Hauptpreisträger
des Förderpreises „Demokratie
leben“ des Deutschen Bundestages 1997
Combined European Bureau for
Social Development
TLCD: Training and Learning
for Community Development:
EAC/61/2006 Key Activity 4:
Dissemination and Exploitation of Results
Report:
Relay visit
Key questions / issues of the
relay:
·
The role of training and learning for community
Development
(diversity – different
approaches - broad picture –shared understanding)
·
“TLCD for social change!”
·
How to use exchange of practice to influence policy in
the field of TLCD?
(24 – 65 age group)
·
How to identify possible multipliers?
Agenda of the relay
|
Monday |
Starting session |
Welcome and programme Practical information Reports from other relays Presentation of the Lernhaus Pohlstraße |
|
Monday |
Input and discussion |
(TL for ) CD in Prof. Leo Penta / KHSB |
|
Tuesday |
Comparison CD and Community Organizing |
Continue discussion started in
the relay to Banska Bystrica |
|
Tuesday |
TLCD for policy makers I |
Examples of Idébanken and CESAM |
|
Tuesday |
TLCD for policy makers II |
Examples of Idébanken and CESAM |
|
Wednesday |
conclusions |
Main results and questions of the Berlin Relay What to take to the laboratory? How to identify and involve multipliers? Connections with other projects / networks (presentation of the
Leonardo CEST project of Technologie Netzwerk |
|
Wednesday |
Field visit to the SprengelHaus |
Presentation and discussion of
projects, structure and possible future developments of Sprengelhaus |
LOGO Grundtvig
Participants and apologies
Host organisation:
Kommunales Forum Wedding e.V., Wiesenstraße 29, 13357 Berlin –
www.alles-in-arbeit.de
Organizer of the relay and at
the meeting: Hans – Georg Rennert kom.forum.rennert@web.de
Participants
– representatives of partners of the consortium:
Chuck Hirt - CKO – Centrum
Komunitného Organizovania - www.cko.sk - chuck@cko.sk
Kirsten Paaby – Stiftelsen Idébanken - www.idebanken.no - kirsten@idebanken.no
apologies
by the following partners of the consortium:
ARDC –Asocietia Roman de Dezvoltare Comunitara - www.ardc.ro – (Christina Vlad)
CESAM – Stiftelsen Centrum för somhällsarbete och mobilisering - www.cesam.swe – (Hans Andersson)
Participants
– from Berlin from different organizations connected to the
Landesnetzwerk für Gemeinwesensarbeit und soziale Stadtteilentwicklung
Berlin:
Claudia Schwarz – Kommunales Forum Wedding e.V. –
cl-schwarz@t-online.de
Dr. Günther Lorenz – Technologie Netzwerk Berlin e.V. – g.lorenz@technet-berlin.de –
www.technet-berlin.de
Prof. Leo Penta – Katholische Hochschule für Sozialwesen Berlin – penta@khsb-berlin.de –
www.dico-berlin.de
Monika Götz – Gruppe unabhängige Bürger in der Bürgerplattform Wedding
/ Moabit (im Aufbau) – moni@our.school.com;
www.dico-berlin.de
Sabine Weskott – SOS Familienzentrum Berlin – sabine.weskott@sos-kinderdorf.de;
www.sos.familienzentrum-berlin.de
Hosts in the Lernhaus Pohlstraße
Herbert Teichmann –
Volkshochschule Berlin Mitte – info@lernhaus.net
– www.lernhaus.net
Robin Bodenhaupt –
contra medienwerkstatt e.V. – info@contravision.de
– www.contravision.de
Akinola Famson – BDB –
Hosts of field visit to the
„SprengelHaus – intercultural community centre with health care”
Andrea Delitz-
Gemeinsam im Stadtteil e.V. – info@gisev.de;
www.gisev.de
Monika Hartwig –
Kommunales Forum Wedding e.V. – Projekt Arbeit
und Nachbarschaft
Willy Achter
–Stadtteilgenossenschaft Wedding eG und Kommunales Forum Wedding e.V. – info@stadtteilgenossenschaft-wedding.de,
www.stadtteilgenossenschaft-wedding.de
Introduction of the
participants:
|
Claudia Schwarz |
originally landscape planner; since 1989 in local (community)
development, social economy, “Planning for Real”; at the moment studies on
adult education – Euro Net |
|
Chuck Hirt |
came to |
|
Kirsten Paaby |
a Norwegian Dane; teacher for literature and drama Action research to develop future workshops (Zukunftswerkstätten) Since 1995 Idebanken – creativity and sustainablilty – CEBSD executive
|
|
Monika Götz |
originally phyio therapist; actively involved in setting up the first
hospiz in |
|
Hans – Georg Rennert |
originally landscape planner; since 1989 in local (community)
development, social economy –co-ordinator of the Landesnetzwerk
Gemeinwesenarbeit und soziale Stadtteilentwicklung |
Günther Lorenz, Leo
Penta and Sabine Weskott took each part for one session only
Presentation of the venue of
the relay:
The „Lernhaus Pohlstrasse”
- – an open house for (lifelong)
Learning
In 2001 the adult education centre
