|
CHOICE Examples of Community Participation Methods in Paul Henderson CDF April
2003 Acknowledgements I am indebted
to a number of people for their active contributions to this booklet, notably
the participants at the workshop run in Several of
the workshop participants commented on the draft of the booklet and the time
and effort they gave to this is much appreciated. The list of participants at
the The project
was supported by the Gulbenkian Foundation and I am grateful for the interest
shown by the Foundation’s staff. I also wish to thank Catriona May, CDF’s
Publications Manager. As always, she provided patient and professional
support throughout the planning and production processes. CONTENTS Acknowledgements 1.
Introduction Key
concepts Two
change methods The
LENS method Future
workshops Consultation 7.
Conclusions References Websites Participants,
1. Introduction Tools and techniques for community participation
do not have a high profile in the history of community development. Saul
Alinsky, the American community organiser, would have regarded them with wry
amusement and exploited them to the full. However, those who have fuelled the
‘big ideas’ in community development and citizen participation - Paulo
Freire, the UK’s Community Development Projects (1968 -1976), American
theorists such as Harry Specht, feminist writers and others - would perhaps
have been puzzled if not sceptical: a diversion, surely? Too neutral and
detached from both the human interactions that make community development
happen and from the values and principles that should underpin community
development? Yet tools and techniques, far from having a
trivial or minor role in community development, now occupy the centre stage.
One of the clearest examples which supports this
statement is that of Participatory Action Research which continues to be used
widely throughout the world both by social movements and by professional
change agents. It began to be applied in the Trying to explain why there has been such an
explosion of interest in tools and techniques for participation has to be
speculative. In the overall social and political context, the increased use
of techniques to obtain a selection of opinions on an issue - market research
- is very evident. Indeed, any analysis of electoral campaigns by the major
political parties will quickly draw attention to the use of focus groups and
controlled forums, many of them IT and/or media-based. The availability of
techniques to take the pulse of the public on key issues appears to have
become part of our culture. Even within local government, better known for
its attachment to traditions and procedures than for its willingness to use
new methods, there is strong interest in using techniques. Local government
publications on consulting with and involving the public are likely to include
many of the techniques that are listed in community development and planning
guides. A European Union funded project on participation and social inclusion
captures the breadth and diversity of uses of participation techniques: ‘Across Regeneration and social inclusion programmes have
been characterised for some time by targets, outcomes and outputs and this
goes some way towards explaining the strong interest in tools and techniques.
Resources of time and staff are limited, there are pressures on organisations
to involve communities, and pressures also to demonstrate ‘what works’. Tools
and techniques which are efficient and time-limited are very relevant in such
organisational cultures. Within communities themselves, especially those
which have experienced a succession of regeneration or community development
programmes, there is a greater understanding of the processes involved as
well as increased expectations of what can be delivered. These too have
helped to encourage the use of tools and techniques. More obviously,
community practitioners have become increasingly aware of the limitations of
‘old-fashioned’ approaches to involving local people: hours spent knocking on
doors and preparing a public meeting may have worked well at some point. They
seem too time-consuming, perhaps too dull in today’s ‘can do’ society. There
is, as a result, strong interest among both practitioners and local people in
new approaches. Yet there is a growing awareness that tools and
techniques on their own can be extremely limiting. More than that, they can
be counter-productive to the very processes of empowerment and learning that
are at the heart of community development. This point is insisted upon, for
example, by the Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation, the owners of the
widely used Planning for Real technique: ‘Planning for real, properly used, delivers a
community engagement process that includes stakeholder analysis, resident development,
model-based consultation, prioritisation and action planning - as well as
providing a foundation for ongoing group development and partnership
working.’ (Burrows, 2002) The importance of integrating tools and
techniques with community practice is a theme that will be emphasised
throughout this booklet. It is a question of choosing tools and techniques
that are relevant to a community's situation at any point in time: not only
which tool or technique should be chosen but also whether one should be
chosen at all. Hence the title of the publication. Tools and techniques are
only a means to an end and must be used critically. It is essential that they
relate to other work being carried out with community groups. That is why,
for this writer, the word ‘methods’ is preferable to the words ‘tools’ and
‘techniques’. Methods need always to be assessed in the context of good
practice. Another sound piece of advice is to plan what it
is you want to achieve before you start thinking about methods. A useful source
on this is the New Economics Foundation’s guide Participation Works! It places the 21 techniques described in the
guide on a grid and urges practitioners, before using one or more of the
techniques, to think through the criteria that are priorities for them. The
grid can be used to score each technique against chosen criteria (New
Economics Foundation, 1998, p. 6). Background The Community Development Foundation (CDF) is a
member of a European network of ten community development organisations called
the Combined European Bureau for Social Development (CEBSD). Two years ago
the network completed a small project for the European Commission on
promoting community participation. It was undertaken in six countries and it
resulted in a toolkit on participation and an explanation of key concepts
(see www.cebsd.org). The ideas and
techniques explored during the project were discussed at a conference held in
CDF seeks to keep pace with how community
development is constantly changing in other European countries and it was
this that prompted it to apply for funding from the Gulbenkian Foundation to
share use of community participation methods. The aim was to produce an
accessible booklet that drew attention to approaches and examples of
participation methods being used by other members of CEBSD within a framework
of key concepts of participation and community development. Included in the funding application was the
holding of a workshop for practitioners and researchers. The intention was
for speakers to give examples of methods used in The idea behind the workshop and the booklet was
to inform UK practitioners (community workers, regeneration officers, youth
workers and other staff who work directly with communities) about a selection
of methods which are not widely known about in this country on the assumption
made was that seeing which approaches and methods are used and, equally
important, how they are used, will lead to more effective practice in
community development, regeneration and social inclusion programmes. Structure In the first section, the key ideas that lie
behind the term community participation are set out. In the following four
sections, we summarise examples of methods used in Scandinavia, 2. Key Concepts It is
important to emphasise the extent to which the concept of community
participation has permeated European regeneration and social inclusion
policies as well as development policies and programmes in southern
countries. In the latter, the willingness of institutions to engage with the concept
echoes the interest of central and local government agencies within ‘While during the 1970s and 1980s,
‘participation’ was more the discourse of grassroots organisations or
non-governmental organisations, this decade has seen the concept being
embraced at the institutional and governmental level.’ (Gaventa, 1998, p. 50) Thus the theme of participation is an integral
part of the good practice of a range of development agencies. That having been
said, we should be aware that a more critical perspective on participation
has emerged in recent years in the development literature (see Cooke and
Kothari, 2001). In the Introduction I emphasise that community
participation methods should be based on key ideas and values. What are the
ideas and values of participation being referred to? This question is
addressed by focusing on two dimensions illustrated as a matrix below. Two
Dimensions of Community Participation Representative and
participatory democracy Representative democracy means the established
system of voting for local, national and European elected members.
