MEARNS AREA PARTNERSHIP (MAP)

Researching Success

Karen McArdleUniversity of Aberdeen

March 2011

For further information about this report, contact:

Dr. Karen McArdleSenior LecturerUniversity of Aberdeenk.a.mcardle@abdn.ac.uk(01224)274654

2

SECTION 1

1. Introduction and acknowledgements This report is an attempt to document the achievements of the Mearns Area Partnership (MAP). Established in 1992 as a rural regeneration partnership, it is widely considered to be a successful partnership in a rural Scottish regeneration context, as evidenced by in its use as an example or model for other projects in the region. I use the term ‘rural regeneration partnership’ to summarise the purposes of MAP as outlined in its constitution. I was interested to see how this success was understood and was apparent in outcomes and achievements. In Section 3, I address the question of how success may, in fact, be defined.

This report has 3 main purposes:

- To report on the findings of the research undertaken;- To provide the community with an overview of achievement to date;- To provide partnerships in other areas with ideas and insight into successful

community partnership projects.

I wish to acknowledge the support I received from members of MAP, who contributed their time willingly and gave me substantial insight into their work. I wish to apologise that the scope and timescale of this project did not permit talking to everyone who might have been well able to contribute. I wish, in particular, to thank Sue Briggs who proposed this project to me and provided invaluable expertise, knowledge and support in the course of my work with MAP. I need to place on record an interest I have in this geographical area of study. I am a resident of Marykirk, one of the villages in MAP’s catchment area, and am Secretary to one of the community groups in Marykirk.

2. Methodology

This is a qualitative study of a rural regeneration partnership located in the North East of Scotland in rural Aberdeenshire. A description of the area is provided in Section 2.

I chose a qualitative approach as there are many Government sponsored reports, mainly from the 1990s and early this decade on rural regeneration and perceived indicators of success. There is, however, limited data that looks at regeneration from the perspective of the partners involved. I sought to redress this balance and to undertake an inquiry that focused on perceptions and understandings of success from a partnership dimension, emphasising community.

As I was also seeking to celebrate the perceived success of this rural project, the approach I adopted may be understood to be in part linked to appreciative inquiry which seeks to evaluate from a positive perspective. This report does not, however, engage participants in the inquiry process, as is fundamental to appreciative inquiry, rather it works from the assumption that the project does, indeed, have some outcomes that may be perceived to be successful and seeks to identify what these are. I was not, however, totally focused on the positive to the extent that negative perspectives were ignored. Evaluation was not the

3

purpose of this research; rather I sought to secure data linked to understandings of success from partnership participants. This is a qualitative, interpretative study.

The methods I undertook included immersion in the local community. I worked intermittently in the local Mearns Community Centre over the course of a year with a broad agenda of ensuring that my higher education teaching and research linked to community learning and development remained grounded in current policy and practice. This enabled me to immerse myself in MAP’s community; to develop an understanding of the key issues affecting MAP’s community; and to identify the relevant parameters for the research. I also learnt informally from local people how MAP is understood and perceived in the community.

My initial method was documentary analysis. Fortunately, the Mearns Community Centre held a comprehensive archive of minutes, reports and miscellaneous information on MAP projects. I reviewed all of this data and identified the chronology of events and emerging themes linked to regeneration activities. It was a source of helpful background to my research that MAP over the years had itself shown a commitment to research projects and my work builds on the work of other contributors to the research field.

I also conducted semi-structured interviews with 7 people linked to MAP. These people were selected to cover community, council employed and voluntary sector staff and they included people who had both a new and a long standing commitment to MAP. There were 3 men and 4 women. Characteristically, interviews were scheduled to take around half an hour but frequently lasted much longer. Ethically, the researcher sought permission from the University’s ethical approval committee and confidentiality was assured to all participants and I have attempted in this report to protect the identity of research participants except where permission to identify a participant has been granted. Interviews were taped, partially transcribed and analysed thematically.

3. Research Questions

The aim of the research was to identify in what ways MAP could be considered a successful rural regeneration project.

The research questions were as follows:

- How do partners in MAP define success?- What are the successful outcomes of MAP’s activities?- What are the contributing factors to MAP’s perceived success?

4. Strengths and Limitations of the Study

The data generated from the study was in-depth and highly illuminating. The range and number of participants in the interview method was sufficient and varied, from the point of view of scope and breadth of data generated. If time had allowed all of the MAP partners would have been interviewed. A further dimension of the study that could have been carried out, and was not, was a more formal approach to assessing the impact of MAP on community representatives who were not engaged with MAP. This dimension was available to the researcher through informal community contacts and reports from MAP staff and participants.

4

5. Structure of the Report

Section 1 of the report forms an introduction and description of project and research methodology.

Section 2 of the report is an introduction to the demography of MAP and its communities and an introduction to its main activities over the last decade. This is by no means complete; it is intended as a representative sample of key activities.

Section 3 of the report is a consideration of the literature and thinking linked to rural community regeneration and how these ideas and models link to MAP and its outcomes, achievements and processes.

Section 4 of the report presents the findings of the research and the answers to the research questions described above and my interpretation of this data.

Section 5 presents conclusions to the MAP project and areas for further study.

5

SECTION 2

1. Introduction to MAP

Mearns Area Project (MAP), formerly known as Mearns Area Partnership was formed in 1992 when the constitution was formally adopted, as one of 4 pilot projects to target rural disadvantage,. It is the only surviving partnership.

The Project aims through a partnership between statutory, voluntary and private agencies, and community organisations to assist local residents to identify needs and issues and develop strategies to address these with the purpose of improving the quality of life in the Mearns.

Location

It is situated in Aberdeenshire in the North East of Scotland and embraces the settlements of:

ArtbuthnottAuchenblaeDrumlithie

Edzell WoodsFettercairnFordoun

GlenbervieLaurencekirkLuthermuirMarykirkSt. Cyrus

It is a largely rural area with the main centre being the town of Laurencekirk. The population is approximately 9,000.

2. History of MAP

Grampian Regional Council in 1992 established the project with the aim of “tackling the priority problems experienced by residents in rural areas.” The project involved staff from the Grampian Regional Council’s Social Strategy Unit, the Social Work Unit, Education Department as well as the Grampian Healthboard, Regional Councillors and the Voluntary Sector.

