Get documents about "Better Community Engagement Programme
Document Sample
Better Community
Engagement Programme
Community Engagement Training
for Trainers Course
Guidance for Trainers and
Facilitators
This was developed as part of the Scottish Government’s Better Community Engagement Programme
Introduction
This guidance note has been developed as part of the national Better
Community Engagement Programme. It is intended for practitioners, trainers
and facilitators who have responsibility for, or an interest in supporting other
people to better understand and/or carry out community engagement
processes and activities. The guidance reflects a generic approach to
developing a training for trainers programme that can be adapted to suit a
variety of training and support contexts.
The guidance has the following key sections:
Section 1: Course outline
What the course involves and who it is for
Section 2: Core purpose, learning outcomes and format
What the course is designed to achieve and what it looks like
Section 3: Underpinning knowledge of the policy and practice context
what participants need to understand about community engagement
Section 4: Approaching the community engagement task
Determining the level and purpose of engagement
Planning the engagement
Selecting the best methods
Reviewing the process and its impact
Capturing the learning and methods
Section 5: Supplementary materials and resources
A range of support materials and resources for community engagement
The course outlined in the guidance is not certificated, credit rated or
accredited. At the time of writing it has not been tested or delivered as a
training course. However it does incorporate training materials and resources
that were developed as part of the BCE programme and materials
successfully used within other community engagement training programmes.
The course content and the materials used are specific to community
engagement. Whilst it includes standard training techniques and methods to
facilitate discussion reflection and learning, the focus is on learning about
community engagement and communicating this to others, rather than how to
conduct training in itself. Participants are encouraged to observe and critique
how exercises are conducted, and to review how the materials provided can
be used in different training contexts.
Though the guidance focuses primarily on presenting the materials as they
might be used in training, you may wish to use and adapt them to support a
range of other roles including mentoring, consultancy, supervision and peer
review.
2
Section 1: Course outline
The course is designed to be delivered over two days with a minimum of four
weeks between each day. The focus for Day 1 is to provide participants with
general information about community engagement – its purpose, outcomes,
and processes – and introduces exercises and resources that can be used to
conduct training. At the end of Day 1, participants are asked to seek
opportunities within their own work environment to use some of the training
materials provided within a training or support context in advance of Day 2.
Day 2 acts as a reflective practice session where participants are encouraged
to share their learning and experience of applying techniques from Day 1 or
using course materials. Day 2 also incorporates a practice scenario which
requires participants to plan and present a training session to the wider group.
At this stage it’s important to consider who the intended participants are for
the course. The training for trainers course is designed primarily for trainers,
facilitators or staff who have a responsibility to support others to better
understand and/or conduct community engagement. The intention is for
participants to apply the learning and knowledge gained from the course
within a practice setting to help others in their working environment, thus
creating a ‘cascade’ effect. As such, there is an expectation that participants
will have some existing knowledge, understanding and experience of
community engagement so that they can build on this through participation in
the course.
A useful way of determining whether someone is suitable for the course is to
ask them to complete a pre-training self-assessment questionnaire. This
allows potential participants to think through why they think the training is right
for their needs and allows the trainer to assess their existing level of
knowledge and expertise of community engagement to ensure the course
suits their needs.
For example, if a course applicant indicates that they have very little
knowledge or experience it may be appropriate to signpost them to more
basic training as a pre-cursor to training for trainers. Similarly if applicants are
not in a position to support or train others within their working environment
they may have to clarify why they think the course will be beneficial to their
working practice. A sample self assessment questionnaire is attached as
appendix 1.
3
Section 2: Core purpose, learning outcomes and general format
The core purpose of the course can be described as being:
‘To equip participants with the knowledge, skills and resources required
to support others to better understand and conduct community
engagement processes and activities within their working practice’.
This is translated into a series of learning outcomes.
