2.2 “Die soziale Stadt”/The Social State: Thomas Franke Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik/ German Institut for Urban Studies.

1. Introduction

The reflections on good practice on Community Development in this paper are based on

the exchange of experience and shared results of the project on "Good Practice in Community Development" from experience in Oslo (Norway), Ghent (Belgium) Barcelona (Spain), Bradford (England) and Örebro, (Sweden). Each working group prepared presentations based on case studies of their experience and their discussion and analysis of the principles of good practice. Representatives of working groups came together in a Seminar in Berlin held at the Centre Français: Müllerstraße 74, D-13349 Berlin from Thursday 26^th June – Saturday 28^th June 2002.

This report describes the process used in the seminar to combine results of work on the project –based on case studies, analysis of principles, parallel working groups on identifying relationship between practice, principles and indicators of progress and some shared work on evaluation. The framework for assessing social participation is reproduced on the following page.There is also a report presented to the European Commission, which includes a summary of the work in the seminar.

Participation in the Berlin Seminar was from community workers, managers, unemployed volunteers, people who had moved from voluntary community work to paid community worker, local authority staff, researchers and elected representatives from Belgium, Germany, UK, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Spain – see list of participants with the programme. The 33 who attended the seminar included 25 representatives of working groups in these cities, which had in the region of 49 participants. The seminar was designed to engage maximum participation of all present and to use the differences in context, age, experience, culture, sex, background, and language as an asset to the process.

The main language of communication in the plenary sessions was English, which was not the mother tongue for 80 per cent of the group. On the first evening informal methods were used to establish a good atmosphere for networking and ensure that the different languages could enrich our communication. English-Spanish interpretation was available on Friday and Saturday.

Analysis of experience, based on lively presentations of material using symbols, video and other visual material was used as a basis for reflection and discussion of measurement of change and the implications for policy. Participation combined a high level of commitment and motivation with humour and fun.

Berlin was a very striking place to hold the discussions about a European strategy to tackle social exclusion. There are great challenges facing CD workers in promoting cohesion and a new unified identity for the city. The opening address made direct connections between the experience of Berlin Mitte, the municipality where the seminar was hosted, and the wealth of experience from the other cities where partners had worked on the project. This report describes how the following framework was produced.

2. Opening Address: Dr. Christian Hanke: Bezirksstadtrat für Gesundheit und Soziales Bezirksamt Mitte von Berlin

I' m pleased that I was asked to give a greeting for this seminar. As councillor for health and social affairs of the borough of Berlin – Mitte it is a central issue for me to promote civic activities and social commitment and to develop it further.

The borough of Berlin – Mitte is a borough of great diversity in the social, cultural and ethnic groups within the population. Berlin – Mitte is also a borough of broad and complex social problems. This is something we share with a lot of big cities in Europe. A great percentage of local people are unemployed and depend on transfer payments of the social state – very often families with children, single parent families and many migrants.

These problems appear more and more in certain areas or neighbourhoods in the borough. And in these neighbourhoods it is far more difficult to activate civic commitment. In order to work against this social polarisation the so - called "neighbourhood management" has been set up in 5 areas in Mitte. One of the tasks of the Quartiersmanager is to (re-) activate, to promote and to support self – initiative and autonomy the local people.

The mayor of Mitte, my 4 colleagues and I have been working very closely with the Quartiersmanagement – teams and we try to develop common strategies to foster the identification of the inhabitants with their housing environment. My department puts special emphasis into health care especially by preventive measures for children and youth. Another important issue for my department is the development of employment initiatives for people depending on social benefit payments.

In my view the local level is the central level of civic activities and the future of these activities will be affected by efforts to create reasonable conditions at this level and to develop the potentials given locally. Especially during times of shortage and cuts in public budgets all local actors have to be involved into the development of a concept which I would call "active community development."

In order to be able tackle this big task it can be of great value for the borough of Berlin – Mitte to get to know about the experiences in other municipalities. This is why I am very happy that this seminar is dealing with the exchange of experience to develop an instrument to analyse practice in local community development and I am very keen on hearing more about the results!

I wish all the best for the seminar, a lively exchange, success for the working groups and a very pleasant stay in Berlin to all the participants. Thank you very much!