MAP was established due to concerns regarding:

- Poor uptake of public services and state benefits;- Higher than average numbers of older people;- Low expectations of change and involvement in effecting it:- Outward migration of young people;

6

- Lack of provision of childcare and other related social work issues;- Limited transport services;- Diluted delivery of services due to peripheral location.-

(Source: MAP Social Accounts for August 2004 – March 2006)

3. Values

The values of MAP are summarised in a Social Accounting Project undertaken by the Arkleton Trust.

The values are:

CommunityPartnershipOpennessEquality

Approachability and HonestyConfidentiality and Respect

Accountability.

4. Management and Membership

Membership at November 2010 involves representatives of:

Mearns Community CouncilSt Cyrus Community CounciArbuthnott Community Council (vacant)Villages in ControlEdzell Woods Planning for RealMearns Youth ForumMearns and Coastal Healthy Living NetworkAberdeenshire Central/South Council of Voluntary ServicesNHS GrampianSocial Work and Housing: Aberdeenshire CouncilArea Manager: Aberdeenshire CouncilElected representatives: Aberdeenshire Council1 co-opted individual

7

MAP is run by a committee of 14 people who are community representatives, representatives of the voluntary sector and elected and employed members of Aberdeenshire Council.

A MAP representative sits on the Area Community Planning Group creating links to wider decision making.

Map employs one clerical/admin worker for 4 hours per month.

5. Activities

MAP over time has run a wide range of activities on behalf of its communities.

5.1 Transport

Community conferences were held in 1998 and 2005 which identified rural transport issues as being of concern to local residents. These conferences were community led, bottom-up approaches to working in partnership.

MAP liaised with the Road Safety Unit to bring the Young Drivers’ Training Scheme to Mearns.

A register of minibus permit holders was established; funding was secured for a Community Minibus and a 17 seater vehicle was purchased.

1999 Mearns Public Transport Survey

The Scottish Office Rural Challenge Fund in 1999 funded a Mearns Public Transport Survey. 80% of the population were surveyed. Following the Mearns Public Transport Survey, the council changed its transport priorities in and engaged with MAP to develop 2 additional pilot services. No one in the North East of Scotland had produced such a comprehensive survey of local needs. The findings endorsed the community minibus service which provided a shuttle minibus to all the villages of the Mearns Area and shopper services to Montrose. It formed the basis of a further successful bid to the Community Transport Association. It provided sturdy evidence for funding bids.

5.2 Advice and Information

A Howe of the Mearns Directory was first produced by MAP in 1994 to help people be aware of the services, facilities and opportunities near their homes.

A Directory of Childcare in Kincardine and Mearns was produced by MAP and Aberdeenshire Social Work to detail for families the day care provision in the local area.

8

What’s On Leaflets for young people were produced by MAP with a youth worker to let young people know what there was to do in the local area.

Community Planning Project

A 2 year project funded by Communities Scotland led by MAP sought ways to get hard to reach groups involved in planning and developing services. Known as the Community Planning Project it consulted local people about their needs. It ran an event for people with physical and sensory disabilities in March 2005. 40 people attended and reported their needs for affordable, accessible transport; day and respite care and more user friendly pavements amongst other things. Another event looked at issues amongst the 19 – 25 year age range and 15 participants put their names down to volunteer in the local community.

5.3 Special Groups

The requirements of special groups has always been a focus for MAP activities.

Food Initiative 2010

MAP was concerned at the impact of closure of village shops on the communities. They recognised that these shops are not just businesses, they also have important social functions. Since 1995 there had been 8 shop closures. MAP applied to the LEADER Lottery and Health Improvement Fund and secured funding for a 2 year project which delivers produce to 4 villages with no shop:

MarykirkLuthermuirFordounEdzell Woods

It is heavily used and improves access to good locally produced fruit and vegetables; it focuses on settlements where there is limited transport.

For families a survey was done on the need for an After-School Club which resulted in 1996 with the start of the Club which continues to this day.

A Women’s Support Group was run in conjunction with the WEA as part of the adult education opportunities in the Mearns.

Play schemes were established at Luthermuir and Auchenblae in response to identified needs and a Playscheme Information Pack was developed to help volunteers run playschemes.

9

A part time youth worker was appointed and drop-in events were organised at Mearns Academy.

The Mearns Drug Project in 1998 provided drugs awareness and information services; diversionary activities; a drop-in cafe and a summer programme.

Mearns Healthy Living Network

The Mearns Healthy Living Network was established by MAP in 2002 with funding from the Big Lottery. It provides mainly volunteer services to older people in the Mearns area. Its remit is to improve older people’s health in the Laurencekirk and surrounding areas. It currently has around 80 volunteers and is managed by elderly people. It meets the needs of approximately 200 elderly people each week doing services including shopping and gardening. It employs 3 part time staff

It became independent of MAP in 2007, which is important because MAP is not a provider of services where this can be done with alternative structures. MAP seeks to avoid the bureaucracy of managing large services. It was however responsible for the consultation and instigation that led to this important service provision and managed the transition to independence. The Healthy Living Network has recently won a community capacity building contract for the whole of Aberdeenshire to set up older people’s networks and a social return on investment study has just been completed which found that many of the services it provides provide a £6 or £7 return on investment.

5.4 Research and Consultation

MAP over the course of its life has been active in staying close to community needs and wants. It has conducted many research and consultation activities to ensure that its work remains relevant and to provide data to explore effectiveness and for funding purposes. A Mearns Community Conference was held in 1995. This included workshops on the need for a website; young people in rural areas; rural transport; health/community care; rural economic development. This resulted in local surveys, a newsletter and a website. A youth worker was employed and a bid was developed for an improved minibus service that was, indeed, secured. The needs of older people were addressed through lottery funding of £168,000 which resulted in newly developed services and volunteering described above. The conference workshop on rural economic development influenced VIC and influenced in turn the new primary school, rebuilding of the square in Laurencekirk and the production of a business directory.

A village appraisal was carried out in Auchenblae through use of a questionnaire.

Youth consultation events were organised.A survey was done of the need for After School Clubs, which subsequently were set up.

In 1998 an assessment was done of the difficulties in rural passenger transport in the Mearns area

10

In September 2005 MAP held another community conference. They undertook a Green Audit and 394 people were involved who had not been previously included.