Participatory democracy refers to the wide variety of associations and
organisations formed by citizens to raise or campaign on an issue. One would
expect community development to be firmly in the camp of participatory
democracy. Historically this has certainly been the case. Indeed there has
been a steady stream of examples over the years of community workers and
community groups being in contention with local government elected members
and officers. This is because they have campaigned on a particular issue -
for example, improved housing, road safety, a healthier environment - on
which a statutory agency has taken a different position. There are also
numerous examples of active communities being critical of decisions and
services of central and local government, health agencies and even some of
the large voluntary organisations. It is more helpful, however, to see the
relationship between representative and participatory democracy as one of
healthy tension rather than of conflict. In a modern state, each form of
democratic action is in need of the other. They complement each other. Local
and central government representatives, democratically elected through the
ballot box, clearly have a legitimate role to play on behalf of society and
the state. Their governance will be improved, however, if they can relate to
and work with a wide range of community and voluntary organisations - as well
as with trade unions and the private sector. At the same time, citizens and
communities which form groups and organisations need to relate to statutory
organisations; the former depend upon the latter for services, resources and
decision-making. This way of understanding representative and
participatory democracy is widely accepted. Furthermore, the definition used
of participation - unpaid voluntary activity undertaken by citizens that
influences government, policy-making and democratic accountability - normally
includes activities such as road protests and campaigns over planning
enquiries, as well as voluntary activities in parent-teacher associations,
community groups, work councils and cultural organisations. The essence of a
pluralist society is contained within the term participatory democracy:
dialogue and debate between a variety of different kinds of organisations,
groups and social movements. Society needs to support individuals and
organisations which decide to form some kind of association. In that sense,
the rightful place of such individuals and organisations on the above matrix
is in the bottom right hand quadrant. What would be worrying, for the future
of democracy, would be if the bottom right hand quadrant was characterised by
weak or apathetic associations - hence the arrow on the matrix indicating
that encouraging associations and groups to bring about change and
empowerment is a sign of a healthy democracy. Three developments noted by
political scientists in recent years underlie the importance of this
position: ·
the decline in voting figures, especially in inner
city wards at times of local elections, and evidence that this reflects a
sense of distance among a significant number of citizens from the democratic
political process. Turnout in some poorer wards in local elections can be as
low as 13 per cent. In general elections there is
also a contrast between the voting patterns of relatively rich and poor
areas. ·
Public
attitudes towards politics and politicians appear to be more negative than
previously: there is less interest in joining political parties and more
cynicism as to the motives and standards of politicians. An extreme example
is the alienation of North and West African communities living in tower
blocks on the outskirts of ‘You deny people their community, and therefore
their personal history and identity. Then you herd them into a ghetto and
deny them decent housing, decent jobs and a proper democratic voice. Voting
here is meaningless, an absurd notion. There’s a huge gulf between what
people want and what any politician has ever delivered. This is another
world.’ (Amri, Y., 2003) ·
The
development of cabinet-style decision-making in local authorities, whereby
only a small number of senior elected members can influence the decisions
taken, means that backbench councillors have little power. This, arguably, is
having the effect of weakening the representative system. The implication of these developments
is that a modern democracy has even greater need for community participation,
however this may be expressed: campaigning, partnerships, self-help and
mutual aid, community action. However, if we return to community
development, it is important to note how, in contrast to our earlier
contention that community development’s natural place is on the right hand
end of the horizontal line of the matrix, statutory agencies have
increasingly been prepared to commit themselves to supporting community
development. Durham County Council, for example, is one of a number of local
authorities that have published a community development strategy. The
council’s strategy is based on a policy statement that supports the community
development process as a means of bringing together partners to help local
people benefit the wider communities of which they are a part, and to enhance
their own capacity to shape and determine their contribution to their
community. Representative democratic systems,
locally and nationally, increasingly appear to see the value of supporting
participatory democratic models. Such developments are a useful reminder of
the malleability of the concept of participation. They also draw attention to
the difficulty of making hard and fast distinctions between representative
and participatory democracy. Both are locked into dynamic processes of change
and, as with the term community development, both will always remain
contested concepts: part of the cut and thrust of differing viewpoints and
perspectives which are an inherent part of how society nourishes and sustains
its democratic institutions. There are two other important aspects
of a discussion of representative and participatory democracy. The first is
the influence of a rights-based approach to participation: the right to be
involved on the basis of law. For example, the clauses on children’s
participation rights in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1991)
are very clear in their intentions and have been used by children’s rights
movements in a number of countries to back their arguments. Similar arguments
for citizenship as rights are to be found in human rights statements. Secondly, campaigns by disability and
other organisations to insist that users of services be involved in
decision-making about which services are provided, and ways in which they are
provided, has been an important contribution to the increased significance of
participation in society. For example, the Commission on Poverty,
Participation and Power, set up by the UK Coalition Against Poverty,
undertook all its work on a partnership basis between people who had
experience of poverty and experts: ‘The Commission was a new experience.
The 50/50 membership was a genuine attempt to develop a way of involving
people with direct experience of poverty on an equal basis.’ (del Tufo & Gaster,
2002, p. 2) A rights-based approach and the
influence of user movements, along with a range of related community
development initiatives, have been significant influences on both attitudes
and policies towards participation. Together they have strengthened the case
for recognising and resourcing participatory democratic processes and
methods.