Thomas Franke of the Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik endorsed the potential enrichment from shared experience. He presented the work of the Institute on “Die soziale Stadt” - the socially integrated city programme in Germany. His presentation indicated an increasing acknowledgement of the role of community/social development in economic development and urban regeneration. The definition of what is a neighbourhood was based on self-definition and highly flexible. How neighbourhood level could relate effectively to the municipal, lander and federal levels is a field worthy of more research and analysis. The importance of appropriate organisational methods capable of delivering on policy was one of several shared areas of interest between the Institute and the CEBSD led project.

The network circle, which introduced participants to each other, was a mixture of ice-breaker and symbolic presentations which set the tone for the exchange of experience. Throughout the seminar, a mixture of analysis of experience, based on lively presentations of material using symbols, video and other visual material formed a basis for reflection and discussion of measurement of change and the implications for policy. The planning group worked according to community development principles of inclusion. This meant using techniques and methods that combined maximum participation with responsible facilitation, teamwork and leadership. The contribution of each participant with his or her specific skills and experience was valued. Participants responded with a high level of commitment, motivation, good humour, combining commitment to hard work with a sense of fun.

3. Case Studies of Good Practice

Each of the groups produced case studies according to guidelines prepared by the planning group. They demonstrate how community development practice cuts across a range of policy areas which are highly relevant to social inclusion – the physical environment, housing, education, employment, the social economy, sustainable development, transport, discrimination, citizen’s rights, role of non-governmental organisations, associations and foundations. They illustrate the part played by community development in countering the multi-dimensional experience of poverty and social exclusion. There were presentations of community development projects from

Sweden – Örebro

The Swedish presentation stressed the importance of moving away from holding boring meetings. People need to be touched emotionally, if they want to get involved and do something. “Work with trust and think economically” was a central theme. The question is how to give everyone a voice, but using different ways to do that. They referred specifically to a job creation project. Some people are long term unemployed, some for 20 years. There are also drug and alcohol issues. People, however, are expected to get their identity through their paid employment/jobs. They talked about one neighbourhood, which has a negative reputation. It is hard to get a job if that is your address.

The job creation project/co-op stresses, “if an individual does something they really want to do, they are very powerful.” Therefore the project helps people create jobs for themselves. It is a labour co-op doing gardening, home maintenance etc. They look for gaps in the market. One ex-prisoner now works for the co-op doing cleaning and house maintenance.

The Norwegian case study was of neighbourhood work being undertaken in Holmlia in Oslo. They described a large estate, housing many different nationalities.

They gave examples of street safety volunteers i.e. the Night Raven service, community clean ups and lottery tickets as rewards, community newsletters, sporting initiatives, etc.

They organised an event with children, which involved a treasure hunt for an old letter on the estate, which told the history of the area. The CD worker had the usual worries about whether anyone would come out and participate on the day, but lots did.

They involved local children in cleaning out the waterway and in creating a healthy habitat for the fish.

They stressed the importance of working in a spontaneous fashion in response to what “comes up” in the neighbourhood.

They stressed the importance of going to where people are, rather than expecting them to come to join in formal meetings and consultation exercises.

The Norwegian delegation regarded the community development approach as a political activity –working for a new and better democracy.

The work of The Ideas Bank sees tackling poverty as crucial to their work for sustainable development. Economic factors effect every one every day. The work against poverty should be seen as an integrated part of the Local Agenda 21 practice.

Concerning the key principles for social inclusion the Oslo group stressed that people’s lives are not divided into different sections, the services need to have a holistic approach, the effort should be made to see the whole person.

There is a need for a work on creating new economic models that include social and community issues in the framework.

They talked also about “inclusive information” and access to information

They thought sharing information face to face and by knocking at doors could be a good supplement to written information. Using pictures and symbols was important as well and their emphasis was on lifelong learning.

Spain – Barcelona

A community development approach places the emphasis on education. Everyone is encouraged to play a role in the community. Politicians need to learn to listen.

All services providers need to participate in the process. At present there is a lack of interdepartmental co-operation in the Council. It is important to motivate Council officers to take a CD approach and encourage participation.

