary Family Services Calgary YMCA The City of Calgary Community & Neighbourhood Services Hull Child and Family Services United Way of Calgary through Upstart
Clay and Vi Riddell through United Way ($4.5 million) Mike and Sue Rose since 2012
June 2013
June
119
Non-profit Social Service Anchor Storehouse 39-3-10 (Multitenant nonprofit centre/share d services model)
Storehouse 39-3-10 is umbrella nonprofit company for three founding agencies
Founding agencies: Community Kitchen Program of Calgary NeighbourLink Calgary Calgary Eye Way Society
Kahanoff Centre
Owned by the Kahanoff Centre for Charitable Activities, a charitable foundation formed by Kahanoff Foundation
Board of Kahanoff Centre for Charitable Activities
Capital Funding Partners: Anonymous Donors Alberta Lottery Fund Community Facility Enhancement Program Alberta Lottery Fund Major Facility Enhancement Program ARC Financial Calgary Homeless Foundation Kahanoff Foundation Norlien Foundation Professional Excavators Schikedanz West Service Canada The Calgary Foundation United Way of Calgary Kahanoff Foundation
Alberta Ecotrust Alberta Women Entrepreneurs Alliance Jeunesse-Famille de Lalberta Society Burns Memorial Fund Calgary Chamber of Voluntary Organizations Canada West Foundation Canadian Mental Health Association Centre for Suicide Prevention Conseil de dveloppement conomique de lAlberta Junior Achievement of
June 2013
June
120
Southern Alberta Nature Conservancy of Canada (Alberta) Rotary Club of Calgary Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics in Leadership United Way of Calgary and Area Victoria Park Volunteer Calgary Youth Central Non-profit Arts King Edward Arts Hub and Incubator (in development )
cSpace Projects (non-profit real estate enterprise; subsidiary of Calgary Arts Development Authority)
TBD. Entrepreneurial, non-profit structure that reflects the CADA/TCF partnership and the broader community.
The Calgary Foundation and Calgary Arts Development Authority
$19-$21 million: $5 million City of Calgary $8 million Calgary Foundation (loan for school purchase) $3 million Calgary Foundation (grant)
June 2013
June
121
Community Resource Centres

