INCLUSIVE CITIES ABPL90266 SEMESTER 2 2024

Assessment Two: Individual Policy Paper Guideline & Helpful Links

Weighting = 40%

Length = 2000 words

Due date = see LMS

1.0 The Assignment

Assessment Two: Individual Policy Paper (40%) 2000 words

The aim of this assessment is to deepen your analytical skills and increase your knowledge and

understanding of approaches to policy for inclusive cities. Building on your chosen issue in Assessment One, the task is an Inclusive Impact Assessment (You can chose a different Issue to your Assessment 1 if you like).

Inclusive Impact Assessment An Impact Assessment is a method to assess policy. Here you could identify a suitable City of Melbourne built environment/planning policy and undertake an Impact Assessment to appraise the social inclusion/exclusion with a particular key focus ie Gender equality. Alternative you could undertake an assessment of the conflicts/varying priorities of different policy agendas and these impact the effectiveness of Inclusion Policy (this could be either different policies in one organization or from a different level of government – i.e. in Australia State or Federal Government i.e. How federal government policy impacts newly arrived communities and the response of local government to meet community needs, plan services etc.). Note, you can chose a policy not from the City of Melbourne.

Imagine that you are working on a social issue with implications for place-based service provision and/or built-form development in City of Melbourne. The Lord Mayor and/or CEO of the City of Melbourne has asked your team to prepare a Policy Paper to address social exclusion as it relates to a specific population group (e.g. youth or women) in an urban context (this could be a neighbourhood, local government area, service planning region or metro area).

Your Policy Paper should include recommendations on how to advance an agenda of social inclusion in relation to the specific population group. Ultimately, your Policy Paper will inform government (and potentially other stakeholders like not-for-profit organisations and community groups) of the key issues or a key issue (like, for example, employment or violence) facing the identified population group and community generally, as well as provide advice on possible pathway/s to redress social exclusion in a specific urban context.

TASK:

Select an issue/s relating to a specific population group studied in this subject (youth, people with a disability, women and indigenous people in any urban context (local or international).

Prepare a Policy Paper (2,000 words) that offers an in-depth analysis of the identified issue and an explanation of the core elements that should inform a planning response. Recommendations should be made on how to advance an agenda of inclusion relating to a population group in a specific place (LGA, neighbourhood, etc.).

The audience of the written Policy Paper should clearly understand the dimensions of the problem and the recommendations made. It is important to highlight the background and potential causes of the problem, as well as to provide an overview of how current trends might evolve over time. The problem should be analysed in social and spatial terms.

Recommendations should be presented in a way that demonstrates pathway/s to overcome existing problems and ways to modify trends towards advancing an agenda of social inclusion.

I would suggest to draw on frameworks from the course such as Three Social Logics, Ethics of Care etc. or other frameworks that may also be employed to help frame the analysis and recommendations. The Policy paper should demonstrate evidence of ‘evaluation thinking’ (what criteria will be used to monitor and evaluate implementation performance?). Illustrating your work with specific case studies, as well as images and tables is encouraged as long as it helps you to present relevant material effectively.

The issue discussion in your Policy Paper may follow a similar format as Assessment One.

Additionally, you may like to include a brief executive summary (background on why the paper is being written as well as main points of the paper in brief) and a significant component of the Policy Paper should be dedicated to recommendations and criteria for future evaluation.

The exact number of recommendations that you include is up to you, but a good assignment will include at least three (3) recommendations.

MARKING CRITERIA:

Overall, the focus is on critical discussion of your selected issue, justifying your recommendations, and evaluating how the proposal will advance inclusive cities. Please see the Assessment Criteria in LMS.

2.0 Writing a Policy Paper

How you structure your policy paper is up to you, but there are some fundamental aspects that you should include. These are:

An introduction

In which you define and provide context to the issue, and indicate the focus and scope of your paper to your reader.

Here you should also provide brief justification of why the issue you’ve selected is worthy of focus and sketch out the content of your analysis and recommendations (though leave plenty of room to do this more fully in the body of your paper).

I.e. “what’s the issue, why do we care about it, and what should be done about it?”

A methods/methodology section

In which you describe your chosen method to frame your research, analysis and conclusions relating to the issue, and the justification for this method.

Given the word count is only 2000 words, there’s no expectation here for a detailed thesis-level methodology and the description of your method should be kept fairly brief. Your method might simply be:

Step 1 – Initial research and scoping of topic.

Step 2 – Develop ‘ethics of care’ framework, research questions/aim statement, and criteria to analyse further research.

Step 3 – In-depth review of government and other relevant grey literature relating to topic and chosen case study/ies under this framework.

You might like to briefly lay out the limitations to your approach and scope (this can also be covered under the justification of your chosen framework and criteria)

An analysis section/s

Can be over several paragraphs and you may like to structure this under certain themes, findings or aspects of your framework and criteria.

