Practising community-led development

Practising community-led development

by

Practising community-led development

Steve Fisher

On the face of it, community-led development ought to be straight forward. A group of people with common interests decide on a goal they wish to achieve or a problem they want to tackle. They enlist external support, usually meaning technical knowledge, materials and funds. Then they develop a plan for something that is probably called a project. They go ahead and implement it.

In the process of developing a new course on practising community-led development, I have been thinking about what makes the subject more complicated in practice than it might seem from the outside. A starting point is to set out the parameters. Examples of community-led projects fall into four categories:

  1. Local infrastructure improvements, such as roads, water supplies or better housing
  2. New or improved enterprises or services to address gaps in, for example, childcare or education
  3. Initiatives designed to tackle problems that the community might be experiencing, such as conflict or homelessness
  4. Projects to build local skills and capacity for specific purposes, such as youth leadership or community governance.

The basis for successful projects are the methods and techniques, skills and aptitudes that define community-led development practice. Applied with skill and care, they enable the objectives of a project to be achieved. But communities are complex, so nothing is easy.

At the centre of most projects are a set of relationships between the community, an implementing organisation, some specialised contractors and a government agency or a private funder (or both). The decision-making processes, the power and the authority that are exercised through those relationships have a profound influence on the eventual outcomes. This means that the agreements between parties and the way they are applied are fundamental.

The question of which people from the community participate in the project and how they participate has long exercised anyone who has worked in this field. Strategies that consider the priorities of different population groups within the community, as well as those from outside the project who may be affected by it, are central to effective practice. The roles of women, men, young people, people with disabilities and minority groups within the community need to be defined, especially when key decisions are being made. 

All projects need to be designed. In other words, they require the parts to be brought together in a way that enables them to be implemented. These components include clear objectives, a team, resources and knowledge and a set of defined and scheduled activities (the actual work to be done).

Similarly, all projects must be managed in an accountable way to enable the design to be implemented. The role of data is central to effective project management, whether to gauge progress, to obtain the right measure of needs and priorities of the community or in the monitoring and evaluation of the work.  Processes for learning and improving through the data collected are also part of the overall picture.

Given that community-led projects are concerned with improving the health, welfare, safety, prosperity and happiness of people, then considerations of ethics and equity are central to practising community-led development.

As we develop the course, I will provide further updates through the Community Works blog.

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.

Effective governance; insights from recent training courses

Effective governance; insights from recent training courses

by

Starting meetings in the right way.

Ninti One has been conducting training in governance for voluntary committees in remote communities that are participating in the Stronger Communities for Children program, which is Australian Government supported. Working with colleagues at Ninti One, I have developed the materials and delivered the first few sessions in locations in the Northern Territory. All along, we have wanted the training to be interactive, meaning that people get the chance to practice governance skills rather than just watching a presentation. Thanks to the willingness of committee members to have a go at the various exercises we have developed, some interesting insights and lessons on governance training have come out of the work. I share a few of them here.

Starting meetings in the right way.

It can be easy to think that board or committee meetings simply happen once everyone has shown up. The reality is that the start of meetings can be a messy and confusing business. Through the training, we noticed that an effective chairperson makes people welcome, sets the right tone for the meeting and gets the work started. Practising how best to start meeting makes all the difference.

Visuals replacing words.

Too much paper and too many words can sometimes get in the way of good decision-making. We found that summarising the main subjects for discussion in 1-5 words in a series of circles on the white board, with space for other people to draw arrows or make notes, provides a simple focus. In one case, the discussion really kicked off, with members of the group coming to the front of the room to explain their views on each subject.

Getting everyone involved.

Not everyone wants to speak in front of a group, which is fine as no committee needs to be full of public speakers. But still their views should be taken into account because everyone at the meeting is there as a decision-maker. We found that breaking up into small groups of 2-3 people to discuss particular topics really worked well. Here the chairperson has an important job in suggesting the right mix of people in the groups and making sure the report back from each one is clear and understood by everyone else.

