Author: Letter from Stuart Hashagen, Director - Scottish Community Development Centre

Dear LPL

As a supporter of LPL and its overall aims, can I please comment on the piece about the National Standards for Community Engagement in your most recent Briefing – copied below.

‘LPL’s opinion of the NSCE is that they don’t set the bar high enough. The independent evaluation of the NSCE, by Clear Plan (UK) Ltd, gives them only a lukewarm endorsement. A letter last week from Scottish Government’s Regeneration people makes it clear that their use is to be promoted to Community Planning Partnerships.’

I think that to summarise a thorough evaluation of the impact of the Standards as saying that it gives a ‘lukewarm’ endorsement, and that they ‘don’t set the bar high enough’ is both dismissive and misleading. It is dismissive in so far as even the extract from the report that is quoted gives a much more sophisticated and useful assessment of their impact, and misleading because it confuses the Standards with the way they are applied.

Given that the LPL summary position statement on community empowerment endorses the Standards as: ‘the benchmark against which progress by all public bodies on community engagement should be assessed’ it seems perverse to criticise them as you do. The real conclusion from the evaluation is that the Standards do set a high bar, but in many cases community planning partnerships have some way to go in working with communities in the way that the Standards recommend. This is why Scottish Government is continuing to encourage and support their application and use.

The bar that the Standards sets is in fact one set largely by the local people involved in community planning and other partnership structures in Scotland. When we at the Scottish Community Development Centre led the ‘Working together: learning together’ programme for the Social Inclusion Partnerships we quickly learned that local people felt disempowered, ill-informed, uninvolved and poorly supported in their relationship with public bodies. It is exactly these issues that the Standards were designed to address, and a large cross section of local people worked in partnership with public bodies to debate, draft, consult on, and finally publish and endorse the Standards. SCDC has subsequently worked with all community planning partnerships across Scotland to raise awareness of the Standards, support their application, and to help embed the learning. The new VOiCE tool has been designed to help both public bodies and communities to ask critical questions about their engagement plans and to develop policies and practice accordingly.

Finally, criticising the Standards, rather than the culture and practice of partnerships, gives the officers accountable at a local level for effective engagement with communities an excuse – by saying that it’s the Government’s fault and that it’s the Standards that are to blame – doesn’t this alleviate them of all responsibility?

If LPL has a mechanism for publishing responses to its views perhaps you would consider these points?

Regards

Stuart Hashagen

Author: Public Servant Scotland Journal (Maureen Ferrier)

Almost a year ago, the Scottish government launched a “national conversation” on Scotland’s future governance, based around the paper Choosing Scotland’s Future and its three key questions on extending the Scottish Parliament’s powers – including independence.

The government’s wish to hear what the people have to say itself demonstrates a desire to widen the decision-making process.

Minister for Parliamentary Business Bruce Crawford says: “Scotland has a strong civil society, which has a tradition of engaging with government at all levels. Our parliament is founded firmly on principles of participation, openness and accountability to the people of Scotland. We are committed to putting those founding principles back at the heart of democracy.

“But while traditional forms of engagement – such as voting – have become less popular, it is clear that there remains a strong commitment to get involved in other initiatives which improve social cohesion. The biggest challenge for political leaders is how to harness that energy.

“In my view, both government and parliament should be working to enable and encourage community activity and the work done by civil society organisations. That means assisting individuals and organisations to express their views effectively and supporting their efforts so that they can engage successfully with the formal structures of government and parliament.”

But for all that we hear much of involving communities in decision-making, do the communities and the individuals who make up those communities actually want to be involved? Might the tiers of democracy – community councils, local authorities, Scottish Parliament, Westminster Parliament, European Parliament, combined with a plethora of confusing voting systems – be more than enough for most people? Indeed, can the community empowerment agenda be fulfilled when so few people vote in any of those elections?

Community empowerment and consultation runs the risk of involving the “usual suspects” while the majority of the population remains uninvolved and silent or, worse, silenced.

Crawford argues that there is a need to change how the population’s voice is heard.

