 |
| Initial publicity posters of Eastleigh Transition Network |
A significant sized group is necessary to get a project off the ground. We were very fortunate to have a small group of about 12 people who were committed to Transition values and local food production in ETNet. Most of the original 12 are still involved. A variety of skills are needed to get a project off the ground including horticultural knowledge, vision, community development, financial, leadership, writing, publicity and secretarial skills.
Door to door leafletting is the most effective way to ensure that the majority of people have heard of your project, although many households will throw the leaflet in the bin with scarcely a glance. Leafletting is also expensive. We then decided to get a leaflet designed, produced and deliver it to up to 10,000 homes in the area. One of our team asked a friend to provide us with the artwork and liaised with the printer who was willing to produce 10,000 A5 sized fliers. Notices advertising the project on community and church noticeboards may well bring in some new members.
Our observations and research suggest that people with large gardens may be less likely to get involved as they may already have enough space for growing their own fruit and vegetables. We know of attempts to form community farm groups in small villages where most people have large gardens have been less successful as there were a smaller number of people who would be interested in such a project and the number may be insufficient to give the project critical mass. In these situations community orchard projects seem to have been more successful. Conversely people living in houses with small gardens or flats are often keen to join.
Someone needed to be available to answer each telephone enquiry or email for a period of about a month. Forms were emailed out and occasionally posted, and the data collated when the responses are returned. It is worthwhile collecting full contact details at the outset. We wanted to ascertain the applicant's skill level. We used a scale of 1-5 for complete novice to expert grower. It was helpful to learn something of the past experience of those with growing experience because they could make team leaders but might have been too shy or self-deprecating to offer. We tried to discover other skills which could be useful to the project and whether they could introduce new aspects to the project which we had not thought of. We wanted to discern the applicants' preferences within the various groupings of the project. Are they able to undertake heavy gardening duties or just take on lighter tasks and will they have sufficient time to fulfil their obligations? We wanted to ensure that all applicants understood the responsibilities and privileges involved in the work. So much of a project like ours is undertaken on trust and so we explained to potential recruits that they were expected to behave in a trustworthy way.
We have always believed that our activities must be sustainable by our own efforts, so we have never applied for a grant. We look at some organisations who spend the first year applying for funding and doing little else and we smile and think back to how we rolled up our sleeves and got on with organising our new members and preparing the ground. Throughout our six years all of our income has come from membership, sale of produce or special members events. Some of our equipment has been donated, some has been purchased with our own funds. We feel that we are resilient!
The period from February to April 2010 was frenetic for the Highbridge Community Farm organising team. First we met to formulate a plan. We would start a workers co-operative by inviting 100 people to pay £10 for a year to become stakeholders, commit to working 10 hours over the year (a hopeless underestimate), in teams of 10, each team growing 1 crop. Then at harvest time all the produce would be made available to all the stakeholders to buy for approximately 1/3 of the shop price. Each team would have a team leader who would decide when and how to sow, weed, water and harvest the crop and the selling price. It seemed simple really. We were soon to learn that 10 hours a year was a hopeless mis-calculation of the time needed to get the land into production and soon revised the figure to an expectation of 10 hours per month.
We then decided to get a leaflet designed, produced and deliver it to up to 10,000 homes in the area. One of our team asked a friend to provide us with the artwork and liaised with the printer who was willing to produce 10,000 A5 sized fliers. Two looked into insurance, health and safety issues and funding issues. As it happened the farmer Mr Russell wasn’t keen on us applying for funding as such a young organisation, so we concentrated on getting the flier produced and delivered to about 8000 homes. Individuals loaned the project money to supplement the finances of the ETNet kitty and to raise the £200 for printing the leaflet and membership card. We also began to prepare for an inaugural meeting, in a church close to the centre of our catchment area.