Name of CRC Communities served
North of McKnight Community Resource Centre Castleridge, Coral Springs, Falconridge, Martindale, Saddle Ridge, and Taradale, Sky View Ranch
Address
95 Falshire Drive NE Calgary, AB T3J 1P7 403-293-0424
Programs
* Basic Needs *2 Outreach Counsellors (Aboriginal and Immigrant Families in partnership with Calgary Family Services) *Support for Parents *CHR Well Baby Clinic as well as the Magic Carpet Ride (Calgary Learning Centre) for families with kids 3-5 years. In-house Parenting Support (partnership with Hull Family Initiative) *Informal Support *Youth Drop-In Program as well as Youth Leadership/Mentor Program (in partnership with the YWCA) *Various Youth and Adult Programs e.g. ESL Coffee & Conversation (in partnership with the Calgary Public Library) and a Computer Lab *Good Food Box (Community Kitchen of Calgary Program) The Northern Lights Small Grants initiative aims to build a stronger sense of community in the neighbourhoods of Castleridge , Coral Springs, Falconridge, Martindale, Saddle Ridge, Sky View Ranch & Taradale.
Website
www.northofmcknightcrc .ca
Funders
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority, Region 3 PROGRAM PARTNERS ALONG WITH NMCRC: The Calgary Foundation United Way of Calgary & Area
June 2013
June
122
South West Communities
Millican-Ogden Community Association Family Resource Centre
Acadia, Bayview, Bel Aire, Braeside, Bridlewood, Canyon Meadows, Cedrebrae, Chinook Park, Eagle Ridge, Evergreen, Fairview, Haysboro, Kelvin Grove, Kingsland, Mayfair, Meadowbrook Park, Millrise, Oakridge, Palliser, Pump Hill, Shawnee Slopes, Shawnessy, Silverado, Somerset, Southland, Windsor Park, Woodbine and Woodlands Millican Ogden, Riverbend
Unit 42, 2580 Southland Drive SW Calgary, AB T2V 4J8 Melody Wharton, Executive Director Telephone: 403-238-9222
*Counselling, parenting * Basic needs provision * One-stop shop
Website under construction. For information contact, info@swcrc.ca
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority, FCSS Private donors
2734 76th Ave SE Calgary, AB T2C 0H3 403-720-3322
* English Classes * Legal Clinics * Wellness Centre * Kids Clubs * Men's Group * Mother Goose Program * Knit & Natter * Planning For Your Childrens Education *Free Clothing Room & Donations * Playroom and Toy lending library * Computer lab *Clothing Exchange *Good Food Box Program * Affordable Rentals Needed YWCA Youth Advocate Program Food Hampers Bread Distribution Referrals
www.moca-frc.org
Alberta Lottery Fund Calgary and area Child and Family Services Authority The Calgary Foundation; United Way of Calgary and Area; United Way Donor Choice Program; Family & Community Support Services (FCSS)
June 2013
June
123
Sunrise Community Link
Sunrise Community Link Resource Centre (Sunrise) is a grassroots community development agency and resource centre engaged in poverty reduction and community economic capacity building in east Calgary. This includes the communities of Abbeydale, Albert Park/Radisson Heights, Applewood, Dover, Erin Woods, Forest Heights, Forest Lawn, Franklin/Meridian Business Park, Marlborough, Marlborough Park, Mayland Heights, West Dover, Dover Glen, Penbrooke Meadows, Red Carpet, and Southview.
3303 17th Avenue S.E., Calgary, Alberta T2A 0R2 403-204-8280
* Information about services and programs in all of Calgary * Referrals for basic needs Support and crisis intervention Housing advocacy (evictions, disconnections, damage deposits) * Employment search resources * Free fax, phone, photocopying * Community closet of emergency food, hygiene products and other supplies * Work with agencies, government departments, and other services to meet the community's needs * Community Advocates * Weekly money management workshops We have recently started offering money management workshops at Sunrise. Topics include Budgeting, Banking, Consumerism, Assets and Credit. We try to arrange services in your language if you do not speak English.
www.sunriselink.or g
Basic Needs: 10:00am to 12:45pm Monday to Friday Basic needs such as Emergency Hampers and Referrals MUST be done between 10:00 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. Monday to Friday on a walk in basis.
Region 3 Calgary and Area Child and Family Services; Alberta Lottery Fund; Individual and NGO Donors; The Calgary Foundation
June 2013
June
124
Bow West Community Resource Centre
Bowness, Greenwood village, Dalhousie, Montgomery, Ranchlands, Silver Springs, Varsity and surrounding areas
Bowness Sportsplex 7904 43 Ave NW Calgary AB T3B 4P9 403-216-5348 Ranchlands branch: Ranchlands Way NE Calgary AB T3G 1R5 403-374-0448
Bowness: * Good Food Box * Ripples Grants Ranchlands: * Tax Clinic * Money Management Workshop * Drop-in Program * Good Food Box Cooking with Friends Mandarin Mother Goose * Basic needs referrals and assistance, such as food, clothing , shelter, recreation and transportation * Programs and resources for new parents, particularly those with children ages 0-2. * Good Food Box Healthy Babies Network Primetime Program Seasonal Programming (please call directly to inquire) Support and crisis intervention Housing advocacy (evictions, disconnections, damage deposits) Employment search resources Free fax, phone, photocopying Community closet of emergency food, hygiene products and other supplies Work with agencies, government departments, and other services to meet the community's needs Weekly money management workshops