(Volkshochschule Berlin Mitte) set up the Lernhaus Pohlstraße as a centre with
a new and comprehensive range of services around (lifelong) learning and advice
in the neighbourhood for the neighbourhood. Premises in an old school building
that had been not used for a while were refurbished and adapted for these
purposes. Now, 15 rooms for classes and seminars and some special rooms for
specific use are being run by the Volkshochschule Berlin Mitte in co-operation
with NGOs. The classes and courses of the VHS - such like ‘German as a foreign
language’ - are being supplemented by courses and services of NGOs in the
Lernhaus such as the “Computersalon” or advice on inclusion for migrants. This
way the Volkshochschule Berlin Mitte created an open house for (lifelong)
learning which is unique in
Herbert Teichmann of the Volkshochschule
presented the Lernhaus and explained some of the different courses and services
‘on offer’ on a tour through the Lernhaus: “Schule in der Volkshochule” – a
course for young adults who for whatever reason left school without certificate
during which they are being prepared for the secondary school exam (Mittlerer
Schulabschluss) and the Eltern - Mediencafé where parents with migrant
background are being introduced into the use of IT and the German language
while their children are at school. The contra Medienwerkstatt introduces young
adults to techniques to produce videos and raises a critical awareness towards
mass media. The
Contact names and addresses to be found on the
first page of the report.
Photos.
Lernhaus
Poster
Flipchart
agenda
The field of TLCD”
Hans –
Georg Rennert presented a sketch / graphic on “The field of Training and
Learning for Community Development” as an orientation for the discussion and
work on the topic. It is meant to simplify and visualize different approaches
and perspectives to TLCD. This sketch is a product of CEBSD’s seminar in
Introduction on the TLCD
project
Kirsten
Paaby gave an introduction on the TLCD project of CEBSD which is only summed up
very briefly here:
·
Budapest
Declaration 2004 has got some paragraphs on TLCD and Adult Education
·
the
“Thematic Seminar” on TLCD was set up by CEBSD in order to develop these ideas
further and put them into a framework: “Developing Guidelines on Training and
learning for community Development”
·
the
content of the Guidelines and the development process of the Guidelines which
involved more than 30 organisations from 17 countries are the foundation for
the TLCD Key 4 activities and
·
the
nucleus for a broader network: the consortium comprises 16 partner
organisations; the dissemination activities will bring in a number of more
multipliers in order to possibly create
·
a
broader network which will be based on exchange of practice
TLCD relay visits – main
issues of previous relays
(in the
view of the
·
Assessed
the need for TLCD especially or in depth for professionals (persons who get
paid to do community development work),
·
but
also for grass – root –activists and for elected representatives
·
The
participants mainly dealt with the question “How to combine specified
vocational training with non-formal education for CD?”; other issues were
·
The
Importance of getting to know each other’s national and professional contexts
and history in order to acknowledge diversity and to develop a shared
understanding from this basis
·
The
growing recognition of the importance of ACTION
·
CD
is getting more and more in integral part of area regeneration policies and
political frameworks (White Paper on CD; “local strategic partnerships” and
“community empowerment networks”
·
Voluntary
(?) sector organisations part of this and focussing on service delivery
·
Dilemma:
it’s more and more about “Managing Community Development” and service delivery
and less and less about community development work
·
Almost
no profession Community Development work
·
NGOs
and citizens’ movement with focus on civil society (campaigns on the importance
of voting) slowly emerge the view onto community (and local development)
·
Very
limited resources do exist in the neighbourhoods (no infrastructure such as
community centres), but so far hardly any residential segregation
·
The
introduction of methodologies and the action connected to this opened up space
for community development (a learning experience for activists)
·
Watch
out when using terms “citizen” (Staatsbürger) and “active citizenship”- who has
got the status and the legal rights as citizen – and who has not? (migrants
etc.)