“Traditional consultation methods are not always sufficient,” he says. “That is why we took a fresh approach to our national conversation on Scotland’s constitutional future. We have had more than 350,000 hits on the national conversation themed web-pages, nearly 9,000 downloads of the white paper and more than 3,500 comments posted on the blog – a success by any measurement.

“The second phase is focused on extensive engagement with Scotland’s civic institutions. We have the chance to shape the future of the nation and it is important that civic Scotland plays a central role.”

So far, the national conversation has cost Scottish taxpayers around £98,000, with a further £87,000 for targeting the third sector and young people.

MSP George Foulkes describes the national conversation as a fraud, materially different from other government consultations with no requirement for participants to formally identify themselves.

“It is encouraging those people who are the regular contributors to newspaper websites or radio phone-ins, which is not at all a representative sample of the population,” he says.

But Foulkes praises other initiatives, describing consultation as an important part of the democratic process: “Consultation should not be under-valued. While it is elected representatives who make the decisions and are accountable, it is important to have mechanisms for people to become involved, to understand how government works and to understand the pressures that elected representatives are under so they can exercise their vote effectively.”

The original effort at involvement, community planning, was a practical effort aimed at involving communities – both of place and of interest – in the planning process, but it became inextricably linked with best value, sometimes to the detriment of the community aspect.

Audit Scotland has reported that best value has been largely achieved across Scotland, but that while the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE), remain committed to the community planning agenda, it is still a long way from fulfilment.

COSLA says the development of single outcome agreements will reinvigorate community planning. Community well-being and safety spokesman councillor Harry McGuigan says: “Clearly another part of this process is how we engage with our communities in setting our priorities for improvement and reporting progress back to them.

“We will be building on experience across councils in engaging with communities and promoting examples of best practice.”

SOLACE’s Sue Bruce also underlines the importance of the agreements: “They will allow councils to participate in a more flexible framework with government thus allowing us to be more flexible in meeting community needs. They also put councils at the heart of what communities want and allow us to work in a bottom-up direction.”

Local People Leading, an alliance campaigning for a strong and independent community sector in Scotland, says community empowerment is vital. One of its key priorities is to “invest communities with greater control over decision-making and responsibility for matters which shape local quality of life”.

But Sue Bruce recognises this is an uphill struggle. Councils are working to encourage people who do not usually participate, but, she adds: “If you can find a solution to that, it would be a magic moment.”

Author: SCVO

This briefing collates a review of 29 out of Scotland’s 32 local authority Single Outcome Agreements. The questions below look at the quality and extent of engagement and consultation of the sector in producing the SOAs, and a sense of the extent to which the sector is involved in delivering outcomes.

Full document here http://www.senscot.net/docs/SCVOBRIEFINGonSOAs.doc

Author: LPL

August 22nd marked the opening of the new golf course at Askernish on South Uist. This is not just another golf course but one which was designed in 1891 by the sport’s first superstar, Old Tom Morris, three times winner of the British Open and who also designed some of the world’s most famous links courses such as Muirfield, Turnberry and Carnoustie.

The new golf course is a big success for Storas Uibhist, the Community Company which led the community buyout of South Uist in 2006 and which has led the push to develop the course. The course has been in use for many years but consisted of only 9 holes. The new development extends it to 18 holes based on Old Tom’s original design.

This month’s opening was the culmination of a great deal of voluntary effort by local people and skilled golf course architects and designers drafted in from elsewhere. In December 2005 Gordon Irvine, one of the world’s leading Master Greensmen, visited Askernish having heard that there used to be an Old Tom Morris course there. He was enthralled by the turf and the landscape and proposed the idea of trying to restore the course back to the eighteen holes laid out by Old Tom Morris.

Though the Golf Club Committee were enthusiastic about restoring the course, a lack of funds almost scuppered the plans before they got going. Gordon Irvine then proposed using volunteers, who would give both time and expertise free of charge, to help restore the course which would in turn help the fragile economy of South Uist.

