a survey of the impact of royalties for regions program ... · policy settings to foster outcomes....
TRANSCRIPT
a
Report
A Survey of the
Impact of
Royalties for
Regions
Program
Delivery in
Regional WA
Royalties for Regions Six Year
Impact Survey (2008-2014)
23 June 2014
42908600/01/0
Prepared for:
Department of Regional Development
Prepared by URS Australia Pty Ltd
AUSTRALIA
42908600/01/0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this report acknowledge the contributions made by the individuals
who responded to the Royalties for Regions Impact Survey. These individuals
represented the various state government agencies, local government
authorities, private companies, non-government organisations and community
groups.
Thanks also to Johannes Kresling and Ray Scanlan at Bang the Table for their
assistance in the preparation of the online survey instrument.
The authors are also very grateful for constructive comments and suggestions
from Department of Regional Development Reporting and Evaluation Manager,
Linda Leonard and from others within the Department.
42908600/01/0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. III
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Administration ............................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Royalties for Regions 2008 – 2014 .............................................................................................. 4
1.3.1 Expenditure reporting ................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2 In the regions ................................................................................................................................. 5
1.4 Understanding the impact of Royalties for Regions ................................................................. 7
2 SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 9
2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 9
2.2 The Impact Survey ...................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Survey Design ............................................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Survey administration ................................................................................................................ 11
2.4 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 12
3 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................ 13
4 SURVEY RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Respondents ................................................................................................................................ 23
4.2 Funding Source ........................................................................................................................... 23
4.3 Primary Drivers............................................................................................................................ 24
4.4 Project planning .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.5 Decision making .......................................................................................................................... 25
4.6 Project objectives........................................................................................................................ 26
4.7 Project beneficiaries ................................................................................................................... 27
4.8 Project communications ............................................................................................................ 28
4.9 Project effects .............................................................................................................................. 29
4.10 Community Self-reliance ............................................................................................................ 30
4.11 Alignment with the purposes of the Act ................................................................................... 30
4.12 Contribution to Community Vitality........................................................................................... 33
4.12.1 Personal and economic security ............................................................................................... 33
4.12.2 Learning culture .......................................................................................................................... 33
4.12.3 A culture of wellness .................................................................................................................. 34
4.12.4 Engaged Leadership ................................................................................................................... 34
4.12.5 Vibrant Arts, Heritage and Culture ............................................................................................ 35
4.12.6 Sense of community ................................................................................................................... 36
4.12.7 Community Entrepreneurship ................................................................................................... 37
4.12.8 Physical Space ............................................................................................................................ 37
4.12.9 Clean environment ...................................................................................................................... 38
42908600/01/0
FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Royalty Receipts 1984-2012 (Source: Department of Mines and Petroleum) ........................... 1
Figure 1-2 Royalties for Regions reported expenditure 2009-14 – project output area .............................. 4
Figure 1-3 Royalties for Regions reported expenditure 2009-14 – regional distribution (Source: Department
of Regional Development unpublished document) ................................................................. 6
Figure 1-4 Annual population growth rate – Pilbara, Perth and Western Australia 2003-2012 ................... 7
Figure 3-1 Rating of community vitality change ................................................................................... 19
Figure 4-1 Respondents to the survey ................................................................................................ 23
Figure 4-2 Respondents funding source ............................................................................................. 24
Figure 4-3 Project Driver.................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 4-4 Project planning period prior to funding– months ................................................................. 25
Figure 4-5 Decision making involvement ............................................................................................ 26
Figure 4-6 Respondents who believed their projects had met its objective/s ......................................... 26
Figure 4-7 Project beneficiaries ......................................................................................................... 27
Figure 4-8 Project beneficiaries by funding source ............................................................................... 28
Figure 4-9 Project communications .................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4-10 Project effects .................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 4-11 Community self-reliance .................................................................................................... 30
APPENDICES
Appendix A Survey Questions
Appendix B Email Inviting Participation
Appendix C Alignment between community vitality and R4R policy objectives
5 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 39
6 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 40
42908600/01/0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Royalties for Regions program, that commenced in Western Australia in 2008, represented
a paradigm shift in how the royalties generated from the mining and petroleum industries were
to be reinvested in the future of regional communities.
The object of the program is to promote and facilitate economic, business and social
development in regional Western Australia through the operation of the Royalties for Regions
Fund. With its legislative base in the Royalties for Regions Act 2009, the program provides, for
each financial year, an amount equal to 25 per cent of the forecast mining and petroleum
royalty income is to be credited to the Royalties for Regions fund1. Monies allocated from this
Fund are to be over and above existing or planned normal expenditure by Government agencies
and are to be used to ensure basic Government services and infrastructure is provided in
regional areas. The principal areas of expenditure centre on regional infrastructure, headworks,
local government and community services.
The first year of the Royalties for Regions program, 2008 – 2009, saw expenditure of $119
million across a range of outcome areas in regional WA. Within five years the amount of
expenditure on Royalties for Regions initiatives had totalled over $2,600 million with a further
$2,000 million allocated and not yet expended.
The Department of Regional Development is responsible for administering the Royalties for
Regions program. Working in collaboration with other organisations the Department allocates
funding to address priority needs in the regions. This approach has provided funding for small
community projects in the thousands of dollars to multi-million dollar state strategic projects.
Some projects are well-known across the state, such as the Pilbara Cities initiative. Others are
likely only known to the local community in which the project occurred. Both large and the small
projects, widely-known and locally-known, share some commonalities. They have all been
implemented with the aim to improve the health and well-being of regionally based Western
Australians.
Understanding the impacts
In March 2014 the Department of Regional Development commissioned a survey to
understand what impact Royalties for Regions program delivery has had in regional WA. An
invitation to complete the survey was sent to 291 project managers who had been responsible
for 415 projects or programs funded through Royalties for Regions. Some of these 415
programs included the delivery of multiple projects. For example, funding provided for the
Regional Grants Scheme enabled many hundreds of individual projects which combined, make
up the more than 3,500 projects commenced and completed to date.
At the end of the three week survey period 45 surveys had been completed, they reported on
48 discrete projects. The response rate of 16 per cent is lower than hoped and was likely the
result of the short survey period. However, the survey has captured well-considered responses
which has resulted in a richness of qualitative data available for analysis.
1 Royalties collected directly by the State Government plus Commonwealth payments for royalties that it collects from the oil and gas of
the North West Shelf contributed approximately $2400 for every WA resident in 2013. Mining revenues make up about 23 per cent of the
WA Budget, up from 9 per cent 10 years previously.
42908600/01/0 iv
Key Findings from the Survey
Chapters 3 and 4 of this report provide a summary and discussion of findings from the survey.
The four key findings are presented below.
Meeting objectives
All of the survey respondents considered that their project had met all (82%) or some (18%) of
the project objectives. Individual project evaluations would be required to further substantiate
these assertions however evidence reported in this survey supports respondent’s confidence.
Survey respondents were asked a series of questions that sought to understand the ‘reach’ of
their projects. Specifically, they were asked who the major beneficiaries would be and for how
long would benefits endure.
About three-quarters of projects reported in the survey delivered a specific benefit to Aboriginal
people and it was largely through the Regional Community Services Fund that these benefits
were delivered. Seniors and the aged benefited from about 65 per cent of projects, while
school aged children benefited from 60 per cent of projects. People with a disability saw
benefits from over 40 per cent of projects. The majority of projects reported on were
considered by respondents to provide a benefit to multiple groups.
By any measure the Western Desert Kidney Health Project (WDKHP), while difficult
due to its scope, geographical and intercultural complexity, delivered significant,
health promotion gains.
Respondent Comment
Importantly, communities are expected to benefit from the implementation of projects for many
generations to come. This goes to the heart of the Royalties for Regions program, which was
aimed at attaining sustainability. Royalties for Regions would have failed in its objective if
monies were simply spent on projects that were short-lived or which only benefit the people
living in the regions right now. The long term viability of regional towns rests on them remaining
relevant to their current and future populations and to others thinking about migrating into the
region.
All community members now, and future generations will benefit from the works
undertaken within this project.
Respondent Comment
Investment attraction
Public investment through Royalties for Regions projects and programs has stimulated private
sector spending decisions.
As an example, Royalties for Regions funding of $40 million has enabled the commencement
of the Newman Town Centre Revitalisation Project. With the completion of Stage 1 and 2
activities, there has been an improvement to services and amenity in the town centre which
has led to increased use of the area. A development lot associated with the first stages has
42908600/01/0 v
been put to the market for expression of interest and a proponent has an advanced proposal in
place for a significant (over $20 million) investment in the town centre.
In answering a question in the survey that enquired about spin-off benefits from the Royalties
for Regions funding, the respondent noted that the funding has prompted…:
A re-invigoration of [a] BHPB proposal for a $30M shopping centre that reportedly
may not have been proposed due to lack of appropriate existing infrastructure.
[Also,] A proposal by the existing shopping centre to redevelop the front of their
shops to address the town square more effectively, a "win-win" scenario.
Our community reference group supporting the establishment of a development lot
to be proposed for use as a backpackers accommodation area which will increase
the amount of tourist-only accommodation and enhance the vibrancy of the town
centre with people from all over the world.
Respondent Comments
Shire of East Pilbara chief executive Allen Cooper was reported in the media following the
release of plans for BHP Billiton's proposed $30 million retail complex as saying;
"At the moment what we see is that it is going to be a magnificent building, with two large
spaces for retail and then some smaller shops around the outside, so plenty of opportunity for
small business in the future," he said.
"All of our surveys, whether it be the shire's, BHP, it has always been that people want more
choice, want more retail opportunities, that is always a priority along with better medical
services, so I just think it gives people an opportunity to spend their money in town, stay in
town."
In another case a respondent noted “the injection of Gascoyne Regional Grant Scheme funding
leveraged significant partner funding into the region to support these community projects”.
Enhancing community confidence
The injection of significant expenditure into regional WA communities represents a practical
demonstration of commitment by government to maintaining regional vibrancy and vitality.
Regional community vitality depends on communities maintaining adequate infrastructure,
having access to services, enhancing business and economic opportunities and establishing
policy settings to foster outcomes.
Royalties for Regions offers a coordinated and fully supported framework in which decisions
can be made. Its basis in legislation establishes well-defined parameters to support decision
making at the local level. This supports local engagement that helps people act on existing
motivation which fosters community confidence and establishes community relationships
beyond those of service delivery.
One of the challenges facing many regional towns in Western Australia comes with providing
accommodation options for their senior citizens. Very few towns have aged care
accommodation which means that as people age and are no longer able to remain in the family
42908600/01/0 vi
home they will have no option but to relocate to larger centres. In the Shire of Broomehill-
Tambellup the local government used Royalties for Regions funding for the development of an
independent living seniors accommodation facility.