If you wish, discuss through other case studies, graphs, tables, figures, and other diagrams etc. throughout (remember with graphics that these can be extremely helpful for your reader but should be captioned and integrated into your analysis, and only included where they progress your argument).

A summary of findings/conclusions

Summarise the key findings and implications from your analysis.

Make, explain, and justify your conclusions and recommendations, including the indicators which help to measure future progress and achievement of these recommendations.

Again, up to you whether you intersperse your discussion of the core elements that should inform a planning response to the issue throughout your analysis, or whether you save this for your conclusions/a specific section, as long as it’s clear to your intended audience.

A policy paper is not an essay, however, there should nonetheless be a good sense of progression and flow to your paper, a clear argument, the use of full, grammatically correct syntax, academically correct citations throughout and a full reference list.

The paper should have a clear and engaging title but aspects such as a cover page or a table of contents are optional.

3.0 Evaluation Thinking

Essentially, ‘evaluation thinking’ is critical thinking that you conduct in the process of evaluating something, and involves interrogating assumptions and statements in the literature, being aware of and analysing biases, and identifying gaps as well as positive and negative aspects - both in the solutions of others and your own. To do this, you generally need an evaluative framework as well as a set of evaluative criteria.

An evaluative framework can be any sort of model or set of ideas that guides how you analyse a given piece of literature. The model can be one directly from the academic literature developed by other scholars or it can be your own developed out of mix of others’ theories and ideas.

Either way, there needs to be some sort of academic justification for your use or development of the framework (i.e. explain in your paper why you are using it).

Some potential frameworks that you might like to utilise:

Fincher & Iveson’s (2008) three social logics (redistribution, recognition and encounter)

Martino et al.’s (2020) ‘ethics of care’ approach

Nussbaum & Sen’s (1993) ‘capabilities approach’ (emphasises exercise of human rights through the language of 10 essential capabilities)

Fainstein’s (2014) ‘the just city’ approach

Social Impact Assessment & Evaluation principles (focus on concepts such as ‘free, prior and informed consent’, respect for human rights underpinning all actions/policy, and just, fair, transparent, and accountable decision making)

Asian Development Bank’s ‘Inclusive Urban Development Approach’ (prioritises participatory, consensus-driven approaches advanced via targeted investments to enhance access to services)

United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 11 (‘Sustainable Development & Communities’)

Your evaluative criteria should then be a logical extension of this framework, typically in the form of questions or standards. For example, as suggested by Martino et al. (2020), an ‘ethics of care’ framework would operate with the following criteria:

“[U]sing the notion of “ethical obligation”, do the policies subscribe to an ethics of care? Does the problem framing or visioning of the policy recognise the intersection of diverse social identities and needs; and do the goals take some form of responsibility by exhibiting a willingness to respond to these needs? […]

[D]o the policies commit to a labour of care? Does the policy implementation process increase capabilities of care, autonomy, equity, trust and reciprocity for those impacted? [...]

[H]ow do the physical manifestations, or policy impact, allow for an affective state of care? Do the policies have the potential to respond and reduce the daily inequalities that can occur between different social identities from a sociospatial and temporal lens?” (p.3).

Or under Fincher & Iveson’s three social logics “for local planning efforts which respond to different kinds of diversity”, the framework could look like so:

Redistribution – does the policy/initiative “plan for the redress of disadvantage[?]”

Recognition – does the policy/initiative make efforts to define the attributes of groups of people so that their needs can be met[?]”

Encounter – does the policy/initiative plan for “the interaction of individuals […] in order to offer opportunities for increased sociality”

(p.3).

In practice you might like to simplify these questions into a single short phrase or criterium, and other examples may look more like a short checklist of 8-10 items rather than the above (or you may combine both the questions and a checklist).

Depending on your wordcount and chosen framework and criteria, you might then wish to set up a way of assessing the extent to which what you’re reviewing (a government document etc.) appropriately matches up with your criteria. Ways of doing this include, among others:

A simple yes/no (or plus/minus positive/negative etc.) assessment;

A ‘low to high’ extent assessment (e.g. a scoring matrix where numbers 0-3 represent categories such as ‘not at all’ and ‘to a medium extent’ or a ‘traffic light’ matrix where different colours represent similar categories); or

A matrix where categories represent the number of criteria that a given initiative or piece of literature matches up with per your framework (i.e. Item X matches up with 7 of your 10 criteria and is given a better score than Item Y which matches up with only 3 of your 10 criteria).

4.0 Developing Recommendations & Indicators

Some tips for developing recommendations:

Recommendations should be actionable - i.e. able to be practically implemented and clearly phrased in active language.

When developing your recommendations, understand who and what your intended audience is, its capacities, resources, level of executive and legislative power/ability to make decisions, understandings etc.

Recommendations should nonetheless be ambitious and target change.

Your recommendations should always connect back to your analysis, evaluative framework and criteria.