www.bowwest.com
Calgary and area Child and Family Services Authority FCSS United Way of Calgary and Area
Inner City Community Resource Centre (Calgary Family Services)
Bankview, Cliff Bungalow/Mission, Lower Mount Royal, Sunalta, Eau Claire, Chinatown, Inglewood, Ramsay, Downtown, East Village, Beltline, Erlton, Bridgeland/Riverside, Renfrew, Crescent Heights and Winston Heights/Mountview
1-1922 - 9th Avenue SE Calgary, AB T2G 0V2 403.536.6558
http://www.calgary family.org/youthfa mily/iccrc.html
AB Human Services
June 2013
June
125
West Central Resource Centre
Aspen Ridge, Christie Park, Coach Hill, Cougar Ridge, Patterson, Killarney, Rosscarrock, Strathcona Park, Richmond Hill, Wildwood, Discovery Ridge, West Springs, Glendale, Shaganappi, Glamorgan, Glenbrook, Spruce Cliff, Lincoln Park, Signal Hill
3507A 17th Avenue SW Calgary AB, T3E OB6 403.543.0555
North Central Community Resource Centre (Huntington Hills Community Association)
Beddington Heights, Greenview, Highland Park, Highwood, Huntington Hills, Mount Pleasant, North Haven, Sandstone Valley, MacEwan, Cambrian Heights, Winston Heights, Thorncliffe and Tuxedo Park
520 - 78 Ave. N.W. Calgary, Alberta T2K 0S2 (403) 275-6668
Family Programs: * Early literacy * Aboriginal * Parenting/Family Support * Sheriff King Domestic Violence Outreach Worker Aboriginal Programs: * Kiwehtata Parenting Program Access to Elders and cultural activities Sharing group/story telling/Aboriginal crafts In-Home Family Support New Canadians: * English as a second language referrals Resettlement referrals and integration services Youth Programs: * Homework Clubs * Girl Talk * Boys Group * Babysitting Safety Course * Summer camps * Youth mentoring * Wellness centre Resources: * Food, Computers, Recreation subsidies, Housing registry and Volunteer opportunities Food Programs: * Food Bank * Good Food Box Parent Link: * Early Childhood Education * Ages & Stages Developmental Screening (3 months to 5 years) * Parent education * Family Support * Volunteer Centre and Info and Referrals
http://calgarycloser tohome.com/progr ams-and-servicesoverview/westcentral-resourcecentre Email: westcentralcrc@clo sertohome.com
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority FCSS Calgary Foundation Calgary After School Nickle Family Foundation Kiwanis International CMHC CIP (Lottery Board Alberta) Excellence in Literacy Foundation FRP Canada Baxters Welding Calgary Academy About Staffing Harvest Energy Harry & Martha Cohen Foundation
www.weconnectyo u.ca/north_central/ index.htm
Calgary and Area Child and Family Services Authority FCSS Huntington Hills CA (is the fiscal agent) Parent Link AB Human Services
June 2013
June
126
Bibliography
Association for Community Education in British Columbia. (2007). Community schools: A handbook of best practices. Available from http://www.acebc.org/pdf/ComSchoolsBESTPracticesJuly2007.pdf Born, P. (2008). Community conversations: Mobilizing the ideas, skills and passion of community organizations, governments, businesses and people. Toronto: BPS Books. Brown, J. (n.d.). A resource guide for the world caf. Available from http://meadowlark.co/world_cafe_resource_guide.pdf Brown, J. (2005). The world caf: Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Calgary Real Estate Board. (2012). Calgary regional housing market statistics: Calgary: CREB January 2012. Available from http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2012/package/res-stats2012_January.pdf Calgary Real Estate Board. (2012). Community statistics: Year summary 2011: Condominiums. Available from http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Co mmunity_CO_PB.pdf Calgary Real Estate Board. (2012). Community statistics: Year summary 2011: Single family homes. Available from http://www.creb.com/public/documents/statistics/2011/community/YTD_11_Co mmunity_SF_PB.pdf Cardel Place. (2012). Customer Service and Facility Satisfaction Survey, February 10-24, 2012. Calgary. Cardel Place. (2012). Cardel Place Expansion Business Case: 2013 Culture, Parks and Recreation Infrastructure Investment Plan (CPRIIP). Calgary. City of Calgary & Community Neighborhood Services. (2012). Community profiles: Social policy and planning division. Retrieved from Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Social-research-policy-andresources/Community-profiles/Community-Profiles.aspx City of Calgary & Community Neighborhood Services. (2012). Community profiles on seniors. Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Pages/Seniors/Community-Profiles-onSeniors.aspx
127