A review was commissioned in 2005 of Villages in Control (VIC) to assist VIC after 10 years to refocus its local economic and environmental interests. It recommended an enhanced future for VIC. VIC focused on transport and the reopening of the railway station achieved in 2009

Edzell Woods Planning for Real project sought the views of this community on local services and activities. This resulted in the participation on 73 people from this small community. The purpose was to produce better relationships within the community; to develop partnership working with the community; bring together statutory and voluntary agencies; to engage the community in community planning.

A study was undertaken of volunteers in 2009 and their role in sustaining social and economic activity through management of community resources. It focused on volunteering linked to village halls. It showed how important volunteering is to the community.

2003 Scoping Study

A scoping study was commissioned by MAP from the Arkleton Trust examining partnership in the Kincardine and Mearns area. MAP was able to produce an academic but accessible resource which looked at community partnership across the area, 115 community groups were consulted by questionnaire and 4 rural area partnerships and 9 groups working in partnership were interviewed. It concluded that the kind of work MAP was doing should be consolidated in Kincardine and Mearns and this led to the establishment of the Kincardine and Mearns Area Partnership (KMAP).

Social Accounting August 2004 – March 2006

MAP employed a professional on a half time contract to undertake social accounting. In the action research process and evaluation, 394 local people were consulted. The social accounts found that the finances were in good form and that aims and objectives were being met. The results were shared with all relevant agencies and a DVD was made and distributed widely, which was a resource to assist with practices of engagement with the community.

(See pp. 73-5

11

SECTION 3

1. The Rural Regeneration Context

Over the last 2 decades rural regeneration and development projects have become increasingly common (Osborne et al : 2002); in particular projects which involve community participation. These are seen to have the capacity to:

Broaden support for area regeneration; To lever in a range of resources from the private and non-profit sectors; To co-ordinate disparate initiatives and agencies all working towards local

regeneration; To promote social inclusion.

(Osborne et al: 2002)

Regeneration policy in the UK in general, and in Scotland in particular, has been what Barnett et al (2000) called a complicated context of programmes targeted at a tangled mosaic of partially overlapping areas, spearheaded by different departments. It is in this complicated context, which has continued throughout this decade, that MAP has found a path to follow and has set regeneration priorities.

2. Defining rurality

Most attempts to define rurality start by contrasting it with ‘urban’ in effect saying what it isn’t rather than what it is (Osborne et al : 2004). Osborne et al go on to explain that many people have tried to define rurality along a number of sophisticated dimensions such as accessibility and settlement patterns. A more pragmatic approach is adopted by the English Countryside Agency (1999) who define a rural community as having less than 10,000 people. In this context, MAP’s catchment area is undoubtedly rural. Caffyn and Dahlstrom (2005) point out the importance of seeing rural and urban centres as interdependent. They argue that compartmentalizing urban and rural has its limits. To promote sustainable regional development means addressing issues such as the movement of goods and transport as well as people travelling for shopping and buying services. This is an aspect of rural urban links that MAP has addressed through its concern with transport links between villages and Laurencekirk and Montrose as well as the rail links to denser urban settings.

Caffyn and Dahlstrom point out the stereotypes that relate to urban and rural communities:

“’Urban, for example, tends to be associated with ‘built-up’ areas, diverse employment, shopping, cultural industries, administration, political power, but also with social exclusion, deprivation and regeneration. ‘Rural’ on the other hand, has connotations of open countryside, landscape, agriculture, sparse population, outdoor recreation, limited employment opportunities, and also wealth and the rural idyll.” (p.284)

Like all stereotypes there is a modicum of truth, but it falls far short of the reality of rural life. Social exclusion, for example is certainly not a problem confined to urban areas and is

12

an issue that MAP has tackled in a wide range of initiatives involving young people, women and families and elderly people. In the context of social exclusion one of the differences between rural and urban communities is that in urban areas the socially excluded frequently live at a distance from the more mainstream member of society. In a rural community, these people are more likely to live cheek by jowl with the social consequences that can raise of inequality of experience and aspiration.

Issues are not necessarily dissimilar in rural and urban environments but the rural issues have a ‘distinctive edge’ (Osborne et al : 2002). Osborne et al (2002) found 3 elements to be important. Namely, the influence of geography – the sheer size of rural communities and the impact on transport and communication; secondly, the influence of rural demography such as the loss of young and able bodied individuals to the educational and work opportunities in an urban environment; thirdly, the strength of community of place identity of villages which can often militate against their joining in with or learning from other villages. MAP faces all these rural issues in its catchment area and has instituted activities to address this rural dimensions through communication and transport activities; through youth inclusion activities and through supporting settlements (e.g. Edzell Woods) to develop as included communities.

3. Defining Community

It is important in discussing MAP to think about what a community actually is. Barnett and Crowther (1998) cite Plant who argues that community is both an evaluative and descriptive term; evaluative meaning it is either a lost ideal past or a future to be aspired to. Shucksmith (2000) defines community as a group of people living in the same geographical area, with common interests and frequently feeling a sense of belonging. Osborne et al (2004) point out that in rural communities poverty and affluence can exist side by side so there is not necessarily a common interest. I think this is a fair point but an issue affecting one part of society can be a common issue in that social exclusion or deprivation affect all members of that community so in this report I see community as being a geographical concept which links MAP’s activities as well as being a community with shared issues.

A psychological sense of togetherness is important, I propose, though this togetherness can be a multiple experience. I live in a village in the Mearns where I have a sense of togetherness with neighbours but also relate to Mearns Community Centre in Laurencekirk where I experience being part of the broader Mearns community in a professional role. Barnett and Crowther (1998) indicate that an individual considers him/herself to be a member of a community for a particular purpose and a member of a different community for different purposes with community identity being defined in terms of commonality of interest for specific purposes rather than being an overriding part of a definition of self. It is this complex multiplicity of communities that MAP seeks to engage and this demands reciprocal communication through a wide range of means; a challenge MAP meets through, for example, its constituent networks represented on the Management Committee, through its conferences, through its central headquarters and through its activities throughout its villages and the town.

Regeneration, MAPs original and continuing purpose is used here, after Osborne et al (2004), to mean activities which intend to lead to the social, economic and /or community development or rejuvenation of a local area, where that area has experienced decline and depopulation in the past. An interesting dimension of rural regeneration is that community

13

structures can be seen as a reaction to the dominance of centralised government in planning processes (Rule: 2005). Rule (2005) also presents a converse view, which is that they can be seen as an extension of governing arrangements and unaccountable to anything but self motivation. This latter perspective is not true of MAP where there is evidence of work to influence and extend governing arrangements and an accountability through communication and consultation with a wide membership of the communities it works with.