Notes on the Presentation of
Leo Penta and the discussion on:
Training and learning for
Community Development in Germany
(The
presentation developed into a vivid and intensive discussion – the ‘reporter’
tries to give the main thoughts and the context and highlights some of the strong
phrases used - HGR)
Leo Penta’s
first experience with Community Organizing was in
Since 1996 he
has been in Germany at the Catholic University of Applied Sciences Berlin
(KHSB): Professor of Community Development / Community Economic Development and
head of the „Deutsches Institut für Community Organizing“ or DICO (www.dico-berlin.de) which was set up by the KHSB
in order to promote and support the development of community organizing in
Germany
Best
starting point: look at where people are acting together
There is a
lot of action but not a lot of collective
public action and reflection
And there
is not a broad space (or: tradition) for civil society in
Community
development work (Gemeinwesenarbeit = GWA) was introduced into
Some key
persons for the introduction of GWA were inspired in the
But general
attitude / reception of CD: nice in the
In the
70ies and 80ies in the context of conflicts connected to urban regeneration
(active citizens and key persons against demolition and gentrification): the
second wave of the reception of GWA / CD and the foundation of a lot of NGOs in
the field of local development such as e.g. in Berlin: SO 36, Stadtteilverein
Tiergarten e.V., Moabiter Ratschlag e.V., Fabrik Osloer Straße e.V. – often
these association run community centers
(HGR: Third
wave at the end of the 90ies in the context of the programme “Soziale Stadt” –
urban social development – www.sozialestadt.de)
– the programmatic texts describe (parts of) Community Development work –
without using the term CD or GWA)
One should
not forget the 1989 democratic revolution in the GDR which has influenced the
discussion on civil society in Germany
The discussions on GWA are often about service
delivery – they lack the discussion (and the living of) a democratic culture
This is /
would mean:
How do
people come together and start acting together on the basis of democratic
values?
How do you
encourage collective public action?
“Participatory processes are messy” –
they are about contradictions and conflicts – the question is how to handle
these conflicts – the first issue is
about respect / recognition as a partner
The
importance of Hannah Arendt’s work and idea (for Leo Penta looking at these
processes):
·
the
practical context in which these processes take place
·
around
personal self interest – connected to common needs
·
using
the framework of the democratic society as a basic force
(Collective)
action as the most human of activities for Hannah Arendt
Leo Penta:
ein “handlungsfähiges Wir” – (create
an) WE that is able to act
Democratic
culture: it means to reverse the whole usual pattern / attitudes:
Service
delivery (by local state or NGOs)
We fund
projects and establish something for (the sake of) the people
We have got
it – and we expect them to come!
The service
delivery and public funding cycle can lead to “political pornography” (Saul
Alinsky), or more elegantly the dilemma of the welfare state as enunciated by
J. Habermas
BUT: voting
every so often is not enough (and by the way: Who has got voting rights and who
doesn’t?)
A strong
civil society is the opposite side needed for a strong democratic culture and
an accountable democratic state
Often there
is participatory language in many programs (e.g. Neighborhoos Management
/Quartiersmanagement) but: where is the punch? How real is it?
Is it only playing
at democracy? Is it used only within a limited frameworks of programmes and
projects? Are these about keeping control?
“Participatory processes are messy” –
they are “off the leash” . There is also a question of respect for participants
and recognition of their interests
Act and
reflect: collective public action as a
learning experience – mainly for the citizen leaders who are not paid to
carry out these actions (non – professionals) as well as for the professional
organizers.
“My main
concern is not the politicians – it is the people, the ordinary citizens”
“I don’t
want to convince them (the politicians) any more – I want to do it!”
