|
European Project on “Good Practice on Community
Development “' Report to the European Commission July
2003 Good Practice in Community Development Goede Praktijk in de samenlevingsopbouw Bones Pràctiques en el Desenvolupament Comunitari
Buenas Prácticas en el
Desarrollo Comunitario
Goda Exempler på områdesutveckling
Gode Eksempler på Lokalsamfunnsutvikling
Gutes Beispiel für Gemeinwesenarbeit Combined European
Bureau for Social Development C/o Gerard Hautekeur VIBOSO Vooruitgangstraat 323 B-1030 Brussels Belgium T: + 322 201 0565 F: + 322 201 0514 e-mail: g.hautekeur@viboso.be Co-ordinator: margogorman@eircom.net T: +3537323129 Exchange Programme on Social Exclusion Phase 1 REF: Department: DG EMPL/E/2 Ex-ante
publicity: ref. No: OJ2002/C98/10 of 23/04/02 Call for proposal: ref. No:
VP/2002/010 SAGA: record No:
2002/vpo10/10005 Commitment No SI2.342554 Contents of Report
1 Summary 2 Actions
and organisation 2.1 Parallel Working Groups 2.2 Transnational Planning Group 2.3 Co-ordination 2.4 Actions 3 Exchange
of Experience 3.1 Berlin Seminar 3.2 Case Studies 3.2 Analysis of Principles 3.4 Questionnaire on
Principles 4 Combining
Results 4.1 Transnational parallel working
groups 4.2 Developing a framework 4.3 Framework for analysis of social
participation 5 Taking
Stock of Existing Knowledge 5.1 Setting parameters on defining Good
Practice 5.2 Community Development and Social
Inclusion 5.3 Problems and Challenges 5.4 Cross-cutting and multi-dimensional 5.5 Mobilisation of all actors 5.6 Common concerns: locally,
regionally, and nationally 5.7 Gender sensitivity 6. Implications for policy development
on Social inclusion 6.1 “Bottom-up” Practice 6.2 Lessons for Phase 2 6.3 Developing Indicators 6.4
Clear Communication 6.5
Dissemination 7
Conclusions 7.1 Factors of Success 7.2 Neighbourhood Synergies 7.3 Bottom-up meets top-down Appendix A:
Self-Evaluation Report
Appendix B: Participants in Berlin Seminar 1. Summary In 2002-2003, CEBSD a European
Project on “Good Practice in Community Development”, funded under Phase 1 of
the European Community Action Programme on Social Exclusion. During Phase 1,
the original objectives were refined to the following two aims. 1. To develop an instrument for analysing good practice
in local or regional "community development" initiatives which
identifies criteria for quality and demonstrates how they contribute to social
inclusion 2.
To set up a framework, based
on exchange of “bottom-up” experience, from which progress indicators for
social inclusion can be developed. The partnership has attracted a deep level of
motivation from working groups of community actors/volunteers and local
municipality staff in Oslo, Ghent, Bradford, Barcelona, and Öreboro. This has
inspired Berlin, Copenhagen and Budapest/Kunbábony/Scotland to engage as
partners in Phase 2 if the application to continue the work is successful. The
problems and difficulties in measurement of progress in the sphere of local
social development have been analysed. Partners sought to identify an
instrument for analysing practice in local or regional "community
development" initiatives that demonstrates how they contribute to social
inclusion. They worked on establishing a framework of shared principles, based
on exchange of “bottom-up” experience, on which analysis of progress can be
based. The working groups held several meetings in
each city and worked on clarifying guiding principles in a parallel process
according to shared guidelines. This was documented and shared at each stage
and then combined through the work of the transnational Planning Group.
Participants in working groups started from a high level of scepticism with
regard to their ability to influence European policy and a rejection of “jargon”
and over-complicated principles, concepts and indicators of measurement. They
explored problems and conflicts in an open way. The process culminated in a
strikingly high level of participation in the presentation of the results of
working groups at the seminar in Berlin in June 2003. Participants then took
this experience into small parallel transnational working groups using
inclusive working methods inspired by a combination of tried and tested
community development techniques and the “open method of co-ordination”. The main result of Phase 1
was a certain level of agreement in the understanding and analysis of existing
principles in spite of the many differences and problems raised. Participants
also referred to a fresh commitment to “European” work and identity. Volunteers, community workers, researchers,
local authority staff and elected representatives, with a good balance of
gender and age, from European countries and many different contexts, recognized
and utilized the wealth of experience and commitment to social inclusion that
they could contribute as a group. First steps have been taken together on the
development of a common framework based on “bottom-up” analysis and case study
material. A strong commitment to equality, diversity, partnership, solidarity,
participation, human dignity and rights underpins community development work.
