Piloting the Age-friendly City Indicator Guide Catherine Simcox Banyule City Council

Project aim The objectives of this Guide are: To provide structured guidance on selecting indicators of the age-friendliness of a city. To present a set of indicators which are suggested for use in measuring the age-friendliness of a city. To support local efforts to develop relevant and appropriate indicators of the age-friendliness of a city. Show the WHO draft document: Measuring the age-friendliness of Cities. The objectives of the Guide are on the screen. The objectives of the pilot were to The objectives of this pilot test are two-fold: 1) to collect data on the core indicators, globally; and 2) to gather inputs for improving the Guide from a user’s perspective. So Banyule along with many other local governments submitted an application in October 2014. Then in the first week of December, we received the email to say that we had been selected as one of ten funded sites and one of 13 sites globally to be part of the pilot to investigate age-friendly indicators.

WHO pilot sites The other pilot sites included: Bilbao, Spain; Bowdoinham, USA; Dijon, France; Hong Kong SAR, China; La Plata, Argentina; Nairobi, Kenya; New Delhi, India; Shanghai/Jing’an, China; Tehran, Iran; Tuymazy, Russia; Udine, Italy; and Washington DC, USA.

Overview of methodology Established work group Confirm the people taking responsibility for collection of information on each of the core indicators Collection of information for each indicator. Two workshops: data focus/ using the guide focus World café workshop with residents Report to WHO Global meeting to finalise Guide. A limitation to this pilot has been the very tight timeline and the bulk of the work needing to be completed over December and January. In Australia, it is our Summer break and many locations close for multiple weeks. In saying this the buzz of being Australia’s representative on a global project made members of the project team us postpone leave, cancel leave, pop back from beach holidays and for me just not leave my computer, to make sure we met the timelines. On screen is a very simplistic overview of the methodology. In the remainder of this presentation I am going to break down a couple of the key learnings from undertaking this project.

The Project team Three key Officer’s, spent over 50 hours implementing this project. Nine project team members that spent between 10 and 50 hours implementing project. Establishing the working group was critical to the success of building indicators. We looked at the recommended 14 core indicators and 5 supplementary indicators. Due to the limitations on time we were not going to create a new survey. This meant we needed to identify the data that already existed. The indicators are wide ranging and require high level awareness of what information is already collected within Council and by external organisations. We brainstormed who needed to be on the project team and who needed to be a partner. Each member of the project team took responsibility for one or more indicators. This required them to identify data sources, partners and the potential of this data being remeasured in the future (frequency). I will highlight 4 key successes about our project team: Each member wanted to be involved in the project – commitment and they clearly understood their role. We have two of the member with me today – Jill and Leanne Banyule has recently funded a Data Analyst on staff. This skill set was critical in the analysis of data and the consistency in the data’s presentation. Built a partnership with LaTrobe University. Professor Yvonne Wells, had high level interest and could assist on accessing data we do not normally get access too. Resident rep from Advisory Committee also took on an indicator. He assisted in gaining information on economic indicator (not all of it current), but demonstrated the challenges/ opportunities of trying to collect information outside of a government agency. His journey on the project team was rich to listen too. He also became a huge promoter of the project and the hours of work done by staff. His participation in the meetings and workshops made us rethink some indicators. Highly worth the energy having him as part of our team – Ken Young. This is Ken in the photo.

Partnerships 7 Departments from Council participated Banyule Age-friendly Advisory Committee Banyule Age-friendly Champion group La Trobe University – Prof Yvonne Wells I mentioned the partnership with La Trobe University. 7 Departments from Council participated – Age Services, Social Planning, Business Services, Assets, Leisure and Facilities, Leisure and Culture, Transport and Engineering Banyule Age-friendly Advisory Committee – advise at key stages and participated in World Café Workshop Banyule Age-friendly Champion group – World Café Workshop (all have completed the COTA age friendly city training) Other groups that contributed through providing data or hosting a discussion included; Victoria Police, OM:NI, COTA, Aged Care Assessment Program, Census, Dpt of Planning and Community Development, Public Transport Victoria, HaCC (State), Victorian Electoral Commission and VicHealth. And this all took place over December / January. So we are very grateful for some quick turn arounds by these different organisations.

