This is a complex issue, and beyond the scope of this particular blog!  There is though an absolute requirement to work through the practicalities of how small grants PB programmes (if maintained over the long term) would function alongside sustainable mainstream initiatives, and what their function might be, above and beyond creating initial interest in PB.

I used to work for Bradford’s Local Strategic Partnership.  We did a lot of useful work but one of the key frustrations many of us shared was the ‘natural wastage’ syndrome, whereby a lot of interest was initially created in a ‘new neighbourhood structure’ resulting in well attended meetings and genuine action, but once the novelty had worn off, and initial pressing issues discussed and addressed (or otherwise, depending on their complexity, available funding etc!) the attendance at meetings inevitably dwindled. It then became increasingly difficult to maintain momentum, without the ‘assistance’ of a major local issue blowing up (proposed school closures, traffic incidents etc). People would complain of the meetings turning into ‘talking shops’, which  also became increasingly dominated by ‘gatekeepers’, community activists who would  provide  lot of energy and input into their neighbourhoods,  but whose own agendas  were not always those of the community as a whole.

Bradford Vision also developed a pilot programme of PB initiatives, and I was able to take the learning from this into my work with the PB Unit.  I’ve since worked closely with several steering groups delivering PB in other areas of the country, and have been struck time and again by how effective this process is in terms of securing and maintaining involvement from  residents, as well as that of elected members and officers

When people grasp the underlying idea behind PB, they tend to understand the point of the process, and therefore have trust in it.  Just as importantly, within a ‘small grants’ programme, where an event is planned, publicised, delivered, and the resulting projects monitored for effectiveness of delivery, there is an extensive range of tasks for people to become involved in.  This cuts through the ‘talking shop’ syndrome at a stroke. There are examples of residents having done everything from catering support to door to door surveys, designing publicity and managing computerised scoring systems.
All this community capacity building can be provided for a relatively small outlay, most of which is in any case returned to the community through projects receiving funding.   When ‘small grants’ programmes become established, the ‘community knowledge’ developed could be made  available to service providers, whilst local people engaged in small scale PB would be very well placed to contribute to mainstream PB processes.

If parallel small grants and mainstream PB processes were developed within given areas, residents would have the opportunity for ongoing engagement at whatever level they felt appropriate, right through from helping make tea to decision making  regarding strategic resource allocation.  And wouldn’t that be interesting?