With great dedication, Gordon Irvine gathered together a group of expert volunteers and returned to the island in March 2006. The renowned Golf Course Architect Martin Ebert, of MacKenzie and Ebert, along with Gordon and a group of both local and visiting volunteers, spent two days mapping out an eighteen-hole course that incorporated a number of areas they believed could have been greens on the original course.

Since the initial mapping exercise, Askernish Golf Club worke on the restoration project and the course layout was completed in early March 2008. Fairways and greens have been brought to a high standard and a new clubhouse has been built. Thousands of hours have been worked by volunteers on the project and the result is a course which has been praised by the media across the globe (see, for example, The Resurrection of Askernish Old in Travel and Leisure Golf).

Askernish Golf Club (www.askernishgolfclub.com), a Community Interest Company, is a tenant of Stòras Uibhist, and all surpluses generated by the Club will be returned to Stòras Uibhist for re-investment on other projects that will benefit the community.

Author: LPL

Change the direction of travel – invest in community led regeneration.
Paper by LPL

The consultation being led by Scottish Government on how Scotland’s share of the dormant bank accounts should be spent and the associated the debate that is has stimulated across the Third Sector is to be welcomed. This financial windfall presents a unique opportunity for Scotland to fundamentally challenge and improve upon existing orthodoxy in terms of how to tackle the deep rooted and enduring challenges in Scotland’s most deprived communities.

This proposal is based on the following propositions concerning Scotland’s community regeneration policy over the past 25 years :

* That despite a succession of targeted, area based regeneration initiatives over this period, the baseline indicators of improved outcomes for the people living in these communities show that little meaningful progress has been achieved
* That these initiatives can be characterised as being, without exception, top-down and led by the local authority in partnership with other public sector bodies.
* That these initiatives result in programmes of short term funding for community based projects that are not able to sustain themselves beyond the end of the regeneration scheme.
* That despite the evidence that this top down, short term investment approach has failed to make a sustained impact, the same approach with minor modifications, has been applied repeatedly ever since New Life For Urban Scotland in the early 1980’s.
* That regeneration policy and practice in Central/Lowland Scotland has failed to recognise the value of lessons learnt in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland in relation to the potential impact of community ownership and control and the importance of linking social and community development with economic growth.

The annual turnover of Scotland’s Third Sector is approximately £2.5 billion. In relative terms, £40m is a small amount of money and there is a real danger that if it is committed along existing patterns of expenditure, it will generate little in terms of overall impact and additional value.

It could however be used in such a way that would both signal the start of a new era in the regeneration of our most deprived communities, and provide the Government’s current policy commitment on community empowerment with a flagship initiative that would reinforce its devolutionary credentials.

The proposal – to establish community endowments

The £40m should be used to establish a £2 million endowment fund in twenty of the most deprived communities in Scotland (the index of deprivation that is used should include a rural component) under the ownership and control of a community owned regeneration vehicle. Each endowment would be set up as a legal trust and managed by a team of professional fund managers contracted to work with a nominated local anchor organisation. Each community would enter negotiations with the awarding body (BIG Lottery) as to which local anchor organisation should assume the role of ‘accountable body’ for the endowment. The nominated local anchor organisation and the management arrangements for the endowment would be subject to rigorous due diligence, with a requirement that reporting on investment decisions and any disposal decisions with regard to the income generated, have to be wholly transparent and publicly accountable.

If implemented, this proposal would fundamentally change the framework within which local regeneration could take place. It would:

* provide the community with a long term income stream that is not dependent on the continued patronage of a grant provider
* change the dynamic of the relationship between the community and other stakeholders . The power imbalance created by the ‘begging bowl’ culture would become less significant.
* enable the community to take their place at the ‘partnership table’ as a genuine partner with a financial stake to contribute towards common objectives
* enable the community to assume greater control in determining what local priorities it chooses to address
* increase levels of community self confidence and local capacity as the sense of controlling more of their own destiny grows

Underpinning this proposal is the principle that the people who live in a community are best placed to lead any process of change or renewal that occurs within that community and should always be given the opportunity to do so. Furthermore, inherent in this proposal is a recognition that when local people are presented with this type of opportunity, a hitherto untapped pool of creative energy and local commitment and effort can be harnessed and channelled towards the overall regeneration effort.

