San Isidro; diversity and organisation

San Isidro; diversity and organisation

by

Carolina and Steve were invited to meet with people of San Isidro, a community in the Cauca Valley, Colombia. The purpose was to understand their achievements and priorities. In this way, we would also gain an appreciation of their work with Ecofuturo, who facilitated the meeting. Community Works is starting a conversation with Ecofuturo about how can we work together in the future.

San Isidro sits high in the diverse and hilly region of Cauca, at an altitude of almost 1,900 metres. The population is 144 people and most of the houses, church and other buildings are situated along a sloping main street. At the lowest point of the main street and the first building a visitor encounters, is Palo e’ café, an important space for local meetings and a café managed by women who live in the village. This is where we met a group of around eight men and women of different ages with the purpose of learning about San Isidro.

One key feature the group immediately talked about was the way in which the smallholdings of the community were managed in a way that integrated them with the forest areas to be found at this altitude. They described their ‘finca reservas’ or farm reserves in which they grew a multitude of fruits and vegetables, They showed as a display of the current products including coffee, bananas, yucca, tomatoes, avocados and citrus fruits. While we were there, a truck arrived to collect the latest crop of bananas.

‘Our fincas are productive’ said one of the community members ‘but prices for crops taken to market are low. To overcome this problem, we want to process our coffee here, for example, so we add value to the coffee beans by drying, roasting and grinding them into retail coffee’. They showed us some bags they had produced. ‘But the cost of taking the beans to a processor is high and the investment in our own machinery is too much. So we have started using a hand grinder here in San Isidro’.

Ecofuturo is a non-government organisation that implements projects with communities to increase the long-term sustainability of their productive activities. San Isidro was a founder member of the organisation some twenty years ago. The farm reserves initiative is typical of their work and they showed us other projects including the planting of wildlife corridors between paddocks used for cattle and a place where a biogas digester has been built. We saw the Reserva Natural Campo Hermoso, which focuses on sustainable cattle farming and the Reserva Natural Vista Hermosa, which is for household food security. We also spoke with women who work in the Reserva Natural Pescadores.

One aspect of San Isidro that really stands out to a visitor is the degree to which the community organises itself. There are various groups and associations that enable the interface between people and natural resources to be managed in line with the objectives of the community. An example is Ayuda Mutua (Mutual Help). As the group explained, ‘Ayuda Mutua is a time each week that all the owners of smallholdings in the farm reserve work alongside each other so they can share their labour, offer each other advice and solve problems together’.

Despite the progress the community has made, they perceive a threat. Local people have been leaving the area. The population of the district has fallen by nearly a third in the last thirty years. Those with land have been selling their smallholdings to companies that combine them into large avocado plantations, some of which occupy the catchment for the river that supplies water to several communities in the region. People in San Isidro fear that high levels of use of agro-chemicals for large plantations will damage the local environment, especially through contamination of the water. ‘All existing vegetation will be removed to make way for avocados’ they said ‘It goes against the idea of diverse plantations that we have been cultivating for many years’.

As we left San Isidro and descended to the town of Bolivar, we could see rows of stakes in the ground and stretching into the distance. They marked the places where each avocado tree would be planted.

