Kerslake is wrong

This is the first in a series of blogposts concerning the reframing of Local Authorities and the impact it will have on Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) ecosystem.

Subsequent blogs will address the history of local governance and our potential ‘romantic view’ of Councils capability to deliver local services as well as exploring the future of the VCS within combined authorities.

In this blogpost I explore why I believe Sir Bob Kerslake is wrong in his recommendations concerning Birmingham City Council. While he may have addressed some fundamental issues of service failure, identifying capacity and operational issues for members and officers, I believe that his inappropriate use of the term ‘community leader’ as well as mixing the terminology ‘civic / community / resident’ has the potential to undermine the importance of VCS organisations in the future.

The Kerslake report is having a fundamental impact on local governance and democracy in Birmingham. Whilst having to deliver some of the most ruthless public sector cuts, the City has to deal with national government insisting that how Councillors represent and make decisions concerning services is not working and that it needs a significant overhaul.

The proposal to reduce the Council from 120 to 100 Councillors will, Kerslake argues, enable Councillors to provide greater representation to those they serve. (ref1)

Kerslake makes a number of references to engaging and representing communities. He argues that Wards are too big (15 of them being the largest in the country(ref2)). Increasing the number of wards and decreasing the number of Councillors would increase representation from 13,413 to 10,730 per Councillor.  This he argues will enable Councillors to concentrate on regular, direct engagement with the people and organisations in their wards and role as community leaders (ref3)

Kerslake believes that this change will enable the council to fulfil one of its principal functions, “to represent the views of citizens and enable them to participate in the decisions that affect them and their local communities. Their democratic mandate gives councillors and councils the opportunity to act as community leaders.” (ref4).

Additionally, Kerslake questions the format of devolution in Birmingham, stating it doesn’t work, and that “It urgently needs a new model of devolution that enables services to be delivered within the resources available and provides more powerful community engagement.”(ref5)

While I may agree with some of Kerslake’s arguments, especially the part about the Council believing that if something should be done, it (the Council), should do it. I’m not too sure that his belief that the changes and the ‘shake up’ of devolution will enable councillors and the Council to represent the views of citizens and enable them to participate in the decisions that affect them and their local communities. I believe that Kerslake’s belief that “their [Councillors] democratic mandate gives councillors and councils the opportunity to act as community leaders” to be wrong and seriously flawed.  

Councillors are civically elected leaders of Birmingham. The mandate that the democratic process gives them is to make decisions on how to run, and deliver, services that legislation requires and expects, and services that are devolved to a Local Authority.  This mandate and the legislative role do not make them Community Leaders. 

The terms ‘civic’ and ‘community’ accompanied by the term ‘leadership’, together with the terms ‘resident’,’ VCS’ and ‘communities’ seem to used as interchangeable terms, with no accompanying glossary of definitions by Kerslake, within the document.

I would question the use of the term ‘community leader’, used to describe the relationship between councillor and ‘constituent’ / ward residents, and how a councillor represents those needs within a democratic structure - this is not community / civic leadership.

There is however a significant difference between Councillors as democratically mandated representatives, and as community leaders. Councillors represent ALL people within a geographic area, a ward. Community leaders represent groups that have a common bond - of geography, interest, culture (including in this definition, ethnicity, disability, gender etc. ) and/or of faith. Such groups make up communities within and across wards, and will have leaders who speak for them and their needs.

These community leaders may have a different mandate and a different remit to Councillors. Community needs are fluid, and representation will respond to that fluidity. Communities within a geographic area change, and therefore the leadership may change.  A Councillor’s duty of representation, together with their duty of governance, is different to community representation.

Duty of governance is a responsibility, dictated by legislation and enacted by national government. Community leader are not restrained by such legislation - the restrictions outlined through charity and company legislation only relates to operational activity. Therefore, community leaders can represent their constituents / members in any way they feel appropriate, something not available to Councillors.

