Background to the Research

• GEBP was established in 1995/6 as part of five area-based partnerships set up by MBW, the role of these partnerships was to provide opportunities for existing agencies working in the area of urban regeneration to work together for the mutual benefit of all in the community.
• The report is based on a research project carried out between April-July 1998 which set out to explore community participation in urban regeneration, through GEBP.
  

Research Approach

• Three groups of five individuals (one group of community sector representatives formally involved in GEBP; one group of community sector representatives not directly involved in GEBP and one group of representatives from the private, public and voluntary sector formally involved in GEBP), were informally interviewed using pre-circulated discussion topics.
  

Main Findings

• The defining of 'targeting social need' in geographical terms was felt to be problematic; disadvantage is known to be concentrated in inner East Belfast, yet there is serious deprivation and poverty in outer estates and there has been a perception of division and inequality of opportunity between inner and outer East Belfast since the beginning of GEBP.
• The need for appropriate structures for community representation to be elected to GEBP Board and working groups was a common theme in the interviews. The lack of community development tradition and limited community infrastructure in East Belfast was mentioned by some interviewees.
• Inclusion was valued by many interviewees, it was recommended that GEBP pay attention to their quota to ensure that marginalised groups are not missing from the decision making process.
• Motivation and commitment were recurring themes, with a belief that people living in greater East Belfast have the most right to be involved in decision and policy making processes. Distinctions were made between short-term and long-term commitment and between voluntary and paid workers in terms of credibility and motivation.
• The role and relationships between elected representatives and community activists in the changing political climate in terms of accountability was also raised. Some resentment and suspicion was expressed over the use of community issues as a political football.
• Community sector interviewees based their perceptions of other sectors on past experiences; for example, lobbying statutory/voluntary agencies for funding, resources or services. Relationships with the statutory and voluntary sectors were felt to be good, whilst the private sector was perceived to be difficult to relate to, with perhaps a wider gap in ethos than between the community and statutory agencies.
• Networking and the development of contacts was felt to be important, some community representatives found it useful to know key players in other sectors whom they felt able to approach outside Partnership meetings. GEBP also brought some into contact with local communities.
• The majority of interviewees stated a need for training on Partnership ethos, values and approaches for all members of the Board and Working Groups. Community sector participants may also need training in negotiation, presentation and confidence building.
• Resources were frequently talked about in terms of the need to use existing funds to make a difference on the ground, ensuring quality and value for money. Some interviewees commented on the lack of funding coming into East Belfast, especially through Belfast European Partnership Board.
• The changing political context was mentioned by many interviewees, in particular the effects of a new Labour government in 1997, changes within MBW and the new NI assembly and civic forum.
• The need to improve information and communication between organisations was a recurring theme, as was the need to promote GEBP through the media and existing community bases.
• Co-ordination was felt to be a particular need by many interviewees, with initial expectations that this would be the primary role of GEBP. Concern was expressed that GEBP might install another layer of bureaucracy rather than bring about further integration.
• Future funding was seen to be relevant to GEBP now; could GEBP function if funding ended and how would success be measured?

Recommendations

• Briefing, information and support for community representatives in GEBP and recognition of volunteer time within GEBP budget and outcomes.
• Review of GEBP's community development policy and its implementation, perhaps with a new community participation strategy.
• Regular opportunities for community representatives in GEBP to meet with each other for discussion on specific issues and concerns, as well as for mutual support.
• Annual community conferences on participation in urban regeneration with reports on themes, perhaps incorporating election of community representatives unto GEBP.
• Regular updates from community representatives to the rest of the sector.
• Information from GEBP such as 'The Bulletin' to be channelled through existing community networks including membership of EBCDA, East Belfast Women's Development Project and East Belfast Churches Forum.
• Training sessions on working in partnership for community workers and on community development for other sectors.
• Team building sessions for GEBP Board and Working Group members and opportunities for informal networking outside business meetings.
• Support for initiatives addressing cross-sectoral issues e.g. councillors and community development processes and Business in the Community.
• Development of an inclusion culture within GEBP which all players can own and which does not emphasise one sector's approach over another sector's approach.