The enquiries and applications came in rapidly. Within six weeks, by the end of March we had nearly 200 enquiries, either by phone or email. Each one had to be dealt with individually as they had specific questions for us and we had specific questions for them. We sent all enquirers a three page introduction with brief questionnaire, asking them to state their three preferences for growing teams and to give their experience on a scale of 1 (novice) to 5 (very experienced). Approximately 70% were novices with little or no experience of growing their own food- so we were assured of the educational value of the project. The first 100 to return their forms with £10 were made stakeholders. 85% of stakeholders were assigned to their first preference crop team and another 10% to their second preference. The late applicants were fitted in where there were spaces. Subsequent enquiries were put on a waiting list.
We were ready to launch. But would it work?
Someone needed to be available to answer each telephone enquiry or email for a period of about a month. Forms were emailed out and occasionally posted, and the data collated when the responses are returned. It is worthwhile collecting full contact details at the outset. We wanted to ascertain the applicant's skill level. We used a scale of 1-5 for complete novice to expert grower. It was helpful to learn something of the past experience of those with growing experience because they could make team leaders but might have been too shy or self-deprecating to offer. We tried to discover other skills which could be useful to the project and whether they could introduce new aspects to the project which we had not thought of. We wanted to discern the applicants' preferences within the various groupings of the project. Are they able to undertake heavy gardening duties or just take on lighter tasks and will they have sufficient time to fulfil their obligations? We wanted to ensure that all applicants understood the responsibilities and privileges involved in the work. So much of a project like ours is undertaken on trust and so we explained to potential recruits that they were expected to behave in a trustworthy way.
We have always believed that our activities must be sustainable by our own efforts, so we have never applied for a grant. We look at some organisations who spend the first year applying for funding and doing little else and we smile and think back to how we rolled up our sleeves and got on with organising our new members and preparing the ground. Throughout our six years all of our income has come from membership, sale of produce or special members events. Some of our equipment has been donated, some has been purchased with our own funds. We feel that we are resilient!
The period from February to April 2010 was frenetic for the Highbridge Community Farm organising team. First we met to formulate a plan. We would start a workers co-operative by inviting 100 people to pay £10 for a year to become stakeholders, commit to working 10 hours over the year (a hopeless underestimate), in teams of 10, each team growing 1 crop. Then at harvest time all the produce would be made available to all the stakeholders to buy for approximately 1/3 of the shop price. Each team would have a team leader who would decide when and how to sow, weed, water and harvest the crop and the selling price. It seemed simple really. We were soon to learn that 10 hours a year was a hopeless mis-calculation of the time needed to get the land into production and soon revised the figure to an expectation of 10 hours per month.
We then decided to get a leaflet designed, produced and deliver it to up to 10,000 homes in the area. One of our team asked a friend to provide us with the artwork and liaised with the printer who was willing to produce 10,000 A5 sized fliers. Two looked into insurance, health and safety issues and funding issues. As it happened the farmer Mr Russell wasn’t keen on us applying for funding as such a young organisation, so we concentrated on getting the flier produced and delivered to about 8000 homes. Individuals loaned the project money to supplement the finances of the ETNet kitty and to raise the £200 for printing the leaflet and membership card. We also began to prepare for an inaugural meeting, in a church close to the centre of our catchment area.
 |
| Getting ready for the launch - our facilities |
 |
| One bare, ploughed field |
The enquiries and applications came in rapidly. Within six weeks, by the end of March we had nearly 200 enquiries, either by phone or email. Each one had to be dealt with individually as they had specific questions for us and we had specific questions for them. We sent all enquirers a three page introduction with brief questionnaire, asking them to state their three preferences for growing teams and to give their experience on a scale of 1 (novice) to 5 (very experienced). Approximately 70% were novices with little or no experience of growing their own food- so we were assured of the educational value of the project. The first 100 to return their forms with £10 were made stakeholders. 85% of stakeholders were assigned to their first preference crop team and another 10% to their second preference. The late applicants were fitted in where there were spaces. Subsequent enquiries were put on a waiting list.
We were ready to launch. But would it work?
 |
| ...and some willing workers |
No comments:
Post a Comment