There are different administrators for different fields and some local and some national government initiatives/services. This confuses the co-ordination. This makes solutions difficult. Also different political parties have power in different fields. CD work needs long-term support, not just between elections.

CD workers can be seen as a “menace” by the authorities. CD workers are often employed by neighbourhood associations and are dependent on resources that take ages to get. CD workers need to receive more respect and appreciation. Workers for the Council need to have CD work included in their job descriptions, so that work in the community is recognised. In relation to increasing participation, individuals in some areas are recognising that they can achieve things if they organise. In other areas, progress is more fragmented. People are dependent on public assistance and they demand it.

In those areas with this “receiving” culture, it is hard to generate participation.

In some areas there are also problems with some individuals identifying as leaders, but they are not always good leaders. To have an egalitarian approach, everyone needs to work at the same level, if true participation can take place.

It is important to acknowledge the history in Catalonia, where previously participation had to be in a hidden form. It was not easy for people to meet. When democracy came, social movements became political parties.

Now the emphasis is on civic participation. Developments are fragmented and there needs to be more transparency in the process and structures. They are trying to encourage a higher grade of individuality. There is a poor relationship between the authorities and the people, however, civic participation aims to change this. Authorities need to change their policies and they need to address different generations.

It is about organising for transformation and trying to mediate where there are conflicts.

Belgium – Ghent

They meet 2 times a week in a centre. Each month they plan their own activities/priorities for the next month. Emphasis is placed on confidence boosting and training. It is a centre for non-formal education. They have sessions on cooking for health, the introduction of the Euro, dance, recreation, and sport. They have informal contact with policy makers. They also talked about a neighbourhood restaurant.

They stressed the importance of permanent funding. There are strengths in small-scale projects, but the authorities lack the commitment to fund them.

The CD workers advised groups not to become dependent on one source of funding. They also stressed the vital role of volunteers.

The House Model

In Ghent, they have produced an evaluation tool based on the concept of a house. They had a colourful wall hanging of a house with which to explain the concept simply i.e. to make it visual.

England – Bradford

The English group showed a short video that they had made, highlighting the multi racial aspect of the city and depicting all age groups involved in community activities. Emphasis was placed on community cohesion and diversity issues.

They then highlighted the 6 case studies of CD work on which they had based their report.

The Cafe in the Park

This was a youth led campaign. A young person had died and to commemorate his memory, a group of young people wished to set up a cafe in the park where they had always met together. It was their dream, not just an identified need. They raised the funding to do it, but then failed to get planning permission. However, they were offered another location, but this did not have the same meaning for them, so they gave the funding back and gave up on their plans.

From Dying Church to new Community Centre

This case study explained how a church with a dwindling congregation was demolished to make way for a new community centre building. It looked at how the tension between the ex church attendees and the others was managed in a non- threatening way. For example a stained glass window and area for prayer was incorporated into the new design. It also highlighted how in some circumstances it is beneficial to have ex professionals from outside the area involved in the management of the project. It challenged the concept that all initiatives always need to be locally managed at all stages.

The Mental Health Sharing Voice Initiative

This is a 3-year Primary Care Trust funded project, in recognition of the fact that the present mental health provision is failing to engage people from Black and Minority Ethnic communities. It wishes to challenge the medical model of mental health, demystify psychiatry and promote people with mental health problems themselves as the experts by experience. In the mental health field there also needs to be a shift away from viewing the individual as having a problem to recognising the social factors involved.

The Hutson Street Cafe

This was as example of using people’s interest in food to unite different communities.

A community group runs the cafe. They offer world cuisine from a building located in an area of demolition near the centre of Bradford. It stemmed from a dream of local residents, received funding and is now hoping to move towards becoming a community enterprise. As a project it offers healthy affordable food, volunteer and job and training opportunities.

This case study stressed the importance of empowering the individual and how every individual is a “project”. Without support, volunteers can run out of steam and get disillusioned.

The difference was highlighted between doing activist work in Wiltshire where there was little support for CD and the experience in Bradford where extensive support was available. This has led the individual into doing a degree in Community Development with a view to becoming a paid CD worker in the future.