Informing
or empowering? From a community development
perspective, simply informing communities about particular issues or
programmes has little relevance. Even consultation exercises, where the
public is merely invited to give opinions on a proposed scheme or plan, are
not seen by many community workers as connecting with community development’s
values and goals. Anxiety that public information and consultation programmes
can be tokenistic or even manipulative explain why the ladder of
participation, first developed by Sherry Arnstein and subsequently modified
by others, remains very relevant. The ladder moves from non-participation
through tokenism to citizen power, ending with citizen control. As John
Ashton comments, ‘It is old-hat stuff from the sixties and comes from
community architecture but it is still worth thinking about.’ (Ashton, 2000,
p. 136). The point to emphasise springs from community development’s
fundamental purpose: to support the autonomy and capacity of community
groups. The authors of another publication on community participation methods
suggest that this outcome might be described as ‘empowerment’: ‘although
even this term is often used in a way which suggests that power is being
‘granted’ to a community from somewhere else, rather than that the community
is itself fully in charge of the process. It is hard to avoid altogether the
lingering sense that participation and involvement represent ‘top down’
concessions made by the powerful to the relatively powerless.’ (Day et al.,
1998, p. 9) The argument of those who support
public information initiatives and consultation exercises is that these
approaches are essential in order for public agencies to relate effectively
to communities. Informing the public and consulting with communities enable
agencies to do their work better, resulting in the better delivery of
services. This way of applying the concept of participation has expanded
considerably recently, reflecting an increased awareness within agencies of
the need for them to engage with communities in ways that are meaningful and
acceptable to local people. While most definitions of community
development include the need for policy and institutional change, the main
emphasis of community development focuses, as one would expect, on bottom-up,
grassroots action. The way in which popular education approaches have been
used in ·
its
content comes out of the concrete experiences and material interests of
people ·
its
method is collective, focussed primarily on the group as distinct from
individual learning and development ·
it
attempts where possible to forge a direct connection between education and
social action ·
it seeks to connect the local with the national and
global solidarity across nations by making these local activities part of the
wider international humanitarian struggle for justice and peace. We can see from this example the
aspirations or vision which can characterise community development. Far from
being simply a functional approach to supporting local people and assisting
agencies to relate to communities, it can have a commitment to bringing about
change and empowerment at a number of levels. It is this which explains why
exponents of community development sometimes have difficulties with terms
such as regeneration and capacity building that have connotations of ‘doing
things to’ people rather than encouraging them to take autonomous action
facing in the direction of change. It also explains why the tension between
the two ends of the vertical line of the matrix tends to be much more serious
than the two on the horizontal line. The reasons why a critical stance is
often taken are explored in an article by Jane Jones and Lyn Jones. They
state that: ‘Gathering information and opinions from
the wider population has to be part of the fabric of any active democracy,
but this is not the same thing as encouraging and developing citizenship and
participatory democracy.’ (Jones and Jones, 2002, p. 54) Civil
society Underpinning the ideas discussed in
this section is the concept of civil society. It is a concept that has been
debated for a long time. It has regained prominence in recent few years
following the collapse of Communist regimes in eastern and central ‘Too much of an emphasis on the
virtues of civil society neglects the role of the state in creating the
conditions within which these virtues can be developed.’ ( The Hungarian member organisation of
CEBSD, the Hungarian Association for Community Development (HACD) was founded
in 1989 and continues to articulate its community development ideas within a
civil society framework: ‘The objective of HACD is the
development of the ability of citizens to initiate and act in the community.
This goal is meant to be achieved through increasing participation of
citizens in their own and in their common affairs, through improving the
community-related conditions of local action, and through building-up the
local institutions of democracy.’ (HACD, 2000, p. 1) One of HACD’s most ambitious projects
has been to set up a Other CEBSD members are challenged by
HACD’s use of a civil society framework. Often members will link it with the
concept of social inclusion, the goal of enabling everyone to participate in
society. Many people prefer to use this concept rather than that of tackling
social exclusion (the term favoured by the Blair administration) because the
former is more positive. A fuller discussion of this point will be found in
one of CEBSD’s publications ( The purpose of social inclusion
strategies such as those launched in Both civil society and social
inclusion are terms that have strong traditions in the European political
context. How the terms are used in this context is a helpful reminder of
three potential weaknesses facing community development in the ·
There
is pressure on community development to produce measurable change and prove
that funded initiatives are value for money. John Grayson makes the point in
this way: ‘The understandable emphasis of community
development practice on skills, organisational change and output evaluation
has perhaps unhinged practice from its core aims and purposes. At times we
‘lose the plot’. (Grayson, 2002, p.174) ·
The
focus on social exclusion, anti-poverty and targeted measures for minorities
can, rather than creating social cohesion, re-enforce the process of
exclusion by dividing communities. Special measures must not be ‘add-ons’ or
marginal but included in mainstream community activity. ·
There
is a tendency to over-rely on the experiences and traditions of community
development in the UK, for practitioners and consultants to accept too easily
the role assigned to them by European colleagues as being ‘experts’. This
point is made strongly by Angus McCabe and Val Harris when reporting on
support work undertaken in These two trainers go on to underline
how much community development in the West has to learn from working in
partnership with organisations in eastern and central The need for Two Change Methods In this section we outline two
methods, both of which are used by CESAM (the Swedish member organisation of
CEBSD) to help organisations decide in which direction they want to go. Success Analysis This is a meeting technique inspired
by an international method called process quality management. CESAM’s
approach is concerned with an organisation's goals, assets/resources,
cooperative partners/antagonists, an organisation's picture of itself and
both the obstacles and possibilities facing an organisation. The method is appropriate for an
executive or management committee, a leadership group or a project team. It
is best to work with 5 - 12 people. The purpose is to get participants
actively involved in drawing up an organisation's goals or identifying
problems. It is particularly useful for obtaining the opinions of those
people in organisations whose viewpoints are not usually heard. The facilitator allows only minimal
talking i.e. the method relies heavily on a nominal approach. The process is
as follows: ·
Participants
are asked to use 'post-its' to put down the achievements of the organisation
or project, and then to list values, strengths and problems. ·
Time
is then spent by participants writing a mission statement or set of goals for
the organisation or project. ·
Still
using 'post-its', participants are asked to state what they MUST do if they
want to achieve these goals. Here, 'must do' means critical success factors. ·
Usually
lots of critical success factors are generated, and the facilitator asks
participants to reduce them to around eight. ·
All
the 'post-its' from this first session are taped onto large sheets of paper.