There is a
great need in current society for professionals who are able to do this relational work: making contact with
the potential actors, potential leaders (non – professionals) and work them and
connect them into a “handlungsfähiges Wir”
The best learning environment for the future
professionals is / would be to do this work in an accompanied environment: doing – mentoring / coaching -
reflecting
That’s why
the KHSB set up the “Deutsches Institut für Community Organizing” DICO and why
Leo Penta practices community organizing in
“Collective Public Action and
Active Citizenship for Social Change” -
A
Comparison of the Community Development and the Community Organizing approach
in order to
open the eyes for the role of Training and learning in these approaches – and
NOT aimed at dividing these approaches
|
|
Community Development |
Community Organizing |
|
Relation
to each other |
Can find
too disconnected to citizens as result of intermediary role Can lead
to CO |
Complementary
to CD but important to keep separate Can lead
to CDwork |
|
Values |
Including
excluded Sustainability participation |
Relationship
building Change
balance of power People
experience own power |
|
Role of staff and training |
Intermediary Facilitator Sometimes
leader Community
development worker often sees him/herself in the centre (intermediary
position) |
Organizer
organises community groups and supports / trains activists “Don’t do
what others can do themselves!” |
|
Role of citizens and training |
Capacity
building and empowerment but HOW? Often no
visible role of training of citizens / non professionals |
Provide
leadership and participate in action Training
of activists integral part of CO |
|
Accountability (to whom?) |
Primarily
to citizens But also
NGOs, local authorities and local businesses |
Only to
citizens |
|
Main activities / basic tasks |
Analysis Build
partnerships Variety
of methodologies |
Listen
(RELATIONS!) Research ACTION Build
organisation |
|
Desired outcome |
Improvement
of living conditions New
solutions sustainability |
Strong
multi – issue citizens’ organisation Problems
solved |
|
Options for funding |
Often
oriented towards public funding |
Almost a
rule not to seek public funding – oriented towards other sources |
|
Attitude towards (own) power |
Not
discussed so much Power
balance “shared
power” |
Fundamental
focus on power Alter
balance of power “Citizens
at table” |
Community economical development as a third (complement) column to
CD and CO:
The
importance of local social economy / social enterprises as a part of the
citizens’ power
The participants agreed to add descriptions of
some concrete examples as a supplement for the comparison of CD with CO which
is based on generalisations. We agreed on the
· “Bürgerplattform Wedding / Moabit” (im Aufbau) – Monika
·
Podlavice
obcianska initiativa - Chuck
·
Sagene
community centre - Kirsten
These
descriptions can be found as a supplement at the end of this report
TLCD for Policy makers
Example from the Ideas Bank,
presentation by
In the discussion related to
Leo Penta’s presentation one issue was the ambiguity and contradictions between
organising and development, the participation from bottom-up and the critical
question around “managing participation” (in some situation this means keeping
control). As well we talked about all the words and definitions that are used
to describe participation. One question was “From all the participatory
language - where is the beef?” One key issue that Leo stated was related to the
concepts of “respect” and “recognition” – this again was related to the
question about the importance of relational work. In many ways the Ideas Bank in its work tries
to work in and with this contradiction and ambiguity. We are working with and
training both those that “manage” participation and make policy for democratic
participation as well as citizens’ group. Related to the discussion on the
concepts of Community Development and Community Organising we are in focused on
the intermediary role.
The Ideas Bank works with
renewing of the democracy and development of methods for participation as a
cornerstone of our work for sustainable development and the Local Agenda
I illustrated my presentation
with two requisites: A miniature of the Earth, a globe formed as a ball and a
pair of small baby boots as symbols of the global threats that we have to
solve. Our unsustainable consumption needs to be changed. If everybody consumed as
the average citizen in
The Ideas Bank works primarily
at the national level. The learners we are reaching represent administrators in
municipalities, politicians, different educational institutions both formal and
non-formal, citizens and different organisations in the civil society. The main objectives are:
1. Pedagogical presentations
of the concept of sustainable community
development in the broad perspective which involves each side of the
triangle: the ecological, economical and social dimension
2. Methods for democratic dialogues and participation
3. Collecting and disseminating of good examples of projects that can
earn high interest in the shape of a better and more sustainable future. We
have over years developed a database with examples that represents best practices
in resource conservation, global responsibility and developing of vibrant local
communities. We focus as well at
4. Dissemination of the best practice examples through website, new
letters, articles and publications as well as different democratic and
participatory methods and processes, such as the so-called Dialogue-workshop.
Through this work we intend to influence the policy and the public debate and
stimulate the discussion of a more sustainable future.
A part of our training and
learning activities around democratic participation in a sustainable community
development takes place in the field of life long learning with a focus on
strengthening the capacity and competence in taking action towards
sustainability. We work actively in different levels with the UN Decade for
Education for Sustainable Development. Together with partners in
The headline for my
presentation was meant to be “TLCD for
policymakers”.