4. Community led regeneration

In contrast to government funded schemes (Haq: 2008), the emphasis has remained in MAP on working on community-led, community-identified priorities rather than government-themed priorities. This does not mean that government priorities and community priorities are always different and there are examples of MAP working with elected members to achieve outcomes, such as the re-opening of Laurencekirk railway station. Haq discusses the challenge to the status quo of community engagement and refers to the importance of links from the micro/local level to the macro/socio-economic political levels, whilst potentially risky for participants, policy makers, practitioners and politicians, he suggests, the benefits to the community can be great. The relationship in MAP with elected members of local and Scottish Government is to be commended, in my opinion, as these relationships lead to this link between micro and macro levels.

I now wish to return to the starting point for this section of the report, where I discussed the capacity rural regeneration projects have to:

Broaden support for area regeneration;

The inclusiveness and balance of MAP’s membership and the positive support it receives from the public, private and voluntary sector membership underscores its success in regeneration generally, and of public transport in the area in particular. MAP has moved beyond the ‘empty ritual’ (Nelson et al:2006) of participation in regeneration, of being asked to approve pre-determined plans. By contrast, it has initiated and achieved influence over Council plans in the area of transport through commissioning rigorous studies of the need and seeking means of meeting these needs.

To lever in a range of resources from the private and non-profit sectors;

MAP has been successful in securing resources from a wide range of sources and has conducted studies of the value of its activities revealing a 6:1 pound value of its activities providing new services and saving Government funding. It has secured funding of over £X thousand over the almost 18 years of its life.

To co-ordinate disparate initiatives and agencies all working towards local regeneration;

Co-ordination of activities is a key strength of MAP, as evidenced by its use as a model for other regeneration area by Aberdeenshire Council, and its use as a co-ordinating body for funds for other voluntary sector agencies, such as the community funds from a Windfarm development.

14

To promote social inclusion.

Promoting social inclusion is also a strength of MAP. Common themes of social exclusion in rural areas are (Osborne et al 2004) the migration of young people away from rural areas; the isolation of women; the difficulties of engaging the farming community in regeneration work. MAP has a youth forum representative on its committee to ensure the voice of young people is heard and has undertaken to provide volunteer support for elderly people through the Healthy Living Network. It has instituted adult education programmes for women; and rural issues of isolation from shopping are addressed in settlements through the Food Project.

Osborne et al (2002) find 3 elements to be especially important in supporting community involvement in rural regeneration partnerships in their study of key issues in a 3 nation study (England, Scotland and Northern Ireland). These are:

The presence of supportive community and voluntary sector infrastructure; The opportunity for communities to learn through small scale projects before more

strategic involvement; The effectiveness of small grants schemes in supporting this learning.

MAP has had a supportive community sector and voluntary sector infrastructure, as will be evidenced in Section 4 of this report. Rural areas tend to have a larger number of voluntary groups relative to their population than urban area but they are often smaller, with few paid staff and are highly dependent on volunteers. Despite this, in rural areas, voluntary and community organisations play an important role in delivering services and filling gaps in existing statutory provision including in health and social care services, community transport, child care, youth projects, education and skills training and the development of community businesses (Osborne et al : 2002). I found evidence of MAP activity in each of these areas, a broad and relevant approach to the community’s regeneration. It is important here to cite the support MAP has received from Aberdeenshire Council’s Community Learning and Development professionals, whose commitment to community development and enthusiasm for the project has supported its development. Voluntary sector support is also important and there is committed and enthusiastic representation of the Council of Voluntary Services on the Management Committee.

5. Outcomes

Small grants have been important to MAP. Another key strength has been its ability to access funding from a range of sources. Over the years it has accessed funding in the order of £847,00 Taking into account funding sourced in which MAP was a partner body, this has resulted in the value of over £1 million for the local community, another important outcome.

Projects, not all small scale, have formed an important part of MAP’s activities and have undoubtedly contributed to community capacity. These impressive outcomes are detailed in Section 2. MAP has also consistently had a strong strategic voice though inclusion of key strategic partners; representatives of Council departments relevant to infrastructure and inclusion; as well as, most importantly, effective working partnerships with elected members of the Council. Partnerships, argues Laverack (2001), serve as catalysts for community empowerment – community members can take action to effect change in policies and

15

practices that affect their lives. Partnership, as described in Section 4 is a key strength of MAP.

Outcomes in the context of learning communities are discussed buy Yarnit (2006),some of which are presented here.

Partnership, planning and collaboration: improving service planning and delivery.

This outcome is apparent across many dimensions of MAP’s work and is discussed in Section 4.

Skills and Employment: breaking the low skills equilibrium.

MAP has provided adult educational opportunities for a wide range of community members. It has worked with other organisations to generate employment and has itself generated paid and voluntary work in the community, in particular the Healthy Living Network.

Community engagement: active citizens shaping local services.

Again a clear outcome of MAP’s work. Consultation and action to meet local needs are a central plank of MAPs activities.

Neighbourhood Services: putting local residents in the driving seat.

Promoting collaboration between service providers and developing locally relevant models of local service delivery is an important outcome of MAP’s work.

6. Promoting social Capital

It is clear that MAP has been instrumental in promoting a learning community that assists governance without losing its ‘bottom up approach’ through:

- helping to contribute to the realisation of regional policies at a local level;- piloting new approaches to meeting local needs;- showing how services can be joined up and dismantle silo thinking;- helping service providers make better use of community networks and good will;- showing how to widen participation in schemes;- engaging hard to reach and marginal groups in service design and delivery.

(after Yarnit: 2006)

Osborne et al (2002) cite the Community Development Foundation (1995) which codified 5 potential levels of involvement in rural regeneration partnerships:

16

As beneficiaries of rural regeneration partnership and users of a service; As consultees and representatives of local opinion; As a pool of community resources for regeneration projects; As a potential delivery agent for regeneration initiatives; As a full partner in the planning and management of regeneration programmes.

MAP in its work achieves activity in the community at each of these levels of involvement through consultation with beneficiaries and users of services and dialogue with representatives of local opinion. Kashefi and Keene (2008) refer to the plethora of consultation methods that characterise the consultation industry which has characteristically delivered a sanitised and unproblematic package that could be used by service managers in a ’tick box’ process. It is to MAP’s credit that it has adopted creative and very local, accessible approaches to consultation emphasising the views of people who are ‘hard to reach.’ Correspondingly, it has also valued the research skills of external auditors and evaluators in quality studies of it activities and processes.