Steve Fisher, 23rdSeptember 2018

The complex mosaic of health promotion

The complex mosaic of health promotion

by

World Tobacco Day

Tobacco smoking is a major contributor to cancers and respiratory diseases, but also has an impact on cardiovascular health of people worldwide. It is a key risk factor for the development of coronary heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease. Since 2015, Community Works has contributed to the work of the National Best Practice Unit for Tackling Indigenous Smoking or NBPU-TIS. Tackling Indigenous Smoking (TIS) is a major program with the aim of reducing the numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who smoke. Professor Tom Calma is National Coordinator for Tackling Indigenous Smoking and he regularly draws our attention to key facts on smoking on Australia, including the information below from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
The Australian Government, through the Department of Health, supports TIS. Nearly forty organisations have joined this national effort and their teams design, implement and monitor a range of activities to raise awareness of the health effects of smoking and reduce numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who smoke. The more we work on this program, the greater insights we gain on the complex and inspiring efforts of health promotion workers across the country. They run groups for pregnant women, produce and distribute materials in various forms, support champions and ambassadors for quitting smoking, promote smoke-free events, homes and workplaces, run social media campaigns and lead a wealth of creative activities all around Australia. As with good community development practice, it is often the ‘entry point’ to a discussion that is the most critical part of the process. Some organisations offer make-up sessions for women as a starting point for a discussion about health. Others have developed innovations like breakfast meet-ups to encourage men to think about the start of the day, which is often when smoking can replace good food, having further impacts on health. This year, the role of Community Works with the NBPU-TIS has been in the facilitation of six state and territory workshops for TIS plus one at national level, together with the delivery of training activities for health workers and related materials. This year World No Tobacco Day is on 31st May. The theme of the day is the impacts of smoking on the health of your heart. Coordinated by the team from Bega Garnbirringu Health Service, participants at the recent Western Australia state workshop and training day produced a video for World Tobacco Day. We are pleased to share it here:
The problem of changing theories of change

The problem of changing theories of change

by

The theory of change method of planning has rapidly grown in significance for organisations working in social and economic development.

Wherever I work these days, someone is developing a theory of change and I often get involved in the process.

It’s good because the whole approach helps us all to think about the cause-effect relationships that underlie the design of a project. For example, if an investment if to be made in local decision-making processes for using infrastructure budgets, the underlying theory is that local people will make more effective decisions on the use of funds than outsiders, leading to better results for the community.

Simply stating this theory and discussing it enables us to work out where the weakness in the logic might be found. In this case, can we be sure that local people have the technical knowledge to make infrastructure investment decisions? If not, then the project design needs to be changed to make sure that expertise is available to them in a timely and appropriate way.

I used ‘logic’ above, which is not a word associated with theories of change because they tend to be seen as an alternative to logic models. And logic models continue to be criticised as being linear engineering approaches to tackling messy, complex social problems. But a peculiarity of some theories of change is that they often look like logic models.

We have a problem, which is that the pure form of theory of change is being messed with. As a result, multiple methods are emerging and which have the same name but which are quite different in character. Here are three different types of theory of change I have seen recently:

  • Flow diagrams that show how one activity links to another over time, with boxes joined by arrows and not much in terms of testable theories shown.
  • Vertical logical frameworks turned on their side, complete with the usual input-activity-output connections in the middle.
  • A list of statements on how an action will lead to a result.

All the above were called theories of change.

Here’s a suggestion. Let’s use both logic models and theories of change for project design and planning processes. A theory of change is a way of testing the key cause and effect relationships that underpin the project. We ought to identify those relationships and work out whether there is evidence to support them. This is a good starting point for a conversation with a project team or a community group. For example, I was in a planning workshop and someone said ‘we need to get the elders to talk to young people about their anti-social behaviour’. The theory of change was that senior people talking to young people would lead to less anti-social behaviour.

It only took for this statement to be written on the board for people to start raising questions like ‘How do we know that young people listen to elders?’ or ‘Do the elders even want to do this?’. Once the testing of basic ideas had progressed for a while, we were ready to write a logic model. In this case, one of the activities prior to writing the logic model was to talk to a group of elders to find out whether and how they might be involved.

So, once all the theories of change are worked through, we ought to have a basis for preparing a much better design for a project than would have been the case. After that, using a logic model will be more effective as it should avoid us jumping to simple linear ‘solutions’ for social problems that simply may not respond that way.

The forest and the trees in facilitation

The forest and the trees in facilitation

by

The term facilitation refers to methods and processes that enable people to collaborate on a given subject, especially where there might be complexity, different perspectives on a topic or even disputes and conflict.

