HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAO-08-014 - Community Engagement Strategy - Draft Policy
j
,..
Report To:
Mayor Zehr and Members of Council
Date of Meeting:
Submitted By:
Prepared By:
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
June 23, 2008
Compass Kitchener: Community Engagement Strategy
Working Group
Abbie Grafstein, Community and Corporate Planning
Associate
All
June 17, 2008
CAO-08-014
RECOMMENDATION:
Community Engagement Strategy: Draft Policy
That the draft Community Engagement Policy attached to Chief Administrator's Office
report CAO-08-014 (Appendix 1) be tabled to allow for time to receive focused feedback,
to pilot technical aspects of the policy in operating divisions, and to prepare an
implementation strategy.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Kitchener has a well earned reputation as a city whose residents want to be
engaged in municipal decision-making. Through Who Are You Kitchener (2005) we learned that
84% of our residents want a community in which the residents are engaged and active in
decision-making about local issues. While the Kitchener has an informal in
public not as yet cemented its
formal Community Engagement Strategy Working Group
are already doing a great deal to involve the community in municipal
making. That being said, the draft Community Engagement Policy confirms the City's
commitment to involving the public: ensuring best practices are consistently applied and are
appropriate for the circumstances; that roles in decision-making are more clearly defined; and,
that there is a shared understanding and shared values underscoring community engagement.
This report describes the activities of the CESWG and presents the draft community
engagement policy (in Appendix 1). Specifically, this strategy as a whole will provide the City
with a corporate framework for community engagement, providing a strong foundation for
planning, allocation of resources and continuous improvement, along a continuum of
approaches. There is still more work to be done and, given Council's approval, staff will move
forward with the following next steps:
· A focused check-in with Advisory Committees and community members who may face
barriers to engagement to ask "based on what we heard from the community-did we
get it right? Are we headed in the right direction?"
· Pilot the draft diversity lenses
· Formalize a process to assist staff in deciding which level of engagement and which
tools to utilize in projects, policy development and planning
· Obtain staff feedback on resources required and their ability to utilize tools to implement
the policy, and,
· In the longer term:
Create training for staff and develop metrics and tools for measurement.
Seek opportunities to pilot community engagement at the "entrust" level, thereby
most actively involving the public in decision making;
· In January 2009, after staff have had an opportunity to learn about the policy and tools, it
is recommended that a "Community Engagement" section will be added to report
templates for Standing Committees and Council requiring staff to comment on how the
community was engaged.
BACKGROUND:
In October 2006, Council received and adopted "A Plan for a Healthy Kitchener, 2007-2027"
(P4HK) as the community's vision for twenty years into the future. P4HK provided a unified
strategic approach to key areas essential to the health and vitality of the City of Kitchener. It
articulated priorities identified in consultation with the community - quality of life, leadership and
community engagement, diversity, downtown, development, and the environment. And, it also
provided high level recommendations for action in each of these areas to be completed over the
next 4 years, 2007-2010, the term of the current Mayor and Council.
Compass Kitchener has moved forward on the strategic objective of developing a community
engagement strategy in its 07-08 workplan. In October 2007, the City of Kitchener Community
Engagement Strategy Working Group (CESWG) was created. The Working Group includes City
of Kitchener staff from a variety of departments, and representatives from community
organizations and institutions.
In addition to recommending the
P4HK recommends
affect them include and
diverse audiences. As such, the CESWG has
into its work.
under the
initiatives
and
of
Compass Kitchener, on behalf of the CESWG, provides this update to Council on its activities
and presents a draft Community Policy. Compass Kitchener is recommending that
the final policy be presented in fall 08/09, allowing for time to receive focused feedback
from the community and to develop an implementation strategy.
REPORT:
The CESWG has undertaken a number of activities to support the development of the
community engagement policy:
· As the CESWG created a terms a reference, a number of themes were developed to
guide this strategy. Over time it became clear that the themes were truly the working
group's identification of principles of community engagement, which have been reworked
into the 6 principles of community engagement and form an important section of the draft
community engagement policy.
the CESWG identified
a continuum
to more active
diversity lens
inclusion of diverse audiences our
· And finally, research was undertaken
both internally and externally, in municipal
Draft Community Engagement Policy
The draft policy, presented in Appendix 1, contains 3 parts: a preamble, guiding principles, and
the community engagement continuum.