• Participants understand the concept of community engagement
and why it matters
• Participants understand the expected outcomes of community
engagement and how to measure them
• Participants are aware of a range of methods that can be applied
to conduct effective community engagement processes
• Participants understand and have access to a range of training
materials and resources which are designed to facilitate
understanding of community engagement
• Participants can conduct community engagement training and
support activities in a range of contexts
• Participants are confident in their understanding of community
engagement so that they can support others to use it
These outcomes reflect the intended impact of the course following
completion of both days. Participants are asked to self-assess whether they
have been fully achieved, partly achieved or not achieved at all by completing
a course evaluation. Trainers or facilitators should review progress at the end
of Day 1 and use any feedback given to help inform the content of Day 2 and
make amendments to their intended programme if necessary.
With regards to the last outcome of assessing whether confidence levels have
increased as a result of the course, it is useful to ask participants to self
assess their existing confidence levels at the start of day 1. This can be done
by asking participants to identify how confident they are in their understanding
of community engagement using a scale of 1-10, 1 being low and 10 being
high. Participants are asked the same question in the end of course
evaluation to judge whether they think this has increased and to what degree..
The course format should be as participatory as possible, using a combination
of training techniques and methods to generate learning and understanding.
It is important to strike a good balance between the amount of information
given and opportunities for participants to discuss its relevance to community
engagement practice. The use of exercises that allow participants to reflect
on their own knowledge and experiences are particularly important to build on
existing strengths and expertise.
Sample programmes for Day 1 and Day 2 are attached as appendix 2 and 3.
They include brief notes for each part of the programme and can be adapted
to suit the needs of the trainer/facilitator.
4
Section 3: Underpinning knowledge of the policy and practice context
This should be covered at the beginning of Day 1 (see sample programme
Day 1) to help establish a common understanding of what community
engagement is and why it is important. A useful way of doing this is in the
form of a basic presentation that includes the following aspects:
Definition of community engagement
Underlying values and principles
Relevant legislation and policy drivers (national and local)
Good practice standards
The benefits of good quality engagement
The National Standards for Community Engagement is a useful resource to
help establish the common definition and principles of community
engagement practice. It sets out the most commonly used definition of
community engagement and the 10 standards or practice statements identify
the quality of practice to aim for when conducting effective community
engagement. The following information is useful and can be incorporated into
any power point presentation used by trainers.
Presentation information
The National Standards for Community Engagement1 were launched in 2005
and set out best practice guidance for engagement between communities and
public agencies. The Standards were developed to improve community
engagement in Scotland because practice had not lived up to people’s
expectations. The Standards were commissioned by the Minister for
Communities, through Communities Scotland, and developed by the Scottish
Community Development Centre from the experience of communities and
agencies with the extensive participation of over 500 community and agency
representatives.
The National Standards define community engagement as:
“Developing and sustaining a working relationship between one or more
public body and one or more community group, to help them both to
understand and act on the needs or issues that the community
experiences”.
The Standards set out 10 commitments that can be mutually agreed between
participants. They should guide the conduct of the engagement at all stages
and any participant should be able to use them as an active tool to support
their own involvement. The 10 Standards are:
Involvement
1
1. National Standards for Community Engagement (2005) www.scdc.org.uk/national-
standards-community-engagement
5
Support
Planning
Methods
Working together
Sharing information
Working with others
Improvement
Feedback
Monitoring and evaluation
The guidance in the standards is clear that community engagement can take
many forms, however it is always
‘a process which involves purposeful dialogue between public agencies
and communities aimed at improving understanding between them and
taking more effective action to achieve beneficial change.’
The underpinning values and principles of the National Standards for
Community Engagement are that community engagement should be
conducted with a focus on:
Equalities: explicit and evidenced
Purpose: agreed, and success defined
Structures: clear and fit for purpose
Knowledge: shared and used
Skills: developed and applied
Capacity building: supports in place
Information: accurate and timely
Highlighting relevant legislation and policy drivers for community engagement
is a useful way of describing the importance of community engagement.