Members of working groups seek to balance the process and product of community
development work using innovative organizational methods in planning, policy
and decision-making. In addition to the partnership between Community
Development Foundation, UK: The Ideas Bank, Norway; Desenvolupatment
Comunitari, Catalunya; CESAM, Sweden and VIBOSO, Belgium attracting new
partners from Copenhagen, Scotland and Budapest/Kunbábony for Phase 2, direct contact has also been established with some
projects under Phase 1 of the Social Inclusion programme e.g. on unemployment
and on social indicators. Others in a similar field have also expressed an
interest in sharing experiences e.g. the Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, who
work on “Die soziale Stadt”, the
socially integrated city programme in Germany. Shared
experience with other projects indicates increasing acknowledgement of the role
of community/social development in economic development and urban regeneration. 2 Actions and Organisation 2.1 Parallel Working Groups
The
partners convened at least three meetings of working groups, whose participants
including community actors/volunteers, local municipalities and researchers in
Barcelona, Oslo, Ghent, Bradford, and Orebro – a total of 49 members. Each
group was issued with a Project Pack, which included: Summary of project Guidelines for working groups Objectives of Project Common principles of Community Development and the Ten Key principles
for Inclusive Services and Policies from Draft Joint Report Reference: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/soc-prot/soc-incl/joint_rep_en.htm List of members of project group (decided
by Group – see guidelines for composition) Timetable
of project (with specific dates of meetings for working group added by Group)
The parallel working group process used in Phase 1 would have benefited
from even more direct contact between working groups. Discussion of this
shortcoming led to a proposal for a series of exchanges in Phase 2 where
experience could be shared from one context to another. The most effective and economical way of
doing that would be a series of “domino” exchanges where a rotation of
connected visits would enable all partners to host one exchange and make one
visit but the experience could accumulate from one to the next. It is intended
that a process of using the observations of researchers more effectively in
Phase 2 will also be incorporated into this exchange. In spite of the problems,
difficulties and limitations of Phase 1, the comparison of results from the
working groups is an indication of the success of the parallel working method.
These achievements would have been impossible without the direct link between
the working groups and the transnational planning group. 2.2 Transnational Planning Group Each partner was represented at transnational meetings in Brussels (November 2002);
Orebro (March 2003), Frankfurt (May) and Berlin (before the Seminar) to
exchange progress on the process, guide working groups, plan the Seminar, reflect
on Phase 1 and prepare Phase 2. Members
were responsible for: §
Mediation/communication
between working groups partners on the objectives §
Links between members of
working group and national/regional government §
Group cohesion and
diversity - multi-sectoral and
multi-lateral. §
Guiding project through
Phase 1 and clarify work programme for Phase §
Exchange of methodologies Some of the members of the planning group had
experience of creating an inclusive group, capable of mediating conflicts and
drawing on diverse experience and expertise. This made it possible to establish
a sound basis for teamwork. Members of the planning group who had already
worked together made sure that new members and members “standing in” were
incorporated into the group. Their skills and experience were an asset, for
example Steve Skinner from Bradford Local Authority made an important
contribution to planning at a key point. There was strong group cohesion that
could be further extended to the participants in the Berlin seminar. The work
of the planning group and the agreed actions at each point is recorded. Members
of the planning group have reflected that methods of achieving success in this
process is generally not sufficiently recorded and would make a useful
contribution to adapting the “open method of co-ordination” at all levels. 2.3 Co-ordination
The project co-ordinator had responsibility for co-ordinating the work
of partners and the project working groups and setting up communication between
them. This included setting up and minuting transnational planning meetings and
arranging follow-up actions. She was also responsible for ensuring that
self-evaluation took place. With hindsight this latter choice was made due to
lack of funds to employ an external evaluator and arrange their familiarity
with the work of the project. This was regrettable as the process of
self-evaluation was severely limited by this and did not do justice to the work
in Phase 1 – see section on self-evaluation.
Recording and reporting progress on the project
to the planning group was important to maintain momentum. Results and progress
were also shared with the wider community development network through monthly
updates on the website. The questionnaire on principles which was designed in
consultation with some members of working groups was compiled by the
co-ordinator. It was seen as a means of checking the foundations for a process
of developing consensus on key principles. The organisation of the seminar and attendance
at it was an appropriate part of the role of co-ordinator as she had an
overview of the members of working groups and potential new partners. It also
made it possible to change location to Berlin when no suitable venue within the
price range could be found in Barcelona. This move also created opportunities
to share and compare results with the German Institute for Urban Studies. 2.4
ACTIONS of project on “Good Practice in Community
Development” Phase1
3 Exchange of experience 3.1 Berlin
Seminar The main
purpose of the seminar in Berlin was to exchange the experience and share
results from working groups in Oslo (Norway), Ghent (Belgium) Barcelona
(Spain), Bradford (England) and Örebro, (Sweden), Each working group prepared
presentations of case studies and principles of good
practice. Participation was from community workers, managers, unemployed
volunteers, local authority staff, researchers and elected representatives. Some people shared their experience of moving from
voluntary community work to paid community worker. Participants
came from Belgium, Germany, UK, Hungary, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and
Spain - see list of participants with the programme. The seminar was designed
by the planning group to engage maximum participation of all present. The
differences in context, age, experience, culture, sex, background and language were used as assets to the process. 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 is valued. Participants responded with a high
level of commitment, motivation, good humour, combining commitment to hard work
with a sense of fun. 3.2 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. The
presentation and analysis of case study material included vivid portrayal of
the context in which the work was carried out.