The preamble, was adapted from A Plan for A Healthy Kitchener; the birthplace of the
community engagement strategy. It identifies (i) the corporate recognition of the benefits of
community engagement; and (ii) the corporate commitment to engagement and the processes
to which this policy applies: development of city policies, specific projects, strategies and plans
for strategic investments.
The second section identifies the six principles that were developed from the CESWG themes
and affirms that Community Engagement at the City of Kitchener will be guided by:
· Communication
· Inclusivity
· Transparency and Accountability
· Continuous Improvement
· Resources
· Engaging Partners
As presented in Appendix 1 , the principles in full provide a strong foundation for how the City
will engage the community and clear direction for the development of tools and techniques to
support community involvement in decision making processes.
The third section of the draft policy includes a continuum of four strategies and associated
promises related to reaching and involving stakeholders in specific engagement initiatives. The
four strategies or levels of engagement are:
INFORM
To provide the public with
balanced and objective
information to assist them in
understanding the problem,
alternative, or solutions.
COLLABORATE
ENTRUST
To address the needs of the
public and place the final
decision in their hands.
planning
and
referred solution.
Moving from left to right along the continuum increases public involvement and influence in
decision making.
The next part of the continuum (below) describes the City's commitment to the public at each
level of engagement, providing transparency to the process and clarifying roles and
accountability. Whenever the City embarks on an engagement process, the purpose of the
engagement and the 'promise' will be clarified at the beginning of the process.
INFORM
Promise to the Public
We will keep you informed.
CONSUL T
Promise to the Public
We will inform you, listen to
you, acknowledge your
and provide
how public input
influenced the decision.
COLLABORATE
Promise to the Public
We will look to you for direct
advice and innovation in
formulating solutions, and
incorporate your advice and
recommendations into the
decisions to the maximum
extent ossible.
ENTRUST
Promise to the Public
We will work with you to
reach a final decision and
implement what you decide.
The continuum provides the City and the community with common language and commitments
for public involvement.
All levels of engagement have value and it is important to select the right approach for the
question posed. Furthermore, it is likely that multiple levels of engagement will be used in any
given project. Through the research of the CESWG, tools were found that will assist in deciding
which approaches to utilize. In the next phase of the strategy, these tools will be further
explored and adapted for our use. For illustration purposes, Appendix 2 provides some
examples of specific techniques that may be used for different levels of engagement.
Access, Equity and Inclusion in Community Engagement
Barriers to community engagement include anything that prevents a person from fully
participating because of his/her age, language, ability, creed, etc, and may include a physical
barrier, an informational or communications barrier, an attitudinal barrier, a technological barrier,
a policy or a practice. As such, it is critical to determine the most effective "best practices" for
inclusive engagement. "Inclusivity" was identified as a foundational guiding principle, and to
begin to understand how the City can be more inclusive in its engagement initiatives, a diversity
lens was created for the continuum: A checklist of inclusive practices that can be utilized, it
provides staff with tangible examples of how to practice community engagement at each level in
an inclusive manner. As a draft, it remains to be vetted through Program and Resource
Services, in regards to legislation coming out of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disability
Act, and "age-friendly" frameworks currently being developed. See Appendix 4 for a draft lens
that can be used at the "Inform" level of engagement.
Concurrently, A "Diversity Tools" action group was developed from the Creating a Culture of
Safety for Kitchener, a Future Search Forum. This group recognized the need for community
coalitions, municipal committees with public involvement, and other groups in the community to
have more inclusive membership. The action group developed a draft Inclusive Committee
Checklist which included concrete steps that can be taken to assist such coalitions, committees
and groups their in recruitment and operations. This checklist compliments the work being
done in both the community engagement strategy-particularly at the collaboration level of
engagementnand the advisory committee review process. This checklist also needs to be
confirmed through the work in Program and Resource Services.
Below are excerpts from the checklists for "inform" and "consult" strategies:
· Final reports, recommendations, statements, publications are made available
for/accessible to all, inclusive language and images are used.
· Develop a comprehensive list of community organizations and groups that work directly
with populations who may face barriers to participation. Include community and ethnic
media resources; services for persons with disabilities. Distribute information via these
organizations and groups.
participants from diverse backgrounds and is advertised through a mix of
· Ensure that meeting times are scheduled when no religious/traditional rituals or practices
prevent members from attending.