Recommendations should improve the current situation – but remember that it also shows understanding and depth to be aware of any potential pitfalls or negative consequences associated with your recommendations (and to justify them on the basis of their potential to achieve benefits and positive outcomes)

Recommendations should be measurable - there needs to be a way of measuring and monitoring achievement of the recommendation. This is conventionally done via strategic indicators.

Should your word count permit, you might like to outline your recommendations as part of your executive summary or introduction to ensure that they’re solidified in the mind of your reader.

Examples:

Well-intentioned but vague:

“The City of Melbourne’s policies, spaces and services support the community’s physical health and mental wellbeing for the benefit of all.”

(City of Melbourne, 2020, p.18).

Broad but measurable and clear nonetheless:

“Consistent with Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, other states and territories should offer asylum seekers living in the community access to concession cards and fares for public transport.”

(Hartley & Fleay, 2014, p.3).

“Strategic plans must reflect proper principles and models of urban development, taking into account local spatial patterns and sustainability of the urban growth and land use, giving preference to a compact city model.”

(United Cities and Local Governments, 2010, p.19)

Note also that in some grey literature, recommendations may be defined as ‘strategic actions’ or recommendations might be phrased quite broadly and aspirationally but accompanied by a clear and direct action. Word count permitting, you may also wish to structure your paper under the latter approach.

Some tips for developing indicators:

Should be forward-looking - i.e. themed around a future date and target.

Can be qualitative or quantitative depending on your topic, but should achieve a

balance of both.

Should cover the different dimensions and parameters of your issue and recommendations - i.e. you might need different indicators that pertain to economic, social, spatial, environmental, physiological, emotional, mental factors.

Should possess clear and unambiguous targets - i.e. simply using phrases like “aim to increase/decrease” or “reduce/maximise” are generally not enough – try as much as possible to connect these to clear targets (e.g. “increase number of persons doing X by Y amount by Z point in time”).

Should be integrated with overarching strategic and policy aims - i.e. should help to facilitate the achievement of the given government’s strategic aims and aspirations, or aims that you think they need to incorporate into their planning.

Examples:

Well-intentioned but vague:

“Proportion of residents within 300m of public open space. Target or desired trend = Increase.”

(City of Melbourne, 2020, p.22).

Forward-looking and clear:

“Area of new public open space in Southbank. Target or desired trend = 1.1ha (by 2025).”

(City of Melbourne, 2020, p.22).

Remember that it is perfectly fine to utilise more aspirational recommendations and indicators on the odd occasion or for more abstract or broad targets and initiatives, but the key here is to achieve balance and not to overuse them.

5.0 Helpful Links and Suggested Reading

In developing your paper you may find the following links and suggested readings useful (note many are from the subject guide):

Writing a Policy Paper/Recommendations:

https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/policymemo https://www.idrc.ca/en/how-write-policy-brief

https://www.researchtoaction.org/2013/07/how-to-write-actionable-policy-recommendations/ https://www-cdn.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/White-Papers-Guidelines.pdf

Some Potential Frameworks:

Asian Development Bank. (2016). Enabling Inclusive Cities: Tool Kit for Inclusive Urban Development. https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional- document/223096/enabling-inclusive-cities.pdf

Fainstein, S. S. (2014). The just city. International journal of urban Sciences, 18(1), 1-18.

Fincher, & Iveson. (2008). Introduction. Planning and Diversity in the City : Redistribution, Recognition and Encounter (pp. 1–22).

International Association for Impact & Development. Social Impact Assessment. https://www.iaia.org/wiki-details.php?ID=23

Martino, E., Yon, A., & Whitzman, C. (2020). Planning with care: Violence prevention policy at the intersection of invisibilities. Cities, 103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102764

Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. Clarendon Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach (No. 3). Cambridge University Press.

United Nations. Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/cities/

Other:

Andranovich, G. & Riposa, G. (1993). Doing Urban Research. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. (Chapter 1. The Nature of Applied Urban Research)

Baer, W. C. (1997). General Plan Evaluation Criteria: An Approach to Making Better Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 329-342.

Hopkins, L. & Zapata, M. (2007). Tools for effective planning practices. In L. Hopkins & M. Zapata (Eds.), Engaging the Future: Forecasts, Scenarios, Plans and Projects (pp.1-17).

Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Howitt, R. (2005). The importance of process in social impact assessment: Ethics, methods and process for cross-cultural engagement. Ethics Place and Environment, 8, 209-221.

Walker, G. (2012). Environmental Justice. [electronic resource]: Concepts, Evidence and Politics. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis, 2012. (Chapter 3: Making claims: Justice, evidence and process, pp. 39- 76)

World Bank (2008). Social Analysis in the Urban Sector: A Guidance Note, Washington, DC: World Bank. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362- 1164107274725/3182370-

1164107324437/Social_Analysis_in_the_Urban_Sector.pdf?resourceurlname=Social_Analysis_i n_ the_Urban_Sector.pdf