This essay will provide a critical evaluation of Maribyrnong City Council’s approach to service delivery for young people. Maribyrnong City Council’s ‘Strategy for Young People 2014 to 2018’ will be the primary source of information to weigh their approach with, while Hill’s Determining Factors of good decisions by local government in developing policy and services for young people will be used as the comparison. Focus will then be paid on how the Maribyrnong City Council approaches youth participation in governance, using the Strategy for Young People 2014 to 2018 as the guiding document for this analysis.
Guide to use when planning layout of essay:
- What should Local Governments approach be in Service delivery?
Explore that their model (Moreland city council) is and relate it to Richards (Assuming Richard’s suggestion is best Practice) – How does it compare?
-Richard Hills determinants (listed below in references)
- After reading connecting Young People in Local Communities and Young people and rural local governments,
How do they involve young people in Governance?
You need to explore what the context is of Governance in local government
Reference must use (Harvard style) must have 5 in total (Australian based)
Though local governments are varied and the needs of their young people are different, certain common base needs will always be present. Hill postulates that, although every local government youth service (LGYS) should be different, there are common determining factors which can be used to develop service areas in LGYS (Hill 1997). Hill suggests there are 7 defining factors involved with developing policy for young people:
- Issues and services target youth because it is a life stage with unique characteristics and needs
- The needs and issues which might concern and effect young people
- The service system i.e. what others are doing with young people
- The implications of State and Federal Government policies and funding
- The nature, “location” and role of local government
- The available models and strategies.
- The reasons for difference – the nature and context which create particular characteristics in each local government (1997).
Using these determining factors to examine existing youth services will allow an analysis of a local government’s approach to service delivery.
Maribyrnong’s youth strategy finds its basis in an existing health and wellbeing model. The strategy was developed using the Nest framework of understanding and measurement of the health and wellbeing of children and young people (MCC 2014). The Nest framework identifies five key areas that need to be present for young people to have ‘a good life’; the Maribyrnong strategy structured around addressing these key areas (MCC 2014). The referral back to this framework is positive, as a determining factor in developing good youth policy is the use of available models and strategies (Hill 1997). Hill reflects that it ‘would be expected that in designing their service and strategies, local government will look to existing models and expertise before deciding to “reinvent the wheel’’’ (1997 p. 11). Thus, good youth policy development is present within the creation of Maribyrnong’s strategy based on the NEST framework.
Maribyrnong’s youth strategy puts emphasis on partnerships with other stakeholders. Their strategy has been developed in collaboration with the ‘Maribyrnong Alliance for Young People’, a collection of seventeen different youth organisations. During the consulting period in determining the issues that young people faced, weight was put on what the alliance of stakeholders reported back to the MCC. With the strategy’s emphasis on partnerships with other stakeholders, Hill would categorise this type of service delivery as the promoting of coordination and partnerships through creating service provider networks, joint programs and information services (1997). Therefore, it is important to understand the service area provision for Maribyrnong youth services is largely based on using partner services rather than the MCC providing the services themselves.
Opportunities come with local councils pursuing partnership based approaches. The Municipal Association of Victoria detailed major concerns identified by councils, which included a lack of programs and insufficient funding/resources (MAV 2011). Partnership based approaches allow services greater access to funding, with councils acting as ‘‘impartial ‘players’ in the service system as they were not competing with other agencies for competing funds’ (MAV 2013 p. 12). Instead the local council works with the local youth services network, locating funding sources, preparing submissions and advocating for them (MAV 2013). Additionally, partnership based approaches work to improve young people’s access to and movement between services (Hill 1997). As such a partnership approach can be beneficial for both the local council and their partners, though a concern exists on how much young people are involved in the decision making of these third-party services.
Participation in local council governance is vital for young people. A Guide to the Development of a Local Government Youth Charter emphasised the need of young peoples’ participation in decision making and service delivery throughout councils’ roles (MAV 2013). Golombek describes youth participation as not ‘a single type of project, but rather as a program strategy … that encourages youth to express their opinions, to become involved, and to be part of the decision-making process’ (2002 p. 8). There is not one a single approach to youth participation, it must reflect local needs and local circumstances (Holdsworth 2007). Governance represents a mode of management of public affairs that is based on collaboration and networks of parties, where goals don’t need to be achieved through the power of government using its authority to command, but rather the government using tools and techniques to steer and guide the collective action of networks of parties (Stoker 1998). Therefore, promoting young people’s involvement in local council decision making, in ways that a relevant to their local needs and circumstances, is key in supporting their participation in governance.