· Ensure venue is relatively convenient and accessible for participants.
These items can be reviewed against current practices and where gaps are found, new
approaches can be incorporated into community engagement processes. These checklists are
important tools that will support implementation of the policy. A pilot of how this process can be
tailored to a specific department will be tested in late spring. By doing this operational work we
begin to better understand how diversity and inclusion need to be embedded into the various
levels of the corporation.
Key Findings from Internal and External Research
To gain a better understanding of what is currently being done in engaging citizens in the work
of the City, the Working Group oversaw a series of 15 interviews with staff that have
responsibilities for community engagement. Findings were compared to the and
continuum. In general, the findings support the direction of WG
continuum. Where applicable, the draft principles were adapted to be
helpful in formalizing tools to support the policy.
In addition, staff from four municipalities from across Canada were interviewed including: the
Cites of Cambridge, Edmonton, Calgary, and the Region of Waterloo. These Cities (and
were selected to gain a local perspective, in addition to gaining a more thorough
of cities that are innovative or experienced in engagement policy. The key
findings from and Calgary are fully in alignment with the WG's development of
principles and use of a continuum. General findings are also consistent with CESWG activities
that will occur in the next phase of the community engagement strategy. (i.e. identification of
resources to support community engagement: staff, tools and techniques, etc.)
Next Steps
The CESWG has identified the following next steps as necessary to complete the development
of the Community Engagement Strategy:
· A focused check-in with Advisory Committees, including MACKS and KY AC, and
community members who may face barriers to engagement to ask "based on what we
heard from the community-did we get it right? Are we headed in the right direction?"
This approach ensures feedback from community members who are highly engaged in
City processes, and those are less engaged, or not at all.
· Pilot the draft diversity lenses
· Formalize a process to assist staff in deciding at which level of engagement to involve
the community and the most appropriate tools to utilize in projects, policy development
and planning. Worksheets developed by the City of Edmonton, Health Canada, and
others will be adapted for the City of Kitchener.
· Obtain staff feedback on resources required and their ability to utilize tools, including the
lenses, to implement the policy.
· In the longer term:
Create training for staff and develop metrics and tools for measurement.
Seek opportunities to pilot community engagement at the "entrust" level, thereby
most actively involving the public in decision making;
· In January 2009, after staff have had an opportunity to learn about the policy and tools, it
is recommended that a "Community Engagement" section will be added to report
templates for Standing Committees and Council requiring staff to comment on how the
community was engaged.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
None at this time. Costs for community engagement are included in overall project costs and
funds for inclusive engagement practices can be requested through the existing Corporate
Accessibility Fund and the Diversity Budget.
COMMUNICATIONS:
The Community Engagement Strategy Working Group includes representation from Corporate
Communications and Marketing; plans will be developed to communicate with staff and the
community. Central to the initiative is consideration of outreach and communication with diverse
members of the community.
Abbie Grafstein
Community and Corporate Planning Associate
Shelley Adams, Director
Community and Corporate Planning
Jasminka Klacar
Chair, Community Engagement Strategy Working Group
APPENDIX 1
Draft Community Engagement Policy
Preamble
The City of Kitchener recognizes that the benefits of citizen engagement are widely
understood and include: enhanced quality of decisions, greater understanding and
consensus built among stakeholders, increased ease of implementation, intentional
anticipation of public concerns and an increase in civic capacity.
City of Kitchener is committed to fostering an open and understandable decision-making
process by regularly engaging citizens through the sharing of information; through
citizen consultation on specific projects; and through the active and ongoing
participation of citizens, businesses and community organizations in the development of
city policies, projects, strategies and plans for strategic investments.
To the best of its ability, and as appropriate, the City of Kitchener is committed to
utilizing community engagement strategies and tools that involve the community in
decision making to the highest degree possible. It is in everyone's best interest to
support leadership and community capacity.
Guiding Principles
Community Engagement at the City of Kitchener will be guided by the following
principles:
Communication: The engagement process and each step of its progress will be
communicated to participants and the community at large using appropriate methods
and technologies.
· We will provide information that is timely, accurate, objective, easily
understood and highly accessible.