I was recently invited to prepare a detailed tender submission for a role leading a facilitation team for a large and complex workshop. The client asked for responses to different scenarios and descriptions of how particular goals would be achieved through the facilitation. An occasional problem in facilitation is that the individual facilitator is given too much prominence in the process, as if they are some kind of motivational speaker. So I liked the way the tender concentrated on the proposed methods and the effectiveness of the process, a point that led me to write this article.

The work of convincing a client of the value of the particular approaches is a valuable exercise. It made me think in greater depth than usual about some challenges in facilitation, especially what works and why. I think of this as seeing both the forest and the trees. While an idea for facilitating a session might be sensible and proven, we need to have a clear sense of why we are choosing it. Some facilitators talk about ‘micro skills’, meaning the things you do to help a process along, such as the way the facilitator starts a session, how active listening is encouraged and ways to manage unevenness in participation. These are skills used to respond to what is actually happening at a particular moment in the process.

We need to combine these micro skills with a broader set of fundamentals for making the process effective. Here are some examples:

Getting the mood right

Groups participating in a process are often diverse and people may be in a setting to which they are unaccustomed. So they need to feel welcome and comfortable rather than sensing that they are being pushed through a program. The importance of setting the right mood and tone for the process, from the beginning, is often undervalued. The first session in each day, especially on the first day, should be lively and warm so people feel engaged at the start. Importantly, it should explain the purpose of the sessions that day and how the results are planned to be achieved. The tone should be one of relaxed productivity.

Straightforward language

A common mistake in facilitation is that the facilitator feels he or she has to ‘perform’, meaning that they interject too much, dominate proceedings or over-elaborate what they say. It is much better for a facilitator to be economical in their contributions, providing information using plan language. Explaining exercises visually and writing key words and phrases on a whiteboard is always a useful approach.

Inclusivity

Participants are different in their expectations of a workshop. Some will want to ask questions and make comments more than others. A key principle is to find a way for everyone to contribute in a way that suits them. So if people are nervous about speaking up in English, then some sessions will be more effective if they invite contributions on cards or visually on flipchart paper. Sometimes participants can feel like passive recipients of a plan developed in private by someone else. Instead, the thinking that underlies each day and its proposed methods should be explained by the facilitator. Bringing people along, and inviting their feedback, makes for a more open, inclusive and shared endeavour.

Judging the right level of active time

I have heard the complaint ‘I was just settling into thinking about the subject and then the facilitator had us running around like chooks’. This is fair comment and points to the need for careful judgement of the balance within a process between practical activities and listening time. People often want to be active, for the program to keep them moving around and doing group exercises. Most participants only want to listen to the same voice speaking to them for short periods before the next program component commences. But there still needs to be time for reflection. Getting the balance right is critical to ensuring participants are full engaged, encouraged and challenged.

In Community Works, we have recently developed some new methods and techniques for use in intensive workshops for Aboriginal health promotion workers and through teaching we have been doing on conflict resolution at James Cook University. I will share those methods and the learning that has come from them, in a future article.

Straightforward language

A common mistake in facilitation is that the facilitator feels he or she has to ‘perform’, meaning that they interject too much, dominate proceedings or over-elaborate what they say. It is much better for a facilitator to be economical in their contributions, providing information using plan language. Explaining exercises visually and writing key words and phrases on a whiteboard is always a useful approach.

Inclusivity

Participants are different in their expectations of a workshop. Some will want to ask questions and make comments more than others. A key principle is to find a way for everyone to contribute in a way that suits them. So if people are nervous about speaking up in English, then some sessions will be more effective if they invite contributions on cards or visually on flipchart paper. Sometimes participants can feel like passive recipients of a plan developed in private by someone else. Instead, the thinking that underlies each day and its proposed methods should be explained by the facilitator. Bringing people along, and inviting their feedback, makes for a more open, inclusive and shared endeavour.

Judging the right level of active time

I have heard the complaint ‘I was just settling into thinking about the subject and then the facilitator had us running around like chooks’. This is fair comment and points to the need for careful judgement of the balance within a process between practical activities and listening time. People often want to be active, for the program to keep them moving around and doing group exercises. Most participants only want to listen to the same voice speaking to them for short periods before the next program component commences. But there still needs to be time for reflection. Getting the balance right is critical to ensuring participants are full engaged, encouraged and challenged.