Clarity is required as to what Kerslake means by Councillors being ‘community leaders’ as well as his use of the terms ‘civic leadership’ and ‘community representatives’. Where, in the whole process of partnership, leadership and delivery does he see the role for the rag bag of groups that form the Civic, Community, Voluntary and Third Sector?  

The wide range of VCS organisations within the City represents their ‘constituent communities’. Surely it is the role of Councillors not to act as ‘leaders’ of these communities, but to corporately represent their voice to develop and deliver services appropriate to need, advised and supported by officers, within budget and legislative governance?

Much of the document focuses on the Council’s inability to act strategically, manage its structures of delivery and work in partnership. Kerslake criticises the council for its belief that “if it’s worth doing, the Council should do it.” (ref6)  While he offers guidance on how the relationship between officers and members should be developed, he restricts the development of how strategic decisions are taken with partners  to the public realm. Having promoted Councillors to ‘Community Leaders’, he makes passing reference to ‘residents’ and ‘communities’ as an interchangeable concept.     

While I may agree with him that the Council should produce, with their partners, a clear statement of partnership values, such as openness, transparency, learning and collaborating (ref7), the creation of an environment for safe and constructive challenges will not be brought about if Councillors see themselves as ‘Community Leaders’ in the way Kerslake seems to be advocating.

VCS organisations should be able to lobby and argue for services within a ‘safe and constructive’ environment, engaging Councillors, and subsequently officers, in developing projects, programmes and services to address identified and agreed needs. Parameters for discussion and lobbying need to be clear from the start. Single community groups need to be aware of the strategic picture as much as they are aware of their own needs.

These discussions can be undertaken at a variety of levels - community, interest, cultural and/or faith and can be developed within a ‘whole city’ strategic framework. Councillors can make their decisions, as Civic Leaders, within legislative boundaries, based on this consultation.

While Kerslake is intent on restructuring the Council, he is too vague in how residents, communities and civic leaders will participate in this change, aside from voting for a whole council every four years. He acknowledges that the Council, officers and members, need to recognise that there may be other ways of delivering activities other than the Council ‘doing everything’, but at that point he stops.

I would support Kerslake in his assertion that   “the Council need to clarify its roles (ref8), responsibilities, behaviours and ways of working of the Leader, Cabinet, councillors, Chief Executive and officers”  but I would add that VCS organisations need to play a full and active role in that clarification.

In developing a new structure and clarity, the Council needs to recognise the breadth of representation for civic/voluntary /community organisations, and identify ordered and appropriate methods for engaging and harnessing such enthusiasm. From a VCS perspective, the Council cannot adopt a whole city approach and focus partnership development on one single organisation which, in a city the size of Birmingham, cannot hope to fully represent the diverse breadth of organisations.

So, is Kerslake wrong?

Yes, in two aspects and omissions

1. identifying Councillors as ‘Community leaders’ without fully clarifying the definition of those terms
2. not being specific about VCS consultation as a partner in developing services

These two omissions can, and probably will, cause hours of debate and discussion which could have been avoided had Bob Kerslake been a little more precise in his submission and recommendations.  

References

¹ The way forward: an independent review of the governance and organisational capabilities of Birmingham City   Council, Sir Bob Kerslake, 2014,  page 15

² Ibid. Page 26

³ Ibid. Recommendation (7e) Page 12

⁴ Ibid. Page 16

⁵ Ibid. Page 15

⁶ Ibid. Recommendation (8), page 12

⁷ Ibid. Recommendation (9), page 12

⁸ Ibid. Point 15, page 35

IRISH CLUBS AND CENTRES IN BRITAIN - a sustainable business suggestion

 A Discussion Paper written by 

Ted Ryan and Pauline Roche

RnR Organisation Ltd

September 2014 

IRISH CLUBS AND CENTRES

IN BRITAIN  

ACTIVITIES NECESSARY TO DEVELOP

A SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS  MODEL

This discussion paper was triggered following a discussion about support for, and the future of, Irish Clubs and Centres at an Irish in Britain (IiB) meeting in July 2014.

