Removing Barriers to Participation

8/7/2019 Removing Barriers to Participation

1/71

Removing the barriers to

community partic ipation

A report by the National Community Forum

Com missioned by the Neighbourhood Renewa l Unit

Written b y James Morris, ipp r


2/71

- Rem oving the ba rriers to c om munity pa rticipa tion -

Nationa l Com munity Forum ii

This report is pub lished by the Nationa l Com munity Forum in its role a s anad visory bod y to ODPM. Any views in it are no t nec essarily those o f the

department.

About the authorsThis report rep resents the views of a pane l of reside nts and workers d irec tly

involved with neighbourhood renewal,drawn from the National Comm unity

Forum. The forum w as set up by the Office of t he Dep uty Prime Ministe r

(ODPM) to :

ac t a s a sound ing boa rd for the Neighbourhood Renewa l Unit (NRU) and

provide a g rassroo ts, com munity perspec tive on go vernme nt p rog ramm es

de velop new ide as to he lp ma ke g overnment po licies mo re e ffective

help promote the a ims of neighb ourhood renew al, increasing pe op le s

unde rstand ing a nd involveme nt.

The forum ho lds regular round -tab le d iscussions with sen ior NRU sta ff a nd

ODPM m iniste rs to a lert p olic y ma kers to the g aps betwe en Whiteha ll polic y

and imp leme nta tion on the g round . They also w ork in sma ll g roup s to a dd ress

particular issues in mo re d eta il.

In June 2005, a wo rking group was esta b lished to loo k a t p a rticipa tion a c rossgove rnment . The eigh t mem bers of th is g roup interviewe d 39 expe rts from

ac ross Whiteha ll, ac adem ia, loc a l gove rnme nt a nd c om munity orga nisa tions.

Jam es Mo rris and Mirand a Lew is a t the Institute of Public Polic y Resea rc h (ipp r)

were c om missioned to fac ilita te the d isc ussions. James Mo rris wrote this rep ort

on the basis of tho se d isc ussions. James is a Resea rc h Fellow in the Peo p le a nd

Polic y Tea m a t the ipp r. Rec ent p ub lic a tions inc lude Ga tew ay Peop le: The

aspira tions and att itud es of p rospec tive and e xisting residents of the Thame s

Gatewaywith Jim Bennet (2006) ipp r; City Peop le: City Centre Living in the UK

with C hris Urwin a nd Ma x Na tha n (2006) ipp r; and Older peop le s a ttitudes to

human rights(forthco ming), Age C onc ern.

The deta ils of the panel mem bers a re a s follow s:

Graham Bell is c ha ir of a not-for-p rofit co mp any tha t manag es Job Bank a

com munity-led project who se p rima ry a im is to b roker job s and support

business and lifelong lea rning . He is Vice Cha ir of Liverpo ol Loca l Strateg ic

Partnership (LSP).

Christop her Brown is a fo und er mem ber, a long w ith o ther loca l residents, of the

Wor Hoo se Co mm unity Projec t, whic h suc c essfully fought p lans to dem olish the


3/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum iii

esta te a nd ha s go ne on to reg ene ra te the ne ighb ourhood . He is on Newc astle

LSP board.

Graham Brownlee c ha ired the Panel. He ha s been involved in setting up two

com munity projec ts: one wo rking with loca l families and child ren providing

ad vic e, mutual supp ort and spe c ia l events; the other em p loying loc al peop le

and enc ourag ing new c ome rs to mo ve to a nd w ork in the loc al area . He ha s

be en C ha ir of Red c ar and Cleveland LSP and the C hief Exec utive o f the

Churches Regional Commission in Yorkshire and the Humber.

Kath Ma guire wo rks as pa rt o f a c o-op erative, und ertaking resea rc h on issues

rang ing from the value a d de d b y com munity involveme nt in go vernanc e to

the sup port need s of rura l home-b ased workers. She lives on a housing

assoc ia tion esta te in Penzanc e, and is an a c tive m em ber of her land lord s

com munity involveme nt reg ister, as we ll as ta king p a rt in a numb er of

com munity groups.

Andrew Orton is an expe rienc ed volunteer, trustee , pa id me mb er of sta ff and

consultant, having w orked with a numb er of c om munity orga nisa tions in

Nottingham, Lanc ashire a nd now the North East, inc luding the East Durham

Comm unity Network. He is currently tra ining c om munity de velopm ent

prac titioners and resea rc hing the e ffec ts of fa ith on c om munity-wo rk prac tice

in reg ene ra tion area s.

Razia Sha riff is Direc tor of Wandsworth Community Emp ow erment Netw ork

the o nly Com munity Emp ow erment Netw ork in the UK tha t is an inde pend ent

com pany and a reg istered c ha rity. She ha s been a trustee of a numb er of

voluntary orga nisa tions, and has wo rked for the no n-gove rnme nta l

orga nisa tion (NGO) sec tor in Bang lad esh.

Jess Steele is a c om munity ac tivist, loc a l histo rian a nd soc ial entrep rene ur. She

wa s born and bred in south-east Lond on, where she ha s bee n invo lved in

com munity groups since she w as a c hild . She wo rked for ma ny yea rs for a

loc al cha rity prom oting c om munity involvement in reg enera tion a nd is now

using her g rassroots experienc e in a na tiona l role for the British Urban

Reg ene ra tion Assoc iation.

Barbara Willis-Brown is the found er and Direc tor of Spa rkbroo k Caribbea n a nd

Africa n Wom en s Deve lop me nt Initiative (SCAWDI) a Birmingha m based

community development organisation creating opportunities for black women

to p lay a key role in the rege neration and renewa l of their c om munities.


4/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum iv

Abb reviations and ac ronymsALMO Arms-leng th ma nage me nt organisation

CEN Co mm unity Emp ow erment Netwo rk

CPA Co mprehensive Performa nc e Assessment

CPPI Co mmission for Patient and Pub lic Invo lvement Forums

CRU Civil Renewa l Unit

CVS Co unc il for vo lunta ry service

DCA Dep artment for Co nstitutiona l Affa irs

DEFRA Dep artm ent for the Environment, Foo d and Rural Affa irs

DfES Dep artment for Educ a tion and Skills

DH Departme nt of Hea lth

DWP Dep artment for Work and Pensions

HO Hom e Office

ipp r Institute for Pub lic Policy Resea rch

LA Loc a l autho rity

LAA Loc al Area Ag reeme nt

LSC Learning and skills c ounc il

LSP Loc a l strateg ic pa rtnership

NAO Nationa l Aud it Offic e

NDC New Dea l for Comm unities

NDPB Non-dep artme nta l pub lic bod y

NHS Nationa l Hea lth Servic e

NMP Neighb ourhood Ma nag eme nt Pathfinde r

NRF Neighb ourhood Renew a l Fund

NRU Neighb ourhoo d Rene wa l Unit

ODPM Office of the Dep uty Prime Minister

PPI Pa tient and pub lic involveme nt forum

PSA Pub lic Service Ag reem ent

SCAWDI Sparkbroo k Ca ribbea n and Afric an Women s Developme nt

Initiative

SEU Soc ia l Exc lusion Unit

SSCF Sa fer and Stronger Communities Fund

TMO Tena nt ma nage me nt orga nisa tion

TWICS Training fo r Work in Communities

VCS Voluntary and c om munity sec tor


5/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum v

ContentsForeword ____________________________________________________________viExec utive summary ___________________________________________________ ix

1. Introduc tion ______________________________________________________ 12. Joining up polic y _________________________________________________ 63. Chang ing c ulture________________________________________________ 164. Stand a rds, ta rgets and inspec tion ________________________________ 235. Partic ipa tion in p rac tic e _________________________________________ 277. Conc lusion and rec ommend ations_______________________________ 29

8. Bibliography_____________________________________________________ 45

Append ix 1: Metho dology ___________________________________________ 49Append ix 2: Experts interviewed ______________________________________ 52Ap pend ix 3: Que stions sent to experts in adva nc e_____________________ 55


6/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum vi

Foreword

by Ed Co x, Ad visor to the Pane l

Even the m ost cynic al co mm unity ac tivist c ouldn t fail to ha ve b een excited

by New Labours p rom ises to e nsure tha t c om munities needs and p riorities

are to the fore in neighbourhood renewal and that reside nts of p oor

communities have the to ols to g et involved in wha tever way they wa nt.1 But

six yea rs on, for ma ny of us pa rticipa tion has bee n an e xperienc e equa lly

ba lanc ed be twee n grief and rewards.

You wo uld expe c t that tho se o f us fortunate e nough to be ap po inted to the

National Co mm unity Forum would c ount ourselves amo ngst c om munity

pa rticipa tion s winners. Ind eed it ha s been a po sitive e xperienc e, a nd in a

numb er of po lic y areas the c om ing tog ethe r of p olic y-ma kers, p rac titione rsand reside nts has de mo nstrate d the p ow er of mo re pa rtic ipa tory ap proac hes

to d em oc ra tic eng age me nt. But the p rivileg e o f reg ula r me etings with senior

c ivil servants and ministers has a lso highlighted the g ap betwe en rheto ric a nd

rea lity and an inc onsistent a pproac h to c om munity pa rticipa tion a c ross

government.

At the loc a l level, loc a l authorities and othe r pub lic a genc ies have interpreted

guida nc e on c om munity eng age me nt loo sely and a t time s d efensively. The

c om munity lea de rship role tha t wa s intend ed for New Dea l for Co mm unities

prog ramm es has led to a va riety of reg enera tion mo de ls. How ever, the

em pha sis on d elivery and spend has ma de it hard fo r com munity-ledprogram me s to succ eed am id trad itiona l app roa c hes to p roject ap praisal,

prog ramm e ma nage me nt and mo nitoring. The government s em phasis on

com munity pa rticipa tion in Loc a l Strateg ic Pa rtne rships ha s led , in many area s,

to tensions with loc a lly elec ted c ounc illors and is slowly be ing sup ersed ed by

an emp ha sis on the lea dership role o f loca l authorities. There has bee n

variab ility in the role o f and pa rticipa tion in Pub lic -Pa tient Involveme nt Forums.

Ma ny SureSta rt p ro jec ts assert tha t the ir suc c ess is large ly due to the strong

em pha sis on c om munity and p a rent involvement a c ross the p rog ram me .

