Northwest Regional
Assembly, Action for Sustainability, “From Sustainability to Soap powder”.
A
Report on Engaging ““Hard to Reach”” Communities in Sustainable Development.
In order to take forward Action for Sustainability, the Regional Sustainable Development Framework, it was identified that it was essential that the North West Regional Assembly engages with all stakeholders within the region, including those traditionally defined as “Hard to Reach”. Clearly to engage “Hard to Reach” groups it was first important to define the term “Hard to Reach”. Therefore the first step taken in the project was to engage with representatives from community groups throughout the Northwest within a focus group environment. This was achieved through working in partnership with Community Northwest, a regional membership organisation with members drawn from all sectors of community activity in the region.
In total 25 community
representatives attended 3 focus groups in
From the focus groups there was clear feedback from participants on their views of “sustainability”. These views included key words and images such as “activity and health”, “outdoors and green/organic”, “care, pure, clean”, “awareness and information is key”, “local activity is solid and reliable” and “visibility and transparency are important”. Four key defining characteristics of “Hard to Reach” individuals were identifed. These were:
These characteristics and views of sustainability were further reinforced during the engagement trials. Feedback from direct mail was that although it was clear that people saw sustainability as wider than recycling they still placed a heavy emphasis on green issues and the environment. Also, whilst particpants recognised that “Sustainabilty” was the name used and had to remain (“you have to call it something”) “Sustainability”, as a marketable word was too large to really understand and this swamped or confused participants. However, once engaged through the use of core words such as “caring” and “environment” participants quickly linked the word to health, activity and action.
In summary the key messages from the project are a mistrust of
commercial messages, green issues come first from which we can quickly “jump”
to other sustainable issues and most importantly local activity beats global
education in encouraging real involvement in sustainability.
ENGAGING “HARD TO REACH” COMMUNITIES IN SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
In order to take forward Action for Sustainability (AfS), the Regional Sustainable Development Framework, it is essential that the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) engages with all stakeholders within the region, including those traditionally defined as “Hard to Reach”.
Evidence from the work undertaken since the adoption of AfS by the Assembly in 2000, including a series of sector specific engagement seminars across the region, has indicated that the message of sustainable development is not reaching or being embraced by those at most disadvantage in society.
The Assembly is seeking to establish the nature of the barriers to engagement and identify successful methods for securing the engagement of these groups and individuals. The purpose of this is to ensure that the views of all sections of the community are considered in the future development of objectives and priorities within AfS and that the principles of sustainability are made meaningful to those communities.
To investigate and analyse the barriers to engagement regarding sustainable development issues and in doing so identify successful methods of engagement for future use.
·
To work with Community
· To draw on the experiences of the individuals/groups identified to design questionnaires that will be used to obtain the views of a wider cross-section of the community
· To undertake a series of events to “road test” the suggested methods of engagement, based upon this feedback
· To assess the effectiveness of different methods and from this develop an Action Plan to secure the future engagement of people within “Hard to Reach” communities.
The key outcomes for this project will be:
· Engagement with 60 people across the region in depth with sustainability issues
· 5000 members of the public engaged through the use of questionnaires, to ascertain their perception of barriers to engagement in sustainability
· Testing of different methods of engagement with “Hard to Reach” groups
· Increased awareness of the barriers to engagement and the subsequent development by the AfS team of an Action Plan to plan further targeted engagement
The project was split into two phases. The first step taken in the project was to engage with representatives from community groups throughout the Northwest. This was achieved through Community Northwest, a regional membership organisation with members drawn from all sectors of community activity in the region. Clearly to engage “Hard to Reach” groups it was first important to define the term “Hard to Reach”.
The community representatives were invited to 3 focus groups covering the North, Central and South sectors of the region. The primary aims of the focus groups were to:
· Define what sustainability means to community groups
· Define the key characteristics/demographics of “Hard to Reach” people
· Define activites to engage “Hard to Reach” people
In total 25 community
representatives attended the 3 focus groups in
· Direct mail with freepost reply postcards to 1000 members of the public covering ethnic minorites, low income families and people with an interest or involvement in community and voluntary activity
·
Video participation activity with young people
in
· Attendance at a mid scale promotional event in Carlisle City Centre to distribute freepost reply postcards
The key elements of the project
were to actively listen to participants, make ongoing improvements throughout
the project based on participants recommendations and carry
out the project in a time restricted period and to a budget that could be
replicated post trial phase.
