Active Communities
Evaluation of the Community Facilitation Programme
This is an evaluation study of the Community Facilitation Programme set up in July 2001 by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) following the summer disturbances in northern towns to reduce inter-ethnic community conflict and tension.
Title: Evaluation of the Community Facilitation Programme
Author: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
Series: Research Report 13
Date published: November 2004
Number of pages: 84
Availability: Download full report 
PDF 966 Kb
A programme was set up in 34 areas that had either encountered violent incidents or where there was considered a significant risk of open conflict.
The programme was originally planned for just 6 months with the emphasis being on providing conflict resolution expertise in the selected areas, but was extended in February 2002 for a further 18 months. The objectives of the longer-term programme were:
to improve intelligence gathering
to undertake conflict resolution and prevention work where tensions were identified
to develop quick response interventions when disturbances occurred
to strengthen the existing capacity for conflict resolution
to remove barriers to the effective implementation of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal within neighbourhoods experiencing conflict.
Implementation findings
The evaluation took place over 5 months starting in late 2003 after most Community Facilitation Programmes (CFPs) had ended and was intended to assess how well the CFP as a whole met its objectives. It found the following:
Developing ideas, deciding on action, setting up projects and approaches took place across the many levels (e.g. ministers, Government Offices, community leaders). At each level new and different perceptions and interests entered with different ideas about how to proceed.
It was clear that most Government Office (GO) regions welcomed the overall intent of the CFP. However, the idea of providing community facilitators was not necessarily viewed to be the best way to proceed.
Government Offices felt under pressure 'to do something ' quickly causing a lot of anxiety. As a result many just decided to build on existing projects, rather than creating new initiatives, in an attempt to make a difference straight away.
There was a lack of basic infrastructures in some areas, accompanied by a low level of awareness or acceptance that there was a problem.
In the later stages of the CFP, differences between NRU and Community Cohesion Unit (CCU) agendas at a GO level were reported. As a result, there were uncertainties about the overall emphasis of the work, and about extensions and funding.
Regional Co-ordinators (RC) were committed and capable, often seen as 'a new kind of person' in the GO.
Many RCs were from outside Government, and there were some issues about differences in perspective and ideas about 'how to do it '.
Overall then, the CFP developed from a fairly narrowly focused initiative, based on narrowly defined 'conflict resolution', to a broader notion nearer to the idea of community cohesion.
The projects and their achievements
The projects broke down into 3 main areas of activity:
Facilitation and mediation between individuals, groups and communities - these tended to be in an area of actual violent conflict or real risk of actual violent conflict. They aimed to create or support dialogue between conflicting parties.
Developing structures and resources for conflict resolution - projects here were seeking to create structures, processes and resources for dealing with conflict as it arose. Approaches included:
training and supporting community facilitators
creating structures, networks and processes that enable dialogue
planning for action
providing intelligence
promoting informal and formal arrangements for inter-agency co-operation
recruiting individuals with key expertise
carrying out longer-term conflict prevention work.
Building community development and cohesion - focused on emerging issues and on raising awareness. They sought to set up more general opportunities for participation and dialogue (e.g. youth festivals, arts projects and conferences, training and development work in race/cultural awareness, youth development). These projects:
enhanced understanding and increased levels of awareness across community groups
demonstrated that people could work together on joint ventures, for example, campaigning for youth facilities for all and increasing participation in sports across communities
contributed to building local infrastructure and local capacity for community facilitation and to wider community cohesion.
How successful were they?
Many projects funded under the CFP achieved significant local backing and commitment. The response from community participants was good, and projects demonstrated that they could create and promote new resources, new approaches and new networks.
The most notable impacts of the programme have been in the areas of conflict prevention, the prevention of conflict escalation and learning from conflict.
As a result of the CFP, a new capacity was created in Government Offices and local authorities to more effectively understand and address community cohesion issues. Moreover, new conflict resolution arrangements were mainstreamed in the form of incorporation into Local Strategic Partnerships.
The actual work and impact on immediate conflict resolution and on reconciliation was much less prominent, because there were no immediate crises to address.
Last update: Tuesday, July 22, 2008