Resident-led Evaluation (RLE) of Community Empowerment

Mike Beazley, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham, England

Transforming Urban Landscapes: Community Perspectives– March 2011

Structure of Presentation Background and

context Rationale for

Resident-Led Evaluation (RLE)

Castle Vale Community Regeneration Team

Research Findings Impacts and outcomes

of RLE Conclusions

Castle Vale: Location

• Eastern edge of the city boundary•1.5 sq. miles• Geographically isolated•Largest post-war tower block housing estate in Midlands

Castle Vale 1993 -2011

The Regeneration: Castle Vale Housing Action Trust (HAT) HAT established in 1993

following a 92% vote from tenants.

12 Year regeneration programme with the option to return to the Council

Holistic Regeneration Stated commitment to citizen

participation Successor vehicles - Castle Vale

Community Housing Association (CVCHA)

The Transformation - 2006 2200 homes demolished 1500 new homes built 1333 homes improved 1461 jobs created 3415 training places New shopping centre, community facilities Unemployment reduced 26% - 5% Educational attainment improved Crime and fear of crime reduced Life expectancy increased 98% of HAT tenants chose CVCHA (84% turnout)

National Regeneration Context

1990s/2000s shift towards community led regeneration

Resident engagement - key to long term sustainability

Investment needs to reflect the priorities of the community

Plethora of initiatives Lack of community engagement

in evaluation Call for radical alternatives

Rationale for Resident-led Evaluation (RLE)

Builds community capacity

Develops social capital Reaffirms the

democratic process Active engagement of

residents in all aspects of process

Community Research Team

Born in Chicago! Undergraduate

module - RUC Long term active

residents Research Methods

Training University role

Methodology Devised by the team Documentation review Mapping and recording of

residents groups Review of key agencies Semi-structured

interviews Focus Groups Vox-pop survey

Research Findings: Positives Residents had impact Culture of resident

involvement Mutual respect Personal empowerment Developing social capital Use of local knowledge Sense of community

ownership

Research Findings: Negatives

Difficulty in pleasing everyone Unrealistic expectations Community conflicts and power struggles Small group of active residents Not as involved as might have been Lack of experience in early years Influence over “minor” issues Residents felt undervalued Community voice not always heard

Positive Impacts/Outcomes of RLE

Skill and dedication of residents Another form of engagement Personal empowerment HAT/CVCHA supportive Sustainability/community ownership Good quality information Resident perspective Research team had a stake in the