Council's commitment to construction of the units demonstrates confidence in the
future sustainability of the community.
The people targeted for this project are the builders and leaders of the community,
who prior to the construction of the new units, were forced to leave the community
through a lack of suitable housing in the town.
Respondent Comments
Similarly, the various projects directed towards town revitalisations promote the same
community confidence:
Community amenity and opportunities (landscape, retail, hospitalities) that provide
more choice for those living in the town and enhance the standard of living
commensurate with other towns … encourage people to stay longer and spend
more locally.
Respondent Comment
As did a project providing a new medical facility;
Medical provision in a remote setting and a consideration when deciding to stay
within an area or move elsewhere, with this new facility this may have supported a
decision to stay.
Respondent Comment
Community vitality and resilience
Many regional and rural communities throughout Western Australia face longstanding
uncertainty about the future, particularly weather-dependent agricultural communities. Even
those communities that have benefitted from the boom times in the mineral resources sector
are now adjusting to structural change. According to Gray and Lawrence (2001) there are three
key challenges: to be economically productive; to ensure social viability; and ecological
sustainability. These three challenges are at the heart of the Royalties for Regions program.
The vitality of Western Australian regional communities can be understood in terms of their
capacity to thrive and change in the pursuit of individual and social wellbeing. Vital
communities are characterized by strong, active and inclusive relationships between residents,
private sector, public sector and non-government organizations and are able to cultivate and
marshal these relationships in order to create, adapt and thrive in the changing world and thus
improve wellbeing of citizens.
Half of survey respondents believed that their project had contributed to a higher level of
community self-reliance. This shift was attributed in part to the involvement of community
leaders in the decisions that would affect the whole community. It was this engaged leadership
42908600/01/0 vii
that made a difference. To some extent respondents saw that their projects provided the
catalyst for community leaders to rise to the challenge of addressing the issues the community
faced. Royalties for Regions funding offered an opportunity for people to work together and
enhance community vitality and its resilience to challenging conditions encountered.
Allowed a pathway for sustainability of the current industry and potential economic
expansion. It grows the social and economic basis of the community so that other
services such as health, education can be scaled to a regional centre.
[One of the benefits is…] The improvements in infrastructure and services and the
positive community spirit this generated.
Respondent Comments
42908600/01/0 1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In September 2008, an agreement was made that would see 25 per cent of the State’s mining
and onshore petroleum royalties returned to regional areas of Western Australia (WA). That
agreement, Royalties for Regions, established a framework to support and maintain strong and
vibrant regions by funding improved infrastructure and headworks, enabling cross-government
strategic regional and community services projects. The agreement was formalised in 2010
with the enactment of the Royalties for Regions Act 2009 (WA).
Figure 1-1 Royalty Receipts 1984-2012 (Source: Department of Mines and Petroleum)
The objective of the Act is to promote and facilitate economic, business and social
development through establishing the Royalties for Regions Fund (the ‘Fund’). The Fund came
into operation on 27 March 2010.
Royalties for Regions focuses on delivering benefits to regional areas with six policy
objectives:
Building capacity in regional communities
Retaining benefits in regional communities
Improving services to regional communities
Attaining sustainability
Expanding opportunity
Growing prosperity.
42908600/01/0 2
Royalties for Regions operates under three funds:
The Country Local Government Fund (CLGF)
The primary objective of the CLGF is to address the infrastructure needs of local
governments in regional Western Australia (Gascoyne, Goldfields-Esperance, Great
Southern, Kimberley, Mid West, Peel, Pilbara, South West, Wheatbelt) with overall aims to:
– Address infrastructure needs and support capacity building.
– Improve the financial sustainability of country local governments in Western Australia
through improved asset management.
– Provide financial assistance to country local governments that choose to amalgamate
voluntarily.
– Assist groups of country local governments to fund regionally significant infrastructure
projects.
Some of the projects that have been funded through the CLGF over the years include
public housing provision, swimming pool upgrades, water re-use projects, town
revitalisation, waste management, health centre provision and road upgrades.
The Regional Community Services Fund (RCSF)
The primary objective of the RCSF is to support priority services that have shown their
effectiveness in enhancing the quality of life in regional areas and improving access to
government and other services. The RCSF aims to support investment in regional Western
Australia and help leverage investment for projects that will contribute to the development
of services in regional areas.
The RCSF aims to:
– Assist regional communities achieve improved access to a range of community
services.
– Assist regional communities overcome disadvantages caused by remoteness.
– Attract and retain essential regional government employees.
As well as funding a range of individual projects, the RCSF includes an annual allocation
for the Regional Grants Scheme. The money in the scheme is allocated to community,
The central principles underpinning Royalties for Regions are:
Strategic projects in regional Western Australia are a priority
Local decision-making in regional areas is fundamental
State Government department administration and processes should provide for and support
decision-making in regional areas.
42908600/01/0 3
public and private organisations to improve and develop infrastructure and services in the
regions.
It is through the RCSF that programs such as the Country Aged Pension Fuel Card
scheme, the Regional Workers Incentives scheme and the Boarding Away from Home
allowance are able to operate. Community Resource Centres, located in 106 regional
communities across the state are also funded through the RCSF.
Regional Infrastructure and Headworks Fund (RIHF)
The primary objective of the RIHF is to support large-scale regional infrastructure and
headworks projects that are of strategic importance to Western Australia. The fund aims
to support strong investment in regional Western Australia, and help leverage investment
from other sources for projects that will contribute to the development of regional
infrastructure and headworks. It also supports planning for infrastructure at the regional
level, and encourages the development of infrastructure projects that benefit local
organisations and communities.
In addition to these three primary funds, the Regional Development Fund was established in
2012. The Regional Development Fund supports strategic initiatives that are aligned with the
Royalties for Regions budget themes and implements significant infrastructure projects that
have planning works funded through Royalties for Regions.
1.2 Administration
The Department of Regional
Development is responsible for
administering the Royalties for
Regions program.
In line with the Royalties for
Regions principles, the Department
works closely with other
organisations to implement
Royalties for Regions initiatives.
They include the State’s Regional
Development Commissions, State
Government agencies, regional
communities, businesses and
industry, community resource
centres, non-government
organisations and local
governments.
To assist in the administration of
the Fund, an independent advisory
body, the Western Australian
Regional Development Trust, was
established. The Trust provides
advice on the Fund to the Minister
for Regional Development and Source: Living in the Regions 2013 (DRD, 2014b)
42908600/01/0 4
makes recommendations on the allocation of funds from the Fund, and in the management of
the Fund in order to promote and facilitate economic, business and social development in
regional Western Australia.
1.3 Royalties for Regions 2008 – 2014
Since the program commenced in 2008, Royalties for Regions has allocated more than
$4.2 billion to over 3,500 individual projects. Project funds have ranged from a few thousand
dollars to many millions and have delivered outcomes in housing, health, education, culture,
recreation, environment, economic development, as well as other spheres.
1.3.1 Expenditure reporting
Recipients of funding are required to report on expenditure of funding which includes
categorisation of a primary outcome area. A recent Department of Regional Development
compilation of data collected from this internal reporting has shown that the largest proportion
of expenditure has been directed towards housing projects (see Figure 1-2).
Figure 1-2 Royalties for Regions reported expenditure 2009-14 – project output area
However, expenditure on housing projects has shown a downward trend in more recent years.
As an example, in the 2009-10 period 47 per cent of funding was expended on housing
projects; whereas, in the 2012-13 period this had reduced to 17 per cent. Current data
indicates that the proportion expended on housing will be significantly reduced in 2013-14. As
at February 2014, only 7 per cent of funds had been expended on housing projects.
The other outcome areas that that have been beneficiaries of Royalties for Regions funding
since 2008 are health; community; and utilities, power and water projects. What this simple
analysis doesn’t demonstrate is the benefits that accrue across areas as a result of project
activity. Take the provision of housing for example.
The focus on funding housing projects across the life of the Royalties for Regions program is
reflective of the shortage of affordable housing across regional Western Australia; indeed, in
Agriculture 8%
Communications 3%
Community 13%
Culture 2%
Economic Development 4%
Education 7%
Environment 2%
Health 12%
Housing 19%
Mining 3%
Recreational 7%
Tourism 2%
Transport 9% Utilities,
Power and Water 9%
42908600/01/0 5
2011 Roebourne, Port Hedland, East Pilbara, and Broome were the least affordable local
government areas for key workers (e.g. nurses, police officers) (Crawford, 2011). The lack of
affordable housing, a persistent feature of regional resource towns, has had a flow-on effect in
pushing low to medium income earners out of the area. This not only affects key workers who
provide social, community and essential services, but also acts to further isolate vulnerable
social groups such as Aboriginal communities, in many cases who are forced to relocate to
areas with poorer access to services, transport or jobs, which ultimately reinforces the cycle of
poverty (Haslam Mackenzie et al., 2009; Shelter WA, 2013). A case in point is that of the
Aboriginal people in the Pilbara. Haslam Mackenzie noted in a 2009 study of housing in boom
towns that:
Aboriginal people are not benefitting from the investment in their town [Roebourne]
any more than they have benefitted from the economic boom in the Pilbara over the
previous thirty-three years. At this point, there is a very real danger that in addition
to being economically isolated from the rest of the Pilbara, Roebourne’s Aboriginal
people are in the process of being economically isolated within the town itself.
The housing projects funded through the Royalties for Regions program have not simply
provided a physical building. The provision of housing has helped to attract and retain service
providers, teachers, doctors, and police. It has given the homeless a home and helped to
address the health and safety issues that come with being homeless. It provides a base from
which people can (re)enter training and education and then move into employment. The
benefits not only reside with the individuals who reside in the home but flows out to their family
and to the wider community.
While the categorisation of project outcome areas is a useful way to view how funds have been
distributed it doesn’t fully capture the effects that flow from one project, let alone the flow-on
cumulative effects of 3,500 projects across regional Western Australia.
1.3.2 In the regions
Each of the nine regional areas – Gascoyne, Goldfields-Esperance, Great Southern, Kimberley,
Mid West, Peel, Pilbara, South West and Wheatbelt – have shared in the Royalties for Regions
funding and allocations. Figure 1-2 shows the distribution of project expenditure by regional
area as reported by recipients.
42908600/01/0 6
Figure 1-3 Royalties for Regions reported expenditure 2009-14 – regional distribution (Source: Department of Regional Development unpublished document)
The chart above shows reported expenditure by region (not funds allocated). Expenditure in the
Pilbara accounts for one-third of the Royalties for Regions expenditure, followed by the
Kimberley and to a lesser extent the Wheatbelt. The dominance of the Pilbara is largely due to
the expenditure on the Pilbara Cities Initiative and the fact that the Pilbara region generated
more than 80 per cent of the state’s royalty revenue. This is a major State Government plan to
encourage more people to live and settle in the Pilbara by addressing the infrastructure,
housing and services issues associated with rapid growth in the region (KPMG, 2011).