As the Nationa l Com munity Forum ha s d isc ussed the se a nd other issues, it ha s

bec om e c lea r tha t inc onsistenc y in the definition, interpreta tion andimp lem enta tion of c om munity pa rticipa tion p resents one o f the most

significant ba rriers to the ac hieveme nt of em pow ered c om munities and

imp roved p ub lic services. Having g rappled with po licy guida nce,

ac c red itation sc heme s, and pe rforma nce ma nag em ent fram ewo rks in a raft

of initiatives, the Na tiona l Co mm unity Forum finally felt tha t a m ore tho roug h

review was req uired . It e sta b lished a Pane l on Com munity Participation ac ross

Government in o rder to e xplore the va ried understa nd ings of c om munity

pa rticipa tion by nat iona l gove rnment ; to a ssess how suc h va ried

1 The Na tional Strateg y for Neighb ourhood Rene wa l


7/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum vii

understand ings imp ac t on loc al imp lem entation; and to m ake

rec om me nda tions for future p olic y on co mm unity pa rticipa tion a c ross

government.

The Panel on Participa tion, fac ilitate d b y the ipp r, interviewe d 38 expert

witnesses in order to fo rm a unique perspec tive on the c ritic a l suc c ess fac to rs

ena b ling and inhib iting c om munity pa rticipa tion at the p resent time . Their

com me nts have revea led a p ic ture o f inconsistenc y within de partme nts and

ac ross nat iona l go vernme nt; a fa ilure to emb ed a p a rtic ipat ion c ulture within

rec a lc itrant counc ils and une lec ted sta tutory a ge nc ies; and a pa tc hy, short-

termist app roa c h to resourcing wha t is suc h a p rom inent c ross-cutt ing theme .

Expert witnesses identified som e fund ame nta l issues tha t need to be g rasped .

Add ressing the d estructive imp ac t o f ba d pa rtic ipa tion , where nega tive

attitude s to c om munity involveme nt lea d to p oo r enga ge me nt prac tic es,

causing increa sed hostility, dec rea sed trust a nd poo r expe rienc e and

outc om es not on ly for c om munities, but a lso fo r offic ials and politicians,

thus further reinforc ing neg a tive a ttitudes and beha viour.

Rec og nising the c a tc h-22 fac ed by residents who take on responsibilities as

com munity lea de rs, but find their leg itima c y cha lleng ed prec isely bec ause

they stand out bec om ing labelled as unrep resenta tive usua l suspe c ts .

Enab ling offic ers to go out a nd inhab it othe r peop les wo rlds in order to

deepe n und erstand ing and build relationships.

Ma king c om munity pa rtic ipa tion c entral to the de livery ag end a rathe r

than simp ly an ad de d extra a nd trea ting em po werment a s a key outco me

in its own right.

Our experts a lso p ointed to som e w ays forwa rd .

The ne ed for clea r and c onsisten t na tiona l leadership.

Grea te r rights, responsibilities and resourc es for loc a l authorities and the ir

pa rtners to p rom ote c ultura l c hang e.

A more sop histica ted and trusting rela tionship b etw een a ll levels of

go vernment a nd the voluntary and c om munity sec tor.

Cha ng ing c ultures is never an ea sy or linea r process. But if the g ove rnment s

com mitment to a new soc ia l cont rac t is to b e ta ken seriously (and not lost to

vag ue no tions suc h a s trusting pe op leand shared responsibility) then the

issues and rec om me nd a tions in this rep ort deserve urge nt a ttention. The Loc a l

Go vernme nt White Pap er, due to be p ub lished late r this yea r, p resents a

signific ant o pp ortunity to d o this and to b uild upo n a nd em be d the va luab le

initiatives and investme nts tha t have b ee n ma de to da te, ra ther than a llow ing

them to unravel. Ca pac ity b uilding for co mm unities is like c ontinuing pe rsona l

deve lop me nt for individua ls, a lifelong p roc ess tha t req uires ong oing

investment . The Co mp rehe nsive Spend ing Review 2007 will be c ruc ial if the

nec essa ry investment in c apac ity-build ing is to be found . This rep ort needs to

inform tha t p roc ess.


8/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum viii

Throug h the Na tional Com munity Forum we have had glimp ses of w hat might

be p ossible. Our em pha sis on the ne ed for be nefits refo rm has helped ODPM

see the impo rtanc e o f welfare p olic y for reg eneration, and we have be en

ab le to injec t strong prac tica l sugg estions into the deb ate. Our involvement in

ODPM working groups on rac e a nd o n neighb ourhood s has put com munity

voice at t he heart of polic y-ma king. But c an we transla te the prece de nt set by

the Forum, working w ith the Neighb ourhoo d Rene wa l Unit, into c ohe rent

lea dership right ac ross go vernment and dow n to the grassroo ts? Ca n w e

conve rt op timistic rheto ric into a me aningful right t o p a rtic ipate for eve ry

c itizen? And c an we find a vehicle to ensure the p rom otion, imp lem enta tion,

supp ort and sc rutiny that the pa rticipa tion a ge nda deserves?

Tog ethe r, we be lieve, we c an .


9/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum ix

Exec utive summary

Emp ow ering loc a l authorities must go ha nd in hand with loc a l

go vernment em pow ering c itizens and neighb ourhood s This me ansmo re o pportunities for individuals to ha ve influenc e a nd c hoice ove r

wha t, where, when a nd by whom a service is provided .

David Miliba nd , Ministe r for Communities, 20052

The Government rec og nises tha t involving c om munities in po lic y de sign a nd

imp lem enta tion b rings grea t b ene fits. Com munity pa rticipa tion is wo ven into

ma ny areas of gove rnme nt ac tivity, ranging from the role o f co mm unity

me mb ers on the b oa rds of found a tion hosp ita ls to the c rea tion of Com munity

Empow erme nt Ne tw orks (CENs) a s pa rtne rs in Loc a l Strateg ic Partnerships

(LSPs). The re is a loose but b road agenda that seeks to e mb ed c om munity

partic ipation in da y-to-da y prac tic e, from Whiteha ll to the tow n hall.

Key rec ent d eve lop me nts in this age nda include:

the Home Office-led Tog ethe r We Ca n initia tive

the ODPM s Loc a l:Vision wo rk and , pa rticula rly, the p rop osa ls for mo re

neighb ourhoo d-leve l gove rnance struc tures in Why Neighb ourhood s

Ma tter. A white p ape r on the o rga nisa tion of local government is

expe c ted in July 2006

the g uarantee of a c om munity voice on LSPs whe n neg otiating Loc a l Area

Ag reem ents (LAAs)3

Hom e Office Ministe r Hazel Blea rs c a ll for the c rea tion o f a CitizensParticipa tion Age ncy c harged with promo ting loca l ac tive eng ag em ent in

dec ision m aking . This wo uld not b e yet a nothe r unit w ithin c entral

go vernment, but a n organisa tion within every c om munity whic h

hea dhunts, trains, enc ourag es and sup ports loca l ac tive c itizens bac ked

by the ma ssive resourc es of g ove rnment . 4

The c urrent policy ap p roac h is yet to fully deliver on its p rom ise. There a re

ma ny case stud ies of c om munities having a signific ant and po sitive imp ac t on

the w ay services a re d elivered .5 How eve r, several rec ent e va lua tions have

found o nly limited evidenc e tha t the new p a rticipa tion me c hanisms a re

systema tica lly inc rea sing the extent to which c om munities ac tua lly influenc e

pub lic service s.6

2 Renew ing our Democ rac y.Spe ec h to the Loc a l Government Assoc ia tion Annual

Conference, 28 June 2005.3 ODPM (2004b), paras 16, 17, 74, and Anne x B.4 Forew ord to Rog ers (ed .) (2004).5 See , am ong others, Ga ffney (2005) and Rog ers and Rob inson (2004).6 Healthcare Commission (2005), p33; National Audit Office 2004b; Office of the

Dep uty Prime M inister (2004a), espec ially p20 and p53. How eve r, see , for exam ple,

Ca mb ridge Ec ono mic Assoc iates (2005), p55, pa ra 9.2, for evidenc e tha t c om munities

are ha ving a signific ant and inc rea sing imp ac t on New Dea l for Comm unities.


10/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum x

This rep ort see ks to expla in and ta c kle this pa tc hy p erformanc e. It sets ou t the

views of a pa nel of co mm unity ad voc ate s and ac tivists who wo rked tog ether

ove r a p eriod of six months to develop the analysis and the p rop osa ls

conta ined in this rep ort. Their view s were informed b y interview s with e xperts on

com munity partic ipa tion from ac ross Whiteha ll, a ca de mia, loc a l go vernment

and the c om munity and voluntary sec tor.

The rep ort doe s not a im to re-sta te o r ana lyse the c ase fo r pa rticipa tion a s a

wa y of ap proac hing p olic y ma king a nd implementa tion.Instead , it ta kes the

value o f pa rtic ipa tion to be proven7, and loo ks a t how this c an b e further

deve lop ed ac ross the p ub lic sec tor. The rep ort be gins by ana lysing the key

ba rriers to further embed d ing pa rtic ipa tion in loc a l dec ision ma king. It the n

provides som e recom me nda tions on ho w tho se b a rriers c an be ta c kled .

Joining up po licyThe p anel found tha t a pp roa c hes to p articipa tion p olic y are often not

co nnec ted at the national, loc al or neighb ourhood level. Eac h d ep artment,

loc a l authority and delivery bo dy tend s to ha ve its ow n a na lysis of the va lue,

purpose a nd best me thods for pa rticipa tion. This ha s led to m any different

me c hanisms op erating in pa ra llel, c ausing p rob lem s bo th for co mm unity

me mb ers and for sta tutory bod ies:

Participation overload Peop le w ho w ant to pa rticipa te in loc al po lic y

ma king c an find the shee r range o f structures bew ildering . The p rod uc tivity

of c om munity orga nisa tions and ind ividua ls is red uc ed as they spend time

naviga ting the com p lex we b o f struc tures intend ed to fac ilita te

participation.