Handling conflicts of interest.

A conflict of interest is not easy for anyone to define clearly, but most people know one when they see it. I describe it as a situation when a person’s role as a committee member is hampered by personal or family interests in a subject the committee is discussing. In small communities, conflicts of interest are inevitable. Through the training, we found that defining what it means, using examples and then agreeing a clear procedure where members declare their conflict of interest seem like a big step forward. Along with nepotism and confidentiality, the subject benefits from open discussion. Improved and more effective governance is critical to remote communities. It has been a subject of much work by government, NGOs, researchers and communities themselves over many years. Ninti One is developing a sound approach to governance training that I hope will become more widely available in time.
What an effective program is

What an effective program is

by

Our partnership with Ninti One

Our partnership with Ninti One (www.nintione.com.au) is never short of complex and challenging work. Recent discussions have centred on the design and planning of programs. Frameworks for measuring impact, governance training and achieving an effective model for supporting the rollout of programs across a geographically expanded area of remote Australia have been central to the current period of work. It has been interesting to reflect on what makes for an effective program. Drawing on other programs managed by Ninti One and Community Works, six key ingredients come to mind:
  • Productive relationships, especially through investing in building trust and rapport with community organisations
  • A program model that everyone understands, meaning that priorities, ways of working, roles and responsibilities fit together in a manner that might not be perfect but is workable.
  • A strategy that navigates whatever complexities exist around policy, practice, local expectations and needs to achieve the desired results on a cost-effective way.
  • Clear-sighted communication with stakeholders, meaning the range of people with an interest in or affected by the program. It involves making sure people and organisations are kept informed, consulted with and participate in a way that is appropriate to the program.
  • A shared understanding of what success looks like, which is critical in situations where problems may be many and program participants consistently feel they are not achieving what they want.
  • Leadership, especially where decisions need to be made with clarity and confidence.
Yes, it may be true that financial management, accountability and other factors are not included above, but my focus here is on the human aspects of programs, which have to be central to programs and projects with a social focus. Work continues and we look forward to contributing to the determined, long-term economic and social development efforts of Ninti One and many people and organisations in remote Australia.
Ninti One’s Aboriginal Community Researcher network plays a central role in its programs
Learning development practice

Learning development practice

by

The current design of the Masters program on Management in Development

The current design of the Masters program on Management in Development is in its third year and is being coordinated by Steve Fisher. The focus of the program is effective development practice and it is offered as five one-day participatory workshops on aspects of the subject:

It is always interesting to observe which elements of the program appear most engaging and relevant to students. Sometimes they can be surprising, such as the preparation of a proposal for an imaginary Men’s Shed project in Carlton. Using the outline below, four groups each wrote a section of the proposal.

We then read the whole document out as a single description of the need, design implementation and intended outputs and outcomes. This was the final part of a day of learning about the subject of communicating on projects, especially to attract resources for them. It was a strangely uplifting experience. I compiled the final version into a two-page concept paper.

Another part of the program that always proves interesting is on innovation, focussing on four aspects of the subject:

  • Conceptual frameworks (new ways to think). Example: Social inclusion
  • Process improvements (new practice). Example: Participatory impact diagrams/outcome mapping
  • Technical change (new technology). Example: Use of mobiles for development purposes
  • Organisational change (new ways to organise). Example: Social enterprise and social franchising.

Following success with a marketplace approach to learning in an event for over 100 participants on water and sanitation in Melbourne last year, we used the same method for this work. An advantage was that it enabled students to move around between subjects across a one-hour period, learning from and contributing to each. The end results were impressive and I will feature them in a future blog on the subject of innovation.

My appreciation to the excellent and dynamic student group of twenty-four people, representing ten countries. Many thanks also to Maria Rodrigues for her research support and to Ingrid Horton for design work on the program.