These are taken away by the organisation or project, typed up and given to
each participant as a draft action plan. ·
After
the first meeting, the participants must meet regularly and check on on-going
activity. For the method to work, participants
need to understand that there will be an agreement: consensus is a
pre-requisite for continued work. The facilitator has to be very experienced
and sufficiently skilled and confident to help clarify goals and objectives
and support the weaker members of a group. Resource Inventory This method is an adaptation of a
Future Search conference which is a way for a community or organisation to
create a shared vision for its future (see Wates, 2000, pp. 66/68). The idea
is for a group to work on an issue that is neither too broad nor too narrow.
It is particularly relevant for the early stages of local development work,
helping people to sketch out possible areas of work in the future. Examples
are: ·
To
combat loneliness among elderly people ·
Employment
and earning a living in the local community ·
The
development of local culture
Developing a resouce inventory is
normally done in a day’s workshop and is mostly used for local people and
professionals who live or work in the same community. The total group size
can be anything between 30 - 200 people. However, small groups should not be
larger than eight people. The following are the main stages: Make
small groups and ask each group member to identify weaknesses in the
community. Group
leaders collect the statements, read them out and write them on a flipchart
without making any comments. Each
group discusses the statements and places them in order of priority. Group
work 2: after a 10-minute break, the same process is followed, this time with
participants focusing on positive statements. The
flipcharts with the prioritised statements are brought to the plenary. Each
group makes a presentation. If there are many groups, every second group can
report and the other groups can add if anything is missing. Lunch Group
work 3: participants discuss the possibilities they see for communities in
five or ten years time. The same procedure as before
is followed, ending with a list of five priorities. Group
work 4: what threats do we see in our community within five or ten years?
Same process. Plenary:
every first group reports and every second fills in. Group
work 5: having obtained and discussed background information, participants
now engage with the question: what are the most important activities we
should carry out? Same process as before. Plenary:
a discussion of the priorities and agreement as to the most important areas
of follow-up action. Author’s
comments Both techniques provide ways of
generating an agenda for action. While some of the actions prioritised will
not be able to be taken forward immediately, they can be ‘banked’ for
workshops and planning meetings in the future. Both techniques require
participants to be very disciplined and applied. Of all the tools and techniques
summarised in this booklet, the resource inventory makes the biggest
assumption that there is a willingness among participants to work on a
consensus basis and, indeed, to strive to achieve an agreement for
prioritised action by the end of the workshop. The success analysis technique
illustrates the emphasis of many of the methods on groups working in silence,
thereby providing an opportunity for everyone to participate on an equal
basis. The LENS Method The LENS method originated in The method provides an alternative to
using a traditional survey approach to consulting with people: ‘Because often a checklist is given,
there is little space for creativity and people’s own suggestions. Since one
of the starting points of future research is the development of alternatives
for people to debate, this was our starting point for developing the method.’
(Attema, 1991, p. 3) A few years after the LENS method
began to be used in ‘The LENS method focuses on the future
of the neighbourhood. Those living there are at the centre. They are the
specialists with regard to their environment and, as such, are asked to point
to the problems and solutions for their area.’ (Hautekeur, 2002, p.1) The method is based on three question
and answer sessions between a researcher and a residents’ panel which is
representative of as many elements as possible of the issue being addressed: 1.
Preparation Organisation of the study and
formation of the panel 2.
Inventory Collection and consideration of
existing data. Panel members are given a list of questions and asked to
indicate the pros and cons of living in a particular neighbourhood. The
researcher analyses the responses and provides a resume (in newspaper format)
of the information provided. Panel members are given copies of this as
preparation for the following stage. Assessment of the alternatives then
takes place in the course of a number of group discussions. The alternatives are examined
critically and openly by panel members The researchers then draw up a number
of measures and provide a summary -
again in newspaper format - of the results. For each measure it is stated who
is going to do what: ‘Sometimes it is difficult for panel
members to discuss the measures in such terms. However, if the discussion
leader gives examples and explains them comprehensively, the advantages and
disadvantages of measures can be indicated very clearly.’ (Attema, 1991, p.
7) New technology and newsletters
delivered to households are used to give other members of the community
information that summarises the panel’s ideas. Gerard Hautekeur emphasises that the
panel meetings involve a special discussion technique: ‘On the one hand, there is the
so-called Gibson methodology: in order to define positions, Tony Gibson, the
inventor of Planning for Real, likes to offer three options: agree, disagree
and ‘needs to be discussed.’ On the other hand it is important to work
towards the objective of bringing as much information and ideas together as
possible. All ideas are good and should be noted down. There is no need to reach a consensus
within the panel. Experience has taught us that this method motivates weaker
groups and less secure individuals to express their own standpoints and
ideas.’ (Hautekeur, ibid) 3.
Construction Now that everything is known about the
measures it is possible to build future scenarios.
