Supplementary memorandum by Community
Development Foundation
CDF was asked by the Communities and Local Government
Select Committee to submit further evidence of the effects of
community development work on community cohesion—and in
particular, provide evaluation evidence that demonstrates how
the community development work that CDF has funded has improved
cohesion levels within a local area.
Part 1 briefly describes the grants programme
and CDF'S particular role in the administration of these funds,
for clarity.
Part 2 sets out evidence from the evaluations
of Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund (FCCBF) and Connecting
Communities Plus, Community Grants (CCPlus) and some administrative
data gathered by the grants administration team.
PART 1
The grants programmes
Faith Communities Capacity Building Fund (FCCBF)
distributed over £11m to more than 900 groups and organisations,
including single faith and inter faith groups over two years.
The fund sponsored any such faith work that would improve community
cohesion in England and Wales. The fund is sponsored by the Cohesion
and Faiths Directorate (CFD) of Communities and Local Government
(CLG).
Connecting Communities Plus, Community Grants
(CCPlus) is a £3 million fund distributed over three years.
So far, £2.338 million has been distributed in two rounds
of funding between 249 groups across England. Groups funded through
CCPlus are small voluntary and community groups working on local
cohesion and equality issues or improvements to public services.
The fund is sponsored by the Race Equality and Diversity Directorate
(REDD) and the Cohesion and Faiths Directorate (CFD) of Communities
and Local Government (CLG).
CDF's role
CDF does not itself deliver projects at a local
level, but acts as the Managing Agent of grants programmes on
behalf of Government departments. It has carried out this function
for nine years working with four departments to date. CDF works
closely with a department (in this case Communities and Local
Government) using our extensive knowledge of working with communities
and community development to design programmes and deliver them
to the audit standards required of a public body.
Programme design
CDF is careful to ensure that the funding programmes
are designed to reach, as far as is possible, groups working at
the grassroots who may otherwise be out of the grants information
loop. We promote the programmes through a range of channels—specialist
media, via third sector/faith/BME umbrella groups and through
regional road shows which make the programme more personal and
locally contextualised.
Priorities
CDF avoids prescription of activities that applicants
can undertake. Often the issues that need to be addressed have
been identified by communities themselves. However, there are
always guiding priorities set by the sponsoring department. In
the case of FCCBF, a small piece of research was commissioned
by Communities and Local Government which showed that the faith
sector had identified capacity building and funding for inter
faith activities as a primary need. These became the priority
areas of FCCBF, underpinned by community development principles.[14]
Assessment
Equally, assessors and consultants used in all
CDF grant administration programmes must have a good understanding
of the use of community development approaches. They are recruited
from across the country—and therefore have a working knowledge
of the priorities in many areas. Local priorities are also taken
into consideration through contact with Government Offices.
Grant payment
The grants go directly to community groups,
as opposed to via local authorities, or third sector umbrella
organisations.
Support
Unusually for a grant administrator, CDF provides
direct support to local groups to enable them to apply for funding,
sometimes for the first time.
There are many examples of CDF working "with"
groups rather than adopting a passive grant giving role. Once
community groups receive funding, CDF's first step is to meet
with them—in person, to make a "human" link. We
introduce ourselves (as the funder) and make an assessment of
their needs. From our support package (email support, one to one
mentoring, training, networking and publications), we tailor a
package to suit their particular needs. Developing a relationship
helps to improve the quality of the programme and reduce potential
risks such as the misuse of funds.
FCCBF, in particular, was the first of its kind
and in our conclusion we have made suggestions and recommendations
for how the design of the evaluation of future funding programmes
could be linked to more specific cohesion outcomes.
Support is also provided to local groups by
connecting them to consultants, encouraging networking at events
and resources relevant to the fund, funding ideas, relevant training
sessions and sign posting to other relevant organisations. All
these activities are provided free of charge to the groups. These
additions help contribute to building local groups' capacity.
We also continue the relationship with them
after the grants period has expired—by sending them a newsletter
with funding information and listings of networking opportunities.
Using community development principles, we carried
out a short survey and used the findings to create resources (publications
and guides) for FCCBF funded groups which were based on their
own needs—another example of how CDF's programmes are rooted
in community development.
We know that this is essential to gaining a
deeper understanding of issues communities' face, so we can feed
this back into future policy and programme design.
PART 2: EVIDENCE
Key findings
Funded groups believe that they are achieving
the aims of the funds in terms of community cohesion and conducting
inter faith work.