Lac k o f sustainable programmes There ha s bee n increa sing rec og nition

tha t p artic ipa tion ne ed s to b e susta inab le. New Dea l for Comm unities

(NDCs), Neighbourhoo d Ma na gem ent Pa thfinde rs (NMPs), Tena nt

Ma na gem ent O rganisa tions (TMO s) a nd Loc a l Strateg ic Pa rtne rships (LSPs)

a re a ll designed to b e long -term initia tives. How ever, the pane l found tha t

often , polic y is still imp lem ente d a t loc a l and neighb ourhoo d leve l as a

series of time-limited p rog rammes. This d ra ins capac ity for long -term

c om munity work, as deve lop me nt orga nisa tions divert ene rgy to dea l with

the c onsta nt sea rc h for short-term fund ing.

Inconsistent vocabulary The term c om munity pa rticipa tion is unde rstoo dand ap p lied d ifferently by d ifferent sta tutory bod ies, and b y different

officers within those sta tuto ry bod ies. These va riations c an m ake it ha rd for

d ifferent b od ies to w ork in p artnership with ea ch other and with

communities.

7 See Rog ers and Rob inson (2004), Taylor (2003), Sirianni and Fried land (2001), Ga ffne y

(2005) and Fung (2003) amo ng others.


11/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum xi

Tensions in p olicy

As w ith mo st p olicy area s, the re a re tensions with other polic y ag endas. This is

exac erba ted b y the fac t that the re is no c om prehensive g ove rnme nt vision for

com munity pa rticipa tion. The panel identified three significant a rea s oftension:

Loc al Area Agreem ents The panel endorses the principles behind the

introd uc tion o f LAAs. How eve r, the shift from c ent ra lly a dministered single

Co mm unities Prog ramme (SCP) fund ing to loca lly ad ministe red Sa fer

Strong er Co mm unities Fund (SSCF) fund ing m ea ns tha t c om mun ity a c tivity

and c om munity pa rtic ipa tion w ill be fa r mo re reliant on loca l autho rity

support. This could limit the extent to which com munities and com munity

orga nisa tions feel ab le to c halleng e and influenc e loc a l authority polic ies.

The new a rrang em ents will ma ke co mm unities and c om munity groups

mo re vulnerab le to co erc ion w here loc al a uthorities do not a pp rec iate the

bene fits to b e g a ined by g enuinely involving c itizens 8.

The c hoice ag enda The p ane l a rgue s tha t while p a rtic ipa tion a nd c hoice

should work ha nd in ha nd , tensions may arise. Comm unity mem bers who

have the c hoice of c hanging service p rovide r ma y be less likely to

pa rticipa te in the imp rove ment o f tha t p roviders services. This wo uld b e

partic ula rly p rob lem atic if c hoice polic ies fail to ensure e qua l ac c ess to the

c hoice s tha t are on offer.

The benefits system There a re te nsions betwe en the leve l of the ea rnings

d isreg a rd fo r pe op le c la iming b ene fits and the a b ility of co mm unity

orga nisa tions to d raw on the skills of loc a l peop le. The low level of the

ea rnings disreg a rd p revents pe op le from using c om munity work as a wa yof e asing bac k into full-time wo rk, as any pa y wo uld put the c onsistenc y of

the ir benefit sta tus at risk.

Chang ing c ulture

There a re strong c ultura l ba rriers tha t d eter governme nt officers and elec ted

rep resenta tives from em brac ing pa rticipa tion a s pa rt of the ir day-to-da y

prac tice. Often, co mm itted offic ers, counc illors and c om munities have to

ma ke the c ase for co mm unity involvement in the c onte xt of a n institutiona l

assumption tha t p a rticipa tion is unnec essa ry.

Some localcouncillors see pa rticipa tion a s a cha lleng e to their authority and

role a s c om munity leaders. They m ay resent o the r me mb ers of the c om munity

who ta ke o n a lea dership role. This p rob lem c an be exac erba ted if they

pe rc eive Go vernment p rog ramm es to be b ypa ssing c ounc illors in favour of

de a ling d irec tly with c om munities.

Tensions betwe en c ounc illors and com munity ac tivists a re often mo st seve re in

counc ils tha t a re he avily do minate d by a single p olitica l pa rty, and whe re

there a re fe w m arg inal wa rds. In suc h a rea s, co unc illors tend to be less op en

8Simila r co nc erns a lso ra ised in Nationa l Aud it Office (2004b) a nd UWEet al(2005).


12/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum xii

to eng ag ing d irec tly with constituents pa rticula r where this is likely to lead to

a c hallenge from loc al peop le.

Many go vernment office rs are c rea ting new op po rtunities for comm unities to

pa rticipa te. How ever, the p anel identified three fac tors tha t e xp la in w hy this is

not hap pe ning e verywhere:

Professiona l cu lture in ma ny p ub lic service s assumes tha t p rofe ssiona l

op inion is a lways superior to non-professiona l op inion informed b y loc a l

experience.

There is an und ersta nda b le relucta nce to try c om munity de c ision-ma king

aga in whe re it seems to ha ve fa iled or ca used delays.

Ado pting pa rtic ipa tive ap proac hes mea ns c hang ing wo rking p rac tic e.

There is a further issue a round the role a nd legitima c y of c om munity me mb ers

who a re selec ted to rep resent their c om munities on dec ision-ma king bo a rds.The lac k of c larity or consensus c an leave c om munity ac tivists vulnerab le to

the c hallenge that they a re not representative and lac k leg itima c y.

It is vita l that p a rtic ipa tion struc tures a re p rote c ted from cap ture by narrow

interest groups and tha t de c ision ma kers are leg itima te a nd a c counta b le.

How ever, seve ra l witnesses note d tha t c halleng es to com munity ad voc a tes

leg itimac y mo st ofte n a rise w here those a dvo c ates question o r cha lleng e the

view s of e lec ted or ap pointed offic ials. Pane l mem bers saw this as a

p articipa tion c atc h 22 , whereby the fact tha t a c omm unity memb er is

ac tively enga ge d in d ec ision-ma king brand s them as un-rep resenta tive

p rec isely bec ause, unlike their pee rs, they are involved and a re the refo re see nas a typ ica l or dismissed as the usua l suspec ts .

Standards, targe ts and inspec tion

Most of the experts interview ed by the p ane l a rgue d tha t standards, ta rge ts

and inspe ction for pa rticipa tion c ould be more effec tive.

The key p oints were:

There is not eno ugh c la rity about the standards tha t should b e follow ed

whe n involving c om munities. There is a balanc e to be struc k be twe en

excessively rigid na tiona l guidelines and a llow ing so much flexib ility tha t

a nything g oes.

It is too e asy for loc a l autho rities to tick the pa rticipa tion b oxes in their aud it

assessme nt w ithout genuine ly working in p a rtnership w ith loc a l

communities.

Not enoug h a ttention is currently pa id to the prac tic e a nd pe rforma nce of

bod ies othe r than loc a l autho rities in rela tion to partic ipa tion.

There is a lac k of system atic evidenc e a bout the e ffec tiveness of d ifferent

forms of p a rtic ipa tion. Wha t evidenc e d oe s exist c an be ha rd to find, and is

often not m ade a vailab le in a wa y that is useful to p rac titione rs.


13/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum xiii

The imp ortanc e of power relations

Uneq ual po we r relations underpin ma ny of the p rob lem s desc ribed above .

Comm unities that w ant m ore involvement in de c ision making fa c e rea l

d iffic ulties where the system is not op en to the ir c ha llenge. They are simp lyless pow erful (pa rticula rly in te rms of resources and informa tion) tha n the

sta keholders they are see king to influenc e.

Participation in practice

Witnesses identified many prac tica l p rob lems tha t can arise even where there

is a ge nuine c om mitment to p a rtic ipa tion. Pa rticipa tion som etimes takes p lac e

afte r budge ts have a lrea dy be en set, thus limiting the range of p rop osa ls tha t

can be c onsidered. Som etimes, partic ipation is not c onne c ted to d ec ision-

ma king the proc ess is me rely a ta lking shop . At o the r times, sta tuto ry bod ies

fail to p rovide feed ba ck from a c onsulta tion e xercise, thus lea d ing pa rtic ipa ntsto b elieve tha t their efforts had no impac t.

Conc lusion and recommendations

The Go vernment has a g enuine co mm itme nt to pa rtic ipa tion, and the c urrent

po licy environm ent o ffers an imp ortant opportunity to ta ke this age nda

forwa rd . The p ane l, and the w ider Nat iona l Comm unity Forum, hope tha t the

rec om mend ations be low offer a wa y forwa rd that will help g overnment

ac hieve its a im o f emp ow ering c om munities.

Clear national leadership for partic ipation policyGrea ter c larity and lea dership from Whiteha ll would p rovide a strong signa l,indica ting the impo rtanc e of pa rticipa tion to b roa de r polic y ob ject ives. It

could a lso p rovide a frame wo rk to resolve loca l issues a round c itizens

entitlem ent to pa rticipa te, and relationships betw een elec ted rep resenta tives,

offic ers and c itizens.

Recommendations:

1. A Participa tion Co mm issioner should b e a ppointed , with a sma ll sec reta riat.

2. The Participa tion Comm issioner should lea d on the c rea tion of a nat iona l

c ha rter esta b lishing c itizens ent itlem ents to p a rticipa te .

3. The c harter should be endo rsed by the Ca binet to enforc e d ep artmental

commitments.

4. The Particip a tion Commissione r should liaise w ith Whiteha ll dep artm ents to

suppo rt a c ross-cutting app roa c h to p a rticipa tion p olic y.

5. The Participa tion C om missioner shou ld ensure tha t there a re ongoing

system atic reviews of the e videnc e b ase a round pa rticipa tion.

6. Loc al pa rtic ipa tion a nd e mp ow erment should c ontinue to b e eva luated

through the Co mp rehe nsive Performa nc e Assessme nt (CPA), but the

Nat iona l Aud it Offic e shou ld have o versight o f the Sa fer and Strong er

Communities Fund (SSCF).


14/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum xiv

Greater co-ordination by local authoritiesLoc a l authorities, as lead sta tuto ry bod ies, are c ruc ial to the suc c ess of

pa rticipa tion, and c an play a c ruc ia l role in ensuring tha t loc a l me c hanisms

are e ffec tively joined up . It is vital tha t c om munities a re p a rt o f this joining-up

proc ess.