We believe there needs to be a discussion as whether support should be offered, as well as the nature of support to be developed and offered - this paper, however, offers some radical solutions, solutions that may not be palatable to some people.

We believe that, given the history of support offered by IIB, and the state of some clubs, such a discussion should be considering radical and far reaching proposals if the role of the clubs and centres at the core of Irish Culture in Britain is to continue.

This discussion paper is essentially an introduction to the issue – it is not an in depth analysis of the background, governance structures, source and nature of issues and potential resolutions.

We produce this paper, not only as interested members of IiB and people active in the Irish community, but also as professionals who have worked in the field of community and cultural development for over 25 years.

We have a track record of project and partnership development and management, cultural and arts delivery and governance and organisational troubleshooting.  

Hopefully, if there is the appetite to explore the issue further, there will be greater, more in depth analysis of all the issues as per the recommendation.

                   BACKGROUND

Irish Clubs and Centres (from now on just referred to as Clubs), have been core to Diaspora life since anyone can remember, and have been core to the social and cultural life of the Irish community in Britain since the major emigration in the middle of the last century.      

 The creation of these venues fulfilled the need within an emigration pattern long gone. The venues enabled emigrants to meet and speak with other emigrants, listen to and play music they were familiar with, sing and celebrate their language, dance and watch dancing, and celebrate the sport of their Ireland, GAA.

 Families held christening parties, birthday parties, wedding receptions and wakes in clubs.

GOVERNANCE

Predominantly managed by committee, elected through a membership, the vast majority of clubs followed a ‘democratic’ process in their management and development.

A variety of governance structures were also adopted: charity, mutual and beneficial, limited company.

PROPERTY. BUILDING, SALES AND ACTIVITIES

A variety of arrangements exist as to the tenure, ownership, leasing or renting of clubs.

The same applies to the contract for the purchase and sales of beer, as well as what other services a club may offer.

The licensing changes in 2005 modified how Clubs were licensed. While most remain as ‘clubs’ they tend to be licensed as ‘premises’ and not as private clubs. 

 ISSUES

On July 12^th 2014 at the Irish in Britain (IiB) meeting in Birmingham the issues and problem that some clubs are currently facing was raised. While accepting that there is a general malaise in the licensing sector, IiB were requested to consider supporting clubs to ensure that they continue to be capable of playing an active role at the heart of Irish cultural activity.

There is a tradition of IiB offering support to clubs. In previous years this support has been extensive. There is also a pattern of clubs either ignoring or not recognising the value of that support. This is not an absolute across the board - some have listened and benefitted - but it can be said that clubs are not the easiest of groups to work with. 

IiB are currently undertaking a review of clubs. While the current research is being undertaken it may be necessary for additional information to be obtained.

If the problem of the sustainability of clubs is to be addressed then the issue of accepting, listening to and acting on support, also needs to be addressed. The issues on both sides need to be identified in a frank and honest manner, acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses on both sides, and recognising the need to develop a workable and sustainable solution.  

The issue of sustainability does, however, not apply to all clubs. While these other clubs may not seek support from IiB it could be hoped that they may play a role in identifying solutions, enabling other clubs to learn from their experiences, skills and activities.

Some issues that have been expressed and need further exploration:

•          The experience of club board -  business, venue and financial management
•           View of role of club – purely for Irish Activity or recognition of other money earning activities?
•          The willingness of board members to listen and act on advice
•          Unwillingness/reluctance to work in partnership with other agencies
•          Inability to develop an economically viable programme, as a business, rather than a series of services to fulfil community need  (this is when there is a view that the club or centre is a community asset and not a business)
•           A narrow view of Irish Culture and need based on the dominance on the management group of particular elements of the emigrant community
•           Reliance on Irish Government funding to develop services or undertake improvements.