As supporters of Local People Leading – The Campaign for a Strong and Independent Community Sector, we endorse this submission to the Scottish Government Consultation on Dormant Bank Accounts

Signed

Author: Falkirk Herald

Callender Park Tenants and Residents Association in Falkirk are calling for an abandoned 18th century stables and factor’s house in Callendar Park to be transformed into a state of the art community facility. It’s a highly ambitious project but in recent years there have been some very successful examples in other parts of the country – Garrison House on Cumbrae and Cassiltoun Stables in Castlemilk – where communities have taken on redundant historic buildings and breathed new life into them.

Representatives of the Cassiltoun Trust, who have successfully converted a similar stable block in Castlemilk into a building which retains its historical look but now accommodates a £4.2 million multi-purpose community building, are being invited to a community meeting in Falkirk to share their experiences and expertise.

The Callender Park Tenants and Residents Association has the support of Provost Pat Reid. Falkirk’s civic leader has agreed to host a fact-finding meeting to look at the exciting proposals in greater detail. The provost said: “I welcome the call from the Callendar Park Tenants and Residents Association which coincides with other recent approaches from both within and without the council.

“Along with the other Falkirk North members and in consultation with the association , I intend to call a public meeting after the council recess to explore the ways in which progress can best be made. “The stables and the former factor’s house in Callendar Park require to be brought up to a standard reflective of the rest of the estate. This is especially true now that we expect an increase in tourist interest following the designation of the Antonine Wall as a World Heritage Site.

It is possible that Historic Scotland, Scottish Enterprise, the European Union Development Fund and the Heritage Lottery Fund could all be brought on board to help fund the project.

”Falkirk now has another opportunity to be bold and enhance our reputation as a forward looking community – ever conscious of the need to progress in economic and cultural terms.”

Author: Debbie Spalding, West Lothian Courier

A campaign to save a valuable community resource from housing developers is gathering momentum. Staff from Broxburn Family Centre were shocked to learn their landlords have applied for planning permission to replace it with flats.

But since the news broke the local community, politicians and community organisations from across West Lothian have been speaking out in support of the centre. And some 200 letters of objection have now been lodged with West Lothian Council’s planning department backing the campaign.

The centre’s manager, Raymond Branton, said London-based landlords Local Shopping Reit PLC, dropped the bombshell three weeks ago that plans were being lodged to build a single block of flats on the site. “The response has been very encouraging,” said Raymond. “Everyone has been up in arms over the potential loss of a facility which helps so many people in communities across the district.

“Neighbours, people whose children used to come here years ago, adults who remember the centre from when they were children and many people that we have helped over the years, as well as current users, have all been calling to ask how they can help. “All of us at the centre would like to thank everyone who has come out in support to help counter this threat. “The organisation’s future is now in the hands of the council’s development control committee who will decide on this planning application.”

Councillor Morrice said he is delighted with the local response to the centre’s campaign. He added: “The centre provides a much used and valued service to local children, families and adult learners and it would be a complete tragedy to lose it. “The strength of feeling locally on this issue is high and this is demonstrated in the fact that over 200 individuals have sent in letters of objection to the council’s planners. “We can only now hope that the planning committee sees sense and knocks back the application by the landlord.”

Author: Report from Dunoon and District Allotment Association

The discussions with Argyll and Bute Council continue. The council still insists on following through on its policy:
• Argyll and Bute Council Accepted Policy Oct. 2007
The Council continues with their current commitment to the Allotment Association to facilitate the provision of allotments by way of giving professional and funding advice to them, enabling them to progress with forming a community trust and purchasing and developing a site on their own behalf.
Effectively this removes the Council from complying with COSLA guidelines or the Allotment legislation.

The Association is then hampered as the outside agencies we have discussed this with, eg Highlands and Islands Enterprise, refer to the law in that the council has responsibility in provision. The second issue that arises from this is that if we apply for funding for allotment provision the funding agencies also refer to the legislation and the council’s primary responsibility. We tried working with HIE on the idea of a local community croft, but that is not possible.