This case study highlighted the role a local authority can play in increasing local participation in decision-making. It particularly looked at the example of Neighbourhood Forums and the promotion Partnerships.

Neighbourhood Forums can provide access to information, access to politicians and officers, a 2 way consultation, build relationships and networks, and play a role in conflict mediation by building bridges between and across communities. Two examples of Partnership working were highlighted i.e. the Frizinghall Partnership and the Shipley Community Arts Network. Different lessons could be drawn from each. The Frizinghall model has initially involved a top down approach, which was appropriate as the community was too dis-engaged at the outset of the initiative to launch it bottom up. Local residents are now getting involved. The SCAN initiative has been far less formal and loose in it’s structure, but has played a major role in attracting support for a community arts approach to CD. The emphasis was on how words can attract involvement, but evidence of action sustains it.

Hungary -The Hungarian Association for Community Development:

The Hungarian Association for Community Development was not a partner in the first phase of the project but is a potential partner for a second phase of the European project and made brief presentations of their work. The northeast part of Hungary is very poor. It is an ex mining area.

There are very few sources of funding in Hungary for community development. The point was made that it can be hard to encourage participation now, as during the communist regime, participation was inflicted on people. Therefore, there is now a reaction against it.

Denmark: Copenhagen

Kristeligt Studenter-Settlement (Christian Student Settlement) was not a partner in the first phase of the project but is a potential partners for a second phase of the European project and made a brief presentations of their work. The Settlement was first inspired by social work done in London in the 19^th century.

The representative works in a poor part of Copenhagen. It is an ex red light district, which is now becoming trendy, as it is very near the Tivoli gardens, in the town centre. This is causing housing problems as the property prices increase and the existing community is being uprooted.

Germany – Berlin

Kommunales Forum was not a partner in the first phase of the project but is a potential partner for a second phase of the European project and made brief presentations of their work in supporting Quartiers Management. A detailed contribution from Berlin outlined their approach to Neighbourhood Management. They run the equivalent of neighbourhood forums and would like a greater exchange of ideas and experience with Bradford.

Results of Questionnaire on Principles for “Good practice in community development “ completed by members of the working groups

Participants in the project explored the principles of community development of CEBSD and the principles of Social Inclusion of the European Union collectively in working groups in Barcelona, Oslo, Ghent, Bradford, and Örebro. This group feedback is supplemented by individual views expressed through a questionnaire. In addition to the summary of the results of the questionnaire presented below, there are many suggestions for principles from individuals that could be used as the basis for further work. These suggestions are wide ranging from the importance of “economy and good business relations” to commitment to human rights.

Respondents also commented on the difficulty of generalised and vague statements especially with regard to the "focus on disadvantage" and on "mobilising all sections of the community". A lot depends on the context and general statements need to be qualified. This was especially emphasised in the 4 responses from Bradford. The difficulties of a common language and a common understanding were highlighted in notes of some respondents. The process of exchange would benefit from a common understanding of what is meant by "community" or "communities" and some agreement on the words for the range of "actors" in a community that could be communicated across different languages.

There was also clearly some level of concurrence on broad principles based on experience of 39 respondents from a total of 49 members of working groups in Oslo, Bradford, Barcelona, Ghent and Örebro. In the 10 categories of response the lowest score 133 reflects that the CEBSD core principle on the “focus on disadvantage” is not widely endorsed especially in responses from Sweden and Norway. The tension between a "focus on disadvantage" and a holistic approach was referred to in individual comments. 3 scores between 155-164 indicates some level of uncertainty on whether there should be a tangible product whether practice can be preventive and on whether “mobilisation” of all sections of the community is desirable. Comments highlighted the need for more specific analysis and a contextual background on what that means in practice. The brackets reflect where individuals offered two alternative responses depending on context

6 scores between 173-178 reflect a level of general agreement on the importance of organisational methods, commitment to equality and participation in collective action, planning and decision-making. Individual proposals for new principles stated that organisations and their staff need to be "open-hearted" and accessible in the way they operate: they need to take their starting point from the communities where they work; and they need to recognise the skills and potential within those communities. Staff need to have commitment combined with skill and adequate/appropriate research and resources to fulfil their goals.