The legislative basis for community engagement is contained within the Local
Government Scotland Act 20032 which requires all public services to work
together. The policy memorandum on the Act states:
“Community planning is essentially a process to secure greater
engagement from communities in the planning and delivery of services”.
If community planning and other participatory policies are to be delivered
effectively, attention to the quality of engagement is essential.
The Scottish Executive Civic Participation Policy Unit 3 described community
engagement as ‘an essential tool of modern government’ in:
• making better policy,
2
Local Government in Scotland Act 2003
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2003/1/contents
3
Civic Participation - Policy Unit Scottish Executive (2000)
6
• building ownership and consensus around policy outcomes,
• accounting for actions taken
• promoting participation.
As well as making better policy and improving use of resources good
community engagement can help create communities which are resilient,
safer, healthier and more sustainable by building and supporting the skills,
confidence and influence of local people.
The key current policy/strategy frameworks for community engagement and
empowerment are:
The Scottish Community Empowerment Action Plan (Scottish
Government – March 2009) states:
“When local people are actively engaged in tackling issues within their
community, and in helping to realise the community's potential, those people
are likely to have an increased interest in and engagement with the affairs of
local government and indeed Government across the board.”
Best Value 2 Toolkit: Community Engagement (Audit Scotland – June
2010) which is applied as part of Best Value audits of public bodies and
inspects performance of public bodies in relation to:
▪ strategic commitment to community engagement
▪ understanding of community needs and aspirations
▪ involvement of communities in decision-making
▪ involvement of communities in planning and monitoring community
engagement
▪ demonstrating the impact and benefits of community engagement
Better Community Engagement – a framework for learning4, (Learning
Connections, Scottish Executive, 2007) which describes the key
purpose of community engagement practice as being:
‘To develop influence and promote policy and implement practice which
engages communities as partners in change’
‘Better Health Better Care’ 2007, Scottish Government’s Strategy for a
healthier Scotland includes the Participation Standard which states:
‘We need to move, over time, to a more inclusive relationship with the
Scottish People; a relationship where patients and the public are
affirmed as partners rather than recipients of care.’
4
Better Community Engagement Curriculum Framework
http://www.scdc.org.uk/media/resources/what-we-do/better-comm-
engage/better_community_engagement.pdf
7
The benefits of conducting effective community engagement can be described
as:
Benefits to the community
• Increased influence for communities5
• More responsive service provision to meet local needs
• Improved service provision
Benefits to agencies
• Improved information for service providers
• ‘Joined up’ thinking across services to maximise use of finite resources
A sample power point presentation covering all of the above (and all
subsequent exercises for Day 1) is attached as appendix 4. This can be
amended by trainers depending on the context of the training. Please note
that a sample power point is also attached for Day 2 as appendix 12.
Trainers may need to research any local policies or strategies for community
engagement and include them within the presentation. For example, East
Renfrewshire Council’s Community Planning Team has devised a Community
Engagement Support Framework that includes a set of locally developed
standards that reflect their commitment to community engagement and how it
will be supported across the council. References and key statements from
this key document can easily be incorporated into the sample presentation if
training is being conducted in the local area.
Participants should be encouraged to review the information presented to
them and have the opportunity to ask questions about any aspect that
concerns/interests them. A useful way of doing this can be to include a set of
discussion questions as the last slide of the presentation, such as:
Does this ‘fit’ with your understanding of community engagement?
Is this a useful way of describing community engagement and the
policies that support it? If not, what could be done differently?
How would you define community engagement in your own words?
If you think community engagement is well supported in policy, how
well do you think practice ‘matches’ these policy aspirations?
This is a good way of getting people to reflect on how community engagement
could/should be communicated, and begin discussing their own experience
and thoughts on how they could ‘see’ themselves doing this in a training
context.
5
(Active Governance: the value added by community involvement in governance through
local strategic partnerships’ Kath Maguire and Frances Truscott, Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, 2006
8
Section 4: Approaching the community engagement task
The next stage of the training programme is concerned with the approach to
the community engagement process. This section is about how community
engagement works in practice and participants are encouraged to reflect on
their own experience of conducting community engagement at each step in
the process. The process is laid out into four key steps: analyse, plan, do,
and review. This is taken from the VOiCE tool6 which is a web based
resource designed to assist in the planning, implementation and review of
good quality community engagement processes.