· We will work with the community in a co-operative and collaborative way that
includes openness, information sharing and a commitment to feedback and
the use of plain language.
· We will involve the community as early as possible in the process so that time
and opportunity are given for stakeholders to learn about the issue - and so
that timely, clear and complete information about the engagement process
can be communicated to all stakeholders
· We will remind stakeholders that their views and involvement are always
welcome and valued.
Inclusivity: Our engagement processes will be based on building trust and
relationships within the community.
· We will develop specific strategies for effective communication and
consultation and building stronger links with those members of the community
that are often not engaged.
· We will foster respect for the diverse values, interests and knowledge of those
involved.
· We will encourage participation by those who will be affected by the decision.
Transparency and Accountability: The city will be transparent and accountable for
acting in accordance with its "Commitment to the Public" (see continuum) and will
demonstrate that results and outcomes are consistent with the promises it makes:
· Participants will be clear about the reasons why they are being involved, what
is expected of them and the range of outcomes their involvement will
produce,
· Participants will be provided with feedback as to the results of the process
and how their input influences the decisions as they are made
· Engagement processes will be evaluated and outcomes measured.
Continuous Improvement: We will continue to seek better ways of engaging the
community at large about complex issues.
· We will share ideas, techniques, knowledge and experience about community
engagement across the organization, and seek to learn from, the best
practices of other organizations and communities, and share the same as
requested.
Resources: The city acknowledges the importance of engaging the community and
providing adequate staff, time and funding to do so.
· To the best of its best ability, the City will allocate available resources to
support effective community engagement
· Staff will be trained and capable in supporting effective engagement.
· Stakeholder time and resources will also be respected and used
effectively.
Engaging Partners: To the best of its ability, the City will work in partnership with
individuals, groups and organizations to seek mutually beneficial outcomes.
· We will seek to build our awareness of potential partnerships within our
community
· When appropriate, we will partner with community stakeholders in community
engagement processes that result in joint recommendations.
· We will encourage community stakeholders to remain involved in the
implementation of decisions and future community issues.
Community Engagement Continuum
This policy includes a continuum of four strategies and associated promises related to
reaching and involving stakeholders in specific engagement initiatives regarding
policies, projects, strategies and plans for strategic investments. Whenever the City
embarks on an engagement process, the purpose of the engagement and the 'promise'
will be clarified at the beginning of the process.
u .~
:g~
o..c
~'g
t) ~:~
:J~"D
0: Q) ro
I- C.!:::
2 Q) '+-
W ~~
IJ) Q)
~ u
~!~
o C CIl
f-CIl..c
E
:3
:3
,!:
E
o
(,)
E
(I)
E
(I)
~
s:::
W
cO
~ddi
0: :J Q) 0.."D Q) C
~ illtll
~~~~o.s
'i:
:3
E
E
o
(,)
o
;.~
!lllt
~'~g.~
..c
~.~ ~
~~~
u.. 0...0
2 Q) 0
-.s-g
Q) CIl
"D"D
SQ)
e g
o..CIl
oro
f-.o
~
::Cui
~~
..c 0
-;~
C 0
'5 -
C Q)
CIl .;::::
oo~
ID E
-g~
:J CIl
,2
::c
:3
a..
.s
E
(I)
S
'E
E
o
(,)
I
E
:3
:3
,!:
E
o
(,)
E
(I)
E
(I)
~
s:::
W
iij
g~~
.0 CIl C
:3Q)Q)
t)~~-i
~~;~
~ -;.~ ~
WJUj
Q) CIl :J
S.2 ~
.2
w::Cu "D
~ ~ ~.!::: ~ ~
~:5~.gg~
llJoo~.QCIl
<e->-o"5:::J
::J ~ .8 .~ g ~
o .- ~"D Q) 2
<.)g~~-~~
c: ! .~ ~ ~
s -g E.!:::
'i:
:3
E
E
o
(,)
.. "D
~ ~ ~~ C
I- ~ ~ ~ ~:~
5~~8~~
~:9 ~~~!
O(l)E>-2~
<.).~ ~~~j
~~g~~
~~ t~
.2
::C.