Since 2007 and during the
coming 3 years we have assisted and will be assisting the programme “Liveable
Communities” with the above mentioned objectives. (The programme is supported by the Ministry
of Environmental Affairs and is led by The Norwegian Association of Local and
Regional Authorities.) Among 100 municipalities are at the moment taking part
in the programme and work together in thematically networks. The target groups
are local elected politicians, heads of the municipality administrations and
professionals from the municipality administration. One “red thread” through the
programme is the role of the municipality as community developer in
co-operation with the private sector and the civil society. We have developed 3
training modules towards the program, based on the Ideas Banks main objectives
mentioned above.
I have been responsible of the
module “Methods for dialogue and partnership in a sustainable community
development”. The module is based on the hypothesis that:
- Participative democracy is a precondition for
sustainable community development.
- That implementation of participation in the local
communities need to be anchored in a long-term political process
- The participatory processes have to thematize
central dilemmas of a sustainable community development: How we act, live
and plan today has an influence on the lives of those not yet born an
influence on the nature resources and the balance between the rich and the
poor part of the world (I refer to the “requisites”)
Through the training sessions
the participants in the programme are practising different participatory
methods to make their work concrete and through this learning in the second
hand to get to know - through “the hands on work” - how the methods can be used
in participatory processes with the citizens, organisations, the private sector
in their local communities as a part of the community-developer role.
My experience is that it is
possible “to convince politicians” – and that it is of vital importance to
include policymakers as a target group when it comes to training and learning
for community development. As described
in the attached article about the Sagene Agenda 21 Centre the local elected in
this district of Oslo wanted to experiment with and renew their role as
politicians. Could this and other
similar examples contribute to a fruitful discussion, development and change?
Could it give inspiration and practical guidance to how to work with the above
mentioned ambiguity – in training sessions with politicians and citizens at the
same table?
CEST – Innovation Transfer (founded within the Leonardo
programme)
Project presentation by Dr. Günther Lorenz,
Technologie – Netzwerk Berlin e.V.
Further Training in the area
of Local Social Economy is not very much mainstreamed so far; its quality could
be improved either. The objective of this project is to transfer an already
successfully tested curriculum (CEST) in a way that multipliers individually
can apply, assess and monitor it. National relay stations in
The four general topics or headlines for the transfer workshops are: the
future of economy – the future of work – community
development – social enterprise culture
Günther Lorenz states that the partners are interested in making links
to the TLCD project.
Field visit to the
intercultural community centre with health care:
The SprengelHaus has got three
strands of origins which let to its foundation:
·
The community development work of Kommunales Forum
Wedding e.V.(KFW) in the “Sprengelkiez” since 1993 – for a long time without
funding and without programmes or policies supporting these activities
·
The Nachbarschaftsladen “Aktiv im Kiez” which
originally had been set up by KFW; later the running of the small neighbourhood
centre had been taken over by the groups and persons who mostly used it
·
The “Quartiersmanagement Sparrplatz” – ‘neighbourhood
management’ – based on a federal and regional programme on urban social
development in Germany (Soziale Stadt – look at www.sozialestadt.de with information in
English also) – which provided start – up – founding to refurbish the premises
in the Sprengelstraße 15 and for the initial phase of the SprengelHaus.
The ideas behind the
SprengelHaus were / are
·
to develop a key element of the social infrastructure in
a sustainable way
·
to pool resources and combine services for the sake of
the disadvantaged area of the ‘Sprengelkiez’ – neighbourhood “under one roof” -
or in other words
·
to open the premises for the use of a broad variety of
individuals, initiatives and organisations
The premises of the
SprengelHaus comprise: 1. an open door – area for residents seeking and getting
advice and for self – organized groups (130 square metres), 2. a
“Bildungsetage” for training and learning of / with unemployed (250 sm) 3. a
gym plus sanitary area for active health care (100 sm) plus 4. offices of the
association running the Sprengelhaus (Gemeinsam im Stadtteil e.V.) and of the
Stadtteilgenossenschaft Wedding eG - the
neighbourhood co-operative (40 sm each)
Conclusions: Main results and
questions of the
What to take to the laboratory
on the
issue of collective public action and Training and Learning for active citizenship
·
(focus
on) learning experiences for activists / citizens= non professionals (not paid
for CO / CD work)
·
BASED
ON ACTION (‘hands – on learning’) –
learning by doing including reflection
·
Not
by ‘courses’ but need for new forms of ‘learning experiences’ – where the actions
takes place or is being organised
·
What
are supportive structures for that?