A video from Bradford, accompanied by music of young people, brought to
life, the description and analysis of
“an ethnically diverse population and relative economic decline in
post-war years” in their written report. 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. 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. (See reports of working groups attached to this
report.) The
contribution of community development to changing the patterns of social
exclusion and creating social inclusion underpinned all of the examples, which
included: q
Models of negotiating and developing “community”
centres to act as focal point and entry point to community participation. q A mental health
initiative to improve the delivery of services q Community project
becoming a community enterprise q Project to
increase well-being and feeling of safety on a housing estate where the housing
cooperatives and co-owners secured the finances of a foundation to continue the
work q
A social co-operative for the empowerment and employment of women Some of the case studies had a specific focus on youth, ethnic
minorities or women and showed how the community development approach offers a route
into mainstream services whilst valuing the specific contribution of particular
groups. It also offers the potential for synergies with projects that have a
specific focus for example the Phase 1 project on employment in Norway. The
diversity of experience presented in the case study material benefited from
live presentation but the written presentations give a social and cultural
context to social exclusion and they are worth reading in full. 3.3 Principles, which
underpin “Good Practice” The following headings were
used to summarise the conclusions from the “bottom-up” approach to principles
in each working group, further analysis of these headings is available from
their reports. Örebro working group 1.
Flexibilility 2.
Long-term thinking 3.
Clear Objectives 4.
Participation – everyone is welcome, easily accessible, co-operation 5.
Dialogue – less traditional meetings, more discussions 6.
Trust- confidence in people’s own ability to contribute to the
community 7.
Empowerment and mobilisation – Community Development should serve the
people and facilitate growth, not create dependency 8.
Competence to identify structures – competence to connect theory to
practice 9.
Low economic costs 10.
Political support Oslo working group 1.
An inclusive and common language (avoid excluding
jargon). 2.
Public participation on the users/inhabitants arenas
and terms. 3.
Recognition of the competence that lies in the
experience that user/activist groups have. 4.
Social and inclusive meeting places without
pressure, that gives room for a sense of belonging, respect and dialogue with
decision makers. 5.
Integral part of the work towards sustainable
development 6.
Holistic offer of services that are being evaluated
in dialogue with the users. 7.
Economic and political support for the voluntary
sector’s contribution in different forms. 8.
Human and social capital seen as important
resources. 9.
Lifelong learning. Catalonian working Group 1.
Equilibrium between the process and the results -
to mark objectives at long term and at short term -
to stop for reflection and planning -
to have access to the information during the whole
process as well as to the achieved results 2.
Social and thematic transversality (of actors from different levels) -
Political commitment to carry out the process, with
independence of electoral cycles. -
to open processes inside the administrations which
facilitate transversality. 3.
To resolve or orientate conflicts and requests -
Recognition of the community worker’s task -
Time and space for generating trust between actors -
To open participation spaces to “technicians” (civil
servants) Gent working Group 1. Accessibility 2. Social contacts in group 3. Create new opportunities for the people involved 4.
Permanent dialogue and involvement 5.
Solving problems structurally Bradford Working Group 1. Equality
- working for a fair and just community 2.
Involvement - participation and influence 3.
Organisation - active communities through groups 4. Skills/confidence
- processes through which people learn 3.4 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 Orebro. 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 Oreboro. 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".
4
Combining Results 4.1 Transnational
Parallel Groups 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 was
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 KSS
(Kristeligt Studenter-Settlement). The
groups were given the following task: “Taking into account the presentations of each working group of
‘bottom-up’ principles and case studies, decide what is common to each group
and what is different and identify what are the key factors likely to show
programme in good community development practice on social exclusion.” Whilst
there was a high level of commitment to exchange on good practice principles,
participants recognized that a greater investment of time, analysis and
research is needed to test the level of consensus and to test how far it is
acceptable at a regional and national level as well as at a European level.
There is work to be done on engaging dialogue on this new set of principles before starting the work on developing indicators of
social participation based on the factors identified. Extending
and deepening links with broader networks using community development
approaches at local, regional and national, European levels are seen as an
important part of the work of Phase 2. 4.2 Developing
a framework The framework for a new set of principles in the diagram below emerged
from the synthesis of the six parallel transnational working groups. (See
composition and results of each separate group. The original flip chart presentations,
which included diagrams and illustrations have been retained and are available
in a separate report. There is also a photographic record with the Hungarian
report on the seminar on www.adata.hu/cebsd.) Partners
recognised the challenges faced by communities, where discriminatory practices
are a powerful barrier to achieving social inclusion. In some districts there are also trends towards intolerance,
corruption, intimidation and abuse of power that inhibit the development of
co-operation at a local level. Not all mobilisation is positive and there are
power struggles with local “dominators” that need to be addressed without
losing commitment to core principles. There was also recognition of the need for
a better understanding of quality of life issues and how to support people to
organise themselves in a way that improves their quality of life. More
clarification is needed on who are the socially excluded and what is the
process of exclusion. 4.3 Framework for analysis of “social participation”
5
Taking Stock of existing knowledge 5.1 Setting parameters on defining Good
Practice One of the catalysts for the CEBSD project on good practice in
community development was the Joint Report on the first round of National
Action Plans on Social Inclusion, which stated that “The lack of in-depth post
evaluation analysis of the impact of current policies has limited the
possibility of identifying which measures, approaches or initiatives deserve
good practice status.” [1]
Later in the report, “10 Key Principles for Inclusive Services and Policies”
are presented. [2] In Phase 1
of the project on “Good Practice in Community Development, there was a general
acceptance that the 10 key principles offered in the European Commission’s
joint report were a useful reflection of generally agreed principles. A Swedish
community worker thought they should be on the wall of every community project.