The indicators 14 core indicators and 5 supplementary indicators. Each indicator had 2 definitions to be considered. 14 core indicators and 5 supplementary indicators. Examples include Neighbourhood walkability Accessibility of public spaces Accessibility of public transport Affordability of housing Positive social attitude Engagement in volunteer activity Engagement in paid work Engagement in socio-cultural activity Participation in local decision making Availability of information Availability of health services Economic security Quality of life Each indicator had 2 definitions to be considered. A suggested definition which was administrative in collection and the second definition would require self-reported data.

Example of Indicator Participation in local decision making. Slightly changed the WHO definition to fit the local situation. In initial discussions we thought that this would be an unnecessary indicator for Australia – results shocked us. Refer to page 25 of the Banyule report. Voting not compulsory over 70 years. When we went to residents they discussed the importance of older people participating in local decision making. They did not feel that a local government election participation was a good example of local decision making by older residents. This was due to residents not feeling a connection to the Councillors. They felt it was much more important for older residents to have a say on different issues. As you can imagine our Mayor and his colleagues are very interested in this results on low participation.

Example of indicator Accessibility of public transportation stops Definition 1: walking distance of 500m = 55% Definition 2: don’t use public transport due to distance from home = 8.2% 1) Proportion of housing within walking distance (500 m) of a public transportation stop. Exact definition used. 2) Proportion of older people who report that public transportation stops are too far from home. Slight variation on definition. Definition 1 is a good example of how complicated that data analysis can become: of public transportation stops 1) Proportion of housing within walking distance (500 m) of a public transportation stop. Same definition 55.1% (=25,830/46,877) Proportions for nine areas within Banyule, at the Statistical Area Level 2 (SA2), range from a low of 9.13% to a high of 94.57% – see Additional comments column. Department of Planning and Community Development (DPCD) Dwellings within 500m of principal public transport network stops as a percentage of all dwellings (both occupied and unoccupied) in the SA2 in 2011. Principal public transport network stops include metropolitan train stations, tram stops and bus stops on high frequency services. The overall proportion for Banyule and actual numbers are not readily available. The proportion was calculated from the SA2 proportions and number of private dwellings (from the ABS - ABS.Stat Table 3B1 – dwelling structure – http://stat.abs.gov.au/Index.aspx?DataSetCode= ABS_CENSUS2011_B31) And the 2nd definition we used data collected from our Banyule Household survey. This is conducted roughly every two years and tries to complement the data collected in the Census. It is specific to Banyule so is not necessarily easy for all LGAs to replicate. Another outcome from this indicator was the discussion it created at the World Café workshop. At the workshop we verified the results with Banyule older adults. Did the results reflect there experience as an older resident. Many residents spoke negatively about transport usage, but then declared that they do not use public transport (Jill may like to expand).

Older persons involvement One older person (excluding staff) on the project team. Contribution to surveys over time Participation in the World Café workshop

Next steps Project meeting at WHO, Geneva Switzerland, 10th and 11th June opportunity for the pilot sites to directly offer feedback on the age-friendly cites guide and core indicators, and exchange their views and experiences The meeting will provide an opportunity for the pilot sites to directly offer feedback on the age-friendly cites guide and core indicators, and exchange their views and experiences. This will not only generate valuable inputs for the WHO but will also facilitate peer learning among the pilot sites. The outcomes of this meeting will support Banyule and other cities around the work in becoming more Age-friendly.

Contact details Catherine Simcox Community Planning Consultant Banyule City Council 9490 4222 catherine.simcox@banyule.vic.gov.au