           WHAT INFORMATION NEEDS TO BE SHARED

Some clubs may be reluctant to share information. If support is to be offered and sustainable models developed, providing such information is essential.

Any sustainable model must be developed and enshrined within a business proposal.

While the cultural role of the clubs may be considered as their primary function, there is a cost to that activity, a cost that needs to be raised either through grants, which, in the current economic climate, are more difficult to come by, or through commercial activity.

The collation of business, property and structural information needs to be provided and analysed as an initial examination as to the structural (building) and economic (trading) state of the clubs.

Initial research should examine  

a.       Physical size of club

                                                               i.      Provided in floor size (m²), number of rooms and sizes.

                                                              ii.      Car parking

                                                            iii.      Transport, access, location in town/city

b.      Tenure of club

                                                               i.      Rented

                                                              ii.      Leasehold – extended

                                                            iii.      Ownership

                                                            iv.      Other – church hall

                                                              v.      Other

                                                            vi.      Ability to raise money against club as an asset

c.       Investment

                                                               i.      Required - building requirements

                                                              ii.      Potential - based on value of premises and tenure

d.      Governance

                                                               i.      Private sector,  Community Interest Company , Company Limited by Guarantee , Mutual, Charity

                                                              ii.      Membership and size of ‘active’ membership, and diversity

                                                            iii.      Meetings and voting activity

                                                            iv.      Skills analysis  - experience of board

e.      Structural Changes

                                                               i.      Ability to merge/collaborate

                                                              ii.      Mandate of committee and governance arrangement

                                                            iii.      Membership structure

                                                            iv.      Rights and responsibilities of Board to enter into agreement for partnership and collaborative agreement

f.        Business/market

                                                               i.      Business turnover

                                                              ii.      Staff management and business activity

                                                            iii.      Community activity, and charges

                                                            iv.      Private sector links and services outsourced

                                                              v.      Market  knowledge/development proposals

                                                            vi.      Business plan

                                                           vii.      Skills training – staff and board

                                                         viii.      Identification of business potential

                                                           ix.      Income/Expenditure – how much does it cost to run the club per hour/day?

           WILLINGNESS TO LOOK AT A NEW MODEL -

           COLLABORATIVE OR BUSINESS AMALGAMATION

The state of the clubs within the community is not a new issue.

The support received from IiB in the past has had some impact but, for a number of reasons, some clubs remain in decline.

It may be necessary therefore, to look beyond helping individual clubs, and to explore the potential to develop business partnerships and joint business practice, formal amalgamation, enabling a managing body to treat the Irish Clubs as one business. 

The information gathered in part 5 will create an overall picture of the ‘worth’ of the clubs, the property and turnover. Once this baseline has been established, the potential for business development can be explored.

Amalgamating clubs, developing business partnerships or other forms of joint operations can be explored, including the creation of one company to manage and develop activity.

The potential advantage of one company would be

•   Identification of assets and value, transfer of assets to central company
•   Central management process informed by local advisory groups , clubs managed as going businesses – long term assessment of viability of club prior to amalgamation[1]
•    Central purchasing and monitoring will lead to savings
•   Marketing and development of services etc.
•   Booking of bands, theatre tours etc could increase potential of additional funding and sponsorship deals
•   Development of investment programme based on value of ‘company’ assets
•   Preparation for investment readiness of ‘company’

However, we recognise that this is a major change, and possibly a step too far for the clubs.

Developing collaborative activity, not a formal business amalgamation but the development of memorandum of understanding, joint partnership agreements etc. may be more acceptable.

In this model individual clubs would join and ‘buy in’ to a business model and process. In this case however, there are not so many advantages:

•   It is a weaker business model, whereby clubs ‘buy’ into a process.
•   No robust business assets to enable development or investment.
•   Similar to previous support offered – which ultimately closed as it was felt that clubs abused the process.

