COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT USING FACILITATORS: LESSONS LEARNED

Click here to read Reflections No. 1

Centre for International Development and Training (CIDT)

REFLECTIONS No. 2

Our collaborative Lesson Learning series aims to analyse and synthesise our experience in the field. The following reflections are based on the application of a model of community strengthening through the use of local facilitators, as an integral part of education, health and social regeneration projects in Jamaica, China, UK and Romania.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT USING FACILITATORS

Patricia Daniel, Mary Surridge and Sarah Thomas

November 2003

At the outset, community members are often negative, suspicious and/or passive – they feel there is nothing they can do to change their current situation, they don’t trust officialdom and are sceptical of new initiatives being proposed from above. They often suffer from ‘consultation overload’ – specifically, their views have been solicited more than once but do not seem to be have been taken into account in planning and delivery of services. Why should they bother to give up their time again?
Managers and frontline professionals have a fear of ‘letting go’ of their own authority / status / recognised expertise. They tend to believe that only they have the answers to particular health / social / educational problems and only they are responsible for providing solutions. They tend to mistrust community members, dismiss their (non-professional) views as ill-informed, overlooking the fact that the community’s knowledge and experience is relevant to the development of new ways of addressing problems. Consultation appears to be too time-consuming (yet professionals are often amazed at the contributions that community members can make).
Mutual mistrust is compounded by ineffective methods of communication. Professionals may perceive that they are doing their level best to provide new solutions, improve services etc while community members feel undermined, intimidated, disrespected and unheard in their dealings with professionals. New policies or services may not be known about, or simply avoided because they are not ‘owned’ by the community.
Public sector professionals are often under pressure as regards their own job security and position. There is often perceived competition between different public sectors (and between public and voluntary sectors) as regards funding and rôles / responsibilities. This can lead to entrenched positions (known as the ‘silo mentality’) and reluctance on the part of professionals to work in cross-sector partnerships to provide a more holistic service to the public. The fear of ‘letting go’ also applies in this context. Listening to community members may seem to be an additional burden.
We have found that participatory workshops, which bring together managers and frontline staff (from different sectors) with community leaders and individual community members as equal participants, can help to break down these barriers, enabling people to benefit from different perspectives, identify shared problems and develop shared solutions. These workshops also help to identify who are the key stakeholders in a development project: Who needs to be included and why? Who can help (or hinder)? How do we reach those who are difficult to reach?
Participatory methodology (PLA) can also be used effectively to engage and mobilise community members as agents in their own community development. One successful mechanism is the recruitment of local people as paid community facilitators. This draws on local experience and knowledge, enhanced by training for the work and on-going professional support. As an intermediary between the community and professionals, the facilitator needs to be respected and trusted by both sides (and to have a real voice in discussions with professionals, while not imposing her/his own views about what the community should do). While a facilitator may not have a high level of formal educational qualification, s/he will have good literacy / numeracy skills, excellent communication skills, a real motivation for the work and a background of community involvement /activism and /or enterprise.
It has been found that there are benefits if the facilitator comes from nearby but outside the specific community, even though they bring similar experience. Benefits include a greater objectivity as well as avoiding unrealistic demands or threats to personal safety. S/he is also less tied to a specific geographical location and can work with important stakeholders outside the community as well.
It helps to have a physical base for the facilitator to work from, where community members can make contact with the facilitator, where the community can gather informally as well as for other purposes such as meetings or training. The base provides a focus for developments, where visual material can be displayed. Those members who are reluctant to speak in public meetings may feel more able to come and share their ideas or concerns on a more informal basis.
The facilitator can more easily identify viable entry points into the community. It is also important to introduce the use of participatory methods (PLA) with gatekeepers and frontline workers (eg. local councillors, police, health visitors, wardens, voluntary sector workers etc) This helps to involve them in the process and can facilitate access to certain groups. It also gives them a voice since frontline workers are often equally un-consulted in new service directives.
