An interiew with two leaders

"If we are serious about social change in New Zealand, it is the communities and neighbourhoods that have the capability, and this needs nurturing."

The article that follows is the summary of an interview by Jenny Blagdon with David Hanna, Director of Wesley Community Action and Murray Edridge, Chief Executive of Barnardos. In this conversation, Jenny, David and Murray discussed:

Murray: Community-led development is about making permanent and sustainable change. For this to happen there is a need for initiatives to be grounded in and owned by the community. If there is a sense of ownership, then there is also the opportunity for the community to develop its own capability and grow dynamically and organically. Ideally this means that, at some stage, we must have the vision that the community can care for itself. We must also be able to walk away and let it grow on its own.

David: Community-led development is inherently complex because it's about movement and messiness, or, in other words, about the complexities of individuals, families and communities. It provides a nice balance to an organisation which is focused on structure, programmes and accountabilities. This is important if we are to be an organisation which engages with communities creatively and effectively rather than just driving in and out to deliver a programme.

2. So why does it matter, if it matters, that it's in a community of place?

David: Geographical communities of place are where we experience life. This experience grounds us and highlights our awareness, our conscious presence in a community, which is important in terms of community action. Concepts and policies become concrete when they are applied in a local context. A sense of belonging comes from being aware of, and valuing, the place where we are located.

Murray: There is a need to be able to identify not just where we come from but the place where we belong. Even when we go to work, our place of being is where home is. Even though for some people that place may not be OK, ideally our community of place is what we identify with.

There is also a strength in community of place in the sense that we have common interests and issues with our neighbours, whether it's arguing with the council over local facilities or the rubbish collection. If we are serious about social change in New Zealand, it is communities and neighbourhoods that have the capability and this needs nurturing. Because we share a common purpose, the place we live in creates connections and a sense of belonging. However, this raises a question about the value of community for people whose families who don't function well, when home is not a place of refuge.

3. Given those thoughts, what does that raise for your organisation in the way it's currently run?

David: While this can challenge the traditional assumptions people have about organisations, at the same time it can also provide the opportunity to be creative. We have anecdotal evidence of the increased value for staff when there is better engagement with the community.

Murray: Community-led development is quite a challenge to the traditional Barnardos model. But we need to think strategically about what is being delivered to a community. We need to ensure that what we are delivering is what a community wants, rather than what we think they want. We also need to reassess the places we work in, which may have developed due to historical opportunities or accidents.

David: And we need to let go, and pause and listen, which can be a challenge to organisations which have a sense of pride about their traditional work. I think sometimes there's an "organisational ego" that comes into play. That is quite hard to let go of when the organisation is bound in a place for a number of reasons.

4. What are the points of 'liftoff' that your organisations are using to connect the new ways of working with the ways you have worked in the past?

David: When there is trust or confidence internally within an organisation this can encourage conversations between unlikely groups. Within our organisation, it was the journey around strengths-based processes and practices that provided the environment for new questions and conversations to occur. This led to different possibilities and connections.

Murray: Our organisations have been good at what they do, and this has given them credibility and strength. However, if our traditional services are not what a community wants or needs, and if they are not likely to contribute to a sustainable future, then we need to function differently. The question then is how to take the capability residing in the organisation and use it as a foundation for allowing the community to do something else. This means being prepared to listen and to learn as an organisation. It also means being able to give people and communities the ability to operate themselves. The vision is that external service providers won't be required forever.

5. What sort of approaches would you use to get people to the place where they're 'happy to let go'?

Murray: This means recognising that the outcome is more important than the characteristics or identity of an organisation. It means encouraging people to see that the organisation is merely a means to an end. At the same time it is vital to recognise that this can be difficult and scary for staff when it means a change to fundamental tenets.

David: For staff it is easier if they have the opportunity to experience the possibilities of a different way of working at the same time as they are letting go.

Murray: Even tiny returns, such as the glimpse of hope in someone's life, are important to keep up enthusiasm. And this raises the question of measuring success. There is a risk that unless we are clear about what success looks like we might miss it.

6. Handbrakes?

Murray: There are a number of barriers to success, some of which are mentioned above. Lack of patience is a barrier because outcomes may take a long time. And when you don't know quite where you're going, and you don't know whether you're going to know when you get there, you need to establish milestones. These provide points of review, for critical reflection on progress, with the community. There is also the risk that, in an economic recession an organisation cannot commit to the long term. This may have the potential to do more damage than good.

David: One big hand-brake can be the binary thinking which is dominant in our society. This good/bad and right/wrong way of thinking is not helpful for community development processes which are emergent and unpredictable.

And there is a tension here too when resources are limited, as they always are. It is difficult to say to staff that money is being directed from traditional services into innovative initiatives which don't have a clearly defined outcome. Managing that is a challenge for the organisation.Murray:

7. Is this the time to dive deeper or is it the time now to pull back for a bit, to regroup?

Murray: It's important to build on the current momentum around empowering communities. In times of adversity, communities often come together and there may be an important role for organisations to support this. The concept of money-mapping, or understanding the flow of finances and the resource base in communities could be useful during such times.

David: There is a particular need for more rigour and discipline around the understanding of these dynamics, no matter how emergent they are. This applies to how we talk about them, how we understand them, how we record them, and the evaluation process. This means an improvement in our ability to capture the right information and evaluate our services. The Inspiring Communities Learning Forum has provided regular opportunities to discuss issues around evaluation language and rigour.

Murray: Yes, the Inspiring Communities Learning Forum is an enormous resource with the capacity to do much more than one organisation can ever do on its own. It provides an opportunity to share knowledge which creates a far bigger outcome than could ever be achieved otherwise.

8. How would you know if Community-led development had become embedded - what would the indicators be? Internally?

Murray: Yes, internal documentation would be less prescriptive and detailed, but it would have clear measurement points and determinants of direction. There may be different levels of investment in different communities. I think you'd know because communities would tell you. You'd get known as the organisation prepared to engage on a different basis and the process would get easier. You'd become better experienced at making a difference. And although there is obviously no model that fits all, there will be some learnings from communities that can be applied very effectively elsewhere.

Edited and abridged by Helen Wilson.

A good indication that we are changing will be when we can go into a community, we are comfortable asking people what they want, and equally comfortable working together to respond."