City of Calgary. (2011). Civic census results: Election and information services, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/CA/city-clerks/Documents/Election-andinformation-services/Civic-Census/2011_census_result_book.pdf City of Calgary. (2011). Diversity in Calgary: Looking forward to 2020. Available from http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/CNS/Documents/Social-research-policy-andresources/diversity-in-Calgary.pdf City of Calgary. (2011). Our city; our budget; our future: Aboriginal Calgarian consultation. Available from http://www.calgary.ca/_layouts/cocis/DirectDownload.aspx?target=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.calgary.ca%2FCA%2Ffs%2FDocuments%2FPlans-Budgets-and-FinancialReports%2FBusiness-Plans-and-Budgets-2012-2014%2FStakeholderEngagement%2FCommunity-Conversation-Calgary-Urban-AboriginalInitiative.pdf&noredirect=1&sf=1 City of Calgary. (2010). Recreational amenities gap analysis: Area 8 summary report. . Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Researchand-development/RAGA-Area-8-Report.pdf. City of Calgary. (n.d.). New recreation facilities: Rocky Ridge. . Retrieved from http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-anddevelopment/Rocky-Ridge-info-sheet.pdf. City of Calgary. (n.d.). Recreation Master Plan 2010-2020. Retrieved from http://publicaccess.calgary.ca/lldm01/livelink.exe?func=LL.Login&NextURL=%2Flld m01%2Flivelink.exe%3Ffunc%3Dccpa.general%26msgID%3DXygTyssyeT%26msgAc tion%3DDownload. Clark, M. (2002). Saskatoon Community Village: A Co-Location Case Study. Available from Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
128
http://www.muttart.org/sites/default/files/Clark_M_Saskatoon%20Community%2 0Service%20Village.pdf Coady Institute. (n.d.). An asset-based approach to community development: A manual for village organizers. Available from http://coady.stfx.ca/tinroom/assets/file/resources/abcd/SEWA%20ABCD%20Man ual.pdf Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2008). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. Retrieved March 27, 2008, 2008, from http://appreciativeinquiry.case.edu/uploads/whatisai.pdf Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2003). Appreciative inquiry handbook. Bedford Heights, OH: Lakeshore Publishers. Cramer, K. D., & Wasiak, H. (2006). Change the way you see everything through assetbased thinking. Philadelphia: Running Press. Dyson, D. (2011). Community hubs: A scan of Toronto Summary report. Available from http://icecommittee.org/reports/Community_Hubs_in_Toronto.pdf Eliot, C. (1999). Locating the Energy for Change: An Introduction to Appreciative Inquiry. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development / Institut International du Developpment Durable. Embedding Enterprise at Newcastle University (author). World caf creativity exercise. Available from: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/quilt/assets/documents/WorldCafeCreativityExercise.pdf Faure, M. (2006). Problem solving was never this easy: Transformational change through appreciative inquiry. Performance Improvement, 45(9), 22-31. Graves, D. (2011). Exploring schools as community hubs: Investigating application of the community hub model in the context and closure of the Athabasca School, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada and other small schools. Available from http://ourspace.uregina.ca/bitstream/handle/10294/3397/Community%20Hub%2 0Final%20Report.pdf;jsessionid=0C6FF704CFEEBE505EC6E02E62665336?sequenc e=3 HarGroup Management Consultants Inc. (2009). Cardel Place: Market Study. Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report HarGroup Management Consultants Inc., & K. Knights and Associated Ltd. (2010). Recreation Amenities Gap Analysis I & II. Available from http://www.calgary.ca/CSPS/Recreation/Documents/Research-anddevelopment/Gap-analysis-report.pdf Howell, T. (2011). Community associations dont want aging buildings. Fast Forward Weekly, (June 23). Retrieved from http://www.ffwdweekly.com/article/newsviews/news/community-associations-struggle-with-aging-buildings-decreasedfunding-7692/ Koch, J. (2005). The Efficacy of Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) in the Educational Context. University of Calgary, Calgary.
129
Kretzmann, J. P. (1995). Building communities from the inside out. Shelterforce Online, (September/October). Retrieved from http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/83/buildcomm.html Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. Skokie, IL: ACTA Publications. Kretzmann, J. P., McKnight, J. L., Dobrowolski, S., & Puntenney, D. (2005). Discovering Community Power: A Guide to Mobilizing Local Assets and Your Organization's Capacity. Asset-Based Community Development Institute, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University: http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/kelloggabcd.pdf Miller, J., & Glassner, B. (2004). The 'inside' and 'outside': Finding realities in interviews. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (2nd ed., pp. 125-139). London: Sage Publications. Miller, S. (n.d.). Asset-based community development. Retrieved October 15, 2012, from http://www.slideshare.net/sadierynmiller/asset-based-communitydevelopment Nelson, B., Campbell, J., & Emanuel, J. (2011). Development of a Method for Asset Based Working. Available from http://www.nwph.net/phnw/writedir/da0dNW%20JSAA.pdf
June 2013
Creating Space for Strength: Final Report Northwestern University. (n.d.). The Asset-Based Community Development Institute: School of Education and Social Policy. Retrieved October 1, 2010, from http://www.abcdinstitute.org
130