Supportive development requirements in the Pilbara have been necessitated by the continuing
economic expansion and population growth in the region. It remains the ‘economic
powerhouse’ of, not only the State, but also Australia. In 2013, Western Australia's mineral
and petroleum sector reached a new record value of A$113.8 billion. Iron ore, predominantly
extracted in the Pilbara, continues to be the State's most valuable export, accounting for A$68
billion (76 per cent) of the mineral sector's total sales. Western Australia’s petroleum sector,
centred in the Pilbara and Kimberley, is the State’s second most valuable resource after iron
ore contributing record A$24.7 billion in 2013, (Department of Mines and Petroleum, 2014).
The economic growth has led to high population growth of around 4-5 per cent per annum over
the years since 2003 (shown in Figure 1-3) and with an increase of 42 per cent in the five
years from 2006 to 2011. This created an environment where the cost of living in 2011 was
considerably higher in the Pilbara than in all other regions of Western Australia (Department of
Regional Development, 2014). While the growth rate has slowed somewhat in the past 12-18
months it remains at 3 per cent per annum.
A recent study by KPMG described the consequence of rapid economic and population growth
in the region. Median salaries have more than doubled in the ten years between 2001 and
2011. The cost of housing has increased even more with rental properties fetching four times
Gascoyne 5%
Goldfields-
Esperance 7%
Great Southern 7%
Kimberley 20%
Mid West 7%
Peel 2%
Pilbara 33%
South West
9%
Wheatbelt 10%
42908600/01/0 7
more in 2012 than they did in 2005. This has been accompanied by (or perhaps caused) a
decrease in proportional service delivery. For example, the health service sector has been
under-resourced in the Pilbara for some time (Green, Newman and Mitchell, 2014).
It was largely this situation that the Government were seeking to redress with the
commencement of the Pilbara Cities initiative.
Figure 1-4 Annual population growth rate – Pilbara, Perth and Western Australia 2003-2012
Source: ABS, 2013
Similarly, Royalties for Regions expenditure in the Kimberley region, at around 20 per cent of
total expenditure, is largely a reflection of the $292,241,436 investment in the Ord River
Irrigation Expansion Project. In 2010 the State Government contributed $322.5 million to fund
the expansion of the main irrigation channel by 40 kilometres, construction of 41 kilometres of
new roads, 86 kilometres of drainage channels and flood levees. These infrastructural
upgrades were undertaken in order to attract interest from the private sector to continue
development. The works were completed during 2013 and Kimberley Agricultural Investment,
the development proponent, has since committed to the development of 7,400 hectares of
land.
1.4 Understanding the impact of Royalties for Regions
Given that the Royalties for Regions program has been in operation for over five years, it is
timely to increase understanding about the effects of funding in the regions.
There is a requirement of the funding process that individual programs and projects will include
some form of evaluation to determine whether outcomes have been achieved. Additionally, the
Department of Regional Development has commissioned several program evaluations as
follows:
Evaluation of the Country Aged Pensioner Fuel Card (2010) - the evaluation aimed to
identify the ways the fuelcard has assisted pensioners and contributed to their overall
quality of life.
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Pilbara Perth Western Australia
42908600/01/0 8
Evaluation of the impact of the Emergency Communications Program (2014) - to determine
how Royalties for Regions has affected emergency service delivery and public safety in
regional WA through improvements to emergency communications.
Evaluation of the Effect of Royalties for Regions Funded Health Projects in Regional
Western Australia (2013) - The key evaluation question was What difference to the local
health service in regional WA has Royalties for Regions made?
Social Impact Assessment of the Royalties For Regions 2008-09 Pilbara Community
Development Projects (2013) - evaluation of the 17 community development projects
delivered by the four local government authorities in the Pilbara.
Both the project-level and Department of Regional Development commissioned evaluations are
critical to public accountability particularly where there has been substantial government
expenditure.
At a project level, evaluations provide project managers with the evidence to verify whether
their project has been successful, whether it has brought about the changes that had been
anticipated in the project design, or, if it has not, what events precluded the outcomes from
being achieved. It would be possible to compile the findings from all of the individual project
evaluations of all Royalties for Regions funded projects and make a statement about the
cumulative effect of the program. This would require an immense effort and assumes that each
of the, more than, 3,500 projects have completed a sufficiently robust evaluation.
Instead, this survey of primary fund recipients has sought to gather their views and opinions on
what the impact of the Royalties for Regions program has been. While the survey does ask
questions on specific projects the overriding aim was to encourage survey respondents to
answer questions with the ‘bigger picture’ in mind. That is, to situate the project/s they have
been involved in within the wider regional context of service and infrastructure delivery.
This report presents the findings from that survey.
42908600/01/0 9
2 SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY
2.1 Background
Analysis by Walker, Porter and March (2012) suggests there are five things that people in rural
and remote Australia want but do not get. These are:
1. A say in decisions that affect them
2. Equitable and sustainable financial flows
3. Better services and locally responsive public service
4. Local control and accountability where possible
5. Inclusion in a greater Australian narrative.
The Royalties for Regions program has attempted to address these issues by providing
financial resources to regions to meet legitimate needs and aspirations identified by people
living in the regions. In doing this, Royalties for Regions created a paradigm shift in the way
investment is made in regional Western Australia.
The Department of Regional Development’s
understanding of regional Western Australia has
been informed by a research project first
commissioned in 1997 and repeated again in
2013. The first Living in the Regions survey
sought to understand why people decided to live
in, or move away from regional Western
Australia. Findings from this initial survey were
used to inform planning and decision-making and
to support grant applications and budget
submissions. The purpose of the Living in the
Regions 2013 survey was to ascertain what attracts people to the regions, to understand the
barriers to living in the regions, to measure the quality of life in regional Western Australia, and
to use that information to support regional development initiatives into the future (Department
of Regional Development, 2014).
The key findings as to why people chose to live in the regions and why they may opt to leave
are important considerations for Royalties for Regions project proponents as well as for project
assessors. Lifestyle factors figured prominently amongst the reasons that people gave for why
they lived in regional WA. People also rated safety and happiness highly and felt a greater
sense of community than respondents to the Living in the Regions survey who lived in Perth.
The factors offered as reasons for why someone might relocate from regional WA included
better shopping opportunities, access to and quality of health services elsewhere, better social
activities, reduced cost of living, and to be closer to their family. Some of the factors
suggested as reasons for relocating have been addressed through projects funded by Royalties
for Regions. For example, the construction of aged care facilities allowing for older people to
stay in their communities; funding for schools that reduces the need for high school children to
attend boarding schools away from family; construction of recreation facilities for young people
that keep them active and engaged.
42908600/01/0 10
2.2 The Impact Survey
URS Australia was commissioned by the Department of Regional Development to conduct a
survey of recipients of Royalties for Regions funding. The key question was to determine the
changes that have occurred in the regions as a result of Royalties for Regions funding with a
view to determining the extent to which the program was meeting the needs of regional
communities.
The survey was to include questions on economic, social and/or environmental impact to
consider whether Royalties for Regions has:
Achieved positive outcomes;
Brought noticeable changes;
Met the needs of regional communities;
Helped regional people to feel involved as part of the community; or
Provided opportunities to learn new skills and apply them.
2.3 Survey Design
The four key areas for investigation through the survey were as follows:
Project planning
The introduction of Royalties for Regions not only marked a shift in the way in which
funding is distributed to the regions but also the amount of funding that is available for
regional projects. Questions related to project planning sought to understand whether the
program provided the means and resources by which to address long-standing, yet
unresolved issues and problems.
As one of the aims of the Royalties for Regions program was to ‘empower local decision
making’ a question was included in the survey to understand where decisions about the
project were made. That is, were local solutions developed for local problems?
Effectiveness
As part of the process of applying for a grant, applicants were asked to “clearly outline the
outcome of the Project including a statement of purpose and need for the Project,
including the imperative for undertaking the Project. The Project Outcome should provide a
clear statement that identifies what the Project aims to achieve”.
Questions were included in the survey to gain respondents’ perceptions on whether the
project they were reporting on had achieved its outcomes and to describe the evidence
that would demonstrate this.
Beneficiaries
Projects affect individuals differently. While it may be possible to say that a project has
benefitted a community it is also useful to know who, in that community, is most likely to
benefit. This has been addressed in the survey through the inclusion of a question that
simply asks who will benefit most?
42908600/01/0 11
Impacts
This survey is about impacts; therefore, the majority of the questions sought to
understand what the impact of Royalties for Regions has been to date. The questions are
aligned to the six policy objectives noted previously and to the purposes of the funding as
defined in the Act2. Responses to these ‘impact’ questions look to understanding the
changes that have occurred.
As the Department of Regional Development has previously analysed data internally there was
a necessity to align survey questions to the earlier parameters of analysis. One of the primary
concerns was to be able to match outcomes from this survey to the categorisations of project
outcome areas developed by Department of Regional Development. These Department of
Regional Development derived categories are:
Agriculture Communications Community
Culture Economic Development Education
Environment Health Housing
Mining Recreational Tourism
Transport Utilities, Power & Water.
A list of projects by category was supplied to URS and has enabled cross-referencing to survey
responses.
A second alignment was also considered in the survey development. This alignment is between
the nine community vitality3 questions in the survey with a set of key indicators pertaining to
the policy objectives of Royalties for Regions. The alignment is shown in the matrix included in
Appendix B.
2.3.1 Survey administration
The survey was piloted between 24 – 29 April 2014 on nine participants who were randomly
selected from the database of project contacts. Following some minor changes to wording and
structure the survey was released on 30 April 2014. It remained accessible until 28 May
2014.
An email was sent to all primary and alternate contacts from the database of projects supplied
by the Department of Regional Development. This database contained details for 415 projects
of which many were administered by the same entity. As a result a total of 291 emails were
sent4. Of these 13 were either no longer valid addresses or the system security did not accept
the invitation email. Where ‘out of office’ messages indicated a recipient was to be on leave
for the period of the survey, alternate recipients were invited on the basis of details provided in
the ‘out-of-office’ message received. Ultimately, six contacts on the projects contact list could
not be contacted either directly or via an alternate.
2 These three purposes are to provide infrastructure and services in regional Western Australia; to develop and broaden the economic
base of regional Western Australia; and to maximise job creation and improve career opportunities in regional Western Australia 3 See Section 3 for further discussion of community vitality 4 A copy of the email is included at Appendix B
42908600/01/0 12
A number of invitees contacted URS to advise that they had only recently received funding and
that their projects had not yet commenced or were not yet at a stage where the project
managers felt able to comment on the outcomes. While these contacts were encouraged to
submit a story of their project rather than complete the survey, none did so.