In summary there is some level of agreement on the importance of engaging maximum participation in planning and decision making with scope for collective action. There is a clear commitment to equality and the development of organisations that are capable of reflecting the overall goals of social inclusion in the way that they operate. These organisations need to be creative, committed and able to balance "process" and "product".

Following the exchange of experience through presentations of specific case studies and principles based on local experience at the seminar in Berlin in June 2003, new transnational parallel working groups, facilitated by the six members of the transnational planning group, were set up. The experiences from Sweden, Belgium, UK, Norway and Spain were spread across the groups. Three of the groups also included one participant from each the new partners for Phase 2 – Kommunales Forum, Hungarian Association for Community Development and Kristeligt Studenter-Settlement (KSS)

Their task was to extract the lessons from practice to inform policy, based on experience from separate countries and translate them into a European context using the following guidelines:

What are the key factors likely to show progress in good CD practice on social exclusion?

Principles held in Common

Local people should be represented at all levels, helped/facilitated by the community worker. Recognise the different perspectives of the partners with local people representing themselves “in tandem” with the community workers.

2. Open & creative communication with an integrative and holistic approach. Agendas of people should be clear.

3. Supporting people to organise and structure ways of improving their own quality of life i.e. a bottom-up process.

1. Is there clarity as to who are the socially excluded? …… Working with the most excluded people – How?

2. What should the priority be for the community workers: support partnership working or focus on helping local people to organise to be one of the partners.

Berlin Parallel Group 5

The emphasis was on a Holistic approach and on Participation. Participants developed the idea of a Tree of Community Development Model.

Work needs to have strong roots, a bottom up approach, drawing nourishment from below i.e. the grass roots. The Tree Model also requires rain and sun from above to flourish i.e. role of top down approach as well.

“Glue “ is crucial in Community development i.e. the sap in the tree running through everything. This symbolises the ingredients needed for Community cohesion.

Key factors which show progress:

· Is the population active in decision-making – do they mobilise around issues?

· You can measure individual and group developments

· You can measure uptake of services and facilities.

· Happiness and well being – Security

· Observing the Group’s ability to respond to new problems.

Berlin Parallel Group 6

Group Leader: Kirsten Paaby

Mikel Aramburu

Wim Van Damme

Elvy Larsson

Brigitte Waschulewski

Commonalities

· To listen to people in the projects, bringing together different ideas – not the professionals to stress self-confidence.

· To talk to people in their own language.

· Support Dialogue

· Inclusive meeting places – different houses.

1. i. To have links to the political authorities on different levels: local, regional, and national.

ii. Organise the resources from peoples ideas/wishes/dreams e.g. Bradford Group – the young people that gave back the money.

iii. Concrete projects to improve the neighbourhood.

You can’t have participation without doing something concrete.

2. i. Strengthening the groups through training, not depend on others’ training skills.

ii. Be able to do things – strengthening different ways of financing so that the group sand on their own.

iii. Partnerships, co-operation in all levels, all directions.

iv. Long-term Thinking.

3. You can build up structures through project money and the money stops (short term thinking). Programmes shift creating sustainable structures. This is why the links to the politicians is so important.

The Differences

· Life quality and history of conflicts e.g. the young history of democracy in Spain. It’s different being poor in Norway and in Spain.

· The different social structures/systems in the countries

· The understanding of the meaning of CD is different e.g. Spain & Norway (Spain more connected to poverty)

· Disagreement on that “Low economic cost on CD projects” should be a principle.

· Often volunteer work can be a way of saving money for the officials.

Key Factors

· Tell stories of before and after, the personal example on a long-term base.

· Disagreement – Use Statistics

· Employment//No employment

· Social Welfare/No Social Welfare

· To combine the individual stories and statistics

· Results of CD is often “feelings” e.g. better feeling identity, subjectivity

· To set good goals, not only statistics/numbers

· See combinations of goals – Process & Product

· Win Win Situations

· Compare the present with a possible future – Presentation

· Compare communities where there are no CD projects with those who have them. See the differences.

6. Product – a new set of principles and progress indicators

Progress Indicators for Social Inclusion

The over whelming emphasis in presentation of principles was on equality, diversity and tolerance. This leads people to have strong individual and collective identities.