MAP uses a pool of community resources for regeneration projects, it is not always the same faces. MAP acts as a delivery agent for regeneration initiatives through funded projects and embraces a wide and relevant range of full partner in the planning and management of regeneration programmes.

7. Partnerships

Relatively little is known about how partnerships work.

“ Effective partnership working can disperse financial input and increase participation by a range of people and organisations, but less effective partnership can incur costs through extra administration; though difficulties in resolving problems between partners and through a failure to develop sustainable regeneration projects.”

(Edwards et al: 1998)

They may be formed:

- As a forum for strategic discussion, representation or consensual planning;- To pool resources for efficient delivery of services;- In response to the requirements of regeneration programmes in order to bid for

funding for identified objectives;- At a local level to create a proactive network around a specific project or social group.

(Edwards et al ibid)

MAP’s history and purpose has been stated in the introduction and relates to the third of these purposes of formation. It has, however, shown its flexibility and wide perspective on regeneration by adopting roles linked to the other purposes. It has a role in strategic discussion particularly with local authority representatives; it has a role in pooling resources for efficient and effective delivery of services to elderly people in Laurencekirk; at a local level it contributed to a proactive network around the securing of the rail project.

Edwards et al (1998) also describe effective partnership working in rural regeneration partnerships and recognise the following benefits:

17

- increased accountability and inclusivity;- the cross-fertilisation of ideas;- enhanced levels of co-ordination and co-operation between agencies.

Edwards et al (2000) further propose that effective partnership working includes achievement of cross-sectoral representation; where communities are fully engaged in identifying problems and solutions; where there is a pooling of resources; where replication is avoided; and where consensual decision making is achieved. All these benefits were described in similar terms by the partnership representatives that I interviewed and this is elucidated in Section 4.

8. Leadership

Osborne et al (2002) identify 3 key leadership roles that support community involvement in regeneration projects. These were :

Inspirational leadership and entrepreneurship; Managerial and administrative leadership; Governance of complex networks.

It would be fair to say that these leadership roles were cited by interviewees but the roles ere not all held by one person, they were distributed amongst the membership of MAP. Renshaw (2003) refers to the need to change the dynamic of membership over time. Certain ’degrees of freedom’ are required, he proposes, to allow members to change their relationship to communities over time and I propose that this applies to membership of MAP as discussed in Section 4. Renshaw cites Matusov (1999) who proposed 3 models that produce a homogeneous community, which is not desirable, as opposed to a community that is inclusive of difference. The models are the filter model of exclusion; the funnel model of marginalisation; and the linear model of assimilation. The filter model excludes by having strict entry criteria so that difference is excluded through selective practices. The funnel model of marginalisation allows diversity of intake but silences or marginalises difference by leaving people who do not follow the dominant ideology on the margins. The linear model foregrounds the assimilatory processes that work over time to make difference appear odd or damaging to the comfortable consensus that binds the community together.

The reason I raise these notions is because my research found MAP to be a thriving community. Yes there were varying levels and proximities of participation but MAP appeared to be a community with a shared set of values and ethos. It had not, however, excluded difference by any of the 3 methods described above. Strict formal or informal entry criteria do not limit participation in MAP; rather MAP is inclusive of representation from different though prescribed fields of interest. The funnel effect was not apparent. All members interviewed felt included and listened to, including in particular the Youth Forum representative. The liner model of assimilation is hard to avoid and, yes, as mentioned earlier, some people are more marginal than others but this was considered to be choice rather than supremacy of a dominant ideology; indeed I found that MAP actively values difference.

18

19

SECTION 4

This section of the report presents the findings of the research conducted into MAP.

a. What is success?

I began with an assumption that MAP is a successful project and this is based on the following facts that were apparent to me prior to the research process:

- It has been sustainable for almost a decade;- It levers in additional resources to the community;- It has a track record of substantial and broad ranging service delivery;- It has been used as a model for planning other partnerships in the region.

I was, however, interested in whether and how the partnership members would define success for MAP. The following discussions ensued which all looked at factors other than those that formed by assumptions described above. I asked participants what is success for MAP?

Two respondents described successful in the context of community project as having at its core community development practice; which was further defined as being able to identify needs and gaps in services and having the ability to identify solutions to these issues. Both respondents referred to the complexity of community development practice in contrast to youth work or adult education, which in Scotland are frequently co-located ideologically with community development. These same respondents described MAP as a model for rural development collaboration; it had the right people round the table and had moved beyond more traditional approaches that just involve the local authority and voluntary sector representatives. MAP, by contrast, actively includes the local community. Another respondent took this further, referring to the ‘genesis’ in the community and the fact that it facilitated action in the community; ‘unleashing local talent,’ and allowing people to do action for themselves. A commonly used term, indeed already used by me is a ‘bottom-up’ approach, with the community seen as being at the bottom of the pile or the grass roots. In MAP, the community is at the top of the pile conceptually and in terms of value. Inclusion was seen as a key aspect of success for the MAP partnership.

One respondent referred quite simply to the fact that MAP was a meeting place for people from different backgrounds who can come together to interact and share ideas and information. She further referred to the fact that they can seek help for their own project from MAP as well as contributing their own expertise and agency resources round the table. In addition, they can gain different perspectives for their own work from the range of people there. Whilst this is a discussion of partnership, it emphasises the reciprocal benefits of partnership; a feature often overlooked, in my opinion, in measures of success, where benefit is seen as simply the outcomes for the project being discussed. It is my opinion that this reciprocal benefit is a characteristic of the sustainability of MAP; it contributes to the professional relevance for the employed members of MAP and to the ambience of MAP’s working relationship for all other members.