7.       FINAL THOUGHTS AND A RECOMMENDATION

There is not an easy answer to this issue. Clubs are in competition with other venues like never before, the demographics of the community have changed, and those people that established the clubs when they first arrived are less in number and up-to-date experience of venue management.

In many cases, these first generation (late 1950’s-1960’s) emigrants still dominate the clubs and have ‘difficulty’ in handing over the reins. This transition probably should have happened 10-15 years ago but it didn’t, and now, those who may have been willing, have moved onto other venues and interests.

Questions to be considered by club committees/boards

What is to be the legacy of the current committees and structures? How long will you last if you don’t change?

What are you leaving behind and what do you want to leave your children and children’s children who will move further away from their heritage and culture if what’s there is not accessible and acceptable to them?

Recommendation

The IiB could set up a commission to consider this idea comprising representatives from the clubs, the Irish Embassy, businesses, Irish cultural organisations and funding be identified to carry out this activity – there may be funding available in Britain e.g. Big Potential

---

[1] The last thing needed after a club joins the ‘company‘ would be disagreement between a local advisory committee and the central management of the process over viability; therefore, a robust business case is required.

The loss of my beautiful game

Long long ago I fell in love with football, we played in the street, we played in the school yard, I was really crap and never scored a goal but I loved it. Living in Merthyr there was a dearth of opportunity to watch top class teams; Cardiff was the nearest club, in the Second Division at that time, and always in Europe as the club invariably won the Welsh Cup which qualified them for the European Cup Winners Cup.

I stared going to watch Merthyr Tydfil (FC) then in the Southern League Premier Division I learned what it was like to win and to lose. Merthyr was going nowhere but they were my team.

Sometimes I, with friends, would go to Cardiff, it was easier to get to Cardiff than it was to Swansea, who were in a lower division at the time, and so my love affair with football grew.

Going to college in Liverpool I regularly attended Anfield, never comfortable in the swaying kop of the mid 70’s I watched a Liverpool team, at the beginning of its dominant phase of English football, from the Anfield Road end of the ground, and so my love affair with football grew.

Fast Forward ........... to now and what has happened to that love affair.

This season Cardiff were relegated from the Premier League, they had only been in it one season, the Manager and the Chair fell out and the Manager got sacked, fans were unhappy because the owner changed the colour the team played in from blue to red and they got paid £62 million from television rights, for coming last. The top payment to Liverpool, just over £97 million and even Manchester United, who had a really bad season received  £89 million.

I work with groups that are looking for thousands to run community sports programmes, play schemes and coaching programmes.

I watch community coaches’ work with children in a park on a rainy day because they believe in giving something back to the community. These people are not alone there are hundreds, thousands, of such people throughout the country that give their time to work with and develop youngsters.

These groups, these individuals scramble around for funds, competing with all the others for a diminishing public and charitable purse.

Footballers earning over £200k per week, teams that come last being paid £62 million and ticket prices  of £50+ per game. These ‘important issues’ fill our newspaper, consume our Saturdays, spawn a myriad of television programmes and celebrity punters, all for the beautiful game I fell in love with as a boy, but out of love with as a man.

Oh yes and every now and then, VERY rarely, television produces a ‘community interest’ item celebrating the people I now go and watch, and work with, in the park on Saturday; instead of watching, what I still believe to be a beautiful game, made ugly by losing its relevance to me. 

Community Arts, Arts in the Community - Hall Green District – Art Works

Hall Green District – Art Works

This discussion document is a response to Arts and Culture Steering Group Hall Green District following its Artworks conference on  March 29^th 2014.

“There are no hard to reach audiences there is only hard to reach art” Phil Jones, Senior Lecturer in Cultural Geography, University of Birmingham; Cultivating Cultural Symposium – Local Arts in Birmingham, 18^th March 2014.

Introduction

On March 29^th 2014 Hall Green District held a conference celebrating and planning how community arts and culture could be developed, within the District, over the next twelve months. I could not stay for the whole event but I have composed some thoughts based on the presentations I heard.