They are too general and too abstract to act as a guide to more specific
measurement of progress but, taken as a benchmark of social inclusion, they
offer a useful point of comparison with the principles of community
development. Taking these 10 principles and the CEBSD core principles as a
starting point, CEBSD’s project sought to establish a basic framework for
linking policy and practice in community development as a contribution to
comparative analysis. 5.2 Community
Development and Social Inclusion Community development has a richly
diverse history in the different European countries and contexts. From this
diversity a core of agreement on some of the principles underpinning community
development has developed in the CEBSD network in the last decade and is
summarised in the CEBSD publication: Social inclusion and Citizenship. This
publication now in its second edition, was translated into French, Russian and
Hungarian and disseminated by photocopy in the late 90’s when local ngos had no
money to print it. The author relates the concept of social inclusion to the
core principles of community development 'Social
inclusion' moves away from placing people in pigeonholes. Community development
is committed to working with oppressed and marginalised people and in doing
this it looks to support the strengths and capacities of people. It is opposed
to labelling groups of people ‑ that is why, when discussing the goals of
community development, we feel more comfortable with the term 'inclusion' than
'exclusion'. [3] The
emphasis on participation in the “open method of co-ordination” in European
policy on social inclusion has heightened awareness of the need for more
research in what is meant by “community/social development” in Europe. Members
of CEBSD, both within their own country and comparatively, have made considerable
efforts to remedy this. The most recent piece of research was carried out by
Gerard Hautekeur in the form of a questionnaire on
community development in Europe. This survey of the
Board Members of CEBSD takes stock of the European context for community
development as a recognisable discipline and community work as a recognisable
profession. Much work remains to be done on this as the term community
development has different interpretations and emphases depending on the
context. There is an increasing demand for more collation of research across
Europe and for more in-depth analysis and reflection of comparability. 5.3 Problems
and Challenges
By
the second meeting of the working group, the problems faced by the “Good
Practice Project on Community Development” began to seem insurmountable within
the constraints of time and resources. Honest acknowledgement and discussion of
these problems enabled the group to see these problems as challenges that would
not be resolved within the nine months of the project. The challenges
acknowledged include: - q
translating local experience into
material capable of influencing the direction of national/European policy q
defining terms so that their
significance is similar in different languages and cultures – social cohesion,
social exclusion, social inclusion, poverty, community, development, training,
capacity building. q
communicating the wealth of material in
National Action Plans, European policy, projects in the Transnational Exchange
programme into bite-sized pieces that local community actors could digest q
collecting qualitative data that is
comparable across the diversity of contexts where exclusion is experienced q
measuring the impact of resources on a
time frame of 1-3 years when results often seem to take 5-10 years to emerge. q
following up commitment to evaluate in
terms that are compatible with the differing demands – the “target” group have
they perceived benefits? The workers: have they done a good job? The funders:
can they demonstrate the impact of investment? Elected representatives,
Government services and bodies have they implemented policy? q
identifying the specific contribution of
community development to good practice in combating social exclusion. q
clarifying and defining the terminology
and “jargon” in the field of social inclusion. The
group decided that it would concentrate on the latter two of these in phase 1 5.4 Cross-cutting and multi-dimensional
Community development has a
significant history in matching principles to methods, in balancing process
with product and in creating the basis for partnership and co-operation. It
directs resources and energy to those who suffer most from from discrimination
and from poverty. The field of “community development” has made a significant
contribution to the debates on participation, partnership, co-operation.
Insecure funding, low status work and short-term projects have hindered
evaluation of the impact of community development and community work. At
times “development” projects have been
a convenient scapegoat for professionals, public servants and elected
representatives when community conflicts emerge. As a result valuable lessons
have been lost.
There is increasing recognition
of the value of the contribtion of community development among institutions at
a local, regional, national and international level. Many local municipalities
in Europe are looking for ways of engaging citizens and local
neighbourhoods in finding solutions to
the multiplicity of problems that certain areas face. This renewal of interest
in community development is analysed in a PowerPoint presentation on the World
Bank Approach to “Community Development in Europe and Central Asia” [4] where it is acknowledged that “Where development has really succeeded it is in most
cases that people have taken responsibilities to various degrees in resolving
some of the problems they where facing” (PP Slide 3) Evaluation backs this up, “OED states that Bank projects managed
by communities are more successful than projects managed by other entities (82%
vs 75%)” (PPSlide8)
In some
contexts community work, or local social development, has been seen as an
“add-on” to the profession of social
work rather than a discipline in itself but this is changing rapidly. In
Germany “gemeinwesenarbiet”, although a relatively new concept is beginning to
express a new collective, independent voice. In the UK, changes in community development as a professional
field have opened up some opportunities to address the multi-dimensional nature
of social exclusion. The UK report to the Berlin Seminar describes how the
increased participation of local people in planning and decision-making around
mainstream services “has also led to a renewed focus on communities of interest
(e.g. Black and Minority Ethnic, Gay and Lesbian, disability communities), in
addition to working with well-established neighbourhood based
communities.” [5] 5. 5 Mobilisation
of all actors A
major motivating force in the CEBSD project has been the involvement of those
who are “excluded” in the process of identifying good practice. Guidelines for
Phase 1 suggest comparing work in progress with the results of preparatory
actions under the Exchange Programme on Social Exclusion. Preparatory measures
which favoured the participation of the “excluded” were seen as the most
relevant to the “bottom-up” approach of the CEBSD project. In February 2003,
EAPN published the “European
study on participation and partnership in favor of social integration and
citizenship”.