The core elements of good practice are based around:

· Good Organisation

· A Holistic approach

· Stress on Participation

· Growth of skills and experience

When organising to promote participation, we need to focus attention on embracing the 90% of the population who are not really engaged at any level except through family, friends and work networks

A summary of points stressed by working groups included the following:

1. Emphasis on a “bottom up” approach

2. Participation, change and improved quality of life

3. Equality, diversity and tolerance

4. Partnership working and solidarity. Dialogue between communities and organisations and institutions

5. Giving people choices and opportunities e.g. training, new project resources, etc

6. The need for individual and collective identity

7. The importance of having a range of methods and creativity with which to engage people with

The group agreed that CD can tackle social exclusion, but so can other types of interventions. There is a need to specify who are the socially excluded and look at the measures necessary for each group.

A framework for a new set of principles emerged from the synthesis of the six parallel transnational working groups (see diagram). It is proposed to use this in a second phase to analyse indicators of “social participation” in more depth.
Framework for analysis of “social participation”

Principle

What it means in practice

Factors which can be used to develop “social participation” indicators

Equality/diversity and tolerance:

q More knowledge of different cultural histories

q More knowledge of social systems in different countries

q More understanding of differences in context

q More understanding of differences in values and quality of life issues;

q Clear criteria that can measure commitment to equality, diversity and tolerance in practice

q Holistic perspective, which takes account of diversity - age, gender, ethnic, cultural - and also allows for a focus on specific needs e.g. women who are beaten up.

- Members of communities feeling valued and respected

- Visibility and voice of all members of communities

Level of group cohesion

- Composition of the group.

- Capacity to engage with “the other”

Partnership/solidarity and co-operation:

This needs to take place at all levels -

q Neighbourhood

q Local

q Regional

q national/federal

q European.

Co-operation to include:

q Professional

q Political

q Private

q Voluntary.

-Influence that members of communities have on specific changes

-Understand and identify methods of achieving co-operation

Participation - on all levels and with collective organisation:

Based on:

q communication and information flexibility and exchange

q commitment to follow-up and feedback

q choices

q transparency and openness

q accessible services

-Members of communities owning responsibility for success and failure

-How often people meet.

- Composition of the group.

- Sense of happiness, well-being and security

- Uptake of services and facilities

Creative and Innovative Organisation

q Developing a range of organisational methods, based on the above principles - offering the hope of change and inclusion.

q Methods of organisation which combine neighbourhood development and broader social and economic development.

q Methods of organisation which facilitate co-operation

- Ability to respond to new problems

- Recognition of knowledge and skills acquired in informal settings

- Understanding of factors that influence group “chemistry” negatively and positively

Key factors in the measurement of Change

Measurements are needed which can show how community development practice contributes to the following:

q People moving from unemployment to employment

q Creation of new jobs

q How often people meet and what is the composition of the group.

q Members of communities feel valued and respected

q Physical environment

q Better public health

q Measurement of quality of community work – “Have we done a good job?”

q Level of responsibility for success and failure

q Visibility and voice of all members of communities

q Influence that members of communities have on specific changes

q Individual development over long-term – self-confidence, capacity to engage with “the other”

q Group development

q Uptake of services and facilities

q Sense of happiness, well-being and security

q Ability to respond to new problems

q Training places

q Recognition of knowledge and skills acquired in informal settings

q Factors and organisation methods that influence group “chemistry” negatively and positvely

q Methods of achieving co-operation

7. Café Dialogue

7.1. Café-Dialogue: Evaluation of Parallel Working Groups in each country: Rapporteur: Melker Eksell

+ What we valued	Seminar Participants + What we valued about working groups
Concept of broad participation in the working groups
Mix of backgrounds
Inspired by other practice
Networking
Enthusiasm for European perspective
Time for reflection
Learning about “abstract” ideas
Nice to meet people from other projects in own area
Finding out what is going on in community development field
Informal methods of exchange
Principles could be adapted
Working group strengthened the identity of community workers and community “actors”/volunteers
Similarity between the working groups was reassuring

Parallel working groups

What Seminar Participants disagreed about

Disagreement on the value of abstraction in working groups

– some valued it and some did not

Some appreciated the clarity and some thought there was not enough.