In this phase the measures are debated in more depth, taking account
especially of timescale, likely participation, viability and the desired
outcome. On the basis of this discussion, the researcher drafts a selection
of scenarios. A key characteristic of the LENS
method is that proposals are presented in a very precise way. Every step sets
out as clearly as possible who is going to do what. This active style conveys
that measures can in fact be put into practice. Also, presentation and
circulation of the scenarios results in rapid discussion between panel
members and others in the community. The outcome of the discussions and the
building of scenarios and measures is a plan for the area’s future that
addresses priorities, viability and outcomes. Proposals specify: ·
within
which phase of the method a measure has been discussed ·
whether
or not a measure is considered to be a priority, especially by young people
and excluded groups, at a neighbourhood meeting day ·
the
deadline for a measure ·
which
working group from the community will provide support for an initiative ·
who
can implement it ·
what
resources are available ·
any
comments from the working group and others about the measure An essential part of this phase of the
method consists of paying attention to the availability of any expertise
required and the follow-up action that will be needed. This needs to be done
by those people who present the outcomes of the process to policymakers. When describing how the LENS method
has been used, Gerard Hautekeur pointed out how it can form part of
well-established practice techniques used by community workers. He gave the
example of using the knowledge and contacts of local ‘gatekeepers’ to ground
the method. He also described how it was used in a neighbourhood called
Lederberg in the city of ‘Community workers delivered the
questionnaire face-to-face. Forty per cent. of
people asked for help in filling it out. This direct contact, plus a strategy
of enlisting the support of key figures such as a priest and shopkeeper, gave
a high return. Both employed and unemployed people responded,
those on salaries and those on social security as well as the whole range of
ethnic and cultural groups. A month later, a report giving the results of the
survey was circulated in the form of a newspaper to households. Those who responded were invited to
take part in a group discussion. Sixty per cent. of
respondents turned up and their proposals were formulated as positive or
negative. The main themes identified were housing, traffic, schools and
community participation. Up to this point, only the unorganised
community had been involved, but at the next stage of construction a wider
group, including the local authority, examined the concrete proposals. This
led up to a key stage in the process - the organising of a neighbourhood
discussion day. Preparations for this included a Press conference,
advertising and leafleting. At that point, new faces appeared. The least well
represented were non-nationals and young people. The outcome was presented in
a brochure and circulated to all residents and the Press with a commitment to
implement the proposals.’ Gerard concluded with the following
points: ·
The
method assumes first that regeneration policies are perceived by local people
in consensual rather than in conflict terms and that regeneration agencies
and local authorities have a real commitment to community involvement in
regeneration schemes: ‘Not all local people are prepared spontaneously
to become actively involved in initiatives or actions to promote their
neighbourhood. They need encouragement and stimulus to act, often from
outside the neighbourhood.’ ·
Experience
tells us that sensitive issues will often arise, and special training is
needed to handle such situations. A hearing can create alot of frustration
and disillusion, with clashes between different cultural groups or between
residents and local elected members. In spite of good intentions, the same
mistakes are made again and again. ·
For
participatory democracy to work, there is no single
solution, no quick fix. There are always competing agenda items, and this
needs careful handling. Author’s
comments One attraction of the LENS method is
that it has a good track record of being used in It is interesting that Ghent City
Council provided funding for a year for this kind of participatory research -
an example of how representative democratic systems can support participatory
ones. 5.
Future Workshops The Future Workshop method was
developed by the German educationalist Robert Jungk (see Jungk and Mullert,
1987). He wanted to find a method of working which democratised the
decision-making process and which developed ideas in ways that used both
participants’ common sense and their feelings. The method has been adapted
for use throughout the world. CEBSD’s Swedish member organisation,
CESAM, uses future workshops with a wide range of groups. CESAM’s goal when using this and other
methods is to strengthen people’s participation in the decision-making
process and develop co-operation between different sectors of the community.
At the ‘Participation at neighbourhood level
and in local networks is developed so that local people can work towards
gaining influence and taking personal responsibility. Thus the meeting point
between grassroots community participation and the initiatives of public
agencies is in itself a condition for the continuing engagement of working
towards a democratic society.’ How
it works A Future Workshop can last from one to
three days. It depends on the participants’ active involvement and does not
require any special preparation on the part of participants. However, it is
essential that all the participants are present for the whole of the
workshop. Normally CESAM works with a group of 15-25 people. There should be two experienced
facilitators who are familiar with all aspects of the method. They need to be
good at bringing out the knowledge of the participants on a subject. They
also should be confident at structuring and analysing the group’s work. Nuts and bolts essentials are: ·
A
good-sized, comfortable meeting room ·
Movable
chairs placed in a U-shape ·
Group
rooms ·
A
large wall surface in the meeting room for group presentations on large
sheets of paper ·
Flipchart
pads, notepads, pens, magic markers, bluetack or masking tape, scissors and a
packet of sweets ·
A
Future Workshop requires the on-going work and final results to be documented
and printed. The following explains in more detail
how the workshop is run. Preparation People introduce themselves. Facilitators explain
the method to be used and highlight the agreed theme, for example, how
community workers and regeneration staff can work together. (10 minutes) Themes should always be positive goals and these
must be agreed upon in the group. Always check if people agree with the theme
- if not, start to find the right theme. If people disagree it’s usually only
slight differences (if you have done the preparation properly!). Examples of other themes: A neighbourhood centre - everybody’s concern Decent living conditions for elderly people in
the community Good services for handicapped children Meaningful work for unemployed young people in
the community Opportunities for leisure activities - without
drugs Criticism ·
Individually,
participants note down key words (preferably single words) for obstacles that
are preventing achievement of the goal. Silence while this is done. (10
minutes) ·
Everybody
then writes their words in columns on large sheets of paper on the walls. ·
One
of the facilitators reads out all the words, giving an explanation whenever
anyone is unsure of what is meant, i.e. the key words are defined - one or
two additional explanatory words may be added to difficult words. No
arguments/questioning of suitability, validity etc of words. ·
Voting Each participant has 10 points to allocate to the
various ‘critical key words’. They can distribute the points in any
combination - all 10 for one word, or one point for 10 words etc. This is
done in silence - no lobbying is allowed. After this the facilitator collects
the votes, putting the key words which cover the same topics together and
adding the votes. In this way attention is focused on those topics/words
which got most votes, i.e. there is now a list (5 - 10 words) of those things
the participants find most important; words with few or no votes are put
aside. ·
Negative
sentence writing Form groups of about five people per group. Each
group is given a large sheet of paper and a marker pen, and asked to fill out
in a sentence or two each of the key words/topics which got most points, i.e.
the negative key words are built into negative sentences. The sheets are hung
on the walls. The sentences are read out and clarified/explained when
necessary. No discussions! Reformulation
- Positive Sentence Writing ·
In
groups again, the negative sentences are rewritten to be more positive, i.e.