This report was based on findings during a preparatory
action for the Exchange Programme on Social Exclusion with partners from voluntary
organisations working nationally in France, regionally in Italy and locally
(the city of London) for Great Britain. These results
resonate with the results of the parallel working groups in the CEBSD project
in Phase 1. Their “tools” for partnership and participation outline the
importance of both a collective and individual approach. The commitment to
outreach work, to taking a lead from local actors and to valuing their
contribution as an asset is emphasised throughout this report, which also gives
numerous illustrative examples. The EAPN
report also “emphasised the importance of taking into consideration the
context, whether cultural, social, institutional or political, that is specific
to each country, or, sometimes, region, in order to analyse the practises of
participation and explain their diversity.” There were striking similarities in
what determined success. “The experiences of participation analysed are not necessarily
extraordinary, but one finds in all of them, a certain way of constructing the
action that makes sense, that creates a dynamic of self-confidence. This
assumes taking the time to depend on the people themselves, perceiving their
assets: in particular, the relevance of their observations concerning the
situations that they experience, the value of collective memory, the refusal to
succumb.” [6] During Phase 1 of the CEBSD
project, there was a qualitative success in engaging the involvement of the
public sector, the non-governmental sector and volunteers from local projects.
In Norway this extended to as many as 130 in roundtable discussions, where
activists, users and volunteers as well as public servants participated.
Community actors and public sector professionals had to overcome considerable
barriers and reach a certain level of trust to achieve this level of
collaboration. More understanding and articulation of the methods, which
achieve such collaboration, is needed. 5.6
Common concerns: locally,
regionally, and nationally Other projects where common concerns have been identified in Phase 1
include:Social Indicators for Urban Regeneration (lead partner Clondalkin
Partnership, Ireland) and Local Authorities and Social inclusion (lead partners
Combat Poverty Agency/Warwick University) and Strategies for inclusion:
co-ordinated approaches for quality employment: lead partner Work Researh Unit, Norway).There
are strong indications that these common concerns are of interest to others who
are working in this field. When approached by CEBSD as part of the process of
disseminating results of Phase 1 and seeking wider collaboration for Phase 2,
Dr. Rolf-Peter Loehr of the German Institute for Urban Studies explained that
the role of DIFU has been “to support the implementation of the federal
programme on the socially integrated city that depends essentially on the
participation and commitment of citizens. So we are very interested in the
results of your study and probably in cooperating in Phase 2”. Thomas Franke of DIFU shared results of DIFU research with
participants in the Berlin Seminar on “Good Practice in Community Development”
and remarked on the level of coincidence of findings, on hearing presentations
of the parallel process during the Seminar. The importance of appropriate
organisational methods capable of delivering on policy was one common area of
concern. The reference to the “lander” level of administration is especially
interesting in the search for a dissemination process on good practice in
social inclusion that can work locally, regionally and nationally: - “Cities where relevant
structures had been established in the context of Land programmes prior to the
“Socially Integrative City” project were often able to give a favourable report.
Other cities that have only recently started implementing the programme
complain of initial difficulties, especially in overcoming the institutional
boundaries and creating cooperative structures at the administrative level. The
lack of appropriate framework conditions often retards the renewal processes
and can in the long run prevent success.”
[7] 5.7
Gender sensitivity The planning group decided to adopt an approach, which integrated
gender sensitivity at the level of the working group and monitor what affect
this had on the overall progress of the project. This meant a conscious use of
different organisational methods, greater clarity in communication, greater
flexibility backed up by gender-disaggregated analysis of participation.
Although there was no stipulation on numbers of women or men to attend the
Berlin Seminar, it was no coincidence that the number was 17 men and 16 women.
6.1 “Bottom-up”
practice Whilst
there is often recognition of the importance of promoting the
participation of those experiencing poverty and social exclusion, this policy
commitment is rarely followed through in the delivery of programmes of action,
monitoring and evaluation of success. The Joint Report on NAPs/incl in 2001
alerts member states to this when it states that participation, “is not clearly
and systematically reflected in concrete policy measures in the NAPS/incl,
despite evidence indicating that failure to involve excluded communities is a
major weakness in policy delivery.”