:3"D
a..Q)
~ (I) ~
o:.s:::E
O-,!:::
u...s6
2(1)>-
-.~ g-
E~
0-
c:~
~
a.i
::c
.~
g
Appendix 2
The following continuum provides examples of methods of engagement in decision
making that are currently utilized at the City of Kitchener.
Communitv Enaaaement Continuum - Tools & Techniaues
INFORM
Tools and Techni ues
· Public notices
· Websites
. Written information
houses
CONSUL T
Tools and Techni ues
COLLABORATE
Tools and Techni ues
· Steering committees
· Dedicated phone lines
· Focus groups
· Collaboratives
Adapted from: Community Engagement in Region of Waterloo Public Health (2006), as adapted from
IAP2, Hashagen (2002) & Sydney Department of Planning (2003)
City of Kitchener activities that focus on "informing" as a key outcome include communications
tools such as "Your Kitchener" and media releases. In the context of policy and strategy
development, these tools are used to raise awareness about the City's intentions to develop a
new policy, for example. These tools are also used to notify the public how they might get more
actively involved in the development of a policy by participating in a surveyor focus group
(consult), or by applying to be a part of a working group that will be exploring an issue
(collaborate). Through staff interviews we learned that often multiple levels of community
engagement were used throughout a project.
"Entrust" suggests that Council may put decision making in the hands of the community.
However, given the legal obligations of a municipal council, and the types of decision-making
that municipal councils do, there was early recognition by the CESWG that there will be very
few examples of community engagement at that level. Within the City of Kitchener, the
Committee of Adjustment is one example, and perhaps the only example, of City Council
placing final decision making in the hands of the community (subject to appeals to the Ontario
Municipal Board). While the Committee itself is legislated by the Planning Act of Ontario, other
municipalities choose to have the committee comprised partially or fully of elected
representatives whereas City of Kitchener Council has chosen to appoint a committee
comprised entirely of community members. This committee makes final decisions on
applications for consent (severance or right-of-way), zoning variance, or permission to change a
legal non-conforming use and therefore falls under the "entrust" strategy on the continuum.
While this continuum refers only to community involvement in decision making processes, it is
worthwhile to note that from an operational perspective, examples of working with the
community at the entrust level include:
· Centre in the Square: facility is entrusted to the Management Board to operate
within specific parameters.
10
· Grants to Community Groups: City funds are administered by the organization within
specific parameters
· Elements of Affiliated Organizations:
contracting with instructors/coaches,
staff a neighbourhood based centre (Bridgeport)
groups are responsible for
of programs, and in one case,
11
APPENDIX 3
Summarv of Research 1
Background to the Continuum
The community engagement continuum was first developed by the International Association of
Public Participation (IAP2) out of an identified need to have consistency in language and
practice within the field of public participation. IAP2 is an international association of members
who seek to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals,
governments, institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest in nations and
internationally.
Today IAP2's continuum for public participation has been adopted (in some cases modified)
internationally by numerous institutions, non-profit organizations, and governments. Significant
examples within Canada include the City of Vancouver, the City of Edmonton, the City of
Calgary, and locally by the Region of Waterloo's Public Health Department. Internationally, the
spectrum has been utilized in by the Sydney Department of Planning, University of Sydney,
King County, Washington, and the Community Development Foundation in Scotland.
Additionally, The IAP2's spectrum is promoted by the Tamarack: Institute for Community
Engagement, an organization that develops and supports strategies that engage citizens and
institutions in problem-solving and collaborative/shared learning. For local consistency, the
CESWG adopted the Region of Waterloo's Public Health Department continuum as a working
model, and has now adapted it for the City of Kitchener.
Key Findings from Internal interviews
To gain a better understanding of what is currently being done by staff toward actively engaging
citizens in the work of the City, the Working Group oversaw a series of 15 interviews with staff
that have responsibilities for community engagement. Findings were compared to the draft
principles and continuum.
General Findings:
· Staff articulated the benefits of community engagement in much the same way the
community did in P4HK
· Staff's identification of Best Practices referred to both
perspectives are
Communications,
and Resources.
levels
· Several
decision
· Some staff articulated an interest in
community engagement; from inform and consult, to
processes.
1 Based on research conducted by Sherry McGee, MA Candidate, WLU Community Psychology Program
12
Highlights:
· Inclusivity: There is a desire to engage more with diverse/marginalized populations
and human
internal and external-were
specific topics for
training.