In Community Works, we have recently developed some new methods and techniques for use in intensive workshops for Aboriginal health promotion workers and through teaching we have been doing on conflict resolution at James Cook University. I will share those methods and the learning that has come from them, in a future article.

Key strategic choices in scaling successful projects and programs

Key strategic choices in scaling successful projects and programs

by

DRUMBEAT is the world’s first structured learning program using music, psychology and neurobiology.

Through our relationship with the International Centre for Social Franchising, we have been helping organisations wishing to scale-up their work. One such example is a project with Holyoake, the Australian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Addiction Resolutions. Without going into matters that are the business of Holyoake alone, this article presents some of the insights we have gained through this and other project work and which have relevance to scaling and replication work more broadly.

Holyoake asked us to help their team explore options for developing a model for replicating DRUMBEAT in other countries through a franchise system. DRUMBEAT is the world’s first structured learning program using music, psychology and neurobiology. The acronym stands for Discovering Relationships Using Music, Beliefs, Emotions, Attitudes, and Thoughts. Beneficiaries of the program tend to be people seeking to improve their relationships and it has wide application in schools, mental health services, aged care and prisons.

First of all, some definitions. Social replication refers to the process of establishing a successful social-purpose project in a new location. Scaling-up is a program of work that enables social-purpose projects to be adapted to multiple locations. ICSF uses a replication scale to help organisations think through the best scaling strategy for them.

A discussion that often takes place is around the pros and cons of franchising and licensing as competing strategies. In deciding on which of these options to prioritise, there are commonly four factors to consider:

  • Desired degree of control; if an organisation desires close management of the work of implementers of its projects or services, then a franchise agreement is likely to be more suitable than a licence agreement.
  • Level of ambition; although licence agreements allow for targets to be set, the relationship provided by a franchise agreement is more conducive to striving for financial and especially impact targets.
  • Quality assurance; generally a closer and more hands-on approach to quality assurance is expected within a franchise framework than the focus on distance management that tends to come with licensing.
  • Relationship development; as implied in the previous above, a licensing arrangement places less emphasis on regular interaction between originator and implementer than social franchising does.

If social franchising and licensing emerge as two leading options, these four topics provide a starting point for a discussion on the most suitable option for an organisation to use.

Once a particular option for scaling has been chosen, attention usually turns to the design of a system for scaling. Again, a common area of discussion and debate is around the kinds of individuals, enterprises or organisations that might be recruited to become implementers in their locations. It can be useful to think in term of categories or profiles of implementers that represent different characteristics.

For example, a Category 1 Implementer might be a medium to large organisation based in an urban area with access to good infrastructure and specialised staff. It could be private sector or non-profit, such as a major health provider, with a large number of clients using services on a regular basis and a high enough financial turnover to enable investment in new initiatives.

A Category 2 Implementer could be a small- to medium-sized organisation, well-established as a social enterprise serving clients within a well-defined area. It operates a small number of services in high-demand locally and is seeking to innovate through new ideas, for which a reasonable demand has been identified. Needs to attract funding for new work, but has a reputation for quality and results meaning that existing funders might be open to supporting a scaling strategy.

A Category 3 Implementer could be a small community-based or grassroots organisation, possibly located in a rural or remote area with a lower population density than urban settings. It might have strong community networks and support and be working with vulnerable or marginalised groups such as disengaged youth or lone parents. It could have limited organisational resources and infrastructure, few specialised professionals and individual staff often covering more than one organisational function eg management and training.
The value of this approach to designing a network of implementers is that it brings a practical focus to the subject. The purpose of recruiting different categories of franchisee is to achieve the right balance of financial sustainability and impact that is fundamental to a successful process of scaling up.
Strategies for scaling is a fascinating topic as it goes to the heart of how the social and community sector can best maximise its impact for the people it serves. DRUMBEAT is an excellent example of a proven program with great potential.