ICHO case selections and surveys 44

The project conducted a desktop review of 69 ICHOs across Australia and then conducted fieldwork with 22 of these. The information sheet, letter and survey instrument were sent by mail, email and fax and followed up by telephone calls. These are provided as Attachments 4, 5 and 6.

3.4.1 Desktop study

User Group members were asked to select ten ICHOs for each jurisdiction for inclusion in the desk-based study. Members were asked to select these case studies in order to ascertain diversity across the following selection criteria:

Æ location; Æ settlement type;

Æ services provided; and

Æ number of dwellings managed.

This process resulted in 69 ICHOs being selected for desk analysis. The study team compiled information for these ICHOs along six dimensions, being:

1. performance refers to the long-term organisational capacity of the ICHO as rated on a three point scale (Concerns – Sound – Good). This dimension was initially rated by jurisdictional officers, and subsequently cross-checked by the study team with the respondents to the survey. In all but one or two cases the assessment of the jurisdictional officer matched the self-assessment of the ICHO respondents as well as the researchers’ impressions.

2. housing distribution: refers to the type of housing managed by the ICHO and its location according to the settlement type, ie, either a discrete bounded settlement (DBS) or dispersed urban housing (DUH) – see section 3.2.1. In some cases an ICHO may have housing in several different locations of varying settlement type.

3. location: refers to the accessibility of the housing along a seven-point remoteness/accessibility scale.

4. size: the number of dwellings managed by the ICHO.

5. range of services: either multi service provider or housing specialist.

6. governance type: a brief indication of the legal framework in which the ICHO operates.

The intention was initially to conduct telephone interviews with all 69 ICHOs, but this was abandoned due to a very poor response rate from ICHOs. In addition, it quickly became obvious that telephone respondents were only able to provide meaningful responses to questions in their particular area of expertise.

In effect, the breadth of the survey required responses from several respondents from different areas of each ICHO. As it proved impossible to achieve this over the telephone, the phone interviews were abandoned, and the project team focused on face-to-face interviews.

3.4.2 Field survey of 22 ICHOs

The user group and research team then selected 22 case studies out of the initial selection of 69 ICHOs. The selection process occurred in three stages.

First, each jurisdictional officer nominated either six (New South Wales and South Australia)20 _{or two (Western Australia, Northern Territory, Victoria and Queensland)} case studies to the research team. Jurisdictional officers were asked to nominate a selection of ICHOs that they felt provided a representative sample of ICHOs in their jurisdiction in terms of the six dimensions indicated in the previous sub-section (ie, performance, location, settlement type, services provided, number of dwellings managed and type of governance/incorporation). This resulted in 20 ICHOs being nominated for field studies.

Next, the research team analysed the nominations along the six dimensions on a national level. In order to ensure representativeness, an additional two case studies (one each in Western Australia and South Australia) were added, resulting in a total sample of 22.

Finally, user group members requested each of the selected ICHOs to participate in the study. No refusals were recorded. The table below summarises the six dimensions for each of the 22 case studies.

Table 6: Cases confirmed for visitation in each jurisdiction # Performance

(Rated by Jurisdictions)

Settlement

t type(s) Location ARIA/ ASGC

Size (# stock)

Range of

services Governance type (Incorporation status)

QLD07 Sound. DUH2 A/IR 71 Multi-

functional Qld Cooperatives Act

QLD09 Good DUH1 HA/City 37 Multi-

functional Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

NSW02 Good DUH2 VR/R 59 Multi-

functional Australian Public Company, Limited By Guarantee

NSW04 Concerns DUH2 MA/OR 15 Multi-

functional Local Aboriginal Land Council, NSW

Aboriginal Land Rights Act

NSW05 Concerns DUH1 HA/City 59 Multi-

functional Local Aboriginal Land Council, NSW

Aboriginal Land Rights Act

NSW08 Good DUH1 A/IR 131 Stand-

alone NSW operatives ActCo-

1992 NSW09 Concerns DUH1 A/IR 108 Stand-

alone

NSW Co- operatives Act

1992 NSW10 Concerns DUH2 MA/OR 37 Multi-

functional Local Aboriginal Land Council, NSW

Aboriginal Land Rights Act

VIC06 Sound DUH2 MA/OR 56 Multi-

functional Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

VIC11 Good DUH1,

DUH2 A/IR 1315 Stand-alone SOMIH in transition to ICHO NT05 Sound DBS1, DBS3 VR, VVR, VVVR 277 Multi- functional NT Local Government Act NT07 Sound DBS1 VVVR 55 Multi-

functional Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

SA02 Concerns DBS2 MA/OR 42 Multi-

functional SA Incorporation Act Associations 1985

SA06 Good DBS2 MA/OR 15 Multi- functional

SA Associations Incorporation Act

1985 SA10 Concerns DBS1 VR 43 Multi-

functional SA Incorporation Act Associations

# Performance (Rated by Jurisdictions)

Settlement

t type(s) Location ARIA/ ASGC

Size (# stock)

Range of Governance type services (Incorporation

status) SA11 Concerns DBS1 VR 50 Multi-

functional SA Incorporation Act Associations 1985

SA12 Sound DBS1 VVR 25 Multi- functional

Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976

SA13 Sound DBS1 VR 40 Multi-

functional SA Incorporation Act Associations

1985 SA14 Sound DBS1,

DBS3 VR 397 Multi-functional Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act

SA Associations Incorporation Act

1985 WA06 Good DUH1,

DUH2, DBS1, DBS2 A/IR, MA/OR 105 Multi- functional WA Associations Incorporations Act 1987 WA08 Concerns DBS1 VVVR 54 Multi-

functional

WA Associations Incorporations Act

1987 WA10 Sound DUH2,

DBS2 R, VR, VVR 145 Multi-functional Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976