A short history of
the Belfast Interface Project
2.
1995 - 2000:
c)
BIP consultation re future direction:
With this in mind, BIP commissioned an independent consultant
(Clem McCartney) to carry out a consultation process during
1999 with a number of key stakeholders in order to gain
their views as to the future direction of the project.
The aim of the consultation was to seek feedback on the
following questions:
Who should the project be accountable to?
How should the project be managed?
What should be the criteria for membership of the project’s
steering group?
What should be the priority areas of work for the project?
A range of views emerged from the consultation process
and there was not a firm consensus on all of the issues
covered. Despite this, some clear directions for the project
emerged. These included the following:
i)
Accountability:
It was felt that the project should be a membership organisation,
with member groups/agencies, and that the project should
have an elected management committee.
ii)
Management:
It was felt that there should be a formal management structure,
with a constitution and clear decision-making procedures.
The project should have a clear plan of action against
which to measure performance. There should be a range
of interests within the management group. The project
should be clearly unaligned politically. The project should
be concerned with the regeneration of interface areas,
an area that includes, but is not confined to, community
relations issues. In relation to the management of the
project, most respondents felt that the project should
be free-standing and independent.
iii) Criteria for membership of the project:
It was felt that membership should be based on geographical
areas and interests as well as on a commitment to approaches
which value local empowerment in addressing interface
community concerns through effective community development
practice.
iv) Priority areas of work
for the project:
These included the following:
Information: respondents reported a need for practical
information regarding resources available for community
groups in interface areas as well as current news regarding
interface projects and practice; perhaps through a regular
news-sheet or similar.
Policy: it was felt that there is a need to promote more
opportunities for intersectoral dialogue between the community,
voluntary and statutory sectors in relation to the regeneration
of interface areas, and a need for more concerted lobbying.
It was felt that it would be useful to promote greater
involvement of interface groups and projects in this area
of work.
Practice: it was felt that the project should be involved
in some 'hands on' local work which was clearly defined
and where the work would be particularly useful, for example
in the creation of precedents in statutory policy and
practice, e.g. Outer North Interface Working Group.
Support: it was felt that the role of the project should
be to help ensure support is available where it is needed,
rather than to provide it. At least two kinds of ‘support’
functions were identified:
| * |
specific practice-related support,
for example in relation to reducing tension and
violence in a specific area. |
| * |
perspective-sharing regarding broader issues,
trends, developments, needs and strategies. |
Theory: it was felt that the role of the project should
be to help develop conceptual models regarding interface
issues and to stimulate debate regarding current models
which describe the 'interface experience'.
The consultation findings were distributed to those who
had been consulted.
Working from the consultation findings, BIP then drew
up a proposed new structure and implementation plan that
would allow the project to change in the ways that had
been suggested. This document was then also distributed
to those who had been contacted through the original consultation,
for their comment and feedback over the summer 2000 period.
|
|
|