·
What
is the role of (potential) partners like e.g. CD organisations or
Volkshochschulen ( = adult education / lifelong learning institutions)?
·
Need
for exchange of “active citizens’ organisations” (of non – professionals)
·
Watch out when using terms “citizen” (Staatsbürger) and “active
citizenship”- who has got the status and the legal rights as citizen – and who
has not? (migrants etc.)
·
Then
language becomes an issue (role of
informal communication)
·
To
work consciously with language barriers is not a problem but a potential and a
resource
·
This
means: development of communication skills as a task and an issue for possible
follow – up projects of TLCD
·
Work
in practice on this with creative approaches already during the laboratory!
BEWARE of
the fact.
- Need to find more resources for
collective public action as the starting point!
AND:
- What are the links to
vocational training for CD / CO professionals?
Feed – back on the relay
–visit:
·
Learnings
and open questions of the Banska Bystrica relay were taken into the
·
Participants
could grasp the benefits of cumulative content /the growing knowledge from
relay to relay
·
Advantages
of working in a small group (flexibility, discussions in depth)
·
Invitation
of participants from
·
Visualisation
of discussion (flip chart) very useful –especially for those participants who
only took part in some sessions
·
Kirsten
missed the practical use of own creative methods / other ways of communication
(and felt too insecure to introduce this) – Monika liked it the way it was,
esp. because of advantage of a small group and the honesty and directness
between us
·
Venue
and very helpful staff plus location of hotel in the vicinity were great
DON’T miss
the discussion points / issues we put aside! Like:
·
The
Nordic model (local government / local democracy / local election turn out)
·
Who
has got voting rights? And what does this mean? (What effects does this have?)
·
Strong
civil society is the opposite side needed of a strong political society
·
Managed
participation
·
The
first issue is respect / recognition as a partner
·
Participatory
processes are messy – they involve contradictions and conflicts – the question
is how you deal with them
·
Practice
before reflection!
Hgr, 290608
Appendixes:
Brief descriptions of examples
Bürgerplattform Wedding –
Podlavice Obcienska
Initiativa in Banska Bystrica (by Chuck
Hirt)
Sagene Community Centre in
Olso (by Kirsten Paaby)
|
Monika Götz |
Notes on Example: Bürgerplattform
Wedding – |
|
Brief Description of project
and context The goal is: |
The ‘Bürgerplattform’ is working toward the establishment of a
Citizens’ Platform in two contiguous districts of The strategic goal is to empower participants - members of civil
society - to present their requests to local government officials on the
level of equals. This is based on the belief that democracy can only flourish
when people, both citizens and resident aliens, feel their recommendations
and suggestions for solutions to problems and demands for improvement of the
current situations are taken seriously.
We seek to increase the efficacy of independent, self-organized
individuals at the local level. |
|
Values |
Building relationships based on trust among the platform’s participants,
empowering civil society in the district, and changing the balance of power. |
|
Role of staff and training |
The organizer (a paid professional) organizes and informs the
different groups, facilitates the networking among them, and organizes
meetings, events, actions, and the official foundation of the “platform”. A
vital part of the process is the training of key members of the civil society
for them to be able to take over tasks during the organization of the platform
as well as of the actions. Important
issues addressed in training seminars are: building trust and relationships;
active listening; negotiating; setting aside personal interests and perceived
needs for the betterment of the whole; and withstanding setbacks and
overcoming obstacles in unity. |
|
Role of citizens and
training |
Participate in training seminars in order to take over leadership
positions in the platform, organize events and actions, and negotiate with
local politicians and key members of the business world. |
|
Accountability (to whom?) |
The organizer is accountable to no one but the citizens she works with. |
|
Main activities / basic
tasks |
Building dependable relationships, foundation / building up the
platform, research, negotiation with local politics and business,
organization of actions and events, and constantly strengthening/enlarging
the platform. |
|
Desired outcome |
Organized, strong and powerful citizens who care and work for the
improvement of their neighborhood and civil society. Problem solving on a local level and support of and networking with
other platforms in |
|
Options for funding |
Membership fees, donations from supporters like local companies,
housing organisations, foundations, etc. No public funding! |
|
Attitude towards (own) power |
Power is a vital element for the platform, and its use is important