The following common characteristics of “Hard to Reach” groups were
defined by participants at the focus groups:
Common issues faced:
Common feelings and
emotions:
Other common defining
factors:
Views of sustainability
as defined by the words and phrases used:
·
Running and active
·
Outdoors
·
Green/organic
·
Soft muted colours
·
Care, pure, clean
·
Awareness and information is key
·
Commitment
·
Information
·
Health
·
Local activity is solid and reliable
·
Quality brands matter
·
Easier
·
Natural
·
Visibility and transparency
·
Associate with success, a benefit and reduced
time i.e. make it easier to be sustainable
These characteristics and views of sustainability defined at the focus groups were further reinforced during the engagement trials. A clear example of “remoteness” was that during the video trail there was only one bus home for many participants who would have otherwise engaged with us in the rural areas. Also one key theme from direct mail feedback was that although it was clear that people saw sustainability as wider than recycling they still placed a heavy emphasis on green issues and the environment. Whilst participants recognised that “Sustainabilty” was the name and had to remain (“you have to call it something”) “Sustainability” as a marketable word was too large to really understand and this swamped or confused participants. However once the participants were engaged through the use of core words such as “caring” and “environment” they quickly linked the word to wider sustainability issues such as health, activity and action.
4 key demographics of
“Hard to Reach” people:
The participants in the focus groups suggested that we market to ‘everybody’ but group by the following key segments:
Think Globally but Engage
Locally
It was agreed (at the focus groups) that a key issue for engaging with “Hard to Reach” groups was that activities should be localised. To meet this criteria key local people were engaged in designing and delivering the trials. It was clear from the speed at which trust was built locally that involvement of local people especially local young people reduced barriers. Activity was key in creating a real shift in understanding of the issues of sustainability. However localisation does create issues of scale, realistic budgets and the need for contingencies if the local contact was unable to be involved.
In summary the common defining factors are a mistrust of commercial
messages, green issues come first from which we can quickly “jump” to other
sustainable issues and most importantly local activity beats global education
in encouraging real involvement in sustainability.
The following is the plan for the focus group sessions. The focus groups were facilitated by Tyrer Sorrel based on focus group guides prepared by Community Northwest and the Northwest Regional Assembly.
(Please see 6.1 of the web link appendices for a copy of the full focus
group guides).
Introduction
· What are we doing and what are focus groups?
· Who are AfS, their partners and apologies if you are already familiar
· Who are you?
What is
Sustainability?
As a whole group
explore:
· Good quality of life and advertising/Bad quality of life and advertising exercise
· 3D media analysis
Two groups:
·
Based on your experience, if sustainability was
a shoe what type would it be and why? (Flip chart sheets)
·
Brand awareness exercise
·
Brand naming exercise - One word to describe sustainability
How sustainable are
you/your organisation? (Individual).
· Hand out sustainable questionnaire and then expand
· Real examples and how did you engage “Hard to Reach”
· Why do you feel you contribute to sustainable development?
· Compare your responses – do you really contribute although you think you don’t?
· Has the first exercise changed your view of sustainability?
Break
“Hard to Reach” Groups and Barriers to Community Involvement
· Using your knowledge of “Hard to Reach” groups, how would you describe them? What are the things they have in common? What makes them “Hard to Reach”?
·
Do “Hard to Reach” groups have the time to engage in sustainable issues?
·
Based on what we discussed this morning describe
a “Hard to Reach” group fully engaged in sustainability
· What barriers have you found in engaging with “Hard to Reach” groups?
· What solutions did you use to overcome these barriers?
·
What would it take to make them more sustainable
Reaching “Hard to
Reach” Communities
· Direct Mailing: design and advert test
· Local activity: video workshop design
· Ambassadors: who and where?