Recommendations:

7. Loc a l authorities should ha ve a duty to w ork with c om munities, co mm unity

orga nisa tions and other sta tuto ry bo d ies to e nsure tha t effec tive

partic ipat ion takes plac e in their loc a lity.

8. Other sta tuto ry bo d ies shou ld be required to w ork with the ir loca l autho rity,

c om munities and c om munity orga nisa tions, to d eve lop their use of

participation.

9. Loc a l agreem ents on how p a rticipa tion w ill op erate should b e set out bythe Loc a l Strate gic Pa rtnership in a Co mm unity Emp ow erment Stra tegy .

10.Where Neighb ourhood Cha rters a re introd uced , they should inform and be

informe d b y the Com munity Emp ow erment Stra teg y.

11.The p roc ess of a greeing c om munity emp ow erment stra teg ies should be

suppo rted by p a rticipa tion fa c ilita tors b ased in go vernment offices and

c ha rged with initia ting and fac ilitating d isc ussions a t a loc a l level.

12.Government offices should lead grea ter co-ordination of pa rtic ipa tion

policy across government office regions.

Support to enab le statutory bodies to c hange their culture a nd p rac ticePartic ipation w ill only bec om e a standard p a rt of the p olic y-ma king p roc ess

when it is em bed ded in pub lic servic e c ulture. Culture c ha nge is essent ial to

delivering long -term succ ess and needs to be ac tively supp orted.

Recommendations:

13.Participa tion need s to b e p a rt of the sta nda rd wa y in which c ounc illors and

gove rnment officers go a bout the ir business.

14.Where neg a tive a ttitudes and b eha viour c rea te a ba rrier to effec tive

participa tion, pa rticipa tion fac ilita to rs should w ork with sta tuto ry bod ies to

deve lop c ulture-cha nge p rog ramm es. These p rog ramm es should a pp ly

ac ross oc c upa tions and sec tors.

15.Participa tion skills should be pa rt o f the gene ric skill set of gove rnme nt

officers, as taught a nd defined b y the Ac a de my for Susta inable

Communities.

16.There should b e a new qualific a tion in pa rtic ipa tion fo r go vernment o ffic ers

and others who w ish to develop their skills.

17.Elec ted rep resenta tives shou ld b e trained in the p roc ess and purpose o f

participation.


15/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum xv

Long-term supp ort for community orga nisationsComm unities need support to ensure they have the c apa c ity and inc lina tion

to de velop a n inde pe nde nt and effec tive co mm unity voice . The cha nges

out lined above shou ld a dd ress som e o f these issues by increa sing the extent to

which pa rtic ipa tion p roc esses c an make a rea l difference , but the re is a lso a

need for d irec t supp ort.

Recommendations:

18.Fund ing for co mm unity pa rticipa tion is essent ial and shou ld be

inde pe nde nt o f loca l authority influence .

19.Loc a l go vernme nt should devo lve spend ing on co mm unity pa rtic ipa tion to

the voluntary and c om munity sec tor, to b e a dministered in the same wa y

as the Single Co mmunity Prog ramme . This fund ing shou ld b e p rovided on a

me d ium-term b asis.

20.Authorities tha t c hoo se no t to do this should b e required to de mo nstra tehow their funding reg ime gua rante es the inde pe nde nc e of the loc al

c om munity sec tor.

21.Loc a l and c ent ra l governme nt shou ld invest in tra ining in pa rticipa tion skills

for c om munity members.

22.A c om munity pa rticipa tion q ualific ation should be op en to c omm unity

ac tivists, to imp rove the ir persona l deve lopme nt op portunities.

23.The next p ha se of we lfa re refo rm shou ld a dd ress the ba rriers within the

bene fits system tha t p revent full eng age me nt in loc a l c om munity rene wa l.

The p anel rec om me nds tha t, for a limited period of time, peo ple who

unde rtake work of bene fit to the ir c om munity should b e a b le to rec eivepayme nt fo r this wo rk without loss of b ene fits p rovided the wo rk is

ma nag ed b y an ac c red ited loca l orga nisation.


16/71

1.Introduction The G overnme nt is c om mitted to e nsuring that c om munities needs andpriorities a re to the fore in ne ighb ourhood renewa l and tha t residents of

po or neighb ourhood s have the too ls to g et involved in wha tever way

they wa nt.

Soc ia l Exclusion Unit (2001), p51

Emp ow ering loc a l authorities must go ha nd in hand with loc a l

go vernment em pow ering c itizens and neighb ourhood s This me ans

mo re o pportunities for individuals to ha ve influenc e a nd c hoice ove r

wha t, where, when a nd by whom a service is provided .

David Miliba nd (2005)9

The Go vernme nt w ill only ac hieve ma ny of its ob jec tives if it fully involves

c itizens and c om munities.

Hom e Office (2004a)

The Government rec og nises tha t involving c om munities in po lic y de sign a nd

imp lem enta tion b rings grea t b ene fits. Servic es be c om e mo re effec tive,

co mm unities are ma de stronge r, and go vernanc e is mo re a c c ountab le.10

There is a loo se b ut b roa d age nda tha t seeks to em be d p a rticipa tion in da y-

to-da y prac tice, from Whiteha ll to the to wn ha ll. This age nda e mb rac es

me asures suc h a s the c rea tion o f Comm unity Emp ow erment Netwo rks (CENs)as partners in Loca l Strateg ic Pa rtne rships (LSPs), the key role for community

me mb ers in New Dea l for Co mm unities (NDC) p rog ram me s and

Neighb ourhood Ma nage me nt Pa thfinders, and the estab lishme nt of

found a tion ho sp ita l boa rds with memb ers d rawn from loc a l comm unities.

How eve r, the c urrent polic y app roa c h is yet t o fully deliver on its p rom ise. For

examp le, a recent evaluation o f founda tion trusts found tha t governors draw n

from loc a l and pa tient co mm unities had ha d little influenc e on stra teg y.11

Simila rly, eva lua tion of Loc a l Stra teg ic Pa rtnerships dem onstra ted tha t

Comm unity Emp ow erment Netwo rk rep resenta tives have ha d too little

9 Renewing our demo crac y . Spee ch to the Loc al Gove rnme nt Assoc iat ion Annua l

Conference, 28 June 2005.10 For examp les of a ll three sorts of imp ac ts, see , am ong others, Ga ffney (2005), Rog ers

and Rob inson (2004) and Taylor (2003). Foc using o n spec ific servic es, see Skog an et al

(2000) for imp ac ts on polic ing and c rime , and Kem shall and Littlechild (ed s) (2000) for

imp ac ts on soc ia l ca re. For a d isc ussion of t he relationship b etw ee n soc ial c ap ita l,

pa rticipa tion a nd go vernanc e see , am ong othe rs, Ha lpern (2005). For a d isc ussion of

the p ote ntial role of p a rticipa tion in ac c ounta bility structures see , amo ng o thers,

Clarke (2002), and Fung and Wright (2003).11 Hea lthca re Comm ission (2005), p33; Nationa l Aud it Offic e (2004b); Office of the

Dep uty Prime Minister (2004), espec ially p 20 and p53.


17/71


Nationa l Com munity Forum 2

influenc e on LSP boards.12 While 85 per ce nt of loc a l c ounc illors fee l tha t they

ma ke a rea l effort to listen to the views of loc al peo ple , just 32 per cent o f the

pub lic sha re their view.13 Exam ples like the Mo rice Town Home Zone (see Ca se

study 1) show the imm ense pote ntia l of c om munity pa rtic ipation to transform

neighb ourhood s, but in ma ny areas this has not ha ppened .

This report see ks to exp lain this pa tc hy performanc e. It sta rts from the point of

view o f c itizens who a re c urrent ly participa ting in loc a lities and

neighbourhood s a round the country. It is based on a series of mee tings of the

Nationa l Community Forum (NCF). The NCF is a group of 24 reside nts and

wo rkers d rawn from Eng land s 88 Neighb ourhoo d Rene wa l a rea s. A panel

from the NCF interview ed experts on c om munity pa rticipa tion from ac ross

Whiteha ll, ac adem ia , loc a l go vernme nt and the c om munity sec tor. The p anelme mb ers then c onsidered the e videnc e they had hea rd in the light o f their

ow n experienc e a s c om munity advoc a tes and ac tivists with ma ny yea rs

experienc e of com munity wo rk.14

This rep ort sets out the panel m em bers ana lysis of the ba rriers to c om munity

pa rticipa tion a nd po tential po lic y rec om me nda tions for ta c kling those b a rriers.

12 Nationa l Audit Office (2004b).13 Base: 198 co unc il me mb ers, 1600 mem bers of the p ub lic . MORI (private polling ).

14 For the full me thod ology, see Ap pe nd ix 1.

Case study 1: Morice Town Hom e Zone , Plym outh

The Mo rice Tow n Hom e Zone was initially set up to ta c kle roa d sa fety as pa rt

of a suc c essful ap p lic a tion fo r Single Reg eneration Budget (SRB) fund ing.

The a rea had p reviously endured c onsiderab le d ep rivation a nd ha d no

c om munity groups. The initia tive b eg an w ith p ublic me etings, p la nning for

rea l eve nts held in a b us tha t d rove round the a rea a t evenings and

wee kends, and a survey. This exercise reve a led significant c om munity

c onc erns about the c ounc il s p rop osa ls.

Inde pe nde nt fac ilitato rs were b roug ht in to o verc om e the c omm unitys lac kof trust in the c ounc il, and c om munity mem bers we re involved in ap pointing

them. The fac ilitato rs ran neighbourhoo d-leve l and stree t-leve l workshop s

with residents to deve lop p lans for the zone . The p roc ess wa s sup ported by

investment in othe r ac tivities suc h as a c om munity-ed ited new slette r.

The p roject has c ontributed to outco me s in the area tha t ha ve g one

beyond the o riginal tra ffic c a lming ob jec tives. As we ll as delivering a 50 per

c ent c ut in ave rage tra ffic speeds and a 40 per cent c ut in throug h-tra ffic ,

the p rog ramm e ha s led to a thriving c om munity sec tor, a 94 per cent fa ll in

violence, theft and d am ag e in the year after the zone w as c omp leted , and

prop erty pric es tha t a re now 15 per cent highe r than surround ing a rea s.