Regardless we have continued to pressure the council on provision. We have received back up from SAGS and NSALG in finding a lawyer to communicate with the council. Through this we received maps of some of the council land holdings that we asked for three years ago.
With SAGS we then gave a presentation to the Area Business Meeting of the Council on the benefits of Allotments and how they are well placed in meeting the Single Outcome Agreements. Out of this a ‘working group’ was formed.
The group met once and the meeting was not positive. There is no fixed date for the next meeting “at least three months away”, no benchmarks, land the council will look at is already sold to a developer and it was stated that there was no real interest in allotments as could be seen by our falling numbers at meetings.

We reminded the councillor that we have the support of the police, all GP surgeries and various local groups; it is not lack of interest but lack of provision that is the issue.

We contacted our MP, MSP’s, Ministers, and government bodies again, but as this is a devolved local issue they could not really do anything. We even contacted Working Lunch after they aired a show on allotments. As a result of all this the Association has decided to take the Council before the ombudsman to get a decision.
In the near future the local newspaper will run another article to coincide with National Allotments Week and we hope to set up a stall at the next Kirn Gala as a fund-raiser.

In all of this the SAGS committee has been continually supportive and the Allotment Regeneration Initiative rep Ian Welsh has been a phenomenal help and encouragement. There has been a lot more movement than the summary above but without the support I don’t think we would have kept going. Thanks to you all.

However… when we finally have a real allotment site, all plot holders are invited to the two parties. A 30 minute party for the officials and after they’ve been given their hats, the rest of the day for ourselves 😉

Scottish Allotments and Gardens Society
www.sags.org.uk

Author: LPL

Ten propositions

Democracy is about:

1. Freedom
Human flourishing is achieved through freedom to act individually and collectively, only constrained by due consideration for others.

2. Equality
All people are of the same moral worth and are obliged to mind the equality of others.

3. Justice
Justice and democracy are interdependent. An unjust society is an undemocratic society and an undemocratic society breeds injustice.

4. Solidarity
Shared aims and values arise from the pursuit of common purposes and mutually supportive ways of living.

5. Diversity
Dialogue between different cultures and identities can enrich society and help to build a common culture.

6. Accountability
The state is accountable to its citizens for providing the policy framework within which judgements about the common good are made and contested.
Those who hold power are answerable to the people.

7. Dialogue
Democracy requires dialogue and the possibility of dissent.This means learning to argue, articulate beliefs, deliberate and come to collective decisions concerning what constitutes the good society.

8. Responsibility
Consistency and coherence between private and public behaviour are essential to the quality of democratic life.

9. Participation
Democracy is something to be negotiated from below rather than handed down from above. Citizens require the opportunity to talk back to the state.

10. Sustainability
A commitment to the environment and to future generations requires determined opposition to those forces which are wasteful and destructive.
Learning for Democracy
Ten Propositions and Ten Proposals
Ten proposals

Learning for democracy means:

1. Taking sides
Educational workers are not merely enablers or facilitators.The claim to neutrality can reinforce and legitimise existing power relations. Practitioners need to be clear about what they stand for – and against.

2. Acting in solidarity
Practitioners should proactively seek opportunities to engage in a critical and committed way with communities and social movements for progressive social change.

3. Taking risks
Critical and creative learning is necessarily unpredictable and open-ended.
Exploring official problem definitions and challenging taken-for-granted ways of thinking can be a liberating process.

4. Developing political literacy
Politics needs to be made more educational and education made more political. Learning to analyse, argue, co-operate, and take action on issues
that matter requires a systematic educational process.

5. Working at the grassroots
Democracy lives through ordinary people’s actions; it does not depend on state sanction. Practitioners should be in everyday contact with people on
their own ground and on their own terms.

6. Listening to dissenting voices
Activating democracy is a process of creating spaces in which different interests are expressed and voices heard.Dissent should be valued rather than suppressed.

7. Cultivating awkwardness
Democracy is not necessarily best served by the conformist citizen. This means that the educational task is to create situations in which people can confront their circumstances, reflect critically on their experience and take action.