the way things look when everything is working ideally. N.B.sentences should
be kept under separate headings, not written together as a paragraph, to make
voting in the next stage possible. ·
Presentation
of ‘ Sentences are put on the walls, read out and
explained. From each group there are now slightly different versions of the
same sentences. The groups have angled them differently. ·
Voting
on ‘ Participants now have only five points each to
vote with. The facilitators collate votes,
cutting
up the groups’ lists of sentences on the sheets and re-arranging them (using
glue or tape) to give blocks of related themes. These blocks are put up on
walls. The vote counting and cutting/taping is best done while participants
are working on the following ‘Fantasy Project’. Fantasy Project/Creative Assignment ·
New
groups are arranged, preferably based on something frivolous, e.g. those
wearing something red/blue, those with watches on right wrist etc. Each group
has to plan a fantasy project with unlimited resources. This project should
in some way be linked to the day's theme. Groups are encouraged to draw,
illustrate with diagrams etc rather than write very much. Examples of fantasies: A fun park A waiting room at the local hospital specially
arranged for children A Midsummer party for everyone in the community ·
Presentation
of fantasy projects Each group presents its project idea to a judge -
preferably someone other than the facilitator, e.g. someone on the catering
staff. Winning group chosen from this mock competition. Prize of sweets to
winners and more sweets to all other groups - consolation prizes. Vision in Detail Stage ·
The
energy and enthusiasm generated by the Fantasy Project is now directed to
developing the ‘ ·
Presentation
of visions in detail Group members read out/explain
their ‘visions.’ No discussions/comments of type ‘but that's impossible!’ ·
Sorting
of visions into themes The various pictures are cut and taped by the
facilitators into ‘blocks’ of themes. If there are many pictures, it may be
necessary to narrow the field first by a five-point vote. Themes are put up
on the walls. All the parts of each theme are then read out, so that people can say if they think that any of the
pictures have been wrongly sorted (i.e. in wrong theme). ·
Choosing
a theme/topic Participants then go and stand by the theme block
that they would most like to continue to work with - the intention being to
work towards making a reality of the vision. Group formation at this stage is
thus voluntary. No coercion! Realisation ·
Each
group is given an ‘ideas sheet’ to help them get going. This sheet is a list
of questions. It is intended only as guidance for those who feel they need
it. It covers the following: ·
Evaluating
utopian projects - can we start at once? What obstacles do we face? What
would colleagues, politicians, local government officers etc think about
this? Are there already similar projects in existence? ·
Strategies
- what is the core idea of the project that we would like to hold on to? What
political and economic support do we need? With whom can we co-operate? How
can we introduce, present or market the idea? What negotiating has to be
done? ·
Action
- who wants and is able to work with this idea? How much work is needed? How
can we sell the idea? What are the risks? What are the benefits? How do we
get resources? What can we do to secure the project in the long-term? ·
Progress
reports on the realisation of themes Each group works through instructions/questions
or equivalent, and writes down ideas and plans on a large sheet of paper. At
a pre-agreed time the groups reconvene, the sheets of paper/posters are put
on the walls, and each group goes through its plans and ideas for the others. Close Down/Evaluation Finally, everyone has a turn at commenting on the
day's activities. This is a good way of rounding off - not only as each
person has an opportunity for a few concluding words (feels good for them), it is also a source for new ideas for improving the
Future Workshop method. Follow-up Before everyone leaves, agreement on an action
oriented follow-up should be reached by every group - within the framework of
the workshop. It is also recommended that there is a general follow-up event
for all participants, 3 - 6 months after the initial workshop. Dilemmas CEBSD's other member organisation in
Scandinavia, the Ideas Bank in ‘We have held Future Workshops for a
range of groups, but mainly for young people. Sometimes participants have
been from the same community, sometimes from a region. Most of the workshops
have topics related to community development, often connected with Local
Agenda 21 processes. We have been holding these workshops for about a year,
so we know that some of the issues relate to time, but we still think that
they are relevant to discuss. ·
How
can we get a focus, but still keep the process open? The process is often a
part of the project with its own aims and ideas. ·
How
can we make sure concrete results come from the workshops? How can we assist
in the best way, knowing that our resources are limited? ·
Before
we agree to act as facilitators, we try to make sure that the organisers
understand that this is just the beginning: they need to have made plans for
the follow-up of the process. The dilemma is that the process is still open.
It is sometimes hard to know what will come out. How much of an already
planned follow-up should you seek? ·
After
a Future Workshop we have a crowd of involved, young people who want changes
to happen now. The problem is that change often takes time. How do we keep
the spirit and enthusiasm up so that they will be part of the process long
enough to be able to create change themselves? Author’s
comments The method is fun to do and encourages
people to be creative. But it also favours rigour. These two characteristics
mean that it can be very helpful in community development work. It is likely
to be most useful for well-established community groups and for local,
regional and national organisations that support community development. It is
important to remember that the method can be used flexibly, adapting it for
particular groups and circumstances. There could, for example, be more scope
for participants to comment at different stages of the process. 6.
Consultation In the second section of this booklet
we suggest that community workers can feel uncomfortable with consultation
techniques because these rarely result in support for autonomous community
organisations. Two speakers at CEBSD’s conference on participation, held in (i)
German Experience of Citizen Panels Stiftung Mitarbeit is a foundation
that aims to promote citizen engagement in politics and civil society,
including increasing the influence of citizens in decision-making processes.