Source : Gaffney (2005)


18/71



The panels d iscussions foc used on th ree questions:

What a re the ba rriers that c om munities and sta tutory bod ies fac e w hen

trying to estab lish e ffec tive pa rtic ipatory prac tic es?

Are there tensions betw een p olic y forme d in d ifferent p a rts of g ove rnme nt,and if so, wha t is the impac t o f these tensions?

How should p olic y be d eveloped to supp ort effective enga ge ment?

The report do es not set o ut to re-sta te the c ase for pa rticipa tion a s a wa y of

approaching policy making and implementation.Instead, it takes the value of

participation to be proven15, and looks at how it can be further developed

ac ross the public sec tor, with a pa rtic ula r foc us on neighb ourhoo d renewa l. It

presents examples of goo d p rac tic e, drawn from the expe rienc es of mem bers

of the panel and from the broader literature on participation. However,

inevitably it offers more examples of bad practice than good, as its focus is on

identifying a nd o vercom ing obstac les to effec tive pa rtic ipa tion.

Issues about c om munity participa tion a re p a rticula rly releva nt a t this point in

time . A number of rec ent o r forthc om ing d eve lop ments will have a signific ant

imp ac t on the na ture, sc a le a nd succ ess of c om munity pa rtic ipat ion in

England:

The Tog ethe r We Can initia tive , led b y the Hom e Office , marks a p ote ntia l

wa tershed in the Governme nt s ap p roa c h to co mm unity pa rtic ipa tion. It

c onta ins spe c ific c om mitments from 12 Whiteha ll departme nts, and a

me thod for evaluating p rog ress aga inst tho se com mitments.

The introd uc tion o f Loc al Area Ag reements (LAAs) will c hang e the wa ydec isions a re m ade loc a lly and the w ay com munity orga nisa tions a re

fund ed . In p a rticula r, Single Co mm unity Prog ramm e investment will no

longe r be ma de ava ilab le d irec tly to the voluntary and c om munity sec tor

(VCS), but w ill be me rged with o ther fund ing strea ms to fo rm the Sa fer,

Strong er Co mmunities Fund (SSCF). This fund ing will be a lloc a ted via Loc a l

Area Agree me nts.

The ne ighbourhood s ag enda inc ludes p lansfor grea ter direc t c itizen

involvement in go vernme nt de c ision making a t a neighb ourhood leve l.

Why Neighbourhoods Matter16d isc usses a range o f new neighbourhood

go vernanc e a rrange me nts. These include loc a lly agreed neighb ourhood

c harters , which set out the servic e leve ls that peo p le a re entitled toexpec t, and the m ec hanisms ava ilab le for c om munity pa rtic ipa tion in

servic e delivery and dec ision m aking . These c ha rters will op erate within the

c ontext of a Nat iona l Neighb ourhoo ds Frame wo rk, wh ich is c urrent ly in

de velop ment. A white pa pe r on the orga nisation of loca l government is

expe c ted in July 2006.

Proposals for a Citizens Participation Agency by Hom e Office Ministe r Hazel

Blea rs. This bo dy wo uld be c ha rge d with p rom oting loc a l ac tive

15 For refe renc es to releva nt lite ra ture, see Foo tno te 7.

16 Office of the Dep uty Prime Minister/Hom e Office (2005a).


19/71



enga ge ment in d ec ision m aking. It w ould not b e yet a nother unit within

c entral go vernment, but a n organisa tion w ithin every c om munity which

hea d hunts, trains, enc ourag es and sup ports loca l ac tive c itizens bac ked

by the ma ssive resources of g ove rnme nt. 17

The Labour Party manifesto18 conta ins a c om mitment to rolling o ut trigg er

pow er. This c om mitment ha s informe d the rec ent Sc hoo ls White Paper19,

which c onta ins p rop osals for loc a l comm unities to b e a ble to trigg er a

proce ss that c ould lea d to the c rea tion o f a new sc hool.

Change s in funding , inc lud ing the rec ent e nd to Single Reg enerat ion

Bud get (SRB) fund ing a re c ausing severe financ ial d ifficulties for the

c om munity sec tor, and are ra ising questions about ho w long term financ ia l

stab ility ca n be ac hieved .

The Egan review 20has led to the c rea tion o f the Ac adem y for Susta inab le

Comm unities. The a c adem y is c ha rge d with supporting the deve lop me nt

of the skills nee ded by sta tuto ry bo d ies and others to deve lop susta inab lecommunities.

The w idespread ap pe tite for new d em oc ratic structures to ta c kle Britains

so-ca lled de moc ratic de fic it c ould lea d to a more systema tic use o f

pa rtic ipa tive a pp roa c hes througho ut g overnment.

The 2007 spend ing review c ould p rovide a platfo rm for grea ter use o f

pa rticipa tive a pp roa c hes a t a ll levels of g ove rnme nt. Prep arat ions a re

under wa y.

These d eve lop me nts could lead to a transforma tion in ap p roa c hes to

com munity enga ge me nt a nd bring signific ant bene fits in terms of improveddem oc ra tic ac c ounta b ility and servic e d elivery. How ever, this pote ntia l will

only be rea lised if the e xperienc e a nd nee ds of c itizens wishing to p a rticipa te is

taken into ac co unt.

The report be gins by a nalysing the ba rriers to em bed d ing pa rtic ipa tion in loca l

de c ision ma king, a nd then provides rec om me nda tions to ta c kle those ba rriers.

17 Forew ord to Rog ers (ed ) (2004).

18The Labour pa rty (2005)19DfES (2005)

20Egan (2004)


20/71



The d efinition of c om munity p articipation used in this repo rt

Comm unity pa rticipa tion takes plac e w here sta tutory bo d ies and com munities wo rk in

pa rtnership to d eve lop and / or imp lem ent p olic y. Pa rticipa tive p roc esses go be yond

c onsulta tion they ena b le c om munities to be d irec tly involved in the dec isions tha t

ma tte r to them ra ther tha n simp ly being c anva ssed for their op inion. It imp lies a sha red

responsibility for resolving p rob lems.

Comm unities ma y be defined ge og raphic a lly, by the servic es they use, by ge nder, by

ethnicity, by religion a nd so o n. Community mem be rs c an b e involved as ind ividua l

c itizens and a s me mb ers of a c om munity orga nisa tion. Ofte n they rely on selec ted

individua ls to a c t on the ir beha lf as c om munity rep resenta tives.

The level of pow er tha t c om munities hold in these proc esses va ries. For exam p le:

Parent gove rnors wo rk in p a rtnership w ith other go vernors in sc hoo l bo a rds and

have the same pow ers as their pe ers on the boa rd .

Counc il tena nts have a statutory right to fo rm a Tena nt Ma nag em ent O rga nisa tion

(TMO) a nd take over the ma nag em ent o f their hom es from loc a l counc ils.

Pa rticipa tory bud ge ting c an b e used in a variety o f wa ys, from ensuring

c om munities have a say ove r loc a l priorities for spend ing to giving them control

over the a lloc ation of b udg ets.

Experts interviewe d by the panel identified three sorts of a im for pa rticipa tive p roc esses:

Imp roving servic e d elivery. Invo lving c om munities in the design a nd / or de livery ofservic es tap s new sources of know led ge, skill and ene rgy. Pa rticipa tory structures

c an a lso ma ke it ea sier for citizens to hold sta tutory bod ies to ac c ount, a nd this

c an a lso lea d to imp roved service d elivery.

Imp roving g overnanc e. In a d em oc rac y, it is widely ac c ep ted that p eop le ha ve

the m oral right to influenc e d ec isions tha t a ffect them . While the ba llot b ox rem a ins

the p rimary wa y in wh ich this ta kes p lac e, pa rticipa tion p rovides c itizens with

add itiona l op portunities to exercise these rights. This a im has ga ined grea ter

p rominenc e a s politicians of a ll pa rties see k to a dd ress Britain s so-c a lled

d emoc ratic d eficit .

Imp roving the soc ia l and huma n capita l of c om munities. Prom pting g rea ter

c om munity ac tivity can lea d to inc rea ses in positive forms of soc ial ca p ital, as we llas enhanc e the skills of the individua ls who ta ke p a rt. This c an lead to bene fits suc h

as improved social cohesion.


21/71



2.Joining up po lic yThe p anel found tha t a pp roa c hes to p articipa tion p olic y are often not

effectively connec ted to ea c h other at the na tiona l, loc al andneighb ourhood leve l. Eac h departme nt, loc a l authority and d elivery bod y

tend s to have its ow n a na lysis of the va lue, purpo se a nd best metho d for

pa rticipa tion. This has led to the d eve lop me nt o f ma ny different me c hanisms

op era ting in pa ra llel. This d iversity is imp orta nt, and a llows for inno va tion a nd

po licy to be ta ilored to spec ific need s. A single app roa c h to c om munity

pa rticipa tion w ould no t be a pp rop ria te. How ever, the e xtent o f diversity

causes p rob lem s, bo th for c om munity mem bers and for sta tutory bod ies.

Lac k o f a c onsistent voc abulary

I spent a n hour ta lking to a c ollea gue abo ut our plans for c om munitypartic ipat ion b efore we rea lised tha t we were talking a bout tota lly

different things.

Senior counc il officer21

There a re d ifferent langua ges for c ommunities the mselves, PCTs, polic e,

loc al a uthorities, gove rnme nt o ffices, and so on. We nee d to join tha t

up.

Civil servant

Different d ep artments c ould c om e from d ifferent p lanets.

LSP co -ordina to r

The term c om munity pa rtic ipation is unde rstoo d d ifferently by d ifferent

sta tuto ry b od ies, and by individua l office rs within those bod ies. These va riations

ca n make it hard fo r orga nisa tions to wo rk in partne rship w ith eac h other andwith co mm unities. It can lea d to faulty understand ings of wha t ea c h pa rty

me ans whe n they talk about pa rticipa tion. The p anel found these d ifferenc es

of interpretation to be widespread .

The p rob lem wa s evident am ong the e xperts interview ed , as show n b elow:

One senior civil servant a rgued tha t online o p inion p olling is a form o fpa rticipa tion. The o ther expe rts d isagree d .

One c om munity sec tor witness a rgue d tha t p a rtic ipa tion wa s imp ossible

unless community organisations were financially independent of

gove rnme nt. The o the r expe rts d isagree d .