Seminar Participants -/ Δ What we did not like about working groups	- / Δ What we did not like
	European Union jargon
	Timescale too short
	Too many professionals and too few “citizens”
	Lack of clarity on the aim and the task
	Lack of clarity on questionnaire

7.2 Café-Dialogue: What we valued in the Berlin Seminar

Rapporteur: Dr. Armin Kuphal

+ What we valued	+ What we valued in the Berlin Seminar
Good balance between intellectual and practical approach
Organisation was very good
Clear aim and organisers were lively and efficient
Common identity as a group
It was good to have 3 days together
Exchange was good
Parallel Working groups were well prepared
Good mix
The highlight was the small transnational parallel working groups
It was good to be in the centre and the hotel was good
Language was never a problem (even my “poor” English was not a problem, reported the group leader)

What we disagreed about in organisation of the Berlin Seminar

“Crazy song” in networking circle – some liked it some were appalled that they were asked to touch another person, for some it was an “awful start”

Quality of the food - some liked it, some were critical.

Participants in Berlin Seminar -/ Δ What we did not like or we would change in the Berlin Seminar	- / Δ What we did not like
	We would put photos of participants on the wall with names
	More breaks needed
	Friday was a hard day
	Missed the presence of someone from the European Commission
	Noise of aeroplanes was distracting

7.3 Café-Dialogue: What we thought about diversity of people involved in project

Rapporteur: Elena Rovira

The mixed group working on the project and in the seminar gave us and opportunity to work in different ways and to mobilise different actors – politicians, volunteers, community workers, and researchers. This was stimulating and produced creative responses. Even the challenge to communicate mainly through English was stimulating. It also meant that we made real efforts to listen to the “other”.

We valued:

Shared passion for the work and commitment

Diversity of experience

The level of shared experience

Intercultural exchange

Opportunity to reflect on what we are doing

The differences also caused a few significant difficulties:

· It takes time to understand differences

· We have to take small steps towards inclusion sometimes

· The barriers and limits are different in each country

· Living “interculturality” is difficult as it is difficult to recognise “the other” without a good knowledge of their culture and context.

· 3 days were not enough to reflect on the results of groups and allow more informal contact

· Differences in language and lack of knowledge of English made communication frustrating sometimes. It takes longer and there is more risks of misunderstanding due to language differences

We would like more exchange based on more in-depth work in every project in each context and more work in small groups.

7.4 Café-Dialogue: Follow-up on Good Practice Project: Rapporteur, Gerard Hautekeur

These groups discussed how to be creative about follow-up on the Good Practice Project. They liked the Domino concept proposed for Phase 2. There was a strong commitment to exchange between active citizens in neighbourhoods not just professionals. There was also a commitment to follow up on the work on good practice even if there was no funding available from EC. There was a lot of common ground and no significant differences of opinion. They proposed

· Analysis of use of cebsd website and improvements which would make it more accessible with a better visual impact

· Another seminar within 2 years

· Shared responsibility for networking and using networks within each country

· Explore range of funding options

· Develop a newsletter

· Explore outcomes of other Social Inclusion projects funded by EC

· Ask EC to arrange a meeting to share results of projects.

Café Dialogue 5: 10 years into the future: Rapporteur Margo Gorman:

Two Somali community workers visit during a review of progress on good practice in community development held in Berlin in 2013.This is what they were told.

Highlights in the progress we made

§ There is now more interest and participation in local elections by local people and this is linked to more accountability to local people from municipalities.

§ A high level of motivation kept community workers active in spite of periods of cutbacks due to right-wing backlashes in some cities – we managed to continue to network even at times where there was little support for it.

§ By the end of the ten year period we could identify where community development methods were recognised across a whole range of policies in the European Union – health, housing, equality, employment, training and life-long learning – inspired initially by a practice-policy model developed in Bradford.

§ Some local authorities had been inspired by the experience in Ö of cross-party working groups at a municipal level to reduce poverty and social exclusion. These working groups had membership from all communities affected by policies. The success of this approach has led to plans to extend it in other countries and with other levels of government.