20

Seeing things happen because of MAP was the definition of success for partners; brought into relief by one respondent because this was not seen to happen in this way anywhere else in the region. Also the fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds had been brought into the area was considered a success for MAP. This is a feature of success that is linked to outcomes and is a feature of success that would be shared by sponsors and funders of the MAP project alike. The tenor of the comments of respondents who referred to these outcomes was interesting in that the comments referred to identified needs being met; not just things being done. One respondent stated that MAP’s area was a site of multiple deprivation and still is but the gap would have widened without MAP. There was a clear link to MAP’s stated purposes of contributing positively to alleviating rural disadvantage. There was also a link to community development principles of inclusion of the community in these actions and being community driven. Activities were valued from a community benefit perspective, not simply from a perspective of the success of MAP itself, in terms of involving numbers of people in activities; a frequently used measure of funding and government bodies. One respondent referred to the way MAP instigates, supports and encourages initiatives rather than trying to run initiatives itself, hereby avoiding becoming bureaucratic.

b. What makes it successful?

I wanted to explore exactly what it was that promoted the success as defined by the partners. One respondent described the situation where the project began with people being told to sit round a table and had developed to a point where people chose to sit round the table. The reason given for the change is that people had rewards from the point of view of seeing success and being able to take shared credit for success. The term ‘pay off’ was used. It is a mature project in the sense that it has a ‘history of credit’, as one respondent described it, to draw on in order to build community capacity in the form of self esteem and confidence of partners. So, success was perceived to build success from a learning perspective.

A key feature described as being important to the success was positive interpersonal and interprofessional relationships. People did not always get on, it was suggested, but an ethos of collaboration had been built up over time. People respected each other’s roles and did not push their own agenda, rather they looked for mutual achievement. The key quality that contributed to this ethos was considered by one respondent to be respect. Yes, personality matters, she said, and different dynamics were at play as membership changed over the years but each new person refreshed the dynamic and the ethos was not lost. Another respondent referred to the ‘chemistry’ of MAP; the fact that people listen and engage with one another and that people are ‘more important than the process.’ He considered that changing chemistry could be the downfall of many community projects but felt that MAP people were focused, energetic, wanted to succeed and were interested in leaving a legacy to the community. In particular the dynamism, drive and enthusiasm of community development professionals was cited as key to the chemistry.

The people in MAP were considered by 6 of the respondents to be key to its success. Further qualities cited were confidence, positive attitude and a willingness to ‘always be looking to do things’ as well as honesty, enthusiasm and a belief in MAP. Making sure all people were involved where and when they wanted was considered to be important. They can opt in but do not have to be involved in everything. A commitment to the area was considered to be important and a ‘belief in things.’ One respondent described how it is ‘hit and miss’ who you get but the structure of MAP contributed to its success. It has 14 members of whom about 10

21

attend each meeting and this is a small enough number to manage at meetings and an email protocol prevents people from being overloaded between meetings to ensure that matters can progress. The youth voice was considered to be particularly important to MAP by 3 respondents who saw it as evidence that MAP can link to the community and listen as well as recognising that young people can contribute to regeneration at this level.

Another definition of ethos was given that included core values of effective engagement; responsiveness to local issues; and facilitative of the community’s capacity. It was considered to be important that individuals seemed not to bring their own agenda to meetings; they never have done but the reason for this was not known. This links to discussion of partnership and the reciprocal relationships that exist for partners.

Leadership qualities were considered to be important by respondents and they referred to the current leader as focused, dynamic, committed and energetic with a belief in MAP and a desire not to do everything herself – a willingness to be inclusive. One respondent in particular felt that the success of MAP was a product of 2 very strong leaders who are committed to MAP and passionate about the work; this led to a frequently cited concern in community development contexts that success could be dependent on retaining this kind of leadership over time.

A further key contributor to success from the point of view of the project’s sustainability was the fact that there were simply complex and important issues of rural disadvantage to be tackled. Without community issues there would be no rationale and motivation for the project. An underpinning core of MAP’s success was considered to be its concern with live issues and communication with the community to identify these issues. A further factor linked to successfulness was focus. An initial focus with the closing of a local air base helped establish the focus of the project but a continuing focus is important and this is linked to what the respondent referred to as the deprivation in the area. One respondent focussed on the need for the project as an important contributor to its success; the need for work on rural disadvantage. It was also considered to be important that MAP never did anything that could be done by another body; it identified gaps and filled these. The need, she said, drives it and the need leads to sustainability. Occasionally, it was suggested by 2 respondents MAP had lost sight of the need and drifted but had always come back to it. One respondent referred to the natural phases of progression where taking stock could be balanced against times of considerable acitivity.

What is most interesting to me about this is the developing sense of the importance of ethos and culture to MAP and the fact that this is the key contributor to the perceived sustainability of MAP. This is characterised by a way of working that is mutual and collaborative; a strong focus on purpose and need; and leadership that facilitates this culture. A further feature of ethos was considered to be MAP’s interest in diversity and its ability to diversify; it has built up a capacity for involvement, through the work of community development professionals, from people from a range of backgrounds.

c. What is success for the community?

I was interested in how the partners thought the community’s perception of MAP was characterised.

22

One respondent thought that MAP was largely invisible and that this was highly appropriate from the point of view that the community could see the products of community development, not necessarily the infrastructure of community development. MAP had organised celebrations for the reinstatement of the local train station and 2,000 people had attended but the technicalities behind the scene were not important – what was important was the outcome for the community. Similarly, they see the community minibus but not the lobbying and research that needed to be done to secure this service. The community sees MAP at the point of delivery and in the local paper. The new High Street office was considered to be important to MAP’s profile. People call in and ask about MAP and it acts as a signpost to other opportunities. Another respondent echoes this perception of the community, saying quite a lot of the community don’t know about it but this does not matter as they see the value of its services and achievements such as training and childcare. Those who do know about it think of it highly, she suggests. Links with the community were unanimously considered to be important but the profile of MAP was not considered to be important from the point of view of its workings. One respondent felt that the community would perceive MAP in a reciprocal way; a coming together of groups and as a potential resource for the success of their own community projects.

This was interesting and laudable from the point of view of modesty! Partners did not feel that their actual work needed to be recognised though they did value a frequent presence in the newspapers. Background work was commonly held to be sufficient. One respondent felt that MAP did not always recognise the value of its good links enough; the outcomes are a product of these links, she suggested, and MAP should recognise the profile it has with many people. I would agree with this perspective; MAP’s community links are excellent and, yes, people may not understand the inner workings of MAP but my impression was that people valued the opportunities it provides. Indeed, I encountered jealousy and resentment from one member of the community at its success and the power dimension that goes with this and communicating its ethos and workings might work to overcome this inevitability.

d. What are the positive and negative aspects of MAP?

In order to see the high and low points of their experience with MAP, I asked respondents to focus on the positive and negative features of the partnership project.