The presentations at the conference encompassed not only ‘arts and culture’ activity but identified, and focused on, a number of other objectives.   

These were not distinct or subversive objectives that people were trying to sneak into an arts conference but were parallel objectives, and subsequent activities, that are developed or delivered in tandem with arts and culture activities.

I firmly believe that arts and cultural activities can be at the core of any community development and engagement. I also believe that other objectives can be achieved by using arts activities as a conduit in a multi objective development.

However, a multi objective approach can have the role of masking, confusing or diluting all of the objectives, with the result that the final product fails to deliver any measurable or sustainable results under any of the individual objectives.

I believe it is essential that we therefore clarify our objectives, and therefore our activities, within any arts and culture provision, understanding their purpose and the participant experience. 

In trying to unpick additional objectives to celebrating the arts I have categorised them into three headings:  Community Engagement, Assets (including venues and people) and Overcoming prejudice and participation

The first and primary agenda is of course celebrating and planning community arts.

Community Arts

A pedantic definition of community arts are events or activities that have, as their primary objective, an aesthetic experience for the participant. This encompasses visual arts, verbal, performance, aural arts and music that is delivered in the community, by the community, for the community.

Any other objectives beyond the aesthetic, makes art the conduit, and therefore it has to be classified differently.

The inclusion of other objectives does not necessarily lessen the aesthetic experience - they may heighten it. If community art is the conduit through which other primary objectives are achieved, then development of aesthetic appreciation, alongside the achievement of a primary objective, adds value to both.

The dual role needs to be acknowledged and planned for from the start - this enables artists and community activists to be clear about roles and expectations.

Community engagement 

The process of utilising the arts, arts activities and events to engage people in communal and community activities is well established. Spoken word - theatre / performance, poetry;  fine arts – murals, embroidery, ‘yarn bombing’; 3D arts – sculpture, installations; music in a variety of formats, and dance, have all been used to provide communities with a voice to  express issues and concerns as well as engaging them in an activity that has aesthetic merit.

In addition to these activities there are performances that celebrate and educate, celebrate local individuals of significance as well as providing historical information on a geographic area, community or topic.

The success of community engagement programmes entails the utilisation of local and accessible venues as well as the involvement of local people in the activities.

Assets including venues

Whether the arts and cultural activity within a District is an aesthetic experience or a community engagement activity, it is essential that it takes place in an accessible venue where the target audience and local, demographic, communities feel comfortable. Fortunately, there are a number of ‘physical’ community assets within the District that can be utilised as venues to develop activities. There are also a number of public ‘assets’ where larger community events can take place.

But assets are not just buildings and venues. The production of arts and cultural events, in their own right, or as community development activity, depends on an array of individuals who are involved in the development and delivery of an event. The involvement and development of these individuals needs to be acknowledged and supported as part of any arts and cultural programme.

Overcoming prejudice and participation

 It is essential to acknowledge that a programme or activity that has, at its core, purely aesthetic objectives, has major barriers to overcome in some communities and demographic groups. 

There needs to be a recognition that, while some people may be enthusiastic about the arts, others may not. While we acknowledge the diversity of the community within the District, we need to seriously examine what we mean by inclusion.

Poverty is a major influence on people’s life in some parts of the District - this isn’t only monetary poverty but poverty of aspiration and participation. Arts and culture programmes need to target engagement and participation from where people are at, not where we require, or believe them, to be.

An initial question that needs to be asked is this: Are we creating community events and engagement that acknowledges our diversity, or are we expecting the diverse communities to engage in established community events and arts and cultural activities?

We may have to view inclusion from a different perspective.

Conclusion: Action issues

This section is not necessarily an action plan but I have identified pointers and discussion issues under six headings.

Developing Community Arts

Engaging community artists to enhance the development of activities whether they are of an aesthetic or community nature.  

The need to commission arts activities that encourage engagement of all communities within events and activities.