Summary/Review &
Thank You
· Group review
· How will the project information be used
· Evaluation forms completed
Lunch and Finish
Selection for the focus groups was made from members of Community North West. Their memebrship profile is as follows:
|
Community Activity |
% of Membership |
|
Alcohol/Drug/Substance
Abuse |
1 |
|
BME |
6 |
|
Carers/Advocacy |
1 |
|
Children/Young People |
9 |
|
Community Development |
9 |
|
Community Welfare |
11 |
|
Disability |
14 |
|
Education/Training |
3 |
|
Environmental |
1 |
|
Health |
1 |
|
Housing/Homelessness |
3 |
|
Individuals |
6 |
|
Information/Advice |
7 |
|
Inter-Faith/Church Groups |
1 |
|
Mental Health |
3 |
|
Regeneration |
8 |
|
Special Needs |
1 |
|
Sports Groups |
1 |
|
Tenants/Residents Assocs. |
5 |
|
The Elderly |
3 |
|
Unemployment/Poverty |
1 |
|
Victims of Violence/Crime/Disorder |
3 |
|
Volunteer Services |
1 |
|
Women's Groups |
4 |
The final attendees of the focus groups represented a full range of community activity.
These included employment, poverty,
enhancing the image of region, regeneration, access to services, health, equal
opportunites, not
for profit organisations, minority ethnic groups, co-operatives/business sector,
charity/educational sector, urban, rural and coastal locations, councils for
voluntary service, children and young people, colleges and students, inner-city
and disability.
However the following key community activities were not covered: housing, crime, energy conservation, transport, air quality, waste or nature conservation.
3. FOCUS
GROUP FINDINGS
(Please see 6.2 of the
web link appendices for a copy of the full focus group guides including
evaluation data).
Sustainability is:
Key themes:
Motivators to Action:
Seen as a negative:
4.1 Objectives
of Engagement Trials
o Is
recycling important to you? Yes/No
o Is
your health important to you? Yes/No
o Why
are they important to you?
o What does sustainability mean to you?
(For an example of the
direct mail used please see 6.4 of the web link appendices)
o NW
o Range
of incomes
o Voluntary
and community interests
o Interest
in wildlife and the environment
·
Community Northwest mail 200
thank you and summary letters with 2 postcards to Community Northwest contacts.
·
Tyrer Sorrel receive
responses. Tyrer Sorrel follow up 25
replies with “why did you respond?” evaluations. Tyrer Sorrel follow up 25 non replies with
“why did you not respond?” evaluations.
·
Tyrer Sorrel identify a
core group of 3-5 young people who will act as a film crew and a series of
locations for filming. Tyrer Sorrel
image consent forms sent to groups and completed. “Crew” visits 5 other groups including
family, football and other community locations over a Friday and Saturday. The crew will interview other young people
and ask:
o What
does sustainability mean to you?
o What small change can you make that will make a big difference?
o What do you care about?
o How do we get the message across?
o What
is right for a good quality of life?
(Please note: basic trademark check carried out for NWRA and
shows can’t use “small change, big difference” as text in any promotions).
Whilst the video is being filmed
promo goodies may be distributed and adult participants will be given one of a
hundred postcards and encouraged to hit the AfS website.
Rough edit meeting with crew.
A 10 minute video will be produced (master only).
The engagement trials were particluarly successful in engaging local communities for the following key reasons:
Video
When the filming started the crew and director had no real idea what sustainability was let alone how to ask others about it. As the filming continued there was a real shift in understanding. At one point during filming one of the young people actually (and enthusiastically) saw the link between football and sustaining health themselves. It was at this point that we knew local activity works and needs to be expanded. They had “just got it”. We did not see the same change in understanding during teaching sessions or via direct mail feedback.
One key message at rough edit stage from the film crew was that it is clear we need to break down sustainability into smaller themes.
Other key findings from the video trial included the fact that local people trust local people, particularily “their” young people. This made the development of trust much easier and the project outcomes easier and quicker to achieve. The film crew expressed a real feeling that we had activily engaged with them. We became part of their community and by travelling to them and into such a rural location we showed that we really cared about their issues. In turn it also gave us a real understanding of their lives which in turn making it much easier to engage effectively in the future. For example we would never have known that children leave straight from school on one bus to get to their farms in a much wider geographic area. We made an assumption living with wide public transport that children stay at town location (or around it) for at least an hour. The reality was that a large proportion of potential respondents disappeared immediately and made it more difficult to consult in one focussed location. It was also clear from spontaneuos moments during filming that the experience was more important than the film itself (to the film crew). The filming was seen as an opportunity to visit their local city and to engage in a fun activity.