The first point to make is that when approaching the task of undertaking
community engagement, it is first of all essential to clarify what purpose it will
serve. A useful way of clarifying the purpose of engagement is to think about
the appropriate level of engagement.
4.1 Analyse - determining the level and purpose of engagement
The different levels of involvement at which people may choose to conduct an
engagement have been classified in many ways. However, most
classifications describe an ascending scale of involvement which refers back
to Sherry Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation’ model from 19697. The author
described a ladder of participation which still has relevance today, and the
table below sets Arnstein’s ladder against the corresponding levels of
engagement contained within VOiCE.
Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Equivalent levels of engagement in
Participation’ VOiCE
8 Citizen Control Engage
7 Delegated Power
6 Partnership
5 Placation Consult
4 Consultation
3 Informing Inform
2 Therapy
1 Manipulation
The levels of engagement in VOiCE are described as:
• Inform
– This means we are only going to tell people what we plan to do.
• Consult
– This means we will offer people restricted options to choose
between.
6
VOiCE (Visioning Outcomes in Community Engagement) SCDC, 2010
7
Arnstein, Sherry R, ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ 1969
http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html (2006)
9
• Engage
– To take shared decisions - this means the community will
influence options and choices of action.
– To take shared action - this means the community will share in
any action taken.
– To support community led action - this means the community will
lead the action.
Participant Task 1
Working in pairs, think about a particular issue within the community which
you are currently working in. There is a need/requirement to engage with the
community around this issue – discuss with your colleague what would be the
most appropriate level and why? Record your answers on flipchart paper or
on the template provided (appendix 5).
Tips and prompts
Participants should be advised that the practice example they choose will be
used in the subsequent tasks for each stage of the engagement process,
therefore sufficient discussion should take place to make sure the example
chosen is one which the participant is likely to have some control over. It is
also helpful if participants choose an example of community engagement that
hasn’t taken placed yet. Applying the questions contained within the tasks
retrospectively to pieces of work runs the risk of people losing confidence in
how they conducted community engagement processes if they didn’t consider
these questions at the time.
As community engagement is often a collaborative process it might be useful
to advise participants to select a practice example that involves more than one
person, whether that is from their team, department, agency, partner agency
or community group.
4.2 Plan – what difference do we want the engagement to make?
Once the level of engagement has been determined we need to think about
what difference the engagement will make. This is described as an outcome
focused approach to community engagement.
Outcomes are the changes that occur or the difference that is made for
individuals, groups, families, organisations and communities. Outcomes are
the results derived from the activities we undertake. In the context of
community engagement, outcomes will normally relate to the process of
consulting people or involving people in influencing decisions, or taking action
on key issues that affect their lives.
Participant Task 2
Working in pairs, identify 2 or 3 possible outcomes (the difference that you
would want to make) in relation to the practice example you previously
identified. Record your answers on flipchart paper or on the template
provided (appendix 5).
10
In articulating your outcomes, it is helpful to think about the process of change
and ask yourself (and your partners):
Who is intended to benefit from the process? (expected beneficiaries)
When do you anticipate the changes reflected in your outcomes to take
place? (appropriate and intended outcomes)
Tips and prompts
The following key questions can be useful to prompt discussion and
agreement of outcomes:
What needs to change?
What will success look like?
What benefits will be accrued as a result of the engagement?
What will be different as a result of the engagement process to:
Our (or the community’s) intelligence?
Our (or the community’s) knowledge/understanding?
The way we provide our services?
Who we provide our services to?
Our decision making processes?
The quality of (community) life?