8. Educating for social change
Collective action can bring about progressive change. Learning for democracy can contribute to this process by linking personal experience with wider political explanations and processes.

9. Exploring alternatives
Learning for democracy can provide people with the opportunity to see that the status quo is not inevitable – that ‘another world is possible’.

10. Exposing the power of language
The words used to describe the world influence how people think and act. Learning for democracy involves exploring how language frames attitudes, beliefs and values.
Published by Learning for Democracy Group 2008
For copies of this wallchart contact:mae.shaw@ed.ac.uk
Learning for Democracy
Ten Propositions and Ten Proposals

These ten propositions and proposals are the result of extensive discussion and consultation. This work started with a large meeting of interested people from across Scotland held in the Scottish
Parliament in 2007 to discuss the content of an Open Letter widely circulated towards the end of 2006. Here is an extract:

We see our work in community-based education as part of a broader democratic process. This is about enabling people to demand social justice and equality for themselves and others. There is now an historic opportunity to renew democracy in Scotland, and yet we are beginning to feel a profound sense of disappointment about the way in which both our own work and the lives of people in communities are being managed, regulate and controlled.… What is required, in the first instance, is a much more open, democratic and imaginative dialogue and debate about what kind of society we want to live in, and how we can begin to build it in Scotland today. Education and learning in communities can contribute to making this vision a reality, and they are a rich resource for tackling significant problems in society. Ordinary people need the opportunity to have their say, to be listened to and to talk back to the state. This is essentially a democratic process. It cannot simply be managed and measured; it has to be nurtured and cultivated in communities. It requires faith and trust in the people, and a valuing of genuinely democratic dialogue and debate.

Author: LPL

Preamble
In March 2008, Local People Leading produced a position statement reflecting the joint views of a number of leading community sector intermediaries in relation to what community empowerment is, why it is important and identified a number of key opportunities for further development. This has subsequently been revised and adapted to reflect new thinking and emerging ideas both from within the community sector itself and as a result of the Government’s and COSLA’s published Joint Commitment and emerging Action Plan.

Three key areas for action:
1. Extending community ownership of assets
Action : Publish evidence/ case studies where successful asset transfer of public assets has occurred and prepare separate guidance for Councils in the production of strategies and policies for community asset transfer
Action: Publish evidence/case studies demonstrating impact of community ownership and control of assets on community empowerment (viz a viz housing, renewable energy, community businesses)
Action: Amend Scottish Government regulations concerning disposal of land by local authorities in such as a way that makes it easier for Councils to transfer assets at less than market value
Action: Commission the production of a risk assessment and risk management toolkit in relation to transfer of public assets
Action: Establish an Asset Transfer Fund for local authorities to bid into to refurbish properties for transfer to community ownership
Action: and guidance as to how communities can use the legislation
Action: Instigate a formal review of the effectiveness and operation of the Land Reform Act allied to a national campaign to raise public awareness of the Act.

2. Renewing and revitalising local democracy
Action: Recognise and actively promote the concept of community anchor organisations highlighting the role that these organisations play in their communities in terms of providing support and resources to small and informal groups, and in the delivery of local services and the provision of other local facilities.
Action: Initiate a programme of investment and support to community anchor organisations in the most deprived communities in Scotland by establishing a scheme of independently managed, locally controlled financial endowments – enabling these organisations to become independent of grant support for their core costs.
Action: Produce guidance on models of participatory budgeting ( based on experience of Dundee CC and elsewhere)
Action: Develop early clear guidance on the future role of community councils following the Scottish Government consultation which closed 1/8/008

3. Building capacity and training
Action: A new programme of training and support for community based development workers and local residents committed to regenerating their communities (based on developing community leadership, local confidence and skills, and building effective local community infrastructure)
Action: A national programme of technical support and capacity building to be made available to communities to assist them in the process of asset acquisition and asset development
Action: Deliver training / seminars to raise awareness/ study tours for appropriate local authority officers which highlights rationale and potential benefits of asset transfer