The foundation’s director, Dr Reinert, emphasised some fundamental problems
with participation: only a minority of citizens appear to be interested,
there are usually dominant interest groups, only certain sections of society
become involved, there is insufficient time - especially for single parents
and those on shift work - and people’s interest is often stimulated too late,
i.e. when decision have already been taken. He thinks that citizens
panels minimise some of these problems. Citizens
panels are set up to involve citizens in the planning of services and policy
options. Citizens juries work in a similar way but
are organised more formally and take evidence from expert witnesses. There are seven key characteristics of
citizens panels: ·
Random
selection ·
Employees
obtaining leave of absence from their work ·
Payment
for involvement ·
Small
group processes ·
Support
for groups by moderators/advisers ·
Dealing
with a real problem ·
Outcomes
are documented It is best if a panel works on
concrete questions rather than abstract issues or factual/information
questions. In the speaker’s experience, the method is particularly useful for
advising on ethical issues, e.g. on what the priorities should be in social
services, public health and regeneration programmes. Most of the panels that
have been organised in ‘Experiences on the whole have been
very positive. Those who have participated have demonstrated considerable
ability in being able to deal with a range of problems, some of them very
complicated. An additional benefit is that citizens
panels bring people together from across social classes. It has to be said, however, that the
method is expensive. Also, people’s participation is by chance - lots are
drawn. In In The speaker underlined the importance
of working on specific themes or concrete projects, putting a strict time
limit on the time required for participation, working in small groups and
ensuring that groups work towards producing clear outcomes. Finally, he
suggested the following would be likely to result in very low levels of
engagement by participants: ·
Demand
involvement rather than suggest the possibility of participation ·
Use
the language of participation but actually make all the decisions ·
Make
lifelong engagement a requirement and exclude temporary contributions ·
Give
the impression that participation will be boring ·
Avoid
praising those who do get involved ·
Instead
of reaching out to people, wait for them to make contact ·
Do
not inform people of the outcomes resulting from participation ·
Make
sure that the agenda is at least 15 paragraphs long and that there is no
possibility for participants to raise questions ·
Make
sure the discussions are endless ·
Make
long speeches. Author’s comment: these are useful
reminders, even for community workers! Peace and Reconciliation A European project called Practice to
Policy Consultation is hosted by Combat Poverty Agency, CEBSD’s member
organisation in Speaking at CEBSD’s conference on
participation, Donald McDonald argued for making consultation part of
community development: ‘Consultation is one form, among many,
of participatory democracy, meaning an exchange between citizens and
government between elections....It will contribute to decision-making and it
will provide a focal point for collective discussion, resulting in
empowerment and increased confidence and knowledge of participants. Above
all, it will lead to better targeting of resources. Clearly there are risks with
consultation. It can be tokenistic, and it can give rise to false
expectations. Also, something that works in one place may not do so in
another: you have to involve local people and find your own methods. Who should you consult? ·
Individuals
who are motivated ·
Users
who can benefit from an improved service ·
Organisations
(health, social services etc) ·
Representatives
in the community sector Consultation can be carried out in a
variety of ways: ·
by
asking for written or verbal views ·
through
seminars or discussion forums ·
through
user panels ·
through
advisory committees or working groups ·
through
representative structures or partnerships which are tailor-made to suit local
circumstances In the process of making consultation
successful there are barriers you have to overcome: insufficient time and
inadequate resources. You also need to
set out clear rules of engagement: purpose, methods, criteria
for selection. It is essential that the topic is relevant to those you
involve. The language must be simple, accessible and transparent and the
people you want to involve must be supported/resourced.
Last but not least, it is important to find out, through evaluation, if the
process is taking place as agreed. Lets put the framework of consultation in
focus: the Peace and Reconciliation Programme. It is time-framed and it
concentrates on empowerment, meaning that the people will make peace.’ (McDonald, 2002, p.14) Author’s
comments An argument for using citizens panels is that they can broaden participation -
the opinions of more than a small group of activists can be canvassed. From a
community development perspective, the method has significant limitations
because there can be no guarantees that a panel’s conclusions will be
listened to by agencies. There is also the question of cost. However, provided
they are adapted to suit local circumstances, experience from Conclusions Practitioners face difficult choices
about what action to take at all stages of the community development process:
deciding what kinds of information about needs or issues to collect, helping
a group decide its goals and priorities, devising an evaluation system. It is
the frequency and regularity of such choices that indicate why tools and
techniques such as those we have looked at in this booklet are important.
Practitioners, often working in isolated situations, need all the help they
can get. For many readers involved in community
development and regeneration in the ·
They
have been developed over time, with different organisation across ‘ The decision to revise and re-shape the
participation tools, to adopt methodologies closer to community development
and active citizenship, was taken. This was fundamental for successfully
managing conflicts and supporting the local community in developing
citizenship and participation as well as in expressing their capacities - not
just complaints and demands.’ (Avedano, 2000, p. 20). ·
Often
the methods encourage creativity and a sense of fun among participants, not
least because of the emphasis given to working in small groups. In addition
to being helpful for learning and planning, the fun element of participation
methods can be effective in helping people to reach behind the jargon and
obscure language which, unfortunately, permeates the worlds of regeneration
and community development. The sense of release and the willingness to share
information and ideas that laughter and enjoyment can engender, can also make
the community worker’s role more accessible and manageable for inexperienced
practitioners. At the ·
Participation
methods can be extremely useful in helping to overcome barriers, especially
between a community and a local authority, and to cope with conflicts of
interest within communities. ·
Successful
use of methods depends on organisations and facilitators who decide to use
them taking a planned, well-prepared and structured approach. This approach
is a useful antidote to the unpredictable turn of events that community
development inevitably has to deal with. Included in the use of methods
should be evaluation (see Rowe and Frewer, 2000). We need to learn through
comparison of different methods. When reflecting on the methods
described, a number of assumptions or necessary conditions can be identified: ·
The
methods tend to assume that participants have a high tolerance level of
differing opinions or outlooks within a group. Several of them also assume
that there is a shared agenda between local people and local professionals.