A first step in community development is to establish a baseline: Where is the community now? Why? What welfare conditions do we want for the future? Who are the partners (inside and outside the community) we can work with in order to achieve these conditions? What is working well at the moment (that we can build on)? Multiple perspectives need to be heard, including views of children, women and older people, through the use of PLA visualisation techniques.
It is important to recognise that any ‘community’ is not homogeneous and is characterised by different groups with different levels of power. It is vital to ensure that the least powerful are involved. This often requires affirmative action, such as sending facilitators to talk with those who don’t attend meetings; doing ‘well-being’ exercises and targeting those with lowest levels of well-being; training local women to consult others who may not even talk to the facilitator...
The facilitator can help the community to develop small-scale, short-term realisable projects to address particular needs that have been identified. We have found that the rapid, flexible provision of seed-funding for these projects is an important next step, valuing their analysis, sustaining motivation, enabling communities to concretise their plans and experience early success. It is through these small projects that people can gain confidence and build community development / decision-making skills,
As the work of a community facilitator is fluid and variable, we have found it useful to have a common record-keeping system which enables each facilitator to provide an account of how they have spent their time and with what results. Specific tasks such as a report on the community profile or a project proposal, submitted by a certain deadline, also helps to structure the work and monitor progress.
It has also been found desirable to have a Code of Practice for facilitators, which helps them define their rôle and avoid moving into areas (eg. counselling) which they are not qualified to fulfill; to identify and deal with confidentiality issues appropriately; to recognise the need for help from professionals.
As communities develop their projects, they may need capacity building in certain areas eg use of computer, accounting, understanding special needs... We have found it is more effective to integrate capacity building alongside project implementation, rather than provide training in advance. In the former approach, the need to develop certain skills becomes real and immediate and there is greater motivation to acquire them. This can often happen through skills sharing among community members themselves, and, for example, involve local businesses in providing support in kind to projects.
Individual projects need to be integrated with other concurrent activities in order to benefit from synergies and promote a holistic approach to development, sharing resources and experiences and developing new ideas.
Where community members are providing voluntary labour, rewards and incentives are necessary to recognise and sustain their contribution. At a minimum, these include childcare provision (and family-friendly hours); expenses; refreshments; access to equipment (eg computer, telephone). Another important incentive is access to training and the opportunity to obtain recognised certification, with a view to future employment, along with support for job applications. Where community members are employed for specific tasks, it is possible to negotiate a free day’s work (eg 4 paid days out of 5) as a contribution to the community endeavour.
Facilitators are only employed for a specific time period, the idea being that the community will become self-reliant and that projects will become self-sustaining. There needs to be a transition period or exit strategy as the facilitator begins to withdraw and community members take full control of the project. This can be an opportunity for active community members to take on some part-time paid work. At the same time it is an opportunity for professionals to reassess the nature of their on-going involvement and support, to ensure sustainability.
It is natural for people to want recognition for their achievements. Dissemination of projects through newsletters, local radio and ‘open days’ has been shown to be effective in this respect. At a different level, the use of an Action Research approach to record and evaluate the community development process, can help to identify lessons learned, strengthen community/ professional understanding and provide support for replicability of projects in other communities.
Equipped with the training, work experience and enhanced confidence that the job brings, we have seen facilitators go on to higher education and further employment in community/ social care /education fields. This brings valuable experience and knowledge into the professional arena as well as benefiting facilitators on a personal level.
Where professionals have had an on-going involvement in these projects, their attitudes towards, and relationships with, members of the community / primary beneficiaries / service users can demonstrate a radical change: they testify to a deeper understanding of, and greater respect for, community perspectives – and a commitment to continue / upscale the process.

Websites	Email
www.wlv.ac.uk/cidt	P.Daniel@wlv.ac.uk
www.haznet.org.uk	M.E.Surridge@wlv.ac.uk