Slocum, N. (2005). Participatory methods toolkit: A practitioner's manual: The world caf: a joint publication of the King Baudouin Foundation and the Flemish Institute for Science and Technology Assessment (viWTA). Available from http://www.kbsfrb.be/uploadedFiles/KBS-FRB/Files/EN/PUB_1540_Toolkit_13_WorldCafe.pdf Statistics Canada. (2012). Family income and income of individuals, related variables: Sub-provincial data, 2010. Available from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/dailyquotidien/120627/dq120627b-eng.pdf Statistics Canada. (n.d.). Canada's ethnocultural mosaic, 2006 Census: Canada's major census metropolitan areas. Calgary: Nearly one in four belonged to a visible minority group. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/censusrecensement/2006/as-sa/97-562/p23-eng.cfm Statistics Canada. (n.d.). 2006 Aboriginal population profile for Calgary. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-638-x/2010003/article/11076-eng.htm The World Caf. (2008). Caf to go: A quick reference guide for putting conversations to work. Available from http://www.theworldcafe.com/pdfs/cafetogo.pdf Tholl, B., & Grimes, K. (2012). Strengthening primary health care in Alberta through Family Care Clinics: From concept to reality. Available from http://www.health.alberta.ca/documents/PHC-FCC-Concept-to-Reality-2012.pdf Turner, N., McKnight, J. L., & Kretzmann, J. P. (1999). A guide to mapping and mobilizing associations in local neighborhoods. Retrieved from http://www.abcdinstitute.org/docs/MappingAssociations(2).pdf United Way of Calgary and Area. (2010). 1000 Voices: Strengthening the fabric of the North of McKnight Communities. Available from http://www.calgaryunitedway.org/sites/default/files/1000voices_2010.pdf United Way of Calgary and Area. (2011). Constellation Model of Governance: Community and Human Services Area: Genesis Centre of Community Wellness. Available from http://1000voices.ca/_pdfs/Constellation-Model-of-Governance.pdf Eaton International Consulting Inc. June 2013
131
United Way of Greater Torontos Task Force on Access to Space. (2002). Opening the doors: Making the most of community space. Available from http://www.unitedwaytoronto.com/downloads/whatWeDo/reports/Open_door_ main_report.pdf Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Unstructured interviews. In B. M. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to questions in information and library science (pp. 308-319). Libraries Unlimited: University of Texas.
June 2013
132
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge those organizations that have made this work possible: Project Origins Northern Hills Constituency, Hon. Teresa Woo-Paw, MLA
Project Funders Government of Alberta (CFEP Grant) United Way of Calgary and Area Aspen Family and Community Network Society Northern Hills Community Association
Project Supporters Northern Hills Constituency, Hon. Teresa Woo-Paw, MLA City of Calgary Community and Neighbourhood Services Aspen Family and Community Network Society Northern Hills Community Association United Way of Calgary and Area
Special thanks to these additional organizational supporters Calgary Board of Education, Area II Office Cardel Place Calgary Public Library Communities First Association Evanston Creekside Community Association Harvest Hills Alliance Church Heart of the Northeast Resource Centre Genesis Centre of Community Wellness Hidden Valley Community Association MacEwan Sandstone Community Association Northern Hills Community Association Youth Council The Office of Alderman Jim Stevenson (Ward 3) SPRY in the Hills Seniors Group Transform our Communities
June 2013

Final Report - Creating Space For Strength

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Report - Creating Space For Strength

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Creating Space for Strength

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Copyright 2013 Aspen Family and Community Network Society

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD)

See: Kretzmann, 1995.

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

What Makes Our Community Vibrant

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

A Modified Participatory Action Research (PAR) Approach

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Overview of Calgarys North Central Communities

A call to 311 confirmed that Creekside would be located in Ward 2.

Electoral divisions do not exactly match municipal communities.

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Northern Hills Community Association

Calgary Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Calgary Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Calgary Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Country Hills Village

Calgary Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Calgary Northern Hills

Teresa Woo-Paw (PC)

Evanston /Creekside Community Association

Calgary MacKay Nose-Hill4

Neil Brown (PC)

Len Webber (PC)

Len Webber (PC)

Sandstone MacEwan Community Association

Calgary MacKay Nose-Hill

Neil Brown (PC)

Calgary MacKay Nose-Hill

Neil Brown (PC)

Eaton International Consulting Inc.

Creating Space for Strength: Final Report

Data Sources Consulted

Eaton International Consulting Inc.