§ Experience of skill banks in Copenhagen had been taken up and used across Europe in the validation of the skills of people without formal qualifications or those who received qualifications outside the European Union.

§ Berlin led a move to establish small “people-friendly” banks and credit unions that could co-operate across Europe.

§ The Community Development Network in Barcelona led a successful European campaign to achieve the right of all residents to vote in local elections and European elections regardless of their national status.

The problems we faced between 2003-2013

§ A financial crisis caused cutbacks in other cities across Europe and community development projects suffered resulting in a degeneration of some of the poorest areas.

§ In Belgium and the Netherlands, there were extreme right wing backlash and some of the local elected governments led severe cutbacks in funding for community development. There were also signs of this in most of the other cities.

8. “How do we measure Moonshine?”

Points made during the seminar on the subject of the evaluation of Community Development

Some of the difficulties in measuring and evaluating community development practice were discussed. The following were highlighted as key factors that can show progress:

· You can measure individual and group developments

· You can measure uptake of services and facilities

· You can observe how groups deal with new challenges/issues as they arise

· Is the population becoming more active in local and national decision-making

· You can collect information relating to changing levels of happiness and well-being

· You can measure how the individual and group are being empowered?

-Training, new skills

· Use statistics and figures in a holistic way

· Set short, medium and long-term goals and then monitor to see what is achieved. Use an evaluation model e.g. the Ghent House Model

· Quality of life could include health and physical improvements

· Clarify who are the most socially excluded and how to reach the 90% of the population who don’t get involved

How many people come together and what happens. Who are they?

· Economic factors - numbers in training and jobs

· Monitor how people are rewarded for getting involved, how they are developing skills, learning more, enjoying themselves, any other needs being met?

· Measure the flexibility of the CD process being used -inclusion is the key principle

· Self-assessment for individuals.

Have you achieved your goals?

Today

Next week

Next month

· Need resources for doing the work of evaluating

· Look at how residents measure the effectiveness of a CD worker and ensure workers get positive and critical feedback

· Evaluation should not be just written and oral

· Measure/evaluate the chemistry in a group and the member’s sense of being valued, the sense of responsibility and rights

· The visibility of communities at forums, reps on other decision making boards, e.g. management committees, partnership bodies

· How the CD worker balances their role as an organiser and facilitator

· Communities need to participate in the process of arriving at questions and defining problems, not just at the finding solutions stage

· Importance of the long-term perspective, as well as short-term gains

9. Conclusions

The Seminar was an unusual mix of the analysis of practice and its implications for policy. The contribution of community development to changing the patterns of social exclusion and creating social inclusion underpinned all of the case study material. The description and analysis of “an ethnically diverse population and relative economic decline in post-war years” in Bradford was brought to life through videos and a range of projects. The case study of a social co-operative applying the community development approach to an Equal programme in the Baronbackarna housing estate, Örebro, was a demonstration of the underlying potential of synergies across social inclusion initiatives. The image of the house used in the Riso Ghent presentation was a metaphor for the steps towards inclusion. The tableau presented by Norway presented an image of the environment of trees in the background, structures and hierarchy with the House of the Poor on the lowest level. The network of ribbons of the Catalonian group, with their link to the earth or territory, symbolised the interconnected dimensions including the purple ribbon of mainstreaming gender issues. The images and oral communication were backed by written material translated into the languages of the other working groups to enable exchange of experience. The detailed reports are available from each of these working groups are worth reading.

The wealth of material demonstrates the shortcomings of the deficit model of social inclusion. The study of social exclusion is all too often based either on analysis of the failures and shortcomings of the local and national state, or on the multiple disadvantages faced by those with little access to material wealth or some combination of these two. Those who wield the deficit model of inadequacy are part of the problem not part of the solution. Communities face the impact of the broader picture – the social, economic and cultural factors which interact together to affect social participation and its local, national, European and global dimensions. They face that as a challenge and they have skills and potential for development, which can help meet that challenge.

Bones Pràctiques en el Desenvolupament Comunitari

Buenas Prácticas en el Desarrollo Comunitario

Goda Exempler på områdesutveckling

Contents