It was inevitable that the words empowering and enabling came up; so did ownership. These are important aspects of the approach. If the community is going to do most of the work, then the community must make the decisions and that focusses work on what is needed, important and valued.
The range of examples is important but not surprising. If local communities make their own decisions they will opt for many different projects: the needs are varied and the opportunities are endless.
But the range underlines an important point: no Council committee would ever have designed such a list. The projects started because the decisions were made locally in the light of local knowledge and circumstances. It is not the job of the Council to impose ideas on the community but to listen and help where needed. Later in the report we discuss what kind of help has been needed.
Another thing that emerges from the list is that there are many different kinds of communities. Geographic communities are obvious, but there are communities facing the same health problems, communities interested in particular sports or in music or theatre, and so on. If the Council is to help these communities it must have the contacts and networks to listen. That is especially true of the communities or groups which are hard to reach. They may be the least able to meet each other and define their own needs. The Council may have a role in facilitating such meetings and in asking the questions: what do you most need and how can we best help?
Finally, some projects or communities need more help than others. Many projects run from start to finish with no outside help while others need extensive resources over a number of years. The Council must be ready to respond to the great variety of schemes and to provide help where it is appropriate.
When asked about other outcomes, the top seven responses (Appendix 11) were:
All of these were mentioned by at least half the respondents
Fourteen of the respondents also cited lack of support from the community. But that would be evidence that the project was not true community development and it suggests that the Council should check the level of local support when granting funds. On the other hand, this reply may reflect the views of activists who feel that they put more work in than their neighbours. It was ever thus, and most projects depend on a small core of very active supporters
The Council needs to make some estimate of community support before committing funds or other resources, but the Committee realised how difficult it might be to guage the level of support, particularly when a project is just starting. The last thing we would want is to stifle projects by setting impossible tests. So officers need to review the Council’s grant giving criteria with some care.
It is clear that funding, skills and transport are major issues and the Council’s response to the study should focus on these three issues. This does not mean that the Council should supply all the funding. As we found on our visit to South Somerset, huge sums of money were brought into the area by community development workers who know where to apply. Some of it was European funding and helping communities to appy for funding will often be the most valuable contribution that Council can make.
Item 2 on the list was also stressed by the Focus group (Appendix 7); the Council often provides start-up funds and then expects the project to become self-supporting too soon. The time-scale of volunteers tends to be long with slippage as volunteers come and go. Even an established project may rely on a small number of key volunteer organisers and a hiatus can arise suddenly, so that urgent input is needed. The Council should recognise these difficulties and be flexible.
So the direction of support is broadly right, but the quantity has been a problem and the Focus group particularly stressed the effort needed to get support. That effort would be better put into the main project. Small groups of volunteers do not have the resources to meet Council paperwork and deadlines. Yet it is precisely these communities that we need to encourage.
More support and visits from members would have been particularly welcome. The Committee were keen to emphasise the role of local members: they have a rich network of contacts in their communities and will often be the first to hear of new ideas or initiatives. Members should become even more active in their communities, playing a key part in community development.