for changing and keeping the power balance. Civil society and individuals are
to be empowered to negotiate as equals with representatives of government and
business to solve problems in their neighborhood. |
|
Chuck Hirt |
Podlavice
Obcienska |
Initiaitiva |
|
|
Community Development |
Community Organizing |
|
Relation to each other |
The work
in the Podlavice neighbourhood started as a community organizing effort but
community development became an important contribution several years after
starting. A number of different issues
were able to be addressed. This part
of the work started with community events like St. Nicholas Day and grew into
getting a grant to construct children play areas and shortly thereafter, a
neighbourhood initiated urban plan which guided future investments. |
The work
in the Podlavice neighbourhood started as a community organizing effort with
a few successful campaigns. It led to
an interest to move into a broader development effort where a plan was
prepared for the neighbourhood which was initiated by architects from the
neighbourhood. |
|
Values |
Sustainability Participation Multiple
issues |
Relationship
building Change
balance of power People
experience own power |
|
Role of staff and training |
This role
was not played by CKO during this process. Activists
from the neighbourhood took on the role in leading a participatory planning
effort which eventually resulted in a number of significant improvements. |
A
community organizer began the effort by knocking on doors and helping people
to come together. They brought
activists together to build their own organization starting with helping
leaders to prepare for meetings. They
offered suggestions on strategies for campaigns and at times agitated people
to take actions. After the group had
won their first two campaigns, a formal training on community organizing for
leaders was offered and the organizer assisted in delivering this
training. Training was also offered
for other activists on local fund raising.
The organizer helped them to set goals and develop their two week
effort to go door-to-door. |
|
Role of citizens and training |
Citizens
also provided leadership in this area as there was no one from the city
interested in doing this. Several
architects in the neighbourhood took the lead to prepare urban design ideas
and the neighbourhood group was able to convince city staff to eventually
participate. Not training occurred. |
Provided
leadership, ran meetings and were active.
The organizer provided consultation and discussions with leaders
throughout the work. Formal training
was provided the organizer but only following several campaigns. |
|
Staff Accountability (to whom?) |
Not
applicable as there were no staff assigned.
But relationships between citizens and city were a critical dimension
in this area. |
The
organizer’s accountability was entirely to the citizens of the neighbourhood. |
|
Main activities / basic tasks |
Staff did
not carry out this activity but leaders agreed to prepare a plan and to work
to get the city to eventually finalize and support their plan. An analysis of problems and possible
solutions was conducted. Strategies
were proposed and modified following citizen comments. City planners were originally uncomfortable
working with citizens but eventually found it effective. |
The
organizer started with listening (going door-to-door) which was fundamentally
about building relationships and learning about people’s self-interest. The
second stage was to do research (or doing homework on the chosen
problem). The third stage was to
prepare their strategy and to act.
This work was primarily focused around building their organisation. |
|
Desired outcome |
Plans
developed and implemented. A number of
problems were addressed through this process. |
Strong
multi – issue citizens’ organisation developed. A number of problems were solved such as
getting a post office in the neighbourhood, get city to cut overgrown
weeds. Also organized events such as
Children’s Day and St. Nicholas events which were supported with their own
funds. |
|
Options for funding |
There was
no funding available for the planning.
It occurred on a volunteer basis.
City funds were used to pay for most improvements but also private
investments including a new church and a grocery store with amenities like
additional parking and trash collection bins improved can from private
sources. |
Outside
funding ( |
|
Attitude towards (own) power |
There was
no real discussion about power in this process. The primary issue was related to
relationship building between the neighbourhood activists and the city – both
the planning department and administration. |
Fundamental
focus on power (e.g. citizens shifted the attitude of the postal service
about whether to locate a new site in the neighbourhood). They altered the balance of power as the
city began to respect the initiative.
After a number of successful campaigns and citizens being active in
pre-election activities, city officials agreed to meet with citizens when
asked. |
Sagene community centre:
Democracy – not just for the privileged.