Som e expe rts c onsidered the use of volunta ry sec tor organisa tions to

deliver services unde r c ontrac t to b e a n examp le o f pa rtic ipa tion in

go vernanc e. The ma jority d isagreed .

21All quote s a re d rawn from the interview s c ond uc ted by the pa nel unless othe rwise

stated.


22/71



Som e experts c onside red p rac tice s tha t involve com munities in de livering

services but g ive the m no input ove r polic y22 to be pa rtic ipative. The

ma jority d isagreed .

Som e saw the va lue of pa rticipa tive me thodolog ies as c onsisting purely inthe ir ab ility to improve servic e d elivery. Othe rs und erstood it to ha ve va lue

insofa r as it inc rea sed soc ia l c apital and / or emp ow erment.

Partic ipa tion overload

It s knac kering just trying to wo rk out ho w its a ll sup posed to wo rk let

alone trying to c hange things.

Community activist

Comm unity pa rtic ipa tion p rog ramm es a re a lmo st a lwa ys in

dep artm enta l silos. Tha t has serious resource imp lic a tions.Civil servant

From NDCs to SRBs eac h ha s its ow n req uirem ents and mec ha nisms.

This is ineffe c tive for me as an o fficer.

Senior counc il officer

Peop le wishing to p articipa te in loc al p olic y ma king c an be be wilde red by the

sheer rang e o f struc tures on offe r.23 Seve ra l independ ent ly ad ministered

involvement initiatives ma y be ta rge ted to a single ne ighb ourhood . For

examp le, w ithin a single ne ighb ourhood , residents c an b e involved:

as tena nts in a tena nt ma nage me nt orga nisa tionas pa rents or loc a l com munity me mb ers in a SureSta rt p rog ramm e

as pa rents in e lec tions for p rimary sc hool gove rnors

as loc al pe op le in a planning p roc ed ure

as residents in a rege nerat ion p rog ramm e

as a pa tient in a p rima ry ca re trust pub lic a nd pa tient involvem ent forum

as a resident in a c om munity polic ing e nga ge me nt exerc ise

The p anel we lcomes the fac t tha t mec ha nisms exist to a llow c itizens to

pa rticipa te in and influenc e so m any aspe c ts of ne ighb ourhood -leve l service

de livery. How ever, in prac tice, the numb er of sep ara te a nd unc onne c ted

program me s ca n be prob lema tic .

Peo p le d o not live the ir lives in silos.

Community activist

22 For exam ple, the new g roup of health trainers a bo ut to b e launc hed by the

Departme nt o f Health w ill enga ge with individuals on issues relate d to their health

c are, but a re no t expec ted to ha ve a role in influenc ing p olic y or supp orting

c om munities to influenc e p olic y.23 This is the view of the panel, but ha s a lso be en fo und by othe rs, for examp le M ac kie

(2002) and Kuma r and Nunan (2002).


23/71



The p rod uc tivity of c om munity orga nisa tions and individua ls is red uc ed as they

spend time na viga ting the we b of struc tures in p lac e. While no t eve ry

individua l wo uld wa nt to be involved in several areas of p olic y, som e d o

perhap s where the issues they c a re about c ross silo-boundaries. How eve r,

be cause o ften the p rog ramm es wo rk differently, prospec tive p artic ipants

have to invest significant a mo unts of time lea rning ho w e ac h p rog ramm e

functions and the n go ing a long to the sep arate mee tings, events and so o n.

The c om munity prac titione rs interview ed by the panel desc ribed how they feel

overwhelmed with guida nce and informa tion a bo ut p roc ed ures from different

bodies.

Nowadays, I fee l like a c om munity sec tor c ivil servant .

Community activist

Working in silos makes it ha rder for the va rious organisa tions to makeconnec tions with ea c h other. There a re insta nc es where the only thing joining

up ac tivity is the p resenc e o f the same com munity mem bers a t va rious

mee tings. The overlap a lso results in a w aste of pub lic fund s. While the

com b ined resources of the va rious bo d ies ma y well have the c apa c ity to

eng ag e e ffec tively with c om munities on a susta inable b asis, eac h individua l

organisa tion is less likely to have tha t c apac ity in te rms of skills or investm ent.

The introd uc tion of LSPs and LAAs is intend ed to ad d ress some o f the se issues.

How eve r, where c ent ra lly driven p olicy is fragme nted , this ta sk may prove

unfeasible. It m ay not b e po ssib le to d raw d isparate na tiona l polic ies tog ethe r

at a loc al level.24

The p ane l is awa re of g oo d prac tice w here a range of sta tutory bod ies wo rk

together to deve lop the ir pa rticipa tion p roc esses. This red uc es the p ressure on

individua ls and c om munity group s, and results in a mo re streamlined and

effec tive a pproa ch from the d ifferent o rga nisations involved . For examp le, as

case stud y 2 shows, one effec tive way of simp lifying the p roc ess is to c rea te a

single p a rticipa tion p roc ess within ea c h neighb ourhoo d . Of course, this is not

the only po ssible solution, and it risks und ermining the ab ility of d iverse

com munities to e xp ress d ifferent perspec tives.

The o rganisa tion of p a rticipa tion polic y at a na tiona l level is on ly ma rg inally

less c om p lex than the implementa tion o f that polic y at loc a l leve l. While theODPM a nd the Home Offic e a re the mo st a c tive d ep artme nts in this a rea ,

there is no o verall lea d on pa rtic ipa tion po lic y. The Departme nt for

Constitutiona l Affairs (DCA), the Dep artme nt of Hea lth a nd the Dep artment for

Educ a tion a nd Skills (DfES) a re, a mo ng others, also a c tively develop ing p olicy

24 The Aud it Co mm ission de sc ribes the se d iffic ulties as the Humpty Dump ty effe c t :

C entral efforts to promo te ec onom ic growth, soc ial justice and environme ntal

susta inab ility frac ture when they hit the g round in departmenta l silos, just like Humpty

when he fell off the wa ll. Loc a l leaders p lay the role o f a ll the King s horses and a ll the

King s me n, as they try to p ut the p iec es bac k toge ther ag a in (Audit Com mission,

2004).


24/71



on p articipa tion that will be imp leme nted at bo th a loc al and national level.

Ma ny of the experts interview ed by the pa nel argue d tha t this pep per-pot

ap p roa ch often lea ds to p olic y that is either in tension w ith p olic y developed

in other departments (as an examp le, see the d isc ussion b elow ab out bene fits

ent itlem ents) or fails to ma ke important c onnec tions with simila r wo rk be ing

done elsew here in Whiteha ll.

Case study 2: Bab ergh Distric t Counc il A joined- up p articipation p rocess

The Ang lia Esta te fa c ed high infant a nd adult morta lity ra tes, and signific ant

c rime, substa nc e m isuse a nd vand a lism p rob lems.

The d istrict c ounc il enga ge d residents in d evelop ing an imp rove me nt p lan by

visiting ea c h ho usehold to consult with residents and esta b lishing a n Esta te

Imp roveme nt Group . This Imp roveme nt Group b roug ht toge ther loc a l

reside nts, the police, pa rish c ounc illors, loc a l c ounc illors and office rs, housingassoc iations, the p rimary ca re t rust, a loc a l wild life trust a nd the hea lth

authority.

The g roup deve lop ed a five-yea r esta te environm enta l p lan, which b roug ht

tog ether a ll these perspec tives through a single p roc ess. This led to an

integ ra ted p lan resulting in the refurbishment of ho me s and the street-sc ene .

This ha s led to :

a hea lthier and sa fer environm ent for fam ilies to live in

imp roved c om munity safety through a sec ure b y de sign ap proac h

bette r play fa c ilities

a red uction in litter and ab and oned ca rs on the estate .

Residents rem a in invo lved in monitoring the prog ress of the reg ene ra tion w ork.

Source: Rogers and Rob inson (2004)

The Tog ether We Ca n (TWC) initia tive and ac tion p lan25 looks to add ress some

of these issues by sec uring spec ific c om mitments from seve ra l d ep artments

ac ross Whiteha ll. The p lan a lso inc ludes mec ha nisms for mea suring p rogress.

While it is muc h to o ea rly to a ssess the imp ac t o f TWC, it is c erta inly a p romising

development.

How ever, the p anel has three c onc erns about the TWC prog ramm e:

There is no me c hanism to ensure a c onsistent c ross-departmenta lapproa c h to emp ow ering c om munities. Instea d , dep artme nts rem ain

large ly free to d eve lop their ow n pa rticipa tion p rog ra mm es ea c h with their

ow n sta ff, funding regime, d efinition o f c om munity, de finition of

em pow erment a nd so on.

Little a ttention is pa id to the possibility that c om munity priorities might b e

d ifferent from those of the sta tutory bod ies that they a re wo rking with.

There is no d isc ussion o f how any te nsions might be resolved .

25Home Office (2005)


25/71



The p lan has a robust and iterative a pp roa ch to p rojec t eva luat ion a ndpolic y developme nt. How ever, the a pp roa c h is limited to the e lem ents of

pa rtic ipa tion p olicy tha t fa ll within the TWC p lan. This is perha ps a missed

op portunity, as TWC c ould ha ve p rovided a p la tform for a m ore system atic

approa c h for eva luating a nd a nalysing the e xisting evidenc e b ase for

pa rtic ipation p olic y and p rac tice (see the d iscussion in c hapter 4 on

joined up e valuation ).

The need for sustainab le p rog rammes

There a re som e individua ls tha t a re ve ry sup portive o f com munity

pa rtic ipa tion, but they are often not in the job long enoug h to m ake

permanent c hanges.

Academic

There has b een increa sing rec og nition that pa rtic ipat ion needs to be

susta inab le. New Dea l for Com munities (NDCs) and Neighb ourhoo d

Ma nage me nt Pa thfinde rs (NMPs) are intend ed to lea ve som ething p ermane nt

be hind . Tena nt Ma nag em ent Orga nisa tions tend to b e long term and , throug h

their ma nag eme nt ag reem ent, have c ontrol over a m ainstrea m m ana ge ment

and ma intena nc e b udge t that p rovides long -term, susta inab le fund ing. Most

rec ent ly, the c rea tion o f LSPs shou ld add ress the nee d for co mm unities to

have ong oing input into loca l strate gic p lanning.