Policy commitment on paper, which is not followed through, by commitment
to action undermines confidence among local actors in the national and European
policymaking process. The experience of linking bottom-up practice to a framework,
which reflects a level of abstraction, increases understanding of the policy
process. It is also a means of creating confidence that there is a place in
organisational and social structures for those who are currently excluded from
decisions that affect their everyday lives. 6.2 Lessons for Phase 2 Working
through the challenges and analysing problems during
Phase 1, helped the planning and working groups set more
realistic limitations on the framework sought by partners in the “Good Practice
in Community Development” project. Partners recognise
the need for the top-down contribution – described by one group as the rain
that feeds the roots of the tree of community development. There is some
acknowledgement – both from top-down and bottom-up that it is only through a
combination of available opportunity provided by society and of participation
in individual and collective development that people can find their own way out
of poverty and exclusion. Emphasis
on bottom-up meant that the work was grounded in reality but there was a
growing recognition of the value of reflection and analysis. Parallel working
groups emphasised the need to develop a common understanding of what we mean by
social exclusion and the factors that contribute to it. One of the tasks of
Phase 2 would be to clarify what practices contribute to exclusion, what
practices contribute to inclusion and how can we demonstrate and measure
progress on achieving greater social inclusion. The work on key factors from
the Berlin transnational working groups provides a starting point for this work When defining the Work Programme for Phase 2,
as submitted in the application for funds, partners decided to keep the
parallel working groups, directly linked to the Transnational Planning Group and
feeding into a collective seminar of working groups. The main addition to the
work programme is the “domino” exchanges where a rotation of connected
visits would enable all partners to host an exchange and visit another working
group. Co-operation on an external evaluation is also planned for
Phase 2. The process of dissemination of results will be similar to that in
Phase 1 i.e. working at local, regional, national and European simultaneously.
Material for dissemination based on Phase 1 will be developed and added to by
the work in Phase 2. There will be more emphasis on better links between these
levels and on networking results at the European level. 6.3 Developing
Indicators The
main interest of partners in the “Good Practice in Community Development” is in
developing an accessible instrument of demonstrating progress on social
inclusion using community development. During Phase 1 it became increasingly clear that the specific area
of interest and expertise to those engaged in community development is the in
the area of social participation. Development of indicators of social
participation should be based on measurements that people living with exclusion
identify as important to their own participation. In
Phase 2 the project will focus on how to measure progress on social
participation and what indicators or benchmarks are useful to this process.
This work will take as its starting point the framework of principles,
practices and the key factors that can show progress, which was produced by
parallel groups in Phase 1. The
methodology used in Phase 2 will ensure that there is flexibility and openness
within the framework to incorporate new ideas and adapt the framework to
different contexts. 6.4 Clear
Communication
There
were some interesting observations made on how language differences were not
experienced as a significant barrier when there were attempts to develop mutual
understanding but “technical
terms, bureaucratic language, political jargon or internal expressions amongst
activists and NGOs” were seen as exclusive. Communication during the Seminar
depended on the majority to use English as a common language and a willingness
to use the skills of interpreters to include some participants from Catalunya
whose proficiency in English was not sufficient at this point. The richness of
individual languages was not completely lost as mother tongue speakers helped
clarify terms and concepts as required. Plain
language, clear concepts and common understanding were a key factor of success
in developing policies that can be implemented at a local level. Some jargon
was acceptable where there was a readily available explanation for example the
“open method of co-ordination”. The resistance to statistical analysis,
quantitative data collection and technical terminology in the field of social
inclusion and European policy should not be underestimated. In order to
overcome suspicion and distrust of instruments of analysis, clear communication
is essential. 6.5
Dissemination With
regard to the analysis of good practice, the Joint Report on NAPS/INCL states
that, “full account should be taken of the underlying conditions in each Member
State, and the extent to which they have conditioned success.” Partners adopt
this approach to the dissemination of the results of the project on “Good
Practice in Community Development.” Each of the partners in the project has a key role in disseminating
the results of the project within their regional/national context. Key people in local authorities, regional offices and national
governments are targeted. In England this has produced
considerable interest from the Government Regional Office in the project and in
disseminating the results of the project more widely if it continues. In
Norway, the participation by the Ideas Bank in the project helped them make new
links between social and environmental aspects of social inclusion. The Ideas
Bank played a facilitatory role in consultations concerning
the "Fattigdomsmeldingen” the Norwegian equivalent to NAP/incl where the
minister for social affairs was present. In Sweden,
the National Government office responsible for National Action Plans on Social
Inclusion contacted CESAM regarding examples of good practice in social
inclusion. In Belgium Johan Vandenbusshe, the Belgian
representative dealing with the National Action Plan Social Inclusion, attended
a working group meeting. VIBOSO will use the outcomes of Phase 1 in a
coordination group on quality for the
community development sector in Flanders and will use both Phase 1 and 2 to
produce a manual on quality in community development by 2005.In
Catalyuna, the working group feeds results into the community planning process
in Barcelona and the surrounding region. The project also shares results within the
European Social Platform and with a number of European networks for example
EAPN, Eurocities and a number of international networks. The Hungarian
Association of Community Development has taken a lead in sharing results of
Phase 1 with the Central and East European Community Development Network. Updates on the CEBSD website have attracted
interest in the project and new membership of the e-group on community
development in Europe. 7 Conclusions
7.1 Factors
of Success The
most important result from Phase 1 of the project is the high level of
concurrent findings that are evident in a number of parallel processes, within
the project and from elsewhere. It must be stressed that these are preliminary,
and in the case of the CEBSD project based on local practice. They common
findings do however; indicate the direction that could usefully be pursued in
identifying the factors of success in community development projects and
neighbourhood initiatives that seek to engage participation and co-operation in
measures to counter social inclusion. Success
is favoured when initiatives start from certain core principles, share a
similar process of work and use organisational methods that can maximise
diversity and can be adapted to widely different contexts. 7.2 Neighbourhood
Synergies The
work on identifying core principles, which underpin good practice in community
development, has been invaluable opportunity for reflection and analysis of
community development and its contribution to social inclusion.