Another useful prompt to articulate outcomes is in asking the ‘so what’
question. It helps us ascertain whether or not we are describing an outcome
(the effect of an action) or the action itself. For example, if we say the change
to take place is ‘a community engagement training programme is delivered to
community representatives in the area’. This might reflect a change in that
the training programme wasn’t there before, but if we ask the ‘so what’
question, it helps us think about the intended impact of the training itself, i.e.
‘community representatives are more informed about community engagement
processes’ (improved knowledge), that leads to ‘community representatives
are better equipped to participate in decision making processes (improved
skills), that may then lead to ‘communities are more able to influence
decisions which affect their lives’ – the intended impact of the training.
Depending on the number of participants, the trainer might want to ask for
feedback from this task on the outcomes participants have come up with, or
just generally ask how they found the exercise in terms of being able to
articulate outcomes that they are happy with.
4.4 Plan – evidencing our impact as a result of the engagement process
The next stage in taking an outcome focused approach is to plan how we are
going to evidence our impact or how we will know we have achieved our
outcomes. This means agreeing on our outcome indicators.
11
Outcome indicators are measures that describe how well we are achieving our
outcomes. They define the evidence (qualitative and quantitative) to be
collected to measure progress and help us decide if our outcomes are
achieved. Outcome indicators are our evaluation criteria set at the planning
stage – so that we know how to judge success and we have the information or
evidence to make that assessment when it comes to the evaluation stage of
the process.
Ideally our indicators should involve both quantitative measures (how much
has changed) and qualitative measures (the nature of the change). For
example, from the scenario mentioned above about community engagement
training for community representatives, we can record the number of
community representatives who attended the training to evidence how much
has changed and for who (quantitative) and what effect the training has had
for those who attended (qualitative). Quantitative indicators usually come in
the form of keeping records or counting things, qualitative indicators are
usually evidenced through either observations or feedback from participants
and/or organisers of the engagement process.
Participant Task 3
Working in pairs or a small group and building on the previous task, identify
potential indicators in relation to each of your outcomes that will provide
evidence for measuring whether outcomes are achieved. Think about how to
build the process of collecting evidence into practice and procedures – the
outcome, the indicators, the method of collecting the evidence, who will do it
and when. Record your answers on flipchart paper or on the template
provided (appendix 6).
Tips and prompts
The following questions are helpful in deciding what outcome indicators and
evidence collection methods are relevant to your community engagement
process:
How will we know (that change has taken place)?
Who is intended to benefit and in what way?
What is the baseline ‘picture’ at present? (You will need to identify this to give
you something to measure your impact against)
What records, observations and or feedback will help us tell a difference?
It can often be the case that when devising your indicators you may want to
‘exchange’ them for your outcomes. That is, sometimes in trying to think of
the best way to evidence your outcomes by identifying indicators or measures,
your indicators can look more like the intended impact or outcome. If this is
the case, it’s important that participants know that this is a useful part of the
process of refining or re-defining your outcomes at the planning stage. If it
makes sense to ‘swap’ your outcomes for indicators and vice versa then don’t
be afraid of doing so. The important thing to remember is that the ‘plan’
makes sense.
12
4.5 Plan – what will we do and what methods will we use?
Outputs are the actions or activities we take to achieve the outcomes we
seek. Methods are the way in which we carry out the actions or activities and
there are likely to be many actions or methods available to us – the important
thing is to choose those most likely to achieve our outcomes.
Having identified the level of engagement in section 4.1, the methods
identified below correspond to each level of engage, consult and inform so
that participants can select appropriate methods depending on their level of
engagement.
Note: Most meaningful engagement comes at the level of ‘consult and
‘engage’ where the community has a role and can actively participate in
analysing the need, planning the response and reviewing the effects on the
community.
Engage
This level of participation includes stages 6 to 8 in Arnstein’s ladder and can
include shared planning and decision making responsibilities between citizens
and power holders. At this level citizens will influence options or lead the
action.