Direct Mail
9% response rate on one “cold”
letter is excellent. Direct mail gives us
the potential to reach the scale needed for the
Key feedback from the mini questionnaire:
The following is a breakdown of respondent profiles available:
|
Description |
Consumer Direct Mailing |
Existing Particpants Mailing |
General Community NW Mailing |
|
Sex: (% of total returns per heading) |
|||
|
Male |
42 |
33 |
29 |
|
Female |
31 |
56 |
46 |
|
Unknown |
27 |
11 |
25 |
|
Location: (% of total returns per heading) |
|||
|
|
28 |
22 |
25 |
|
|
33 |
22 |
17 |
|
Merseyside |
25 |
22 |
33 |
|
|
6 |
0 |
4 |
|
|
3 |
33 |
17 |
|
Unknown |
5 |
1 |
4 |
|
Totals: (number of letters) |
|||
|
Returned |
36 |
9 |
24 |
|
Sent |
400 |
56 |
400 |
|
Response rate |
9% |
16% |
6% |
|
Other: |
|||
|
Goneaways |
2% |
||
|
Event responses |
1% |
||
Promos
We gave disposable cameras as a thank you gift to participants. The cameras could have been branded as NWRA AfS to also increase awareness of the brand. We also gave them out to experiment with getting back images of susatinability. It was clear from responses that the promotional items worked best when given with no strings attached as a thank you for involvement.
Youth Parliament
Proofs of the direct mail postcards were taken to another blind location with a different facilitator. The particpants reinforced the messages we got from the focus groups. Theses were:
If is difficult to reflect on were the enagement trials went wrong because we adapted to requests as they developed. However for future work there may be lessons to learn from:
Engagement With 60 People Across the Region in Depth With Sustainability
Issues
25 community representatives were
engaged in depth at 3 focus groups across the region. The locations were
5000 Members of the Public
Engaged Through the Use of Questionnaires, to Ascertain Their Perception of Barriers
to Engagement in Sustainability
At the request of the focus group participants and due to budget implications on their recommendations 1000 members of the public were engaged during the trials. 5000 direct mail particpants would have been available with an increase in budget. This has clear implications to scaling future projects/engagements. It is difficult to define the full number of people who have engaged by word of mouth, visual promos or have hit the AfS website due to the project.
Testing of Different Methods
of Engagement With “Hard to Reach” Groups
Direct mail packs sent to 1000 partcipants. Response to one letter:
There were 6 engagement locations visited by the “Team Sorrel” film crew: Higher Education Centre, walkabout in rural town, Under 16 football match, Sustainability Centre, After School Club (primary school age) and mid scale city promtional event to promote youth activitites.
The project was completed in a 4 month period.
Increased
Awareness of the Barriers to Engagement and the Subsequent Development by the
AfS Team of an Action Plan to Plan Further Targeted Engagement.
A full evaluation meeting by all partners took place. At this meeting the focus group findings were reviewed, the successes of the engagement trials were analysed and the recommendations from video were further developed.
TheFollowing Key Actions
Were Agreed:
Short Term (May 2003 -
September 2003)
“Thank you” mini event for up to 30 delegates from the project participants and respondents. The event will also be used to consult on the AfS action plan document for the region.
2 feedback meetings with key partners.
Provide support for local networks and create a knowledge base of key sustainability issues at a Regional level. This will be done through a series of “problem buster” fact sheets to help people pass through the “overwhelm point” were they feel unable to act on sustainability issues because they feel the subject is too difficult and therefore overwhelming.
Mid Term (September
2003 - April 2004)
Create a training pack on “Engaging with “Hard to Reach” groups and sustaining their involvement”. This pack will be delivered alongside a series of events to train and increase local networks. The series of events will also act to promote AfS through awareness raising and sponsorship profile.
Mid/Long Term
(January 2004 – April 2004)
Ongoing direct mail campaign to encourage <number in 1000s> “Hard to Reach” individuals to “jump” from caring for the environment to caring for the wider issues of sustainability.
Please log onto the web at:
http://www.tyrersorrel.co.uk/Main_Pages/Clients/nwra/info.htm
Follow the links for the following files:
For more information call Mark Bryce on 01925 479966, email mark@tyrersorrel.co.uk or log onto www.tyrersorrel.co.uk
Freepost business reply address:
Tyrer Sorrel
FREEPOST NATE837
WA1 3AA