How ever, the p ane l found that loca l and neighbourhood ap proac hes to

pa rticipa tion ofte n op erate a s a series of short-term, time-limited p rog ramm es.Ma ny c om munity orga nisations a re very vulnerab le to this sort of a pproa c h, as

they seldo m bene fit from ma instrea m funding, and so a re highly reliant o n

these short-term fund ing strea ms. The e nd of a fund ing stream c an me an the

end of a c om munity orga nisa tion. This me ans tha t c om munity orga nisa tions

and , pa rtic ula rly, comm unity anc hor orga nisat ions 26have to spend signific ant

am ounts of time c hasing new funding o pportunities. Instea d of foc using on

wha t need s do ing within the co mm unity, they have to p lac e a great d ea l of

a ttention o n survival.

Short-term ap proac hes to c om munity pa rticipa tion ca n d rain c om munity

capac ity for future e nga ge me nt (see case stud y 3). Com munity ac tivists a refrustrated and wo rn dow n by the nee d to spend their time constantly loo king

for funding rather than foc ussing on com munity nee ds. How eve r we ll-run a

prog ramm e is during its lifetime, end ing a p roc ess c an feel like shutting the

com munity out. Where the e nd o f the prog ramm e mea ns that the re is no

infrastruc ture left t o p rovide feed back to com munities, this causes ad d itional

26 Defined by the Hom e Office a s having fou r key fea tures: they a re c ontrolled by loc a l

residents and / or representa tives of loc a l groups; they a dd ress the nee ds of their a rea

in a multi-purpose, holistic way; they a re c om mitted to the involveme nt of a ll sec tions

of the ir c om munity, inc luding ma rginalised group s; and they fa c ilita te the

de velopme nt of t he c om munities in their area.


26/71



prob lem s. Com munities can b e left w ith the imp ression tha t the ir input ma de

no d ifferenc e simp ly bec ause the end of the p rog ram me mea nt that there

wa s no one ta sked w ith informing the c om munity of outc om es.

The p oint is not tha t fund ing should b e g uarante ed in the long term in most

instanc es tha t is not a n a pp rop ria te use o f pub lic funding. How ever, the panel

argues tha t more sta ble a nd p red ic ta b le fund ing strea ms will ena ble

com munity orga nisa tions to b e more effec tive.

Case study 3: The impac t of short-te rmism: Mag pie Resource Library

Ma gp ie Resource Library wa s esta b lished in direc t response to loca l peo p le

losing a p lanning fight resulting in the d estruc tion of the muc h-love d old tow n

lib ra ry, which had been restored from derelic tion by loc a l tena nts and turned

into a highly suc cessful youth a nd c om munity ce ntre.

Desp ite a substa ntia l c amp a ign and a very strong p resenta tion at the

planning c om mittee, the c ounc illors dec ided on a vote of (literally) 2:1 to

grant p lanning p ermission. This perce ived fa ilure o f rep resenta tive dem oc rac y

provoked a strong and long -lasting reac tion, and M a gp ie grew from a sma ll

informa tion resource to a highly respec ted c om munity outrea c h orga nisat ion,

includ ing lead ing the awa rd -winning Ge t Set for Citizenship SRB p rog ramm e.

How eve r, desp ite its trac k rec ord Magp ie has strugg led to survive, and has

bee n force d to use up a ll its reserves, both financ ial and goo d w ill.

Source: Panel memb ers first hand a cc ount

The p anel ident ified fo ur fac tors tha t tend to foster short-term a pproa c hes:

Foc us on spec ific prob lems. Participa tion p rog ram me s a re mo re likely to be

designed to solve spec ific p rob lems than to c rea te long -term d ia log ue. This

me ans tha t individua l orga nisa tions often lac k the ince ntives nec essa ry to

p rioritise investme nt in build ing their c apa c ity to eng ag e w ith c om munities

c onsistently. Ma ny experts held up c om munity po lic ing as an exam p le o f

how this tendency c an b e c onquered.

Relianc e on individua l leade rship. In ma ny sta tuto ry bo d ies, pa rticipa tion is

reliant o n strong individua l lea dership. When these ind ividua ls mo ve o n, the

imp etus for pa rticipa tion c an d ry up.

The CPA c yc le. Tow ards the end of t he Comp rehensive Performanc e

Assessme nt (CPA) cyc le, loc a l autho rities ma y feel tha t they do not ha ve

time to set up p rop er co mm unity pa rtic ipat ion if they are to hit their ta rge ts.

It is often the c ase tha t d elivery sp ikes can b e achieved without involving

the c om munity. This ma y lea d loc a l autho rities to avo id pa rticipa tive

approa c hes whe n a ud it d ea d lines loo m, a nd the slow er but surer suc c ess

ena bled by p artic ipa tion c an c om e to be seen a s some thing o f a luxury.

Fear of challenge. The pa nel hea rd evidenc e of LSPs and othe r bod ies

deliberate ly ensuring tha t pa rticipa tion p rog ramme s we re short term, as this

minimised the risk of p articipants ga ining the skills and pow er to e ffec tively


27/71



c ha lleng e p olicy. For exam ple, one C EN office r rep orted tha t the ir LSP

deliberately p rod uc ed a strea m o f p a rtnerships in that a rea . Eac h wa s

abolished whene ver c om munity or priva te-sec tor pa rtne rs sta rted to say

anything tha t the sta tutory sec tor found unc om fortab le. A new (and

neute red ) pa rtnership w ould then b e invented .

A c oherent polic y agenda

As w ith most p olicy a rea s, there a re inevitab ly tensions betwe en p olicies on

pa rticipa tion a nd othe r age ndas. This is exac erba ted by the fac t tha t there is

no c om prehe nsive go vernment vision for co mm unity p a rticipa tion. Instea d

there are a rang e o f polic y sta tem ents setting o ut the role of p a rtic ipa tion in

relation to spec ific polic y ag end as.

The p anel highlighted three a rea s of p olic y where the re a re signific ant tensions

be twee n different a ge nda s: Loc al Area Agreements, the c hoice a ge nda and

the bene fits system. Eac h o f the se is add ressed below .

Loc al Area Ag reem ents There a re rea l prob lems for com munities trying to eng age through LSPs,

but a t lea st they do p rovide a p oint of co ntac t that pe op le a re a ble to

lea rn to e nga ge with there is a feeling o f their bec om ing m ore

graspab le tha n a ll the d ispa ra te servic e p roviders w ith the ir sep ara te

mechanisms

Community activist

I don t think my b eing the re [o n an LSP boa rd ] ha s influenc ed anything.

Counc il offic ers prepa re a doc ume nt tha t is p resente d for endo rsem ent.

We vote on it, and they win.

Community activist27

The p anel wide ly end orses the p rinciples behind the introd uc tion of Loc a l Area

Ag ree me nts (LAAs). It m akes a grea t d ea l of sense to simplify fund ing streams

at a loc a l leve l, crea te mo re flexibility, and b ring d ec ision ma kers tog ethe r.

Throug h the ro le of LSPs in neg ot iat ing LAAs, loc a l co mmunities will have a

gua rantee d sea t a t the tab le w hen strate gy for a loc ality is be ing de velop ed .

The Sa fer Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF) is muc h large r than the singleCo mm unity Prog ramme (which it is rep lac ing), so there is potentia l for

investme nt in p a rticipa tion to inc rea se.

Where loc a l autho rities a re supportive, co mmunities should bec om e more

eng age d a nd e mp ow ered. How ever, the shift in funding struc ture mea ns tha t

com munities will be fa r mo re reliant on loca l autho rity support. Given the issues

d isc ussed later in this rep ort, it is ha rd to believe tha t th is sup port w ill be

universa lly fo rthc om ing.

27 This quote is d raw n from UWEet al(2004), c ited in Aud it Co mm ission (2004b).


28/71



The p anel fea rs tha t the c hange s could lead to a situat ion w here co mm unity

group s tha t c ritic ise loc a l authority d ec isions put their fund ing a t risk.28 Were this

to hap pen, it would undermine muc h of the emp owerment agend a.

At p resent, ma ny co mm unity groups a re fund ed throug h the single

Co mm unity Prog ramm e. This fund ing stream is independ ent from loc a l

go vernme nt. The Nat iona l Aud it Offic e a rgues tha t this is signific ant fo r

com munities be c ause they c an exp ress view s rob ustly in the know led ge tha t

doing so w ill not c om prom ise the ir fund ing.29 As Single Communities

Prog ram me funding is rep lac ed by the SSCF, this indep end enc e m ay c om e

unde r threa t. Alloc a tions of SSCF funding w ill be agreed betw ee n the loc al

counc il and other partne rs through the LSP boa rd . As lead me mb ers of LSP

bo ards, loc a l authorities will be ab le to influenc e the level of fund ing for

co mm unity group s and the c hoic e o f groups that are funded . Funding for

com munity group s will no longe r be indep end ent o f loc a l autho rity influenc e.

These p ressures a lrea dy exist fo r co mm unity group s c ont rac ted to deliver

servic es for loc a l autho rities. A forthc om ing p ub lic a tion from the Josep h

Row ntree Foundation quotes a C EN offic er as saying tha t there a re c erta in

[c om munity] orga nisa tions tha t get a loc a l autho rity c ontrac t they ca n t

spea k out c ritic a lly without the rep ercussions c om ing throug h in terms of

funding.30

One panel me mb er who sits on an LSP boa rd ha d experienc ed just this sort of

pressure. She runs a c om munity orga nisa tion tha t dep end s on loc a l counc il

fund ing. The loc a l autho rity rep resenta tive reg ularly contac ts her to suggest

the p osition she o ught to take at b oa rd me etings. Whethe r intend ed or not,

she is left w ith the imp licit message tha t he r organisa tion s fund ing is und er

threa t if she d oes not c om p ly.