· Engaging Partners: Staff identify that they partner with a wide variety of stakeholders in
engagement processes.
Staff identified the importance of clarity of roles and purpose when engaging
In general, the findings from the internal interviews support the direction of WG
and continuum. Where applicable, the draft principles were adapted to
interviews. Specific findings from the internal interviews will be helpful for developing tools to
support the policy.
External Interviews:
Staff from four municipalities from across Canada were interviewed including: the Cites of
Cambridge, Calgary, and the Region of Waterloo. These Cities (and Region) were
selected to gain a perspective (Cambridge), in addition to gaining a more thorough
understanding of cities that are innovative or experienced in engagement policy
(Edmonton/Calgary) and engagement techniques (Guelph/Participatory Budgeting).
Key findings from Other Municipalities (to date-May 13, 2008)
· City of Edmonton and City of Calgary both have specific policies in place
· Both policies include the use of a framework/continuum of public involvement, as well as
guiding principles
· Edmonton has identified that it will take 5 years from a structural point of view to cultivate
the cultural change they are hoping to achieve with their strategy.
· Locally neither the City of Cambridge nor the Region of Waterloo has broad policies for
community engagement; some guiding principles exist within City of Cambridge terms of
reference and policy for neighbourhood associations and advisory. Public Health (within
the Region of Waterloo) has a continuum for Public Engagement currently in place (used
for promotion/intervention services). Both Cambridge and the Region are considering
broad protocol/strategies for community engagement.
Cities of Guelph and Waterloo pending
Purpose of Policy:
As identified through external interviews (*not in Rank order):
· To have a clear purpose
· To have consistent City-wide
application
· To be more comprehensive in
practices
· To align City Council priorities
13
· To support City Councils' decision-
making by providing stakeholder
input
· To ensure the appropriate level of
engagement
· To be open, transparent, and
genuine
· To be inclusive
· To increase the public's trust in
municipal practices
· To have a commitment to involve
Best Practices
· Coordination of Engagement Practices
· Guiding Principles
· Continuum/Framework
· Training for Staff
· Committed Staff
· Partnerships with community organizations and neighbourhood associations
· Strategies for Diverse/Marginalized Populations
The key findings are fully in alignment with the WG's development of principles and use of a
continuum. Findings are also consistent with CESWG activities that will occur in the next phase
of the community engagement strategy. (i.e. identification of resources to support community
engagement: staff, tools and techniques, etc.)
14
APPENDIX 4
Community Engagement Through a Diversity Lens
Inform Checklist - DRAFT
1. Develop a comprehensive list of community organizations and groups that work directly with
populations who may face barriers to participation. Include community and ethnic media
resources and organizations/services for persons with disabilities. Distribute information via
these organizations and groups.
D Ex. community centres, social clubs, community leaders, LGBTO services, cultural
media resources (newsletters, magazines, TV. radio), long-term care facilities,
supermarkets, community cable network, housing, community health centers, Aboriginal
services, drop in and cultural food shops, places of worship.
D Set up booths at malls, arenas, community events.
2. Final reports, recommendations, statements, publications are made available for/accessible
to all, inclusive language and images are used.
D Language that is free from sexist, racist or other discriminatory language; be aware that
some references can, even unintentionally, extend to negative connotations or
stereotypes, ex. "male nurse"
D Put the person first. ex. Use "persons with disabilities" vs. "disabled people".
D Use gender neutral language - eliminate the pronoun (i.e. he/she, instead use the
"participant", "instructor", etc.) or use plural pronouns (i.e. they, their); gender neutral
language may not be applicable depending on the nature information you are reporting
(i.e. information about demographics, inequities, etc.).
D Images of people are from diverse social identities (race, gender, ability, age, etc.); and
do not stereotype.
D Images portray individuals equitably (who's in foreground, first/last, serving or being
served?)
D Information is provided in plain language.
D Information is available in alternate formats, upon request, and is available bye-mail or
hard copy.
D Written information is provided at locations which are physically accessible.
D Access to documents maintained over time: library and web information service.
D Participants are informed of when and how information will be made available.
D Have the current information on the top languages, other than English, in the City of
Kitchener that may require translation.
3. Appropriate resources are allocated to reach the various communities in an equitable
manner.
15