This workshop followed on from our first one in April where we determined
how influential we thought we were. We ran out of time at the first
seminar and in this one we will be exploring how we can become more
influential.
'Voice' is a discussion-based tool for community groups and
networks to assess and improve the influence they have on
agencies and partnerships. If you'd like to know more about
it and Changes which invented it, go here.
The workshop was led once again by Sustainable Crediton core
group members John Skrine and Gerald Conyngham. Here's John's
report on the result of both workshops.
Making Sustainable Crediton more influential
What we did
On 18 April and 7 November two groups of members worked with
'Voice' (learn more here: http://bit.ly/MiKqfh), a framework
which helps community groups and networks to assess and improve the
influence they have on agencies and partnerships. The 'Voice' plots
existing capacity of the group to influence against how influential
members of the group feels it is. It can be used to: assess and
monitor community influence, prompt discussion and debate within
groups and help plan how to become more influential.
Based on community development principles and values, 'Voice'
analysed the group against ten measures of effectiveness by
aggregating yes/no answers to 68 indicator propositions.
Gerald, Linda and John Skrine were present at both sessions,
which also included Charles, Anne, Laura, and Paula
Kovacs.
What was the result?
There is much to celebrate. And I think that it's
important for the Core Group to do this. While, naturally, we will
wish to focus on what we need to do to be more influential, without
a moment to reflect on the areas in which the assessment tool
suggested SusCred is doing well, it's easy to feel discouraged. And
the overall result of the exercise is that we should feel strongly
encouraged, because:
- All the issues that emerged were to do with the relationship
between SusCred and the world. None of them reflected problems,
tensions or inadequacies in the way the group functions
internally.
- The sets of indicators for which attendees indicated there are
no real issues are: 'Want to influence'; Know why you want to
influence'; 'Willing to have a go'; 'Know what you want to change';
'Organised to influence'. This is the complete set of
indicators about the functioning of the group itself.
There is therefore a strong base on which to develop our
work. It would be easy to take this for granted, as some of
these indicators, stated simply, look simple to meet. But
that's only the case if you've done it, I suggest!
Moving on to the indicators where all of four people in the
first group agreed that the indicator was not met, the result again
was very clear. Five areas of activity emerged: 'Know the political
landscape'; 'know who to influence'; 'Link with others to
influence'; 'Know how to influence'; 'Influence'.
These eight indicators (only eight out of a possible 68) which
all four in the first group agreed were not met were shown to the
second group, who individually ranked each them out of five, where
five was: 'You think this is something we should explore further
and deal with as an important priority'. The ones to emerge
from this exercise as of higher priority were:
- Do we really know how we are viewed by the people we want to
influence? What do they really think of us?
1=
- How good are we at linking with other groups? Do we
identify common concerns, agree common strategies, look for win-win
possibilities?
1=
- Do we need a promotional and communications strategy?
1=
- Do we know not only what the issues are, but also have a
strategy to make the best use of the opportunities we have?
Do we need one??
2
- Have we a plan for dealing with the people who may have a
negative influence on us in other groups or organisations we are
working with? How can we deal with them or work around them.
3
- Do we have a collective understanding of how influential we
are, and therefore a clear idea of our potential to
influence? How bothered are we about this?
4
These indicators form a clear cluster, given the wide range of
topics covered by the indicators overall. They might be crudely
summarised as: We don't know how we are seen locally; so how should
we set about influencing people if we don't what they think of
us?
What we made of it
This is a selection (fair, I hope) of comments made over the two
sessions:
How influential are we: "Town Hall/Sus Cred event attended
by 80 people . . . always the same people, not enough people
involved, people always busy . . . people not coming to us . . .
quite a big way to go . . . we may shout it out, but they are not
looking out for us . . . it's difficult for transition groups -
Totnes not making much progress with their energy descent
plan . . . lots of people simply want to do something, so are
not interested in influencing - that can be threatening . . . we
really don't know how influential we are: no feedback mechanism . .
. it depends on which sector of community - definitely influenced
MDDC . . . MDDC Local Plan has lifted whole sections
from our feedback . . . it's apathy not negativity . . ."
Ways to move forward: "Are action groups clear on identifying
and promoting activities as Sus Cred activities? E.g. An info
leaflet could have been distributed with every item given or taken
at the Clothes Swap . . . need an info leaflet better
countywide transition town linking? . . . what about action
groups linking together and taking action on a single major issue
and campaigning together. E.g. FOOD = waste = energy =
transport . . . linking with other groups in the town? . . . we
should be working on Fuel Poverty - Green Deal opens in Jan with
accredited advisers and companies - could we make a link as with
solar panel initiative ?. . . but who will do this - it's all very
well having ideas, but who is going to put them into action?
. . . how to get ideas we don't currently have the energy for
promoted by new people who might get involved by taking them
forward? . . . the way the Chamber of Commerce behaves demonstrates
that nobody links successfully with anyone else in Crediton, it's
the nature of the place . . . three levels of campaigning:
immediate, medium term, long-term vision. And need to have some
immediate impact . . . continue to engage with Mel Stride . . . we
should make the vision paper developed after the Boniface Centre
meeting a regular item at the Core Group meetings . . . strategy
for promotion? Don't want to write a plan. At the moment
groups do publicity for themselves, and it works. But perhaps
they could do with support . . . what about an occasional social
gathering with no agenda to build rapport and encourage more
activity among members?"
What do we do about it?
The purpose of this paper is to stimulate action, not just to
report.
The clear conclusion of the work so far is that our
communication, especially with certain parts of the community,
needs attention. And people will not respond unless there's
something in it for them, as someone pointed out. So how do we
provide something for people in Barnfield, for example, and for
farmers - two sectors identified as ones we don't engage with
successfully?
The Core Group now needs to decide how to take this
forward. Without pre-empting that discussion, but as a
starter for ten, attendees agreed that we should:
- Regard this as a process rather than a call for a document, or
delegate it to someone to take charge of;
- Call for a small number of people to own the process and move
it forward, including someone who is prepared to help with
publicity, press releases etc.
I suggest that members who have not yet contributed should have
a chance to react to this paper, and that the Core Group then
decides the next step.