Engaging and promoting arts that are both culturally sensitive and culturally inclusive while primarily aiming to provide people with an aesthetic experience and/or a community experience - as long as we are sure which is the priority. 

Exploring how the traditional ‘western’ art mediums - performance, painting, dance, carnival, language, music etc. - can accommodate the diversity of cultures and communities within the District.

Role of Artists and quality delivery issues 

Art activities should be of a high quality and have as high production values as is possible within resources.

Commissioned (external) artists and events managers will work in tandem with community (local) arts providers to enhance their skills, the quality of events and thereby the quality of the participants’ experience.  

Promoting Community engagement

Developing awareness within a community of specific issues, local history, heritage and culture through taking part in artistic activity is an appropriate objective to be included in any arts and cultural programme.

However, it should be acknowledged that current provision may be dominated by ‘established and traditional’ arts activities / provision. If we are to engage people in community activities, as well as arts activities, there needs to be recognition of the significant cultural changes that have taken place within geographic communities - these changes may have an impact on how communities engage with arts and cultural activities.

Support offered though a District arts programme needs to ‘challenge or enhance’ activities and delivery by organisations to ensure that they are aware of how their activities meet the needs of District communities while also fulfilling other ‘engagement’ objectives.

Besides having some form of cerebral development and engagement, art and culture can be used to make activities fun and enjoyable, an aesthetic experience in itself, but we don’t need to complicate it – street theatre, carnival, costumes and dressing up are all legitimate activities for the arts. They also provide comfortable and uncomplicated engagement of communities.   

Assessing Assets for the arts

In developing a database of the physical assets that exist in the District that may / can be used for arts activities and community events physical assets should be defined in the widest possible sense – venues, meeting places, streets, parks etc.  Developing such a database of venues and locations for activities will provide an important resource for the commissioning and development of arts and cultural activities. This will enable the identification and utilization of spaces in the community that are accessible and where people feel comfortable.

Aligned to the resource database would be an organisational database, listing community groups that have an interest in, and experience of, delivering community and arts events.

An asset register will enable the District to explore the development of arts events in non traditional spaces, not included on an initial or existing database; this has the impact of growing the data base and widening participation.

Exploring street events and closure of streets for community activity, with the support of Birmingham Council is another way of widening participation.

Developing the events management skills of community activists will have the impact of greater sustainability of activities and ensure that community events are undertaken in a safe and legal environment – safe, in that appropriate risk assessments and stewarding procedures are in place; legal, in that the appropriate insurances and licences are in place and adhered to. The identification and development of a programme that ensures that local individuals, who want to be involved in the production of community activities, develop the appropriate skills is an essential component of any District development.

Overcoming prejudice and participation - the separation between people and the arts

This may require a wider, more thorough examination of how current activities, delivered in the District, can help develop the community’s aesthetic experiences, provide educational and informative events, as well as developing enjoyable events and engaging the community in the enjoyment of participation

The first step is a creation of a current provision database of arts and events activities within the District – under the headings of provider, audience, venue, demographics and purpose.

Developing a circular monitoring process linking community arts activities to community assets and community engagement, exploring new methods of evaluation and measurement of engagement. 

Participation in the arts

There needs to be recognition that participation cannot just be covered under a nebulous title like ‘inclusion’ but needs to acknowledge that there are other issues that prevent people from engaging.  

Arts programmes can be categorised as having three distinct objectives, targeting specific demographics:

Activities for those who will go to arts activities

Activities for those who ‘are thinking about it’ or ‘willing to try’ if it is physically and fiscally accessible

Activities for those who have never thought about it but will come to low level, high impact activities, carnivals, pantomimes etc.

Arts activities used as conduits for community engagement have a completely different set of objectives, and these need to be very clear from the outset. This enables the quality of production and expectation to be matched to the level of engagement and development of the community. 

©Ted Ryan -  RnR Organisation April 2014