Recognition of the role of a local authority neighbourhood support services in
relation to community development work, particularly by supporting local
Neighbourhood Forums and through partnership work is supported by references to
community development work in other projects in Phase 1. The development of core principles offers a potential framework for
partnership and other forms of co-operation with local authorities. The
participation of local communities must be integral to such co-operation and to
the process of monitoring and evaluation. Community
development is a necessary part of many economic/employment programmes and its
role in local regeneration is recognised by a number of other projects in Phase
1. More analysis of how
social/community development contributes to economic development is needed. Phase 1
has laid the foundations for extending and deepening the synergies that have
begun to develop with other projects and other actors. A combination of vision, vigour and a
willingness to engage with a rigorous assessment of practice has emerged from
exchange and sharing of experience. The development of indicators and other
measurements of success or failure of social participation are an essential
part of the process of learning from this exchange. 7.3 Bottom-up
meets top-down Development can offer both a degree of
specificity and the potential for transferring, exchanging and combining
experience at different levels both within a municipality and between
local/lander/regional/national. Partners, especially from the UK and Sweden,
saw the principle of subsidiarity as a significant component of this
“bottom-up” process. There was also recognition that bottom-up and top-down
approaches both had their place and the development of some consistency between
them would be enriching for everyone. The project was grounded in a strong commitment to good practice and to
recognizable benefits for communities. This framework of shared principles,
linked to practice will be used as a basis for developing new ways to measure
progress. Community actors also stressed the contribution of commitment and
creativity to success. The energy and vision generated in this process helped
overcome the considerable problems and challenges that working groups faced
separately and collectively in Phase 1.
There is enthusiasm for extending the methods used in Phase 1 and
deepening the analysis in Phase 2. The
core principles were tested by the working groups and have emerged in a form
which rejects the image of the excluded as “disadvantaged’, which takes a more
integrated approach, which identifies the importance of organisation and which
seeks to balance reflection, analysis, commitment and creativity. Phase 1 has demonstrated that it is possible
to construct a context-sensitive process for analysing
and assessing progress, which can produce results. The next stage is to refine
and develop this process and its product.
Note: CEBSD’s European Project on “Good Practice in
Community Development” has received funding from the European Commission under
Phase 1 of European Community Action Programme on Social Exclusion. However
CEBSD documents reflect the views of CEBSD and the Commission is not liable for
the use that may be made of the information contained therein. Initial contact
for questions regarding this report is Margo Gorman Tel: +3537323129: margogorman@eircom.net Appendix A
Self-Evaluation of European
Project on
“Good Practice in Community
Development”
draft Exchange Programme on Social
Exclusion Phase 1 REF: Department: DG EMPL/E/2 Ex-ante publicity: ref. No: OJ2002/C98/10 of 23/04/02 Call for proposal: ref. No: VP/2002/010 SAGA: record No: 2002/vpo10/10005 Commitment No SI2.342554 1. Introduction 2 Evaluation
Framework 3 Summary
of inputs and outputs 4 Mechanisms 5 Process
of Evaluation 5.1 Evaluation
of Parallel Working Groups by Planning Group 5.2
Evaluation of Parallel Working Groups by Seminar Participants 5.3
Self-Evaluation of Planning Group 5.4 What
we valued in the Berlin Seminar 6 Conclusions of Self-Evaluation
6.1
Shortcomings of evaluation 6.2
Lessons from evaluation 6.3
Balance of process and product 6.4
Integrated evaluation 6.5
Planning 6.6
Partnership and exchange 1.
Introduction:
This self-evaluation should be read in conjunction with the Report
to the European Commission on the European Project on “Good
Practice on Community Development” July 2003, it does not stand alone. The
Achieving Better Community Development (ABCD) evaluation framework was adapted
for use in the self-evaluation of the CEBSD
project on Good Practice in Community Development. This framework is
appropriate because of its emphasis on evaluation being an integral part of
community development. However there it has not been possible to fully utilise
this framework in Phase 1. When the application of ABCD evaluation to the
project was discussed and analysed by the project, a process of setting
indicators to measure output and outcomes was proposed. This was rejected at
the second meeting of the planning group as too complex given the timescale and
the resources of the project and the commitments of the planning group. The
self-evaluation was however seen as integral to the process of planning and
incorporated into the meetings of the Planning Group and the Seminar. The
following description gives a simpler and more realistic evaluation of Phase 1,
based on reflection and analysis on the process, on how the partnership
functioned and a broad assessment of whether the inputs matched outputs. 2.