Funded groups believe that they had a positive
effect on community cohesion—such as bringing those of different
races, faiths and ages together.
Funded groups are reaching out to users of varied
ethnic and faith backgrounds, often beyond that of their own organisation.
Community group users felt that funded groups
enabled them to mix with people of different backgrounds.
Administrative data
As part of the evaluation process, reporting
forms are sent to groups providing an opportunity for them to
say, in their own words, how their project went. These are returned
directly to the grants administration team.[15]
Out of 573 groups funded in Round 1 of FCCBF,
just under two thirds (330) mentioned community cohesion and/or
interfaith cohesion as an outcome.
Out of 140 groups funded in Round 1 of CCPlus,
just under a third (46) stated their projects contributed to community
cohesion and 12 state they achieved reduced racism/extremism.
Evaluation evidence
CDF uses its Research and Evaluation Unit to
work alongside the grant administration team to research, evaluate
and learn from the grant schemes—feeding back to government
to inform future policy and programme design.
FCCBF Round One
FCCBF has published its evaluation report Faith,
Cohesion and Community Development. This report was based on findings
from the first round of the fund and this submission features
some of the published findings from it. For a full copy of the
report, go to www.cdf.org.uk
Part of the rationale behind FCCBF was to build
a more cohesive society. This vision was made clear in the guidance
note to applicants.
Self-completion questionnaires sent at the beginning
of round one showed that the vast majority of FCCBF groups felt
their work made a positive contribution to community cohesion
within their faith community, between faith groups and between
ethnic groups. The figures for all these indicators were over
90% for both small and large grants. Again, it should be noted
that indicators on community cohesion generally record high levels
of satisfaction.[16]
Equally, respondents stated that inter faith
forums and councils funded by FCCBF were able to monitor tensions
and bring calm should difficulties arise in community relations
and to help people understand the changes that happened in their
neighbourhoods.[17]
Also, inter faith courses run by funded organisations challenged
the perceptions and myths that people developed about "others".[18]
As one worker commented:
"Inter faith work can help people to
understand the changes that are happening in their neighbourhoods.
People learn to know other people and start to hate each other
less. This is only achievable on a small scale".[19]
Specific research into the involvement of women
in FCCBF funded groups corroborates a picture of positive contribution
to community cohesion. Of the 155 respondents to this research,
150 felt that they had met new people.[20]
Additionally, over 80% of the 155 participants
in this survey felt that within 15 minutes' walking distance from
their home, the local area was a place where people of different
faith, religions or ethnic groups got on well.
Data from young people painted a slightly different
perception of community cohesion. Over 70% of 178 young people
felt that, within 15 minutes' walking distance of their home,
the local area was a place where people of different faith, religions
and ethnic groups got on well.[21]
These findings show that those involved in FCCBF
funded groups believed that the funding brought people into dialogue
and into new interactions with each other—a key requisite
for cohesion.
CCPlus
CCPlus is yet to publish its evaluation report.
However, the evaluation evidence below was gathered from both
qualitative and quantitative research undertaken. A full copy
of the evaluation report will be available at www.cdf.org.uk in
late autumn 2008.
Evidence suggests that organisations that applied
for CCPlus funding believed they were successful in bringing together
people of different races, faiths and backgrounds together.
In round one, 121 groups responded to the survey.
In round two, there were 82 respondents. Although a small sample
size, over the two rounds on average, 81% of groups believed that
they were helping people of different ethnicities, 70% of groups
believed they were helping people from different faiths and 89%
of groups believed they were bringing people of different backgrounds
together.
From £2.338 million pounds distributed
to under 250 groups, initial evidence suggests CCPlus funded programmes
have a large number of beneficiaries. 47% (61 organisations) that
were funded in round one stated they had 101 to 500 beneficiaries.[22]
Whilst in round two, 36% (35 organisations) stated they had 101
to 500 beneficiaries.
CCPlus: working with different races and faiths
CC Plus groups were asked about working with
different races and faiths when undertaking their project—a
prerequisite to building community cohesion.
In both round one and two, over a quarter of funded
groups stated they involved four ethnic groups in their work.[23]
Equally, in relation to involving faith groups,
in both rounds, around half stated they have involved between
three to nine faith groups.[24]
CCPlus priority D—bringing together communities
of different races and faiths
Groups could apply for a CCPlus grant under
priority D which funded activities that would bring together communities
from different races and faiths, and promote a shared sense of
belonging (community cohesion).