Three respondents focused on structure as the most positive point about MAP. It is important they suggested how the project connects to the community and having a partnership of community, voluntary sector, local business, elected members and local authority staff meant that it has a key mechanism to bring the ‘right’ people together to work together. The understanding of ‘right’ was that the people were from the relevant agencies and at the appropriate level to effect change. Also the equality of people around the table was felt to be important, as well as the training and calibre of community representatives who felt able to be on equal terms with experts from the public and voluntary bodies. One respondent felt MAP to be an ideal model for community planning activities as it brought together the relevant parties in this equally relationship to tackle regeneration.

“It is a local project, with local people addressing local issues with a history of local success.”

One of these same respondents said that the negative side of MAP was that it did not have a wide enough impact on the bigger picture of rural disadvantage issues and that this was not

23

MAP’s fault as this wider influence is a 2 way process. This was an expression of frustration at the lack of public sector preparedness to make better use of MAP as a resource.

One respondent referred again to the strength of MAP partnership and the contribution people make in terms of time and energy to the work of the project. It was felt to be small but strong and that it had national influence through recognition of the effectiveness of its activity. It is effective locally but has an increasing role to play in community planning, again a reference to a greater need for a reciprocal relationship with the public sector. Teamwork was mentioned by another respondent and the resource of having people from different backgrounds to work on shared issues. Partnership works, said another respondent, because although people with different ways of thinking come together, issues are always thoroughly discussed; once a decision has been taken it has been thoroughly investigated. Once again, the culture of MAP’s working methods is celebrated. One limitation of MAP was seen to be the fact that some people do not attend meetings often so miss out on opportunities to contribute and to gain from MAP.

Another respondent referred to the recent appointment of MAP as the funding agent for community funds from a windfarm project and said this was a high point for MAP as it highlighted MAP’s credibility in the community and outside the community and was an example of the practical implementation of community planning, which is most important for a community partnership project. This respondent was unable to think of any low points as MAP is strong and its strength lies in the strength of its members who have the qualities of intelligence, imagination and purpose. Another project that emerged as a high point was the Planning for Real project at Edzell Woods. The Steering Groups is now 5 years old and is perceived to continue to make a difference. Once again the community development dimension of MAP is perceived to be a major strength. The community transport project was cited by another respondent; its contributions to the reopening of the station in Laurencekirk along with Villages in Control.

One area that it was felt MAP could expand in was its geographical base. MAP, at time of interviewing, was being encouraged to extend further North and into the coastal region. There were divided opinions on this issue, as some people felt that this would run counter to its current strong geographical base. It was generally felt that this should be handled with care and that it was a two edged sword with maturity linked to growth but a risk of losing the strong community base it already has. It would be important in growth for MAP not to lose its focus. One respondent referred to the importance of the new communities deciding for themselves the structures and representation that would be appropriate and linking into MAP as and when this met their needs.

e. What can other projects learn from MAP?

I was interested in the generalisability of the MAP model and wanted to know what partners considered the transferable qualities to be. This report presents a positive overall profile of MAP and I was interested to see what partners had learned about rural regeneration and whether this could held other communities with this purpose in mind.

One respondent felt that experience is not necessarily transferable – ‘horses for courses’ but felt conversely that sustainability was reciprocal with achievement; credibility led to sustainability and sustainability bred credibility. He also felt that the interdisciplinarity was important; the ability to engage with people from all different walks of life but also the link

24

with other organisations. Here the culture of MAP is crucial, I suggest – its inclusion of the ‘right’ people and its collaborative way of working. Yes, tensions exist with some organisations, but MAP respects their roles and engages with them as far as possible. MAP is careful about not stepping on the toes of others. This same respondent referred to MAP’s lack of pretention as a positive quality in this regard. I suggest he is referring here to the power dimension that can go with success and that MAP is careful to be facilitative and not prescriptive or domineering.

Structure from the point of view of inclusion of the community and ethos from the point of view of collaboration were again mentioned as generalisable qualities. MAP’s success was frequently ascribed to community inclusion a process which is complex and difficult but has been managed well by MAP. Similarly, collaboration is desirable but complex and MAP has established a culture that is inclusive and reciprocal in its functioning. The involvement of competent and motivated community workers as contributors to success was mentioned by almost all respondents. This profession saw the project off from the beginning, helped establish the ethos of inclusion and acted as a catalyst of community development processes and a source of information, knowledge and expertise on many occasions for MAP activities.

The geography of the area was considered to be important; there was a natural sense of community and ‘small is beautiful’ was considered to be important – MAP had resisted invitations to expand its geographical areas in the past. Some partnerships, it was suggested get too big and become ‘corporate’ whereas others become too small and become a ‘goldfish bowl’. A common bond was considered to be important - a shared geography and shared community issues so that local people could see something was being done. An example given was the Out of School Care Project which now supported 140 families. The need and investigative work were identified and done by MAP. It started out very small and needed the support of MAP to prove viability and demand in order to get the model even looked at for funding purposes.

It is my view that MAP has a lot to offer in terms of its ethos, structure and inclusion of the ‘right’ people. The complexity of these concepts cannot be underestimated and as one respondent rightly proposed one size does not fit all but MAP has a lot to offer as a model that fits local conditions and seeks to follow the values of engagement and inclusion. One public sector respondent can have the final word:

“MAP is a microcosm of how we want to work in Aberdeenshire. If you have a community conference and list 20 things that need doing, then at the next conference can see them knocked off the list at least in part then you are doing something right.”

25

SECTION 5

Conclusions

In contrast to the characteristics frequently represented in the literature by funding bodies and government agencies, the partners in the rural regeneration partnership ascribed success to culture, ethos, engagement and inclusion. Indeed, they also valued outcomes and achievement, the measures most frequently used by sponsoring bodies and government authorities to gauge effectiveness or success, but their overall focus was more on the experience, process and qualities of the members of the group. There is a dearth in the literature of discussion on qualities and values that underpin, I suggest, the success of rural regeneration partnerships. McArdle and Coutts (2010) argue that what makes people good at what they do is who they are. Qualities and values can be sought and promoted (e.g. Malm 2010) and are crucial according to this research to the effectiveness of the partnership process. Community development processes in Scotland frequently focus on community capacity building through skills development but there is a need to focus on the identification and development of positive qualities and a positive ethos for rural regeneration processes not just so-called partnership skills. Donnelly (2000) defines ethos as a fashionable and nebulous term that describes the distinctive range of values and beliefs which define the philosophy and atmosphere of an organisation. She distinguishes between a positivist and anti-positivist view point. A positivist views ethos as something which prescribes social reality. An organisation it is argued possesses an ethos that can be changed at will to make it more successful. Ethos is thus a formal expression of an organisation’s aims and objectives. The theoretical antithesis of this presented by anti-positivist theorists who see ethos as something more informal emerging from social interaction and process. It is a product of organisational interaction and is produced and reproduced over time. It is my contention that community development professionals in addressing rural regeneration projects need to embrace both the positivist and anti-positivist view points. MAP’s ethos of inclusion is prescribed in its constitution and expressed value base but is also a product of the processes it has developed over time. The key question for the community development professional is whether an ethos can be promoted.