There is a question, therefore, as to whether or not particular methods are
culturally specific. Would they be as effective in conflict situations that practitioners
face in parts of the ·
It
seems that tools and techniques for community participation are often applied
most effectively in contexts where local democracy is given high value by a
range of stakeholders, especially the local authority. This commitment is
very evident in the way that tools and techniques are used in ·
There is a clear message from the methods
that any process begun with a group or organisation has to be on-going. It
cannot just come to a stop. Equally important, the process has to lead
somewhere: translating voices or opinions into action is a necessary part of
the definition of community development. This commitment is especially
important in the ·
Another
essential aspect of using methods is that participants have to be encouraged
to address the issue of constituency: a group should seek to act on behalf of
other people, not only itself. Ensuring that a
community group is accountable to other residents or to other people who
share its interest or identity needs to be part of a community worker’s good
practice. There are often a number of barriers to be
overcome if meaningful participation in the context of community development
is to be achieved (see Combat Poverty Agency 2000). However, our discussion
of a selection of methods used in other parts of Europe demonstrates how they
can be a useful resource for regeneration and community development in the Looking beyond the There is always the danger that participation
methods can create the illusion of involvement and empowerment and, when
considering adapting methods used elsewhere, we need to be alert to the
tension between public relations and power politics. Yet to deny the
potential of these methods is to weaken a key aspect of the struggle to
ensure the strengthening of civil society and democracy. There is a growing concern about the quality of
life, citizenship and social relationships within the new EU. The EU itself
is currently preparing articles under Title VI ‘The Democratic Life of the References Amri, Y. (2003) quoted in Henley, J. ‘End of
republican ideal in French high-rise hell’, The Guardian, January 7, p.13. Andersson, J (2000). ‘The development of
participatory democracy in Ashton, J. (2000) ‘Going strategic locally’ in Communities developing for health, ed.
P. Ashton and A.Hobbs, Attema, F. (1991) LENS Method - For Future Analysis of Quality of Life, Arrema en
Van de Wetering, sociaal-wetenschappelijk, onderzoekers, Avedano, L. (2002) ‘The role of European networks
in the implementation of community development policies’ in Participatory Methods and Local
Mobilisation in Decision-making Processes, Orebro University: Orebro. Bur, A-M., Stevens, A. & Young, L. (1999) Include Us In. Participation for Social
Inclusion in Europe, Burrows, D. (2002) New Start, 13th December, p. 17. Combat Poverty Agency (2000) Guidelines for Effective Involvement, Combat Poverty Agency: Cooke, W. & Kothari, U. (2001) Participation. The New Tyranny? Day, G., Morris, E. & Knight, P. (1998) Where do we go from here? A review of
community participation methods, Jigso: Caerphilly. Gaventa, J. (1998) ‘Poverty, Participation and
Social Exclusion in North and South’, IDS
Bulletin, 29.1., pp. 50 - 57. Grayson, J. (2002) ‘Rebuilding civil society:
community development and the Hungarian coalfields’ in Rich Seam ed. D.Francis, J. Grayson and P. Henderson, London: CDF
Publications. Hautekeur, G. (2002) Regeneration plan for the neighbourhood using the LENS method (mimeo),
HACD (2001) Annual
Report: Hungarian Association for Community Development, Jones, J. & Jones, L. (2002) ‘Research and
Citizen Participation’ in The Journal
of Community Work and Development, 1, 3, pp. 49 - 66. Jungk, R. & Mullert, N. (1987) Future Workshops. How to Create Desirable
Futures, McCabe, A. and Harris, V. (2002) ‘Community
development - Emerging lessons from Eastern Europe’, Talking Point, McDonald, D. (2002) ‘Practice to policy
consultation’ in Participatory Methods
and Local Mobilisation in Decision-making Processes, New Economics Foundation (1998) Participation Works! Reinert, A. (2002) ‘German experience of citizen
panels’ in Participatory Methods and
Local Mobilisation in Decision-making Processes, Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. (2000) ‘Public
participation methods: a framework for evaluation’ in Science, technology and Human Values, 25(1), pp. 3 - 29. Wates, N. (2000) The Community Planning Handbook, Websites Action with Communities in Rural England www.acre.org.uk Adult Learning Project ( Community Development Foundation www.cdf.org.uk Community Development Journal www.cdj.oupjournals.org Combined European Bureau for Social Development www.cebsd.org Community Planning Handbook www.wates.demon.co.uk Development Trusts Association www.dta.org.uk Federation of Community Work Training Groups www.communitydevelopmentlearning.org.uk International Association for Community
Development www.iacdglobal.org International Institute for Environment and
Development www.iied.org Joseph Rowntree Foundation www.jrf.org.uk Local Government Association www.lga.gov.uk Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation www.nifonline.org.uk New Economics Foundation www.neweconomics.org Oxfam www.oxfam.org.uk Planning Exchange www.planex.co.uk Regen.net www.regen.net Scarman Trust www.thescarmantrust.org Scottish Community Development Centre www.scdc.org.uk Standing Conference for Community Development www.sccd.org.uk Participants, Name Organisation Mohamud Ahmed Community
Organisations Forum Hans Andersson CESAM,
Louise Andrews Sure
Start North Tricia Bennett Nick Burden Stephen Burrows Daventry
District Council Ester Busquets Desenvolupament
Communitari Matt Chatfield Dacoram
Borough Council Sandy Coyle Dacoram
Borough Council Sue Dare Vivienne Farey Sure
Start Parr Ann Foster Sure
Start Parr Marylynn Fyvie-Gauld Steph Garfield Community
Strategy Policy Unit Hampshire
County Council Sue Gorbing Working
for Change Margo Gorman CEBSD Gerard Hautekeur Samenlevingsopbouw
Vlaanderen Paul Henderson CDF Laura Hoskins Community
Strategy Policy Unit Hampshire
County Council Karima Imtiaz Liz Jones Community
at Heart Jane Jones Popular
Education Forum for Neil Kirby Housing
Department L.B.
Southwark Christer Lindman Marek Lubelski Paddi Mobbs Lewes
District & Wealden MIND Martin Punaks Community
Organisations Forum Anna Read Sure
Start North Lesley Reece Derbyshire
County Council Paul Rideout Southdowns Lewes Emad Salman Evelyn
Oldfield Unit David Slater Gerda Speller Fred |Stafleu Landelijk
Centrum Opbouwwerk Phillippa Superville Regenasis Tim Thurston Dearle
& Henderson Regeneration Nick Wates Community
Planning Publications Carrie Wythe Bridgnorth
District Council Yohannes Tzeggai Evelyn
Oldfield Unit
|
