Section 2. Working in Patnership
2.1 Partner Roles and Contribution2.2 Process and Planning in Partnership
2.3 Co-operation
2.4 Contact
2.5 Evaluation
2.1 Partner Roles and Contribution
The partners who had responsibility for the design and management of the project met in Dublin, Bucharest, Budapest and Rome. In Dublin they shared their relevant experience, their expectations of the project and planned its implementation. In Bucharest they planned the content of the Thematic Seminar and the mapping of the potential network. in Budapest they evaluated progress on the project with the aid of the evaluator and in Rome they explored follow-up. Throughout the project, each contributed their skills and expertise.
Belgium, Flanders: Samenlevingsopbouw Vlaanderen focussed on its training of CD workers and how the project can help them network. Some central questions are: what constitutes a basic training programme and what should be included to strengthen local communities and to enhance participation. There is a particular interest in the "Traject" or progression route and in motivation of trainers and of trainees.
Denmark: Kristeligt Studenter-Settlement/KSS believed that the construction of a network on this theme is more of a priority than the content at this point in Denmark. KSS are interested in developing the network in Denmark. They sought exchange of expertise on the optimal conditions for the operation of a network. There is also a need to define the context of training and to explore the links with other Scandinavian countries. How does training for community development relate to training which is focussed on employment and which excludes marginalised groups who may need considerable support and accompaniment to enter training and/or sustain their participation?
Hungary: Közösségfejleszt?k Egyesülete/HACD was concerned with how to engage motivation for learning for CD; what kind of steps do trainees take initially; how to design on-going training and how to carry out training within the framework of a CD process including non-institutionalised professional training courses and short-term courses. Other questions they have are: How to make the link between organic learning through action and more formal validation? How to link training in Folk High School format into the accreditation process? How to secure working conditions that are on a par with other professions?
Italy, Bologna: Centreo di Documentazione/Laboratorio per un'Educazione Intercultural CDLEI sought more recognition of informal training and innovative methods to assist those working with different communities to enter training in the field of community and social development. Traditional training methods and courses emphasise specialism and how to deal with problems not preventative or developmental approaches. There is a special interest in how this project can contribute to local strategies for inclusion and to innovative actions to combat racism. There is also an interest in making links between the profession of intercultural mediator and that of community worker in a context of limited public investment.
Italy: Movimento di Cooperazione Educativa, Movement for Co-operative Education, Rome: MCE was established in 1951 with the post-war goal of establishing democratic schools to build a democratic country. MCE places emphasis on the ethical, social and political dimensions of education, on autonomy and self-realisation. The work on the plural dimensions of identity (which is not a summation of different elements but a product of their interaction) is linked to the local and territorial work in community. Their work started in schools but has moved increasingly into the field of adult education especially in work with young marginalised adults. Intercultural training is a major priority. Training for schools sees the school is holistic taking into account, families, neighbourhood and professionals They are interested in summer schools and training in co-operative education including methods based on Paolo Freire and Augusta Boal.
Netherlands: Landelijk Centrum Opbouwwerk /LCO saw itself as the communication link with it's the network of consultants, teachers, programmes and network of CD workers in the Netherlands and also has direct links with Eastern Europe They are also keen to share their profile of competence for CD workers and their work with Roma people. (Leida Schuringa)
Romania: Asociatia Romana de Dezvoltare Comunitara/ARCD sought more networking with western Europe on CD. Ruralnet in Romania has worked on standards of training in CD and put that in a wider context. There has been discussion of concepts and of a glossary of terms. There is a need to examine assumptions and theories of change for example how do you promote development in a partnership? ARCD is interested in linking work on theme to other networks such as the CEE network and in pre-accession networking for rural areas. They are also interested in further exchanges on training for Community Development.
Sweden: Stiftelsen Centrum för Samhällsarbete och Mobilisering /CESAM gave the example of training that they provide for the local municipality, which is based on caring for people rather than 'capacity building'. CD training is often sought when other methods have failed but there is a growing awareness among civil servants that they need a new way of working to address communities of interest and communities of place. Statutory bodies are failing with the long term unemployed and long-term sick. There are ideas in Scandinavia for the development of co-operatives where labour market can be better designed to match labour power that is available. Building training on values rather than techniques means including the input of trainees and using their experience. CESAM are also interested in connections with Social Inclusion transnational projects including one in which they are a partner which is due to end in November.
UK: Community Development Foundation/CDF was concerned with the Thematic Active Learning process within the process, which is organised around meetings on a theme or problem rather than an agenda. Some questions are: Can we use an informal process to achieve objectives? How do we structure communication around a theme? There is also interest in a glossary of terms. CDF also has expertise in evaluation and measurement e.g. ABCD and Indicators of Involvement.
2.2 Process and Planning in Partnership
In addition to the identification of the roles and contribution of partners, partners shared the definitions of Community Development, based on the Budapest declaration and the CEBSD led project on Good Practice in Community Development. See Section 2 of this report - Context. They also analysed the distinctive contribution to be made to the theme by the domains of adult education and community development. Plans for the hosting, participation and organisation of the thematic seminar were made at both the Dublin and Bucharest meetings. The Hungarian Association for Community Development worked as a member of the team alongside other partners and the co-ordinator to engage all participants at the Seminar in Budapest in the working group and in the nucleus of the network.
2.3 Co-operation
The partners ensured that all participants combined skills, resources and expertise to achieve the objectives of the Thematic Seminar. The level of common understanding and the constructive atmosphere was striking. The organisational methodology was based on community development principles and training experience. Specific exercises and techniques were chosen to achieve the highest possible level of exchange in the short times available for meetings and the seminar. The high level of co-operation continued in the follow-up work and is reflected in the statement from Diane Cesarin, President regarding MCE, where the central principle relates directly to the principles of CD: "Each individual has value but also limits which can be surpassed by co-operation."
2.4 Contact
Partners and participants also worked outside meetings using e-mail, telephone contact and occasionally sub-groups for example, staff from Samenlevingsopbouw, Flanders, Belgium produced a discussion framework for the Thematic Seminar on the basis of discussion in planning meetings. Participants prepared information on their organisations and roles in advance so that contact time could be maximised. Hosting was invariably skilful with good time-keeping and attention paid to everyone's physical comfort and cultural development, which again freed people to participate to the full. See Appendix B for booklet for programme and details of participants.
2.5 Evaluation
There is a full independent evaluation of the project, carried out by Claudia Novac, from Romania attached to this report. Decision on the evaluation at the beginning of the project was the only conflict among partners. This conflict provided some fruitful discussion and helped clarify differences in perspective from the partners and was satisfactorily resolved by the decision to send out the evaluation to tender and to agree on a process for consultation and decision-making. The evaluation "was based on the Logical Frame Approach (LFA) and on participatory tools of interacting with the project partners and also with the primary beneficiaries." The evaluator followed "both formative and summative evaluation principles, offering a systemic investigation of the entire process". The partners and the participants in the project saw the commentary and analysis in the final evaluation as a valuable contribution to learning from the project and to future development of the network.