In most communities there are other stakeholders in addition to the people who live there. In undertaking a community profile it is important to consider the full range of people who might have an interest or something to say. So, for example, in a spatially defined community profile you might include the views of those who represent the community in some way such as politicians (councillors, MPs and MEPs) and also members of trusts and boards, for instance New Deal for Communities Boards, School Governing Bodies, Primary Care Trusts and Registered Social Landlords.
INVOLVING COMMUNITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 39
Another category of stakeholders who have an interest in the community are those who work there but do not necessarily live as part of it. This group would include those whose place of work just happens to be in the locality, those who work for the community (doctors, teachers, police, street wardens, clergy and so on), and those who not only work for the community but are also more directly accountable to it (such as community workers, community regeneration of ficers and patch social workers). Businesses are also important parts of communities. Business representatives may be from large industrial sites located in or near the community that impact on residents, or from small and medium-sized enterprises, some of which may include local retailers such as local shops, post of fices, take-away establishments and pubs.
In addition to representatives from the statutory and business sectors you will also want to involve voluntary, community and faith organizations that work in your area to provide services, self-help, or to lobby or campaign on behalf of the community or particular groups within it.
Involving non-resident stakeholders
Involving non-resident stakeholders carries some risks in so far as the com-munity profile is part of a comcom-munity development process. A particular issue here is who has overall control of the process. This relates to how the com-munity is seen and sees itself. For example, Haggstrom, whose work informed the development of community work in the 1970s, argued that communities have two guises: community as object and acting community (Haggstrom 1970).
The first can be seen as a network of interdependent systems, bureaucratic organizations, interest groups, political parties and so on that is acted upon.
Acting communities, on the other hand, identify their own needs and prob-lems, participate in decision making and engage in collective action.
Many stakeholders ‘act on’ communities, often in an expert capacity, believing that it is in the community’s best interest. However, they may unwit-tingly behave in a patronizing way, creating dependency and the very state of apathy that so many of them deplore. To combat such attitudes a community development approach evolved in the 1970s that incorporated a different set of beliefs and values. In this approach community development is not seen as just a means to another end but as an end in itself – that is, empowering residents. The community development approach incorporates the belief that ‘acting communities’ can lead to liberation, development and fulfilment through cooperation, shared interests and values. Community profiles can contribute to this process by not only focusing on needs, issues and problems but also by recognizing, celebrating and building on the strengths and resources of all the community.
More recently, in 2002 the Community Work Forum, a grouping of employers, trades unions, training providers and practitioners, produced 40 COMMUNITY PROFILING
revised standards and definitions for community development work. These National Occupational Standards for Community Development Work are out-lined in Figure 4.1 and exemplify the values and principles underpinning community work.
If a community profile is going to contribute to the community develop-ment process then it is necessary to develop a strategy for involving non-resident stakeholders that is informed by a consistent set of values and principles. In particular this strategy should address issues of purpose, owner-ship, direction and perception of the process by the community. One way of conceptualizing the relative control and degree of ownership by members of the community as opposed to non-resident stakeholders is to see the com-munity profiling project as either a top-down exercise, where the profile is essentially carried out by outsiders with perhaps some consultation with
Figure 4.1 Values associated with community development work
Source: From the de finition of community development work by the Federation for Community Develop-ment Learning, www.fcdl.org.uk/publications/docuDevelop-ments/sharing_practice_sheets/1_What_is_CD.pdf
INVOLVING COMMUNITIES AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 41
community leaders, or as a bottom-up exercise, where the community itself takes charge of the profiling process. In practice, there is a range of possibilities between these two extremes that combine the skills and expertise of profes-sionals with the local knowledge and enthusiasm of community members, both of which are likely to be important ingredients of a successful community profile.
If the profile is to be taken seriously, especially by those in positions of authority who are responsible for allocating resources, then it needs to be seen to be undertaken as systematically and professionally as resources will allow.
However, this should not be an overriding consideration that stifles partici-pants’ creativity and spontaneity. As we are at pains to point out, community involvement is important to the process and it can also help to furnish the finished product with colour and an insight that outsiders may find more dif ficult to supply. Therefore there ideally needs to be a balance between the more objective, expert assistance provided by outside agencies and the enthusiastic insider understanding of the residents. One way to achieve this balance is through a working partnership of all stakeholders. Partnership working has become common practice as a way of planning and delivering services at local, district and regional levels, and these often involve local community members. You will need to decide on the balance of control within the partnership between representatives of the local community and non-resident stakeholders.