Though Maribyrnong’s partnership based approach may not be open to youth participation. Brackertz postulates that in governance arrangements, there are concerns about the accountability and quality of services that networked arrangements provide (2006). These concerns include the way which the partnership arrangements are made and monitored, the degree which they are open to public scrutiny, and the degree in which the public can hold partnered service providers accountable (Brackertz 2006). So, although MCC has allowed access to many services through their partnership approach, the avenues for youth participation in governance through them may be limited.
Though the strategy contains heavy consultancy. In each of the five ‘good life’ framework areas 1086 young people, being the Maribyrnong Young People’s Consultative Committee (MYPCC), were consulted on their views. The MYPCC is listed as a diverse group of young people of varying ages, abilities, cultural backgrounds and socioeconomic status from all parts of the municipality (MCC 2014). This consultation is a form of active youth participation, Brackertz ascertaining that consultation provides ‘opportunities for citizens to express their preferences and attempt to influence decision making, service provision and policy formation’ (2006 p. 9). It additionally adds procedural legitimization to council processes and decisions (Brackertz 2006). With citizen participation being an extension of the democratic process consultation should be viewed as input and output legitimization (Brackertz 2006). Hence, Maribyrnong has provided participation to the young people they work with through the consultation process and are providing tools for participation through the formation of the MYPCC.
Youth participation is also listed as a strategic direction within the Maribyrnong Strategy. With participation one of the NEST frameworks’ key areas for a good life, MCC lists some participatory actions they are pursing to involve young people in governance. One of the main priorities is to support the MYPCC to become a formal Council advisory committee (MCC 2014). Additionally, the strategy lists the actions of working ‘with young people to develop and promote opportunities for them to be heard, to promote positive images of them and to add value to decision-making processes in the community’ (MCC 2014 p. 35). From this it is seen that supporting participation activities are at the forefront of the Maribyrnong youth services’ agenda. Through supporting the MYPCC to become a formal advisory committee is a limited statement, with no scope of what work they will be doing to achieve this. But it is beneficial that the MCC’s position is there is value to young people’s voices advising Council.
In conclusion, using Hill’s determining factors for service delivery, Maribyrnong’s youth strategy’s foundation in an existing framework reflects Hill’s assertation that good youth policies should look to existing models and expertise. The Maribyrnong youth service’s approach to service delivery is largely based on using partner services, which has both opportunities and limitations. Opportunities exist in Maribyrnong’s ability to provide a wide scale of accessible services, along with having greater funding flexibility. But limitations exist where young people may not be able to fully participate in the decision-making process of these external services. Young people’s participation in governance is important and Maribyrnong has involved them is through consultation whilst developing their strategy, supporting the formation of the MYPCC and creating the goal of having the MYPCC be a formal council advisory group.
References
Brackertz, N 2006, Governments & Communities in Partnership : Refereed Conference Paper, Centre for Public Policy, Melbourne, viewed 8 July 2018 <https://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/file/b2c21f9d-bc03-4dc5-bf3a-edb553ab29dc/1/PDF%20%28Published%20version%29.pdf>.
Golombek, S (ed) 2002, What Works in Youth Participation: Case Studies from Around the World, International Youth Foundation, Mayland.
Hill, R 1997, Defining a local government youth service: A discussion of Service Areas and the Determining Factors which justify them, RMIT Centre for Youth Affairs and Development, Melbourne
Holdsworth, R & Stokes, H & Blanchard, M & Mohamed, N 2007, Civic Engagement and Young People, Australian Youth Research Centre, Melbourne.
Maribyrnong City Council (MCC) 2014, Maribyrnong Strategy for Young People 2014-2018, Maribyrnong City Council, Footscray, viewed 8 July 2018 <https://www.maribyrnong.vic.gov.au/files/sharedassets/phoenix/maribyrnong-strategy-for-young-people-2014-2018.pdf>.
Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) 2011, Victorian Local Government Support for Children, Young People and Their Families May 2011, The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and Municipal Association of Victoria, Victoria.
Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) 2013, Right in the mix: Roles of Victorian councils in the delivery of services to vulnerable young people – Report of the MAV/DEECD Partnership project July 2013, The Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and Municipal Association of Victoria, Victoria.
Stoker, G 1998, Governance as theory: five propositions, International Social Science Journal, 50: 17-28. doi:10.1111/1468-2451.00106
