Community development at the centre?

1. Community development at the centre? Gabriel Chanan PACES and Health Empowerment Leverage Project www.pacesempowerment.co.uk

2. 2.Common ground? • The shrinking of ‘generic’ CD • The spread of community engagement • Reduced provision, increased need • Christie-type prescriptions for public service reform • Core CD shrinking while CD environment expands

3. 3. Should CD redefine itself on a wider basis? • Should CD seek to lead wider community practice / community engagement? • What would it need to do to achieve this? • How could it position itself as central to a Christie-type agenda ?

4. 4. Some of the Christie demands Services that deliver results Preventive measures to reduce demand and lessen inequalities Consistent data gathering and performance comparators Continuing reform based on outcomes, improved performance and cost reduction Presumption in favour of preventive action and reducing inequalities Comprehensive cost-benefit analysis

5. 5. The dilemma for public services: Increasingly aware of dependence on stronger communities but unclear about how to judge whether a community is getting strongerThe CD/CE literature and evaluation methods don’t solve this – great on values and what to do but not on what results look likeThe indicators for ‘strong, supportive, resilient communities’ in the Scottish Govt ‘Single purpose’ arejust about reducing crime and liking your neighbourhood. Did they miss something?

6. 6. What would show ‘strong, resilient, supportive communities’? • Indicators have to be based on whole populations, not just participants • Profile of the local community sector: are c-groups getting stronger, more inclusive, more influential? Conventional surveys have a role (see www.nstso.com) • Can CD/CE intervention show more people active, more social capital, more productivity and collaboration that public services rate as reducing demand on them?

7. . 7. • See CD from the outside-in rather than just as a field in itself. What do others need it to do? • Translate the sense of universality which is in the ‘generic’ approach into a ‘whole system’ approach to services and policies • Guide public services’ surveys and statistics, not compete • Foster a more critical approach within CD itself – escape from the promotional imperative

8. 8.Linking individual and group involvement • ‘Getting people involved in shaping and delivering public services’ is a limited component – implies rare capacity and willingness to get involved in long forward planning • Most people spontaneously seek redress or improvement individually at the point of delivery – with teachers, doctors, social workers etc, not planning committees • Take account of both individual and collective engagement with public services, and look to show how they can interact better

9. 9. • Christie: ‘Services must be designed with and for people and communities, not delivered top down for administrative convenience’ • Could be a siren voice – seems to embrace all CD would want but flatters CD’s over-reliance on articulate minority to represent the community • Ensuring that managers liberate front line workers to work flexibly with the community on immediate issues is more realistic than constant redesign of services