All SSCF agree me nts will include m anda tory outc om es relat ing to c om munity

empowerment.31 This should p rov ide an incentive to c ontinue to invest SSCF

funding in com munity pa rticipa tion a nd ac t a s a safeg uard for co mm unity

participation investment. However, this safeguard will not guarantee

independentc om munity orga nisa tions. Panel mem bers we re c onc erned tha t

this c ould lead to c ounc ils sett ing up the ir ow n pa ra llel orga nisa tions to invo lve

com munities. These organisa tions wo uld be d irec tly und er the c ounc il s c ont rol

and so w ould be less likely to c ha llenge p olic y as rob ustly as c om munity-

ow ned organisations. One panel mem ber believed that this wa s exac tly the

stra teg y be ing follow ed by her loc a l authority.

28 This c onc ern is a lso raised in Taylor et al(2005), espec ially in Sec tion 4.4.29 UWE et al(2004), c ited in Aud it Co mm ission (2004b)30 Ma guire a nd Trusc ott (forthcom ing )31 In pa rticular, a c om mitment to increase loca l pa rtic ipa tion in governance , to b e

me asured by ind ic a tors tha t will inc lude the pe rcenta ge of residents who feel they

c an influenc e d ec isions a ffec ting their loca l area . ODPM (2005a)


29/71



Along side inde pe nde nce , a sec ond area o f co nce rn is that, in p rac tic e,

com munities will not ha ve the influenc e o ver the neg otiation o f LAAs to w hich

rep resenta tion o n the LSP boa rd ent itles them. For exam ple, in the loc a lity of

one LSP bo ard me mb er, the loc a l mayor was setting up a public service

partne rship in pa ra llel to the LSP, to d isc uss issues tha t they d id no t want to

d isc uss with c om munity rep resenta tives. The Nat iona l Aud it Office a rgues tha t

Comm unity Emp ow erment Networks have too little influenc e to d a te o n the

main b oa rds of LSPs 32. The panel end orses this view .33

This pa tte rn is fa r from universa l. Seve ra l pa nel a nd forum m em bers have had

influence on LSP boa rds, and , as the Nat iona l Aud it Office a rgues, CENs a re

influenc ing loc a l pub lic service p roviders d irec tly. 34Further, the re a re signs tha t

CEN influenc e on LSP boards is g row ing, a s LSPs bec ome more esta b lished and

bo ard m em be rs be c om e used to w orking w ith c om munity sec tor

rep resenta tives. How eve r, tha t is of little c onsola tion to com munities who live in

areas with poo r-pe rforming LSPs or uninterested loc a l authorities.

The choice a gendaWhile cho ice c an be emp ow ering , unless it is hand led c a refully, it could

exac erba te ineq ua lities. Provid ing op tions is no t suffic ient to a llow c hoic e to

em pow er peo p le in d ep rived com munities there need s to b e suppo rt to

enab le p eop le to ma ke use o f the c hoices that a re o n offer. Peop le nee d to

know and unde rsta nd the different op tions and have the resources nec essa ry

to ma ke use of the m. For examp le, a c hoice of fo ur signific antly d ifferent

hosp itals is of little use if you c an only affo rd to t ravel to one o f them (exce p t

insofa r as othe r peo ple s c hoice to use a mo re d ista nt hosp ita l might he lp

red uc e w a iting lists a t the loc a l hosp ital).

These eq uity issues ha ve bee n w ide ly d isc ussed , so the panel foc used on the

interac tion of c hoice and p a rticipa tion, and the risk po sed b y an ineq uita b le

ap proac h to c hoice. The Gove rnment ha s argued that the c urrent ap proac h

to c hoice in ed uc a tion (prior to the 2005 White Paper) favours the be tter off,

and so is ineq uitab le.35Families that c an a fford to live ne a r go od sc hoo ls have

far more c hoice ove r their c hild ren s ed uca tion than families who c annot.

32 Nationa l Audit Office (2004b), p3633 This a rgument is a lso m ade in Maguire a nd Trusc ot t (forthc om ing) and Taylor et al

(2005), espec ially p 3234 Nationa l Audit Office (2004b), p3735 For exam ple, in the follow ing quote ta ken from a spe ec h by Tony Bla ir to City of

Lond on Ac adem y on 12 Sep tem ber 2005: Let s be b ruta lly hone st he re. In sc hoo ling ,

the b ette r off do have c hoice and pow er over the system . If they are suffic iently

wea lthy, they c an send their children to a rang e o f inde pe nde nt, fee-pa ying sc hools

which, by and large, provide excellent ed uca tion. Or they c an m ove house to be next

to the be st sta te sc hoo ls. Or they c an buy p riva te tuition... But for a midd le- or lower-

inc om e fa mily, whose loc a l schoo l is the o p tion and which is underpe rforming, the re is

nothing they ca n do , excep t take wha t they are given.


30/71



One of the results of this inequa lity is tha t pa rents who c an a fford to mo ve

aw ay from bad sc hoo ls have little incentive to sta y in the a rea and

participa te in sc hoo l-improve ment p roc esses. Pa rticipa tion is left a s a last

resort for peo ple w ho c an t or won t move . Further, it ma y be tha t the sorts of

pa rents who a re a ble and minded to mo ve house to sec ure a be tter

ed uca tion would ha ve a lot to c ontribute to imp roving loca l sc hoo ls should

they send their c hild ren to them . Loc a l comm unities c ould b ene fit from a ll

pa rents send ing the ir child ren to loca l sc hoo ls. It is important tha t the

de velop ment of the choice a ge nda , bo th in educ ation and e lsewhe re, takes

these c onc erns into a c c ount.

Disincentives in the bene fits systemThere are tensions betw een the am b itions of ma king wo rk pa y o n the one

hand and building c ap ac ity in the c omm unity sec tor on the o ther. Comm unity

me mb ers on Job See kers Allow anc e (JSA), Inc om e Sup port or othe r bene fits

ca n b e d isco ura ge d from undertaking c omm unity work by the low level of the

ea rnings d isreg a rd . The d isreg a rd 5 a w ee k for pe op le on JSA, and 20 for

lone p a rents is kept a t a low level to encourag e p eo ple to m ove o ff bene fits

and into work as quickly as possible. Any ea rnings from c om munity work tha t

are ab ove the d isreg a rd level a re ded uc ted from b ene fits.

The p anel argue tha t this has a detrime nta l imp ac t on loc a l c om munities in a t

lea st th ree wa ys:

Com munity mem be rs are often c onc erned that c omm unity work puts the

c onsistenc y of b ene fit sta tus a t risk. Muc h of the wo rk offered by

c om munity g roup s is volunta ry or, if pa id, short term a nd / or pa rt time.Conc erned ab out ma king end s mee t, pe op le a re loa th to put their

bene fits a t risk for this sort of work.

The system can lea d to fund ing intend ed for dep rived a rea s being d iverted

elsew here, as salaries a re pa id to peo p le from outside the ne ighb ourhood .

Where loc a l pe op le a re to o c onc erned a bout the risk to the ir be nefits to

take up c om munity wo rk, the o nly op tion is often to em p loy peo p le from

outside the area (see c ase stud y 4).

It limits the e xtent to which com munity work can a c t a s a step ping stone

into the lab our ma rket. The low leve l of the d isreg a rd me ans that pe op le

have no financ ial ince ntive to undertake m ore tha n a round an hour of

pa id c om munity work per week.

Case study 4: The imp ac t of the low ea rnings disrega rd on a c om munity g roup

One of the panel mem bers wo rks for a c om munity orga nisat ion tha t is

deve lop ing a new hea lth and fitness sc hem e fo r the o ver-50s. The sc hem e

would initially offe r sessiona l work (five-to-seven hours a wee k) but , if

suc c essful, c ould grow and offe r full-time wo rk. None of the vo lunteers

involved a re a b le to take up the sessiona l wo rk as it would m ea n a red uc tion

in the level of b ene fits and put o ther benefits a t risk. So, to a llow the wo rk to

take plac e, the sa la ry is likely to g o to an em p loyee from outside the a rea .

Source : Panel me mb er


31/71



3.Chang ing culture In most c ounc ils, pa rticipa tion is still considered an op tiona l extra . We

sta rt from the assump tion tha t the re is no nee d to rea lly involve the

com munity beyond a bit of c onsulta tion. Com munities or offic ers who

d isagree w ith that assump tion ha ve to prove the value of p a rticipa tion in

ge neral be fore they c an g et into the w ay p artic ipa tion will hap pe n.

Former loc a l gove rnme nt office r

Effec tive pa rticipa tion req uires willingne ss on the p a rt of c om munity mem bers,

go vernment o ffic ers and elec ted rep resenta tives. They nee d to b elieve that

there is va lue to b e g a ined by eng ag ing with ea c h othe r. This is pa rticula rly

imp ortant on the com munity side , whe re p artic ipation is voluntary and unp aid.

Most pe op le a re o nly prep ared to give up time that c ould be spe nt with

friends and fam ily or earning a wa ge , if they b elieve tha t their pa rtic ipa tion w illma ke a d ifferenc e.

For pa rticipa tion to make a d ifferenc e, co unc illors and g ove rnme nt officers

have to be prepa red to eng ag e, and be op en to c hang ing their plans. The

panel hea rd numerous stories of o fficers and c ounc illors who ha d this

approa c h. Their involveme nt wa s essent ial to d elivering imp rove d o utc om es.

These suc c esses were o ften used as c ase stud ies with in the loc a lity, and led to

other officers and c ounc illors ta king p a rticipa to ry ap p roa c hes. Suc c ess b ree ds

suc c ess.

Case study 5: The b ene fits of counc illors ad op ting an op en a ttitude

Lew isha m Co unc il wa s selling Aragon Tow er on the Pep ys Esta te to thehighest b idd er. A sa le to Berkeley Homes was agree d for 11.5 million, but

excha nge of c ontrac ts wa s de pe nde nt on p lanning pe rmission a nd va c ant

possession. In the se c irc umsta nc es, loc a l peo p le felt it wa s very unlikely tha t

their c onc erns wo uld be taken seriously at the planning c om mittee. How ever,

their hea rtfelt speec hes and c a refully prepa red a rgum ents we re g iven a go od

hea ring , and the c ounc illors dec ided to d efer the a pp lic a tion for six we eks.

This unexpec ted result g ave som e p ow er to the c om munity.

Residents invited Berkeley to com e to the esta te to ta lk the m a tter throug h,

and an a mica ble ag reem ent wa s rea c hed that d ea lt with all the prima ry

co nce rns, including remo ving a hated c ap puc c ino p od ium from t

Documents

Removing Barriers to Participation