A reminder email was sent to all project contacts identified through the first email in the
second week of the survey period. This prompted several new responses to the survey.
In week 3, the response rate was still below that which had been anticipated. An individualised
email was sent to project contacts. Each email was tailored to the project that had been
funded. This individualised approach prompted further responses.
At the end of the three week survey period 45 surveys had been completed reporting on 48
discrete projects.
While the response rate is somewhat low at 16 per cent, it is evident in the responses
received that survey participants have offered well-considered opinions resulting in a richness
of qualitative data for analysis. However, the findings presented here are based on a small
sample size in comparison to number of individual projects that have received funding and so
should not be considered representative of the full suite of projects.
2.4 Limitations
The design, administration and reporting of this survey occurred within a compressed time
period which presented some constraints to data collection. It was decided early in the
project’s design to distribute the survey to primary fund recipients. This limited the survey to
291 entities covering 415 projects. This is far less than the 3,500 projects that have been
funded through Royalties for Regions.
A large proportion of the projects were funded through the Regional Grants Scheme
administered through the Regional Development Commissions. As the Regional Development
Commissions were the fund recipient it was they who were invited to participate in this survey,
and not the many hundreds of grant recipients. However, responses have been received from
some of the nine Regional Development Commissions who have reported, at a high level, what
the impact of the Regional Grants Scheme has been and thus provide a view on the impact of
all projects.
42908600/01/0 13
3 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
It was not the intention of this survey to report on individual projects, although the projects will
be referred to. Rather, the intention was to analyse the perceptions of project proponents
about their individual projects in order to make a higher level assessment of the cumulative
impact across a number of projects. More detailed discussion of the survey results can be
found in Section 4.
Respondents to the survey covered the range of funding recipients with the two largest groups
of respondents representing State and local government. The range of projects reported on
(n=49) were distributed across the three main funds – 66 per cent received funding through
the Regional Infrastructure and Headworks Fund, 24 per cent from the Regional Community
Services Fund and the remaining 10 per cent from the Country Local Government Fund.
Generally, in accessing the Royalties for Regions funding, respondents were seeking to redress
the “loss of resources, people and services that are needed to maintain a healthy community”.
Regardless of which of the nine Western Australian regions being considered, they all face
development challenges. These come from forces associated with economic globalisation,
rationalisation of government and community services, fluctuating commodity prices,
transportation and infrastructure deterioration, youth loss due to limited employment and
lifestyle options, and a continuing trend towards
urbanisation.
Small regional towns across the State have
been, and continue to lose population and the
businesses they support. This decline is not
new, but in many areas has intensified over the
last few decades. As at June 2013, 71 per cent
of the Australian population resided in major
cities (ABS, 2013). In Western Australia this
trend is slightly stronger, with 78 per cent of the
State’s total population residing in the Greater
Perth region (ibid.).
The other side of this ‘regional decline’ coin
would be the rapid growth in the Pilbara and
Kimberley regions brought about largely by
mining boom, which continued until late 2012.
The end of the boom was in part brought about
by a downturn in commodity prices,
predominantly iron ore, coupled with the completion of several large construction projects in
the oil and gas sector.
In the Pilbara, the mining boom created challenges centred on managing for the vast
population growth, not decline. However, the problems faced by the Pilbara shared some
similarities with other regional areas – there were still a lack of accessible services from health
to education, issues with outdated and failing public infrastructure, difficulties in maintaining
businesses not related to the mining sector particularly in attracting and retaining employees.
So while the problems experienced in the nine regional areas were different they led to similar
issues in need of resolution – employment, housing, service delivery and the like.
At the peak of our State’s boom in
2012, a third of all spending in WA’s
economy was due to businesses
investment in capacity expansion –
mostly new mines and equipment to
feed the rapid economic growth of our
emerging Asian neighbours. It has
always been the case that project
spending drives the big cycles in the
State’s economy, and it is no surprise
that the transitional shift from
construction to production will create a
down-tick in the State’s short term
growth prospects.
Deloitte-Access Economics, 2014
42908600/01/0 14
The projects funded by Royalties for Regions, which were aimed at delivering solutions to these
problems, were designed both within the communities and externally.
The survey data shows that decision making for most projects was a collaborative effort
shared at the local and State levels (refer Section 4.5). State government agencies, local
government authorities and the Regional Development Commissions were the principal
decision-makers. However, local community groups also had a say in project decisions. The
level of their input cannot be determined from the survey results but if combined with the local
governments and Development Commissions it is fair to say that decision making included the
local level in the majority of cases. This is an important finding as it has been recognised that
when local people become involved in the decision-making and governance roles, communities
are able to identify and assess issues, explore local priorities and take action.
Encouraging public participation in decision making can only be improved and encouraged
through broad communication and this communication must continue from project planning
through to project delivery. Many project proponents have taken advantage of their local
community newspapers to share information about the project (refer Section 4.8). Print media
has long been a principal source of information for people in remote regions. The other notable
method of information dissemination has been through the conversations that people in
regional centres have with one another.
With the increasing availability of internet connections, either through satellite or fixed
communications, there has been an ever increasing reliance on electronic media for
communication purposes. Social media and other internet-based forums were used as a
mechanism for information dissemination on about a third of projects reported on in the
survey.
All survey respondents felt that their project met
all (82%) or some (18%) of the project objectives.
Information has been provided to demonstrate
the evidence to show the achievement of
objectives. Further substantiation of these
assertions would need to be obtained through
project evaluations however, at face value, the
projects are delivering what they have been
designed to achieve and they are delivering
benefits to a wide range of people and groups in
the community (refer Sections 4.6 and 4.7).
About three-quarters of projects reported on in
the survey delivered a benefit to Aboriginal
people specifically and it was largely through the
Regional Community Services Fund that these
benefits were delivered. Seniors and the aged benefited from about 65 per cent of projects,
while school aged children benefited from 60 per cent of projects. People with a disability saw
benefits from over 40 per cent of projects.
“By any measure the Western Desert Kidney Health Project (WDKHP), while difficult
due to its scope, geographical and intercultural complexity, delivered significant,
health promotion gains”
For a region to be able to adapt to
changing circumstances and capitalise
on growth opportunities, what is
required is: an optimal mix of options
and strategies around developing
human capital (particularly education
and skills); increasing sustainability
(economic, environmental and social);
improving access to markets (regional,
national and international); building on
regional comparative advantage; and
increasing innovative capacity of
regional economies (CEDA, 2013).
42908600/01/0 15
The majority of projects reported on were considered by respondents to provide a benefit to
multiple groups. Three projects specifically targeted Aboriginal people and one project was
specifically directed towards business owners.
Importantly, communities are expected to benefit from the implementation of projects for many
generations to come (refer Section 4.9). This goes to the heart of the Royalties for Regions
program, which was aimed at, through its six policy objectives, attaining sustainability.
Royalties for Regions would have failed in its objective if monies were simply spent on projects
that were short-lived or which only benefit the people living in the regions right now. The long
term viability of regional towns rests on their remaining relevant to their own current and future
populations and to others thinking about migrating into the region.
While regional communities will always rely on State and Commonwealth government
assistance to some extent, their viability will also require some level of self-reliance and this is
particularly the case for service provision. Half of survey respondents believed that their
projects had contributed to a higher level of self-reliance (refer Section 4.10). As one
respondent commented:
“Medical provision in a remote setting [is] a consideration when deciding to stay
within an area or move elsewhere, with this new facility this may have supported a
decision to stay”
That is to say, this community is strengthened because its residents do not have to leave the
community to access medical services in another location. Similarly, one community that has
been funded to deliver housing notes;
“The community is no longer just reliant on the state to provide housing”
Perhaps the pressing question for some is whether Royalties for Regions has achieved positive
outcomes. The respondents to this survey certainly believe so. Considering the projects against
the purposes for Royalties for Regions funding, respondents rated the success of their projects
as shown below:
Project outcomes Completely successful
(%)5
Provision of infrastructure in regional Western Australia 89
Provision of services in regional Western Australia 75
Efforts to broaden the economic base or regional Western Australia 55
Efforts to maximise job creation in regional Western Australia 45
Efforts to improve career opportunities in regional Western Australia 61
The remaining proportion of projects were considered by respondents to have been somewhat
successful with many of these projects yet to be fully completed.
Following from this question linking project results to the purposes for which the Royalties for
Regions program was established it was considered useful to begin to gather information that
could be used to establish a baseline from which to measure success at a program level, as
5 Respondents could rate these using one of four responses being ‘not at all successful’, ‘somewhat successful’, ‘completely
successful’ or ‘not a focus for this project’. Excluding those respondents who state that the outcome was not a focus for their project,
this table reports the remaining respondents who rated their project as being ‘completely successful’.
42908600/01/0 16
opposed to the project level. Since outcome indicators for a small project may represent an
output for a larger program and they are the most immediate results of program activities,
project outcomes reported through the survey have been drawn upon to provide an interim
measure of the impact of the Royalties for Regions program using the concept of community
vitality.
Community Vitality
The concept of community vitality has been gaining ground as a measure of the health and
well-being of, particularly, regional communities. It is a term that is well-used in Europe and
North America. The Canadian Council on Social Development (Scott, 2010) defines community
vitality in the following way:
Vital communities are characterized by strong, active and inclusive relationships
between residents, private sector, public sector and civil society organizations that
work to foster individual and collective wellbeing. Vital communities are those that
are able to cultivate and marshal these relationships in order to create, adapt and
thrive in the changing world and thus improve wellbeing of citizens.
This definition emphasizes the understanding of vitality as the capacity to thrive and change
in the pursuit of individual and social wellbeing, in ways that are inclusive and respectful of the
needs and aspirations of diverse communities.
The Centre for Innovative & Entrepreneurial Leadership (2009), also of Canada, has identified
nine broad categories or domains to community vitality. These are (with some slight
amendments to the descriptive text):
Personal and
economic
security
There is adequate and diversified employment, a range of types of
affordable housing, people have access to the quality services they need,
and they feel safe.
A learning
culture
A learning culture. People have access to different modes of learning, on-
line, college/TAFE, distance education, etc. There are good schools and
parents are welcome. There is adequate access to the internet. People
are motivated to learn new skills.
A culture of
wellness
Supported by adequate health facilities, and people take responsibility
for their own health. There are good recreation facilities. There are
enough doctors and nurses and other health professionals. Healthy food
is available. There are opportunities for newcomers to get involved in the
community. The community is supportive of its least fortunate residents.