Examples of methods of community engagement at ‘engage’ level:
- shared decision making or action
o Open meetings/events including: Open space, World café, PP
vote/Option Finder
o Stakeholder workshops
o Story dialogue
o Deliberative mapping
o Planning for Real
o Participatory drama/forum theatre
Consult
‘Consult’ level includes stages 4 to 5 in Arnstein’s ladder which often involve
offering citizens restricted options to choose from but the power holders retain
the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice/feedback.
Examples of methods of community engagement at ‘consult’ level:
-offering citizens restricted options to choose from
a) Individual focus
13
o Questionnaires
self completion
administered
o Opinion polls
o Interviews
non-directive
semi-structured
o Suggestion boxes
o Interactive displays/exhibitions
o On-line consultations
o Text messaging
o Mail shots
o Email shots
b) Group/community focus
o Buzz groups
o Speed dating
o Group interviews/focus groups
o Nominal group process
o Group passing process
o Area forums
o Citizens panels
o Citizens juries
o Open meetings/events including: Open space, World café, PP
vote/Option Finder
Inform
This includes stages 1 to 3 in Arnstein’s ladder, this level tends to be non
participative and at best is about achieving public support for a service/policy/
initiative with the emphasis on a one way flow of information and no
opportunity for dialogue.
Examples of methods of community engagement at ‘inform’ level
o Publish information on a leaflet/website/letter/poster
o Run an information event in the local community
Providing information as a one way process does not constitute effective
communication unless responses to the information are assessed and
recorded in some way, and used to make communication more effective.
Participant Task 4
Working in pairs or small groups, use the above ‘menus’ to select the best
method that applies to your practice example. Think about the resources you
have to undertake particular methods and whether they can be delivered
within your overall timescale – these considerations will form the basis of what
methods can be realistically used.
14
Tips and prompts
There are many different methods of conducting community engagement and
it would be difficult to cover all of them in great detail given the length of the
course. Therefore it is suggested that trainers present a ‘menu’ of recognised
methods and provide a short description of each. Participants would then be
able to identify those they are most familiar with and those they would like to
explore further. A key message to communicate to participants is the
importance of selecting the most appropriate method to achieve the agreed
outcomes of the engagement. This will require knowledge of the range of
methods available, their intended purpose and how they can be applied. The
following web-links are provided to signpost participants to information about
methods and how they can be used.
Community Engagement How To Guide, Scottish Centre for Regeneration
http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/web
pages/scrcs_006693.hcsp
Consulting the Community – The Handbook (3rd edition), Fife Council
http://www.fifedirect.org.uk/topics/index.cfm?fuseaction=advicetopic.display&s
ubjectid=204D62AE-A91C-4D7C-A910EF4A1BE2CB9D&objectid=5C9B3540-
F085-4EE5-AB0959F2183D3938
Practical ways to engage with your community, Local Government
Improvement and Development, 2010
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=16639575
Managing community engagement – overview of methods, Queensland
Government
http://www.onlinelearning.qld.gov.au/materials/ce/online/ce/info/learning/guide
/t4s1.htm
The Fife Consulting the Community 3rd Edition Handbook is a particularly
useful resource and covers methods like campaigns, exhibitions, local media,
leaflets & newsletters, circulating documents, customer comment cards /
suggestion schemes, surveys, public meetings, conferences, select
committees, deliberative opinion polls, citizens' panel, workshops, focus
groups, open space, community visioning, user panels, citizen's juries, and
partnership approaches.
4.6 Do – carrying out the engagement process
This is the doing part of the process – carrying out the planned activities and
methods. It is the stage participants will be most experienced in and familiar
with and it is fair to say that the overwhelming desire to ‘get busy’ and get on
with the tasks at hand that often leads to people overlooking or under-
estimating the need for a robust plan before embarking on activities.
Although this is a distinct and important step in the engagement process, it’s
difficult to use the same participants’ tasks as before as it involves actual
15
implementation of the process and activities at the plan stage. Therefore a
useful way of approaching this step within a training context is in asking
participants to complete the following task.