In CCPlus round one, 62 organisations who had
completed the questionnaire stated they had focussed on priority
D. Of these, over half thought their work had been "very
successful" at achieving the aim with over 40% stating they
thought that they had been "successful". No organisations
thought that their work had been "unsuccessful" or "very
unsuccessful".
In round two, the picture was only marginally
less positive. Of the organisations that focussed on priority
D (30), slightly over a third (11) thought their work had been
"very successful" and 55% (16) stated that they had
been "successful" in achieving the aims of the funding
priority.
Bringing people of different ethnic groups and
faiths together is an important stepping stone to developing community
cohesion.
In round one, within those groups (62) doing
activities under priority D, a third (21) involved four different
ethnic groups in their work and a quarter (15) stated they had
involved three ethnic groups.
In round two, the figures for the numbers of
those who had involved four ethnic groups were higher (13 out
of 29) with an additional seven stating they had involved five
different ethnic groups in their work.
In relation to numbers of faith groups involved,
in round one, under a third (17 out of 59 organisations) stated
they had involved two different faith groups in their CCPlus funded
work and the figure was lower for four different faith groups.
However, only three organisations out of the 59 said they had
involved no faith groups at all.
In round two, out of 30 organisations working
towards priority D, only nine stated they had involved two faith
groups in their work, and six organisations stated that they had
involved five different faith groups. Only five organisations
stated that they had involved just one faith group.
Evidence suggests that organisations working
towards priority D feel they are successful in achieving the aims
of the funding priority and additionally involved a wide range
of ethnic and faith groups in their work.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, CDF would recommend that further
funding is provided for small community groups for activities
which encourage bringing together those of different races, faiths
and backgrounds together. Additionally, further evaluations and
perhaps a longitudinal study should be undertaken to explore the
causal links between community development work and improving
levels of cohesion. This would provide Government and others with
a far clearer picture as to the long term impact or role of community
development in building community cohesion.
14 Community development is based on core values of:
social justice; learning; cooperation; equality; participation;
and environmental justice. It brings people together to address
issues of common concern and to develop their skills, confidence
and resources to address them. It enables people acting together
as partners in development rather than objects of decision and
policies made by others. Back
15
Please note that information was gathered from groups in receipt
of FCCBF round one and two grants and CCPlus round one. However,
round two reports have not yet been fully gathered. The information
gathered is self evaluated-ie is reliant on an individual assessing
their own success. Back
16
James, M, 2007. Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: An
Evaluation report from the Faith Communities Capacity Building
Fund. Community Development Foundation. London. P 50. Back
17
James, M, 2007. Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: An
Evaluation report from the Faith Communities Capacity Building
Fund. Community Development Foundation. London. P 23. Back
18
James, M, 2007. Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: An
Evaluation report from the Faith Communities Capacity Building
Fund. Community Development Foundation. London. P 25. Back
19
James, M., 2007. Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: An
Evaluation report from the Faith Communities Capacity Building
Fund. Community Development Foundation. London. P 25. Back
20
James, M, 2007. Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: A
Report on the Survey of Women. Community Development Foundation.
London. P 9. Back
21
James, M., 2007. Faith, Cohesion and Community Development: An
Evaluation report from the Faith Communities Capacity Building
Fund. Community Development Foundation. London. P 45. Back
22
Spratt, E, 2007. CCPlus, Draft Interim Report-Survey of Organisations
Funded in Round 1 [online]. Connecting Communities Plus, Community
Grants, Community Development Foundation. Available from: http://www.cdf.org.uk/services/rea/introduction.asp
[Accessed July 2007]. Back
23
The largest proportion of organisations 25% (33 organisations)
stated that they had involved four ethnic groups in their CCPlus
funded work. However, it should be noted that the highest proportion
of organisations still stated that they involved four ethnic groups
(29% or 26 organisations). Back
24
In both rounds 1 and 2, the largest proportion of CCPlus funded
organisations stated that they had involved at least two faith
groups in their CCPlus funded work (30%, or 38 organisations in
Round 1 and 27%, or 24 organisations in Round 2). Over half the
organisations in Round 1 (52% or 65 organisations) stated they
had involved between three and nine faith groups and in Round
2 just under half (49%, or 42 organisations) stated that they
had involved between three to nine faith groups. Back
| 