42908600/01/0 17
Engaged
leadership
The formal and informal leadership of the community encourages
discussion, participation, and new ideas in public affairs and in business.
There is an energetic flow of ideas and opinions, and there are many
active groups. There is a development plan for the community. This
community cooperates with its neighbouring communities. The town
believes in itself, we think that with enough support we can do anything.
A clean
environment
The water, air, and land are healthy. Public transport is available. Local
government actively supports the reduction of domestic and industrial
waste through recycling and other means. The community considers
environmental sustainability in its community planning.
Vibrant arts,
heritage, and
culture
There are galleries, concerts, and celebrations. There are many people
working in cultural and creative occupations. The community has a
distinct culture and heritage that is appreciated by the community and
visitors to the community. We celebrate local history.
Sense of
community
The community is home to a diversity of types of people: ages,
occupations, races, languages. They talk to each other, and there is a
strong sense of belonging and pride. Newcomers are welcome. Young
adults aged 25-34 consider the community to be a desirable place to
live.
Community
entrepreneurship
The community supports entrepreneurs and is capable of identifying and
acting upon new, unconventional or changing business opportunities.
New ideas are encouraged. There are a variety of business training
opportunities and information resources available locally for those
wishing to start a business. A pool of motivated and skilled employees is
available to meet business needs.
Physical space The built environment is beautiful and pedestrian friendly, with an
unhurried, neighbourly feeling. There is a vibrant town centre or
community core. A variety of real estate is available to accommodate
business expansion, attraction or creation. Infrastructure
(telecommunications, roads, transportation) is reliable, well maintained,
and modern. The community takes pride in its heritage buildings.
Typically a set of questions is devised asking community members of their perceptions on
things such as the pride people feel in their heritage buildings, the adequacy of small business
start-up capital, the council’s interest in environmental protection, the ease of finding
volunteers for community projects, and the quality of a community’s cooperation with
neighbouring communities.
42908600/01/0 18
While this evaluation does not replicate the methodology of the CIEL approach it has utilised
the definition of Community Vitality as a basis for the construction of survey questions. The
objective is to establish a preliminary baseline that might be built upon in subsequent project
level evaluations.
Respondents were asked to think about their project(s) and rate the level of change in each of
the nine areas using one of five responses6;
No change (0)
Made a minor improvement (1)
Made a noticeable improvement (2)
Made a large improvement (3)
Made a very substantial improvement (4).
These responses were coded and then plotted to diagrammatically represent project
contributions (see Figure 3-1 below).
The data collected for community vitality was then cross-referenced to responses to the
question that asked “What have been the three most important benefits that you think your
project has provided? Why do you think these are important? (Question 12). An analysis of the
‘benefits’ data was undertaken to determine, from the qualitative responses given, which of
the community vitality areas could conceivably be impacted as a result of the project. This
determination has been made by the researchers based upon their professional judgement and
their understanding of the project activities and objectives.
This cross-referencing highlights several factors:
The majority of projects were seen by respondents as contributing to improvements in
‘engaged leadership’, ‘personal end economic security’ and ‘physical space’.
Analysis of qualitative data on project benefits suggest that ‘personal and economic
security’ has been the area of greatest benefit, followed by ‘physical space’ and ‘sense of
community’.
The community vitality area seeing least change as noted by survey respondents is
‘vibrant arts, heritage and culture’. This corresponds to the analysis of statements of
benefits data.
Projects categorized as Housing (n=6) were considered by respondents as contributing
more towards ‘personal and economic security’ and ‘engaged leadership’ than other
community vitality areas.
Projects categorized as Community (n=9) were considered by respondents as contributing
more towards ‘physical space’ than any other community vitality areas.
Analysis of the data provided for the three main benefits of projects indicates that
‘personal and economic security’ has been positively impacted the greatest. Almost three-
quarters of projects have delivered towards this in some way. Half of projects have
contributed to a ‘sense of community’ and ‘physical space’.
6 The results to each of the questions are provided in Section 4.12.
42908600/01/0 19
Category Project Name
Personal and
economic
security
A learning
culture
A culture of
wellness
Engaged
leadership
Vibrant arts,
heritage, and
culture
Sense of
community
Community
EntrepreneurshipPhysical Space
A clean
environment
Wild Dog M anagement Program (14)
Regional NRM Carbon Farming (285)
State Barrier Fence (SBF) - Regional Natural Resource M anagement (403)
Communications CSN-RRN (Community Safety Network Regional Radio Network) (221)
Regional M obile Communications Pro ject (RM CP) (75)
Enhanced Driver Training & Education (431)
Enhanced Services for Victims of Crime (434)
Silver Chain 'Eneabba M edical Centre' New Build (446)
Newman Town Centre Revitalisation Stage 3 (448)
Karratha City Centre Infrastructure Works (253 & 503)
Binnu Hall
Northampton Community Centre Redevelopment
Amenities Upgrade Pro ject
Culture Bunbury Regional Entertainment Centre Expansion (196)
Economic Dev't Gascoyne Revitalisation Unit (59)
Aboriginal Workforce Development Centres Pilo t Pro ject (418)
Regional Partnerships for Success in Indigenous Education Pro ject (450)
Conservation Parks Visitor Infrastructure and Roads (83)
Carnarvon Flood M itigation Pro ject (346)
M arine Parks M anagement (453)
M arine Parks M anagement - Department o f Parks and Wildlife 453
Distributed Health and M edical Education Program in the Pilbara - P ilo t Pro ject (529)
Western Desert Kidney Health Pro ject
M artu Knowledge Program (160)
Seasonal Staff Accommodation Coral Bay (289)
Kalgoorlie Indigenous Visitors Accommodation Pro ject (299)
Tambellup Independent Living Seniors Accommodation (305)
Well-Aged Person Housing in Lakes & 4WD Districts (R46-11)
Kimberley Aboriginal Community Housing Pro ject (358, 552 & 55)
Staff Housing - 237 Quilty St, Halls Creek
Gascoyne Regional Grant Scheme (112)
South West Regional Grant Scheme (119)
Regional Talent Development Network (437)
Surfers Point Redevelopment (453)
Kalbarri Recreation Oval Redevelopment
Kalbarri Skate Park
Gascoyne Junction Rebuilding and Enhancement of Town Centre and Tourism Facilities (215)
Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy Tourism Components (405)
Augusta Boat Harbour (217)
Community Priority Road Infrastructure - M arble Bar Road Improvements Pro ject (512)
Gascoyne Irrigation Pipeline Pro ject (71)
Pilbara Cities Planning Program (202)
Avon Water Reuse (241)
Southern Link VROC Regional Archive Repository
Southern Link VROC Waste Transfer Stations
Agriculture
Community
Education
Environment
Utilities, Power &
Water
Health
Housing
M ultiple
Recreational
Tourism
Transport
Figure 3-1 Rating of community vitality change
The chart on the right is
showing two outcomes from
the survey.
Under each community vitality
area are a number of different
sized bars. The wider the bar
the more respondents believe
their project has made an
impact in this area. Take
project number 285 ( ) for
example. Here the respondent
believes the Regional NRM
Carbon Farming initiative has
made a large contribution to
Personal and Economic
Security, a noticeable
improvement to a Learning
Culture, and a substantial
improvement to Engaged
Leadership, Community
Entrepreneurship and a Clean
Environment.
The study researchers have
also carried out an analysis of
the qualitative data from the
survey. The questions related
to project benefits, community
resilience, spin-off benefits etc
allowed for respondents to
enter free text comments.
Textual analysis of this data
leads to an assessment of
areas of community vitality
that were likely to have been
impacted by the projects. The
boxes shaded in green show
the findings from this textual
analysis. What is evident is
the divergence between what
the qualitative data suggests
and where project proponents
state improvements have been
occurring. This is likely a
matter of interpretation more
than a material difference in outcomes and also perhaps reflects a deeper knowledge of the projects by proponents and therefore a better understanding of likely impacts. Despite the divergence there remains sufficient overlap between the two
views to indicate that the projects have contributed in some way to an improvement in the vitality of communities in regional WA.
42908600/01/0 20
All of the comments describing the three primary benefits of the Royalties for Regions funding
were entered into an online application that generates what are called ‘word clouds’. The
clouds give more prominence to words that appear more often in the text. The image below
provides a simple yet very effective way to view what people are saying about the benefits that
have accrued from their projects.
It is worthwhile to present some of the comments given to the question of project benefits as
these will demonstrate the impacts of Royalties for Regions far better than any chart or table.
In regard to a town revitalisation project the following benefit was recorded;
Renewal and upgrade of services (power, telecommunications, sewer, water etc)
that have enabled new developments and redevelopments to occur in the town
centre.
The provision of a town centre focus and community infrastructure encourages
surrounding businesses to invest in their businesses and in the local economy to
provide enhanced offerings in the town centre, therefore effectively leveraging the
R4R spend to the benefit of the local economy and community.
People are anecdotally staying in the town centre longer due to the provision of
shaded parking and public art etc. The expectation is that with a well-appointed
town square that people will choose the town centre as a meeting point destination
and not just a place to do the shopping as quickly as possible. I expect that
Newman will become a town where people choose to live for longer, or where
tourists choose to stop, visit and stay for a period of time before proceeding to the
next destination, rather than using simply as a place to replenish supplies for their
holiday. We are also focussing on welcoming the FIFO crowds from camps who
would be welcome to use the area for some relaxation from time to time, thereby
spending more money in the region where they earn it.
42908600/01/0 21
The Regional Grants Scheme, administered through the Regional Development Commissions,
provides funding for community, public and private organisations to improve and develop
infrastructure and services in the regions:
The Gascoyne Regional Grant Scheme has improved access to services, provided
vital community infrastructure, supported local community groups and events and
increased employment, training and investment opportunities, all of which have
contributed to making the Gascoyne region a great place to live or visit.
As a result of the Regional Grants Scheme in the South West region the community is seen as:
Vibrant and positive - hope for the future.
Housing projects provide more than a roof over one’s head. They encourage people to stay in
their own community and encourage aspirations for the future:
[The project has enabled] staff retention for local people. Local people have applied
for shire positions due to the benefit of having housing attached. Many of these
people are young with small children, and are wanting to at some stage own their
own homes.
Even projects that don’t immediately seem to contribute to community vitality are shown to
bring diverse benefits. A program to manage wild dogs is seen to bring economic, social and
environmental benefits to regional areas:
Wild dogs impact directly (stock deaths, injuries and lower reproduction rates) and
indirectly (increased fencing costs, increased costs associated with livestock and
cropping management, social costs through stress and community conflict).
Initial reports indicate that land holders and managers have a greater confidence to
run small livestock and there is a willingness to increase stock numbers.