Participant Task 5
In pairs or small groups, consider the following questions in relation to your
practice example, or what will now look like a ‘developing community
engagement plan’:
What specific activities will we undertake and with whom? (outputs)
Who is responsible for carrying them out? (allocation of tasks)
When? (timetabled plan)
Do we need someone to take responsibility for overseeing plan
implementation? (accountability)
How will this be reported and recorded? (collecting evidence as we go)
Record your answers on flipchart paper or on the template provided (appendix
7).
Tips and prompts
Its worthwhile pointing out to participants the importance of making sure the
plan is implemented. Quite often plans are created and the expectation is that
they will certainly be carried out. But unless we build in the ‘checks and
balances’ required to ensure tasks are completed, particularly in a
collaborative community engagement process, we run the risk of actions not
being completed or not being conducted in the way intended. This reflects the
importance of monitoring.
Remember we have to monitor for actions, and monitor for quality. Even if
activities and methods are completed, we should have mechanisms in place
for ensuring they are achieving what they are supposed to. Monitoring for
quality ensures we have the means to change our activities and methods if
they are not producing the results we expect. For instance, if we take the
example of the training programme for community representatives, we might
have delivered the training sessions planned within the programme, but if the
participant levels fall below a certain level it tells us we need to think about
how they are being delivered and change them if necessary to achieve our
outcomes. Low participation levels could suggest the training is not being
properly publicised, or perhaps the venue/timing of the sessions are
inaccessible to our intended audience, or that the programme isn’t something
community representatives think best meets their needs. If we agree in
advance a ‘minimum’ participation level, this can ‘trigger’ a review of the
activities and methods among partners and help them to take remedial action.
16
4.7 Review – assessing the impact
This is the evaluation stage of the process. Depending on the nature of the
engagement process and who was involved this could take many forms. The
list below includes some of the methods you could use to carry out your
evaluation from the people involved in the process.
• Questionnaires
• Interviews
• Observation – staff reports, minutes
• Group structured feedback
• Case studies
• Third party feedback
• Story dialogue
• Participatory appraisal
• (Video) diaries
In choosing the method/s it is important to select the ones that will give you
the information that you need and your outcome indicators should help guide
you to the most appropriate method/s for this purpose.
In terms of reviewing the successful achievement or progress towards your
outcomes within a partnership approach it will usually involve getting the
partners in the same room, at the same time, to discuss and agree what the
impact of the engagement has been using the evidence gathered.
Participant Task 6
Working in pairs or small groups, discuss how you will conduct your
evaluation process and activities. Think about what the appropriate methods
will be, who will conduct them, when and with whom. Record your answers
on flipchart paper.
Tips and prompts
It can be beneficial to think about using more than one method, especially if it
generates ‘richer’ information about the process. When partners are making a
judgement as to what impact the of the engagement has been, evidence from
more than one source can better reflect the changes that have taken place as
a result of the process.
It’s important to ensure a variety of perspectives are heard when evaluating
the impact, particularly the community engagement participants. This will
almost always provide valuable information about the process and help you
learn about what worked (and what didn’t) so that this can be applied to future
processes.
Also remember to think about how you will feed back the results of the
engagement to the participants. The Feedback Standard is most commonly
sited as the ‘overlooked’ standard and can often be in the ‘must do better’
category.
17
Section 5: Supplementary materials and resources
This section includes some of the key resources that are useful for community
engagement practice. It contains those not already referenced in the
guidance so far. It is not an exhaustive list but participants are encouraged to
review them as part of the ongoing process of learning about community
engagement and using them to support and promote good practice.
Fife Community Engagement Champions Welcome Pack
http://admin.1fife.org.uk/uploadfiles/publications/c64_Welcome.pdf
Deliberative Case Study – Working with Community Councils, East
Renfrewshire Council Community Planning Team (Appendix 8)
Other BCE Materials:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Built-Environment/regeneration/engage/better
For further information about this guidance please contact:
Susan Paxton,
Development Manager,
Scottish Community Development Centre
susan@scdc.org.uk
18