An article from the
Ideas Bank yearbook 2006 “The Room of Possibilities” by Kirsten Paab
In October 2005 The
Ideas bank Foundation held a seminar about “Democratic renewal” at the Sagene community centre in
The house has existed since 1979, but got a
“new life” in 2001, when the municipality
chose to make it the focal point for developing new local democratic
processes as important supplements to the representative democracy. Through
this commitment, the local district council wanted to gather “hands-on”
experience and develop new perspectives on their own
role and that of the local community. This was to happen in active partnership
with the population. Sagene city district
is facing big changes. A great number of people are moving into the area,
and at the same time it is the municipality with the highest rate of public
housing in
Community development
- The foundation for the way we work is what
the Dalai Lama calls “a policy of kindness” with a focus on a common good: - I am because WE are, says project leader Susan M. Guerra. She speaks
enthusiastically about the work that takes place in the house with a touch of
an American accent. – The approach to our
work is community development, something
that I have long experience with both from
Creative dialogue as a
tool
There have been many types of dialogues with
the community, and more is being planned. There have been big public meetings
that have taken the form of café dialogues, future workshops, art projects and
other creative approaches. Guerra describes how they have initiated a project
for further development of the area. Here the
Local Agenda 21 forum has had a leading and independent role in cooperating
with politicians and administration: - We
created an interest for the public meeting by printing a newspaper with visions
from the future. In text and words we described how it was in the area around
the community centre in the future. On the last page there was an invitation to
a public meeting. This really got people thinking! People read it as a normal
newspaper. 150 people came to the meeting. They were active at the meeting, and their involvement has
continued. A lot of the suggestions that came up are still being worked with, Susan says with a
satisfied glint in the eye.
Local Agenda 21 forum
The Local Agenda 21 forum is an independent
citizen’s forum. It has representatives from different groups and organisations
in the local community. One member from the local district council is
attending, but a conscious choice has been made so that it is not the
politicians who are leading the work of this forum. What is interesting from a
political point of view is that the Forum can present their plans directly to
the politicians. There is a focus on using the role of the different
participants to achieve their goals. - It is crucial that the forum is
autonomous. Our challenge has been to be
aware of our role: Not to take control and act like experts, but use our skills
in a constructive way. The Forum has worked under the right type of conditions
– independence both in relation to their funds and how they use them. We are
secretaries and pose as the link to the administration. Right now we are
discussing if the forum is going to establish itself as a foundation, so that
they can enter as a partner in the management partnership that we have started,
Guerra says.
Mural project
Guerra and her colleagues have focused a lot on
communication in the broad sense while
facilitating the activities in the centre. - We are constantly searching for alternative ways of communication that
we can use in our work. How can we find mutual expressions for all the
different opinions and experiences that exist among the multitude of people
that are using this house? This was some of the driving force behind of
Mural project, were we wanted to use the
wall to signal “This is a place you
can come in!” We were inspired by the muralist movement in Mexico City in the
1930s, who gave a voice to groups in the population that were not being heard,
Permacultural
sculptures
The community centre has also focused on
different ways to learn from the South. One of the important cooperation
partners for the house is the organisation Change the World. They gave an
innovative contribution to the development of the local park area in the form
of permacultural sculptures. With their guidance, and inspired by a visit to an
Eco village east in
The running of the project received great attention and resulted in interesting meetings and
conversations between the youth and curious residents in the area. There were
many that wanted to make something similar and others volunteered to water the
plants and herbs when they heard that all were welcomed to harvest from the
sculptural beds. - This is a practical
way to work with lifelong learning that has inspired us and that we want to
develop further in cooperation with Change the World and other parts of the
local administration, tells Guerra.
What next?
There is a steady increase in activity in the
community centre. In 2005 the number of visitors has increased from 24.000 to
- It is
going to be very important to achieve a political understanding that working
with sustainability is to focus on the big picture and see the interconnection
between the different disciplines. Up until now we are a project which receives
our funding from the Community Action Programme for Inner City Oslo East”, she finishes off and takes the
opportunity to praise the local politicians for their willingness to continue
the support for the house in spite of cuts in other parts of the budget.
Why is Sagene
community centre an example for the Ideas bank?
Sagene community centre and the municipality are increasingly living according
to the Ideas banks criteria to become a good example in our database: The work
is innovative and surprising. It covers the full width of sustainability, both
the ecological, economic and social dimension, and there is extensive
cooperation between different groups. The local municipality has participated
in several of the projects of the Ideas bank. One of these was the Frontrunner
programmes in Local Agenda 21. Here the community centre was a partner in one
of our European projects about how to combat social exclusion.