The investment of funds in regional areas has delivered intangible benefits which go beyond
the structures being created. The investment is seen as a validation of the community and a
commitment to its future:
Council's commitment to construction of the units demonstrates confidence in the
future sustainability of the community.
Projects that have targeted specific groups within the community have brought positive
outcomes for others. An Indigenous education project has not only seen school attendance
rates increase and higher levels of educational achievement; it has also encouraged greater
involvement of parents in their children’s schooling;
The communities and to be more specific parents of the students involved also now
have higher expectations, involvement and pride in the success of their children
Where projects can add further value they generate flow-on benefits that had not been
anticipated or where they encourage the development of other projects which expand on the
42908600/01/0 22
outcomes that can be achieved. Thirteen respondents identified benefits that they had not
anticipated. For example, the revitalisation of a town centre has encouraged increased private
sector development in the town that may not have otherwise occurred. In addition, a proposal
has been put forward by the existing shopping centre for the redevelopment of their front
façade in order to increase the amenity of the town. For another project, the development of
accommodation for seasonal workers has led to in-migration of workers permanently, rather
than seasonally.
New developments, some of them funded through Royalties for Regions, are being pursued in
the regions as a result of the momentum generated by earlier Royalties for Regions projects.
Some of these developments include:
Consequent to the State Government’s commitment to address mobile coverage issues
through the project, Telstra and the Regional Development Commissions (RDCs) have
received over 350 requests to improve mobile services, mainly relating to small
communities and strategic locations. In light of this substantial demand, a further
assessment of telecommunications services has been undertaken by the Department of
Commerce to identify priority sites for future investment, and the projected level of funding
required.
The development of housing to support professional staff working with an Aboriginal
organisation has allowed the founding voluntary staff to development complementary
programmes to those targeted by professional staff.
The survey results show that the projects that have been delivered have made a direct and
positive impact on the communities in which they have been implemented. Respondents to the
survey have also shown their confidence that future projects will only further add to the
benefits that have already been seen.
One of the key findings from this survey relates to decision-making. As has been noted earlier,
consultation across remote Australia undertaken by Desert Knowledge Australia (Walker, Porter
and March, 2012) consistently heard what people want but don’t get:
1. A say in decisions that affect them
2. Equitable and sustainable financial flows
3. Better services and locally responsive public service
4. Local control and accountability where possible
5. Inclusion in a greater Australian narrative.
The success of Royalties for Regions lies in the opportunity it has provided in addressing each
of these five desires. It will be important for those whose task is to administer the funding to
ensure that the program continues to have these five wants at its heart. Desert Knowledge
Australia sums up the approach that needs to be continued. They state, Royalties for Regions is
a unilateral (that is, State) policy which addresses the traditional failure to provide financial
resources to regions sufficient to meet their legitimate needs and aspirations. The next step is to
ensure all governments and the different Pilbara communities are on the same page – declaring
Loyalty to Regions.
42908600/01/0 23
4 SURVEY RESULTS
4.1 Respondents
Question 1: What organisation do you represent?
The total number of individual respondents to the survey was 45. Three quarters of
respondents were from either State or local government with the remainder representing the
non-government sector, private enterprise, academic institutions, Aboriginal organisations,
Regional Development Commissions and community groups. Figure 4-1shows the distribution
of respondents by organisation.
Figure 4-1 Respondents to the survey
4.2 Funding Source
Question 2: Royalties for Regions is distributed via three primary funds. From which of these
funds was your project funded?
The first question in the survey established the funding source for projects/programs that were
being reported on. As can be seen in Figure 4-2the majority of respondents to this survey were
recipients of Regional Infrastructure and Headworks Fund monies. This distribution of funding
sources matches the overall pattern of distribution of funds though the period of the program.
In the 2012-13 financial year the distribution of funds was as follows:
CLGF RCSF RIHF Other
7% 23% 68% 1%
42908600/01/0 24
Figure 4-2 Respondents funding source
4.3 Primary Drivers
Question 3: What was the main driver for your project? Rank each response from 1 to 6, where
1 is the primary driver.
The survey requested respondents to rank the primary drivers for their project based on the
goals of the Royalties for Regions program (provided in Figure 3-3 from ‘1’ being the most
important and ‘6’ the least important).
URS generated an average score for each goal based on survey responses, which is shown in
Figure 4-3. As can be seen, more respondents nominated that the goal of their project was to
enable the community to plan and expand social and economic opportunities.
Figure 4-3 Project Driver
10%
24%
66%
Country Local Government Fund
Regional Community Services Fund
Regional Infrastructure and Headworks
Fund
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
To enable the community to plan and expand social and
economic opportunities
To increase employment opportunities, business and industry
development opportunities and to improve local services
There was a need to build capacity within the local community
To increase the number of relevant and local services
To help the community to plan and build community
infrastructure
The community was seeing a loss of resources, people and
services that are needed to maintain a healthy community
42908600/01/0 25
4.4 Project planning
Question 5: How long were you planning the project before you applied for funding?
Figure 4-4 shows how long respondents were planning their Royalties for Regions project prior
to applying for funding. As indicated below, the majority of respondents (36 per cent) had spent
between 12 months to two years planning for their project.
The eleven per cent of projects that had been in planning for more than five years delivered
public infrastructure, environmental management, housing and tourism related outcomes.
Figure 4-4 Project planning period prior to funding– months
4.5 Decision making
Question 6: Who was involved in the decision making on the funded project? Please identify all
that were included.
As one of the six policy objectives of the Royalties for Regions program is to build capacity in
regional communities a survey question was included to determine the level at which decision-
making around the project occurred.
Figure 4-5shows the proportion of groups involved in the decision making process for the
funded projects. As shown, the department staff from the State Government, Regional
Development Commissions and local government were involved in the decision making process
for around 70 per cent of all projects surveyed. Local community groups and organisations
were involved in decision-making in around 64 per cent of projects. Given these results it
appears that decisions about regional projects were being made in the regions.
42908600/01/0 26
Figure 4-5 Decision making involvement
Out of the 45 projects reported only 11 did not include local community groups in the decision
making process. These projects were largely WA-wide government strategies or related to the
provision of government housing in the regions.
4.6 Project objectives
8. When you applied for funding for your project you were asked to list project outcomes. Do
you believe your project has met its objective/s?
Figure 4-6 shows the proportion of respondents who believed that their project had met its
objectives.
Figure 4-6 Respondents who believed their projects had met its objective/s
As part of the process for applying for funding, recipients were asked to describe what
outcomes(s) they were anticipating as a result of the intended project. Specifically,
submissions were asked to “clearly outline the outcome of the Project including a statement of
purpose and need for the Project, including the imperative for undertaking the Project. The
Project Outcome should provide a clear statement that identifies what the Project aims to
achieve”.
42908600/01/0 27
Respondents to the survey were asked whether they believed their project had achieved its
intended outcomes. If they responded YES they were further asked to describe how they would
know.
Eighty two per cent of respondents believed their project met the intended outcome. The
remaining 18 per cent believed their project met some of its intended objectives. An analysis of
the evidence for the achievement of outcomes indicates some confusion between what is an
outcome and what is an output. This is not uncommon.
People often get confused about the difference between outcomes and outputs. Outcomes are
the changes that project proponents are looking to achieve. Outputs are the services, products
and activities that a project or program offers to its users. For example, a local service provider
might seek to reduce the number of families reaching crisis point. This is an outcome. To
achieve this outcome, the service provider might decide to run a series of parenting classes,
and start a drop-in support group. These are outputs.
This confusion does not necessarily detract from the overall finding shown by the responses to
this question but it does suggest that Department of Regional Development may need to
educate future funding recipients on the difference between an output and an outcome. This
would be a necessary precursor to undertaking evaluations at the project level.
4.7 Project beneficiaries
9. In your opinion, who in your community will directly benefit from your project? (Note: more
than one beneficiary could be selected)
Figure 4-7 shows perceived beneficiaries of the projects that have been funded through
Royalties for Regions.
Figure 4-7 Project beneficiaries
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Women
Men
Children under 5 years
School Children
Young Adults (18 - 24 years)
Seniors/Aged
Aboriginal People
People with a disability
Business owners
Other
42908600/01/0 28
There was some variation in project beneficiaries between the different funding sources. For
example, proportionally Aboriginal people benefit more so from Regional Community Services
Fund projects. Seniors appear to benefit more from Regional Infrastructure and Headworks
Fund projects while school children have benefited from Country Local Government Fund
projects.
Figure 4-8 Project beneficiaries by funding source
4.8 Project communications
Question 10: Have the benefits of your project been communicated to the community?
Question 10a: What media did you use?
A range of media have been utilised to disseminate the outcomes of projects to the broader
community, as shown in Figure 4-9 below. Community newspapers figure prominently as a
means of communication. Regional audiences rely on local publications, as often they are the
only local news content, and the source of important community conversations.
A recent research study commissioned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority
(the ACMA) sought to identify awareness, use of, perceived importance and preferred source/s
for accessing local content in regional areas of Australia (ACMA, 2013). One of the key findings
from this study relates to the importance of local newspapers;
Local print newspapers were the most frequently identified source of local content.
Ninety-four per cent of respondents identified these as an available source of local
content in their local area, while 78 per cent identified commercial television or
commercial radio.
Of note is the relatively high use of social media (and other web-based platforms). This is an
indication of the expansion in mobile and internet access for people living in the regions, in
some cases as a result of Royalties for Regions funded projects.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Other
Business Owners
People with a Disability
Aboriginal Peple
Seniors / Aged
Young Adults
School Children
Children Under 5 Years
Men
Women
CLGF RCSF RIHF
42908600/01/0 29
Figure 4-9 Project communications
4.9 Project effects
Question 11: How long do you think the positive effects of your project will last?
Over half of respondents believed their projects would deliver positive benefits to the
community that would last for many generations (Figure 4-10). A third considered the benefits
of their project would last a generation. This would represent a very positive outcome for
communities who could expect long-lasting positive benefits to continue into the future.
Figure 4-10 Project effects
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Television
Community Newspaper
Radio
Word of Mouth
Social Media
Other
42908600/01/0 30
4.10 Community Self-reliance
Question 17. Would you say that your project has helped to build the community’s self-
reliance?
Those that considered that the self-reliance of the community had been increased as a result
of the project noted a number of reasons why this was the case. Some of the comments that
were recorded refer to aiding local decision-making:
“Medical provision in a remote setting [is] a consideration when deciding to stay
within an area or move elsewhere, with this new facility this may have supported a
decision to stay”
“It provided Aboriginal people with resources to make decisions and take strategic
community preventative health actions.”