Aristotelian accounts of ethos see qualities of character , dispositions and practical wisdom phronesis, as particularly apt for development via an ethos (McLaughlin: 2005). The particular kind of influence that may be exerted by an ethos can best be seen as provision of a context in which learning can flourish including initiation, habituation, training in feeling, attention and perception, induction into patterns of habit and action, forms of guidance and experience and exemplification (McLaughlin : 2005). McLaughlin (2005) goes on to talk about, in a teaching context, the need for an ethos to be justified with reference to an articulated and defensible set of educational aims and values. Fuller attention is needed I suggest in community development work to the development and justification of ethos and to the role of the community development professional in guidance, coaching, initiation in role modelling in a value transparent way to assist the community to develop an ethos as successful as that of MAP. Yes outcomes are important to rural regeneration success but the partners ascribe success to ethos, values and personal qualities. There is a role for the community development professional in the development of a positive and inclusive ethos that goes beyond the traditional skills development linked to community capacity building.

26

It has been my pleasure to be associated with a project that has so many positive characteristics. I lay myself open to criticism that I have not seen the negative dimensions of the project. Yes, there have been areas where there is room for improvement but I can honestly say that my purposes with this project have been met authentically. I have been engaged with community development projects for more than 30 years and consider, on the basis of this experience, that MAP has much to celebrate in terms of achievement over almost a decade since its inception. The tenor of my research was positively framed by the research questions for this case study and this contributes to the emphasis on success and my focus on what can be learnt by other project contributes to this framing of my activity linked to MAP. We are generally not always good in Scotland at talking about success and my interviewees from MAP found it difficult not to ‘blow my own trumpet’ as one respondent put it. I hope, however, that this report will act as validation of what has already been achieved and encouragement to continue in this positive vein.

Evaluation was not a purpose of this project and so recommendations are not appropriate. I do, however, have one key point I wish to make concerning the future for MAP. ‘Small is beautiful’ is an important dimension of partnership working and current moves to extend MAP’s aegis need careful consideration of relevant structures and community engagement processes if it is to go ahead. The suggestion that a committee be established for the new region appears to be a good one with links to MAP for regional development purposes. MAP has much to offer a new regional development process but must not lose what it already has.

Finally, I would not be a researcher without seeing opportunities for further study and it is my opinion that further research into the nature of the engagement with its respective communities would be interesting and useful to MAP. Yes, there is engagement with adults, young people, families, businesses, voluntary organisations and other representative groups. A study of the extent and value of this engagement to MAP and to these people and organisations would be add a further dimension to the empowerment and community capacity building that exists as a product of MAP’s activities and would ensure that engagement continues to drive MAP’s work.

27

References

Barnett, N. and Crowther, D. (1998) Community Identity in the Twenty-First Century: A postmodernist evaluation of local government structure. International Journal of Public Sector Management 11:6, 425-439

Beattie, A., Osborne, S., Williamson, A. (2002) Community Involvement in Rural Regeneration Partnerships: Structural Rhetoric or Reality? Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government 8/2 15-26

Caffyn, A and Dahlstron, M. (2005) Urban-Rural Interdependencies: Joining up Policy in Practice. Regional Studies 39:3, 283 – 296

Countryside Agency (1999) The State of the Countryside 1999, Countryside Agency, London

Donnelly, C. (2000). In Pursuit of School Ethos: British Journal of Educational Studies 48(2)

134-154.

Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., Woods, M. (1998) Findings: Partnership Working in Rural Regeneration. Research in progress. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Edwards, B. Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., Woods, M. (2000) Partnership Working in Rural Regeneration: Guidance and Empowerment? The Policy Press and Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Bristol,

Haq, J. (2008) Community Participation: ‘Activists’ or ‘Citizens’? Participatory Learning and Action June 2008, 91-96

Kashefi, E. and Keene, C. (2008) Citizens’ Juries in Burnley, UK: from deliberation to intervention. Participatory Learning and Action June 2008, 33-38

Laverack, G. (2001) An identification and Interpretation of the Organizational Aspects of Community Empwerment. Community Developmetn Journal 38:2 134-145McArdle, K. and Coutts, N. (2010). Taking Teachers’ Continuous Professional Development

(CPD) beyond reflection: Adding shared sense making and collaborative engagement for

professional renewal: Studies in Continuing Education 32 (3) 201 – 215.

28

McLaughlin, T. (2005). The Educative Importance of Ethos: British Journal of Educational

Studies 53(3) 306-325.

Nelson, A., Babon, A., Berry, M., Keath, N. (2006) Engagement, but for what kind of marriage?: Community members and local planning authorities. Community Development Journal 43,1 37-51

Osborne, S., Williamson, A., Beattie, R. (2002) Community Involvement in Rural Regeneration Partnerships: Exploring the Rural Dimension. Local Government Studies 30:2, 156-171

Osborne, S., Williamson, A., Beattie, R. (2004) Community Involvement in Rural Regeneration Partnerships in the UK: Key Issues from a Three Nation Study. Regional Studies 36:9 1083-1092

Renshaw, P. (2003) Community and Learning: Contradictions, Dilemmas and Prospects. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 24:3 355-370

Rule, J. (2005) Tracing Discourses of Social Action: inner-city Sydney Neighbourhood Centres. Studies in Continuing Education 27:2, 135-153

Shucksmith, M. (2000) Exclusive Countryside? Social Inclusion and Regeneration in Rural Areas. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.

Yarnit, M. (2006) Building Local Initiatives for Learning, Skills and Employment. NIACE, Leicester.

29

30