Evaluation Framework:
The following extract from the ABCD pack and website describes the approach to
evaluation: “Evaluation should be integral to community
development §
evaluation is fundamental to empowerment of
communities §
evaluation is part of the learning organisation §
community development has measurable outputs and outcomes
§
evaluation has to be a participative process in
which the community are real partners §
the approach should be indicative, not prescriptive §
community development, and its evaluation, should be
considered at policy, programme and project levels” (www.scdc.org.uk) The
definition of terms used: inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes has been
taken from the ABCD Trainer’s Resource Pack, Alan Barr and Stuart Hashagen,
Community Development Foundation (www.cdf.org.uk) The evaluation is informed by
the ethos of community development as described in the ABCD framework and in
the Core principles for Community Development (see CEBSD “Good Practice”
Project Pack and www.scdc.org.uk) 3. Summary of inputs and outputs
4. Mechanisms
q
The planning group will set up the evaluation
process at the meeting in Brussels in November 2002. The planning group
evaluate progress on the project’s objectives at meetings in Oreboro, March
2003 and Frankfurt May 2003. q
Updates and reports were circulated by e-mail to the
planning group by the co-ordinator q
Self-evaluation exercises were carried out using a workshop
with partners in Frankfurt and Café Dialogue with participants in the Berlin
Seminar 5. Process of Evaluation 5.1 Evaluation of Parallel Working Groups by
Planning Group in Frankfurt Mat 2003
5.2 Evaluation of Parallel Working Groups by Seminar
Participants
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.
5.3 Self-Evaluation of Planning Group in Frankfur t
Mat 2003
Parallel working groups - What we 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.
5.4 What we valued in the Berlin Seminar
What we disagreed about in 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
6. Conclusions of
Self-Evaluation
6.1 Shortcomings of evaluation:
The following shortcomings in the process of evaluation were identified: - §
The planning group had too many tasks so could not
give the evaluation the attention it needs. §
More understanding of ABCD method of evaluation is
needed at the outset in all working §
Groups if it is to be effective. §
Sharing the evaluation process by e-mail is not
sufficient. Ideally it should have some training built in and it should be made
accessible to all participants. §
More independent observation of the process and
evaluation of the results needed. 6.2 Lessons from
evaluation
The following lessons were drawn: §
The approach to group cohesion used by the planning
group really works and merits some more reflection and analysis. §
More preparation and more planning should go into
the setting of parallel tasks. This was too rushed and there was insufficient
discussion in the planning group before the first meetings of working groups. §
Working groups need to review aims and objectives at
each meeting but need to find an interesting way to do this that relates
abstraction to practical level. §
More exchange with other projects working on Social
Inclusion would assist reflection and evaluation of the results. §
The commitment to continuing the work is very strong §
More follow-up of dissemination needed to find out
whether results are used more widely or not 6.3Balance of process and product:
The relationship of process to product is one, which merits more in-depth
evaluation in the work of the partners in this project. Their conscious efforts
to achieve a balance on this and the level of success they have achieved in
spite of the complexity merit further analysis. The level of success in
achieving a parallel process in the working groups and in achieving group
cohesion within the broad remit of the project is not sufficiently analysed from
a more objective position. It appears to be too closely linked to the
personalities and abilities of the teamwork. An external evaluation may help
extract the transferable skills. 6.4 Integrated evaluation:
The different methodologies and different context of the partners makes it
difficult to create instruments of evaluation that all partners are comfortable
with. There is shared commitment to evaluation but not enough capacity to
translate that commitment into integration of evaluation into everyday practice.
In a self-evaluation it can slip down the priority list. On the positive side
the process of evaluation, with all its shortcomings helped keep the project on
track with its objectives and helped refine those objectives into a more
realistic project. There are insufficient resources to allocate to a full
evaluation of the work of this project but there is commitment to advice and
support to improve the level of evaluation in Phase 2. 6.5 Planning: The
importance of a planning process, which is collectively owned and understood
from the outset, has been reinforced in the planning group. Different
methodologies employed by working groups in the first meeting makes it harder
to compare results of the second and third meetings. Participation in planning
the Berlin seminar was significantly more collective than the parallel planning
of working groups. Partners needed more time to familiarise themselves with the
material and to plan the work.
6.6 Partnership and exchange: The partners and
participants in the project valued the opportunity to exchange experience and
have benefited from the project to a very high degree. There is a consistently
high level of satisfaction among partners on the quality of the partnership and
the working methods. The partnership has shown its ability to incorporate new
members and is enthusiastic to take forward the experience and results of Phase
1 into Phase 2. Note: This self-evaluation should be read in
conjunction with the Report to the European Commission
on the European Project on “Good Practice on Community Development” July 2003 Combined European
Bureau for Social Development C/o Gerard Hautekeur VIBOSO Vooruitgangstraat 323 B-1030 Brussels Belgium T: + 322 201 0565 F: + 322 201 0514 e-mail: g.hautekeur@viboso.be For further information contact: Margo Gorman, Co-ordinator:
margogorman@eircom.net T: +3537323129
Note: CEBSD’s European Project on “Good Practice in
Community Development” has received funding from the European Commission under
Phase 1 of European Community Action Programme on Social Exclusion. However
CEBSD documents reflect the views of CEBSD and the Commission is not liable for
the use that may be made of the information contained therein. Appendix B Combined European Bureau for
Social Development Programme 1.1
Seminar in Berlin
Centre
Français: Müllerstraße 74, D-13349 Berlin Participants: 25th June – 29th June
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||