…and ending reliance on others:
“The community is no longer just reliant on the state to provide housing”
“The project has enhanced the 'can-do' attitudes adopted by many small rural
communities”
Figure 4-11 Community self-reliance
4.11 Alignment with the purposes of the Act
Respondents were asked to rate their project against the five identified purposes of the
Royalties for Regions Act. Four options were available to describe the extent to which the
project contributed to these purposes. The distribution of responses is displayed in the figures
below.
Most respondents felt that their projects were successful in providing infrastructure and
services in regional Western Australia. Similarly, a majority of respondents stated that their
Yes, 22, 50% No, 7%
Unable to say, 19,
43%
42908600/01/0 31
project had contributed to broadening the economic base of regional Australia. In contrast, far
less respondents stated that their project was successful in creating jobs and career
opportunities; rather, around one third stated that job creation was ‘not a focus’ for their
project. Similarly, around 45 per cent or close to half of all respondents stated that improving
career opportunities was not a focus for their project.
The provision of infrastructure in regional Western Australia
Provision of services in regional Western Australia
Efforts to broaden the economic base of regional Western Australia
0
4
32
8
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
0
10
29
5
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
0
15
18
11
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
42908600/01/0 32
Efforts to maximise job creation in regional Western Australia
Efforts to improve career opportunities in regional Western Australia
0
16
13
15
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
1
9
14
20
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
42908600/01/0 33
4.12 Contribution to Community Vitality
Respondents were asked to think about their project(s) and rate the level of change in each of
the nine Community Vitality areas using one of five responses. The results are shown in the
figures below. Note these results are cross-referenced with the Department of Regional
Development derived outcome category areas.
4.12.1 Personal and economic security
Projects where respondents have suggested a very substantial or large improvement (n=9)
delivered in the areas of housing (4), community (2), tourism (1), agriculture (1) and utilities,
power & water (1). Alternatively, the majority of projects where ‘no change’ is noted relate to
the recreational category where the main objective was concerned more with ‘wellness’ and
health benefits.
Analysis of the qualitative data supports a strong link between those projects considered in
this review and the characteristics of personal and economic security defined here. As
indicated by the quantitative data, respondents responsible for housing projects stated that the
development of housing, particularly Aboriginal housing, has led to safer, more secure
communities. For example, one respondent stated that the use of the facility has provided “a
safe and secure dry environment resulting in a reduction in alcohol and drug-related incidents
and a decrease in anti-social behaviour.” This respondent noted that the project had the
following impact on the community:
Affirmative action to address Indigenous homelessness in regional centres has
promoted growth and sustainability in these communities by alleviating the pressure
on law enforcement agencies and health, housing and welfare services.
4.12.2 Learning culture
For the most part, respondents do not believe that their project contributed to developing a
learning culture within regional Western Australia. Those respondents who nominated that their
project had a substantial to noticeable improvement in learning culture were those that had a
clear connection to education.
The relationship between outputs and outcomes when discussing educational projects is
generally well understood and this is demonstrated well in the qualitative data gained from this
survey. For example, while a respondent provided clear output related data to demonstrate how
42908600/01/0 34
the project had achieved its objective (i.e. more students achieving WACA and ATAR), the
respondent was also able to articulate a clear change in the community that indicates that this
project will increase the community’s learning culture, stating that:
The communities, and to be more specific, parents of the students involved also
now have higher expectations, involvement and pride in the success of their
children.
4.12.3 A culture of wellness
Projects that have rated as ‘no change’ against this community vitality indicator are largely
those directed towards infrastructure provision (housing, utilities, etc). Not surprisingly, the
projects where a large or substantial improvement is noted are those that have targeted
community or health outcomes specifically. However, the data also suggests that funding
recipients acknowledge the correlation between certain types of infrastructure, such as roads,
housing or communications, and community wellness.
The qualitative data provides a greater insight into the value of a range of projects that aimed
at contributing to wellness within their target communities. Of the projects included in this
evaluation, the most frequent qualitative linkage between project outcomes and community
wellness are those projects that developed or expanded recreational facilities in regional
Western Australia.
4.12.4 Engaged Leadership
As noted earlier, the central principles underpinning Royalties for Regions are:
42908600/01/0 35
Strategic projects in regional Western Australia are a priority
Local decision-making in regional areas is fundamental
State Government department administration and processes should provide for and
support decision-making in regional areas.
The common feature of the eight projects that are considered as bringing a large or substantial
improvement to ‘engaged leadership’ is the involvement of local community groups as key
decision makers. The positive result may be attributed to the willingness of civic leaders (e.g.
Councillors or other elected officials) to engage with the broader community and that this
constitutes engaged leadership. The data, however, does not allow further analysis of the
results.
There does not appear to be a correlation between the positive statements and the category of
project outcome – the eight projects cover five categories.
Despite the strength of quantitative responses in regards to leadership, the qualitative data
collected during this survey provided insufficient data to discuss the issue further.
4.12.5 Vibrant Arts, Heritage and Culture
The majority of respondents did not consider their project to have any impact on the
community’s arts, heritage and cultural characteristics. There does not appear to be a
correlation between the positive statements and the category of project outcome – the ten
projects cover eight categories.
The qualitative data demonstrates a strong relationship between infrastructure development
and the opportunity for arts, heritage and cultural activities. For example, one respondent
noted of a regional entertainment centre:
The project has created additional spaces that are already attracting a variety of
bookings for more unique and concentrated audiences.
42908600/01/0 36
4.12.6 Sense of community
The majority of respondents did not consider their project to have any impact on the sense of
community within the area of the project’s impacts. Overall, this is not surprising, as
measuring a sense of community is difficult and is generally an outcome of a variety of
community characteristics. Those responses that rated their project as having had a
substantial contribution to a sense of community include community and housing projects.
In contrast, the qualitative data collected shows a much stronger recognition of an increase in
a sense of community. For example, a respondent responsible for a wild dog management
program noted that…
The management of wild dogs impacts the triple bottom line. Management lessens
the impact on social, economic and environmental impacts on regional and rural
communities and the agricultural industries.
Similarly, the Royalties for Regions program has supported the development of a number of
seniors’ accommodation within regional WA that has enabled retirees to stay within the
community, which has prevented the ongoing loss of key community members that is a
common feature of regional Australia. A respondent stated that the development of seniors’
accommodation that:
The people targeted for this project are the builders and leaders of the community,
who prior to the construction of the new units, were forced to leave the community
through a lack of suitable housing in the town.
42908600/01/0 37
4.12.7 Community Entrepreneurship
The majority of respondents did not consider their project to have any impact on
entrepreneurship within their communities. Those that rated their project to have had a
substantial or large contribution (n=3) include community, agriculture and health projects.
Despite this, the qualitative data gathered for this evaluation showed that a much greater
number of projects had a positive impact on community entrepreneurship through the creation
of jobs, the development of skills to support people entering and progressing in the job market
and the development of physical infrastructure that enables local business development.
Businesses have been assisted to engage and retain Aboriginal employees. For
example…[we] advise employers on good practice when employing Aboriginal
people, provide resources such as the booklet "How well do you understand your
Aboriginal employees" and run employer engagement forums. Working with
employers to make their workplaces more culturally aware and to increase their
capacity to engage and retain Aboriginal employees makes it more likely that
Aboriginal people will maintain employment in the long term.
Similarly, the development of housing, particularly in areas where there is limited, good quality
and affordable housing available is seen as crucial to attracting and retaining staff in a number
of key regional areas.
4.12.8 Physical Space
Around half of the survey respondents felt that their project had made a noticeable (8), large
(8) or substantial (4) improvement to physical space within the community. Those that
nominated their project to have had a substantial or large impact include projects primarily
focused on infrastructure development or redevelopment, including general housing, town
centres, recreational and conservation areas.
42908600/01/0 38
4.12.9 Clean environment
Forty per cent of respondents perceived that their project had a substantial (5), large (3) or a
noticeable (10) improvement to the environment within their communities. An equal proportion
of respondents stated that their project had no impact on the environment. Generally, there is
a strong correlation between projects rated positively for the environment and those rated
positively for physical space. However, more projects were rated positively for the environment;
these projects are primarily those directly concerned with environmental conservation.
42908600/01/0 39
5 REFERENCES
ABS, 2013. Estimated Resident Population - Western Australian Regions 2002-2012.
Department of Regional Development.
CEDA, 2013, Reinventing the Regions: Victoria’s changing regional economies, Regional
Development Victoria, State of Victoria.
Crawford, T., 2011. Third Key Worker Housing Affordability Report, Bankwest Financial Indicator
Series. Bankwest, Sydney.
Deloitte Access Economics, 2014, Western Australian Business Outlook, WA economic
transition gathers steam, February 2014 [online] http://www.deloitte.com
Department of Regional Development, 2014a. Regional Price Index 2013. Government of
Western Australia, Perth.
Department of Regional Development. 2014b. Living in the Regions: A survey of attitudes and
perceptions about living in regional Western Australia. Perth: Government of Western
Australia.
Haslam Mackenzie, F., Rowley, R., Brereton, D., Birdsall-Jones, C., 2009. Housing Market
Dynamics in Resource Boom Towns, AHURI Final Report (No. 135). Western Australia
Research Centre.
KPMG, 2011. Australia’s resources boom: the infrastructure ripple effect. Sydney.
Scott, K., 2010, Community Vitality: A report of the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, Canadian
Council on Social Development, Waterloo, Canada.
Shelter WA, 2013. Housing in Regional WA [WWW Document]. URL http://shelterwa.org.au/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Housing-in-Regional-WA-ShelterWA-FactSheet2013.pdf
(accessed 5.22.14).
Stolte, M and B. Metcalfe, 2009. Beyond Economic Survival: 97 Ways Small Communities Can
Thrive—A Guide to Community Vitality, The Centre for Innovative & Entrepreneurial
Leadership, Nelson, Canada.
Walker, B.W., D.J. Porter and I. Marsh, 2012, Fixing the hole in Australia’s Heartland: How
Government needs to work in remote Australia, Desert Knowledge Australia, Alice
Springs.
42908600/01/0 40
6 LIMITATIONS
URS Australia Pty Ltd (URS) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and
thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of the Western Australian Department of
Regional Development and only those third parties who have been authorised in writing by URS
to rely on this Report.
It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this
Report.
It is prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the contract
dated 21 March 2014.
Where this Report indicates that information has been provided to URS by third parties, URS
has made no independent verification of this information except as expressly stated in the
Report. URS assumes no liability for any inaccuracies in or omissions to that information.
This Report was prepared between March and May 2014 and is based on the conditions
encountered and information reviewed at the time of preparation. URS disclaims responsibility
for any changes that may have occurred after this time.
This Report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this
report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This Report does not
purport to give legal advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.
Except as required by law, no third party may use or rely on this Report unless otherwise
agreed by URS in writing. Where such agreement is provided, URS will provide a letter of
reliance to the agreed third party in the form required by URS.
To the extent permitted by law, URS expressly disclaims and excludes liability for any loss,
damage, cost or expenses suffered by any third party relating to or resulting from the use of, or
reliance on, any information contained in this Report. URS does not admit that any action,
liability or claim may exist or be available to any third party.
Except as specifically stated in this section, URS does not authorise the use of this Report by
any third party.
It is the responsibility of third parties to independently make inquiries or seek advice in relation
to their particular requirements and proposed use of the site.
Any estimates of potential costs which have been provided are presented as estimates only as
at the date of the Report. Any cost estimates that have been provided may therefore vary from
actual costs at the time of expenditure.
42908600/01/0
APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONS
a. Email address
b. What organisation do you represent?
1 What is the name of your project [in signed agreement]? Please include the Project Number if known.
2 Royalties for Regions is distributed via three primary funds. From which of these funds was your project funded?
Country Local Government Fund
Regional Community Services Fund
Regional Infrastructure and Headworks Fund
3 What was the main driver for this project? Rank each of the following from 1 - 6, where 1 is the primary driver.
There was a need to build capacity within the local community
The community was seeing a loss of resources, people and services that are needed to
maintain a healthy community
To increase the number of relevant and local services
To enable the community to plan expand social and economic opportunities
To help the community to plan and build community infrastructure
To increase employment opportunities, business and industry development opportunities
and to improve local services
4 If there were other drivers for this project not listed above then please add them here
5 How long were you planning the project before you applied for funding?
3-6 months
6-12 months
12 months - 2 years
2-5 years
more than 5 years
6 Who was involved in the decision making on the funded project? Please identify all that were included.
Local Community Groups and Organisations
Local Professional Organisations
Local Government Council
Local Business and Service Providers
Regional Development Commissions
State Government Department (Staff)
Other
7 Of those involved in the project, which groups were the principal project proponents and key decision makers?
8 When you applied for funding for your project you were asked to list project outcomes. Do you believe your project has met its
objective/s?
Yes
No
Some
If your project has met its objective/s, how do you know?
If your project did not meet its objective/s, what do you think are the main reasons why?
If your project met some of its objectives, what are the main reasons for objectives not being met?
42908600/01/0 42
9 In your opinion, who in your community will directly benefit from your project? (Tick all that apply)
Women
Men
Children under 5 years
School Children
Young Adults (18 - 24 years)
Seniors/Aged
Aboriginal People
People with a disability
Business owners
Other
10 Have the benefits of your project been communicated to the community?
What media did you use? (Tick all
that apply)
Television
Community Newspaper
Radio
Word of Mouth
Social Media
Other
11 How long do you think the positive effects of your project will last?
As long as there is funding there will be positive effects
The project has delivered benefits that will last a generation (i.e. 25 years)
The project has delivered benefits that will last for many generations
12
What have been the three most important benefits that you think your project has
provided? Why do you think these are important?
What was the most important benefit and why?
What was the 2nd most important benefit and why?
What was the 3rd most important benefit?
13 How do you think your community has changed as a result of the project?
14 Have there been any spin-off benefits that you did not anticipate?
Yes
No
What were the spin off benefits?
15 Has the project led to other project plans or developments?
Yes
No
Please briefly describe what these other project plans or developments are.
16 Would you change any aspects of project planning or delivery?
Yes
No
What aspects of project planning or delivery would you change?
17 Would you say that your project has helped to build the community’s self-reliance?
Yes
No
Unable to say
Please describe briefly how the project has helped to build the community’s self-reliance.
42908600/01/0 43
18 The Royalties for Regions Act
2009 provides for funding for
specific purposes. Thinking about
your project, to what extent was it
successful in...
The provision of infrastructure in regional Western Australia
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
Provision of services in regional Western Australia
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
Efforts to broaden the economic base of regional Western Australia
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
Efforts to maximise job creation in regional Western Australia
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
Efforts to improve career opportunities in regional Western Australia
Not at all successful
Somewhat successful
Completely successful
Not a focus for this project
19 Community Vitality Personal and economic security.
Community Vitality is one way of
understanding the quality of life
in communities and is most often
applied to rural and regional
communities. Think about a
community that has benefited
from your project and rate the
level of change in each of the
nine key areas that has come as
a result of the project.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
A learning culture.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
A culture of wellness.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
Engaged leadership.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
42908600/01/0 44
Vibrant arts, heritage, and culture.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
Sense of community.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
Community Entrepreneurship.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
Physical Space.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
A clean environment.
No change
Made a minor improvement
Made a noticeable improvement
Made a large improvement
Made a very substantial improvement
42908600/01/0
APPENDIX B EMAIL INVITING PARTICIPATION
Royalties for Regions has been in operation since 2009 and has allocated more than $4.2 billion to over 3,500
projects across Western Australia.
The Department of Regional Development (DRD) is seeking to understand the impact that the Royalties for Regions
program has been having across Western Australia. To gather some information to build that understanding DRD has
commissioned URS Australia Pty Ltd to design and administer a survey of all fund recipients since the program’s
inception in 2008.
You can help shape the future
As a Royalties for Regions grant recipient we are keen to understand the impact of your project in your community. To this
extent, we are inviting you to take 15 minutes to complete the Royalties for Regions Impact Survey and to share your
project story with others.
Accessing the survey is a simple matter of clicking on this link …
http://royalties4regionsimpactsurvey.com.au
… and logging in to the site. You will be asked to create a Username and to enter your email address, provide a site
password and enter the organisation you are representing. An email is then sent to your inbox verifying your registration. If
you click on the link in that email it will take you to the survey.
On the main page you will see two tabs -
You can simply scroll down the screen to complete the survey.
The STORIES tab offers an opportunity for respondents to share their Royalties for Regions stories, photos and videos.
Once you have completed the survey click SUBMIT.
You can enter information about any number of projects.
If there are others within your organisation who you think might be able to complete the survey please feel free to forward
this email to them. Our aim is to gather as much information about projects from as many of the people who have been
involved in them.
If you have any questions about the survey feel free to give me a call on the number below.
I do hope you can complete the survey to allow us to evaluate the achievements created through the Royalties for Regions
program.
Many thanks for your assistance and your time
42908600/01/0
APPENDIX C ALIGNMENT BETWEEN COMMUNITY VITALITY AND R4R POLICY OBJECTIVES
1.
Pers
onal and e
conom
ic s
ecurity
. F
or
exam
ple
, th
ere
is a
dequate
and d
ivers
ifie
d e
mp
loym
ent, a
ra
nge o
f ty
pes o
f afford
able
housin
g,
people
have a
ccess t
o t
he q
ualit
y s
erv
ices t
hey n
eed,
and they
feel safe
.
2.
A le
arn
ing c
ulture
. A
spirit o
f lif
e-lo
ng le
arn
ing,
and a
hunger
for
know
ledge a
nd w
isdom
,
perv
ades the c
om
mu
nity. T
here
are
opport
unitie
s to d
evelo
p s
kill
s t
o im
pro
ve e
mp
loym
ent pro
spects
thro
ugh t
rain
ing. A
variety
of m
odes o
f le
arn
ing for
all
age g
roups a
nd in
tere
sts
are
availa
ble
.
3.
A c
ulture
of
welln
ess. S
upport
ed b
y a
dequate
health f
acili
ties,
people
take r
esponsib
ility
for
their
ow
n h
ealth. T
he le
aders
hip
of th
e c
om
mu
nity a
ctively
encoura
ges fitness,
welln
ess,
and p
reventio
n.
4.
Engaged le
aders
hip
. T
he form
al and in
form
al le
aders
hip
of th
e c
om
munity u
nders
tands a
nd
support
s t
he n
ee
ds o
f th
e c
om
mu
nity.
Dis
cussio
n a
nd p
art
icip
atio
n is e
ncoura
ged.
Th
ere
are
ma
ny
active g
roups e
ngaged in
com
mu
nity life.
5.
A c
lean e
nvironm
ent. T
he w
ate
r, a
ir, and la
nd a
re h
ealthy.
6.
Vib
rant
art
s, herita
ge, and c
ulture
. T
here
are
galle
rie
s, concert
s,
and c
ele
bra
tio
ns. T
here
is
recognitio
n o
f th
e d
ivers
ity o
f cultura
l herita
ge. T
here
are
ma
ny p
eople
work
ing in c
ultura
l and
cre
ative o
ccupatio
ns.
7.
Sense o
f com
mu
nity. T
he c
om
mu
nity is h
om
e to a
div
ers
ity o
f ty
pes o
f people
: ages,
occupatio
ns,
races, la
nguages.
Th
ey talk
to e
ach o
ther,
and t
here
is a
str
ong s
ense o
f belo
ngin
g.
8.
Com
mu
nity E
ntr
epre
neurs
hip
. T
he c
om
mu
nity s
upport
s e
ntr
epre
neurs
and b
usin
ess le
aders
. T
he
com
mu
nity lo
oks s
trate
gic
ally
for
opport
unitie
s.
New
id
eas a
re e
ncoura
ged.
9.
Physic
al S
pace.
Th
e b
uilt
environm
ent
is b
eautifu
l, a
ccessib
le a
nd p
edestr
ian frie
ndly
, w
ith a
n
unhurr
ied,
neig
hbourly f
eelin
g.
Contribution to Community Resources or Capacity Y Y Y
Contribution to Safer Community Y
Contribution to Improved Health and Well Being Y Y
Contribution to Availability and Retention of Workforce Y Y
Contribution to Community Cohesion Y
Impact on Diversity of Services Y Y Y
Contribution to Quality of Local Services Y Y
Impact on Access to Services Y Y Y Contribution to Increased Accessibility for
Underrepresented People Y Y
Contribution to Social Values and Satisfaction Y Y Y Y
Contribution to Economic Development Y Y
Impact on Labour Force Participation Y
Contribution to Aboriginal Participation Y Y Y
Contribution to Community Liveability Y Y Y Y
Financial Self Sustainability Y Y Y Contribution to Local Community Sustainability and
Diversity Y Y Y Y
Contribution to Retention of Population Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
47
G O V E R N M E N T O I L & G A S I N F R A S T R U C T U R E P O W E R I N D U S T R I A L
URS is a leading provider of engineering, construction, technical and environmental
services for public agencies and private sector companies around the world. We offer
a full range of program management; planning, design and engineering; systems
engineering and technical assistance; construction and construction management;
operations and maintenance; and decommissioning and closure services for power,
infrastructure, industrial and commercial, and government projects and programs.
© 2014 URS
URS Australia Pty Ltd
Level 4, 226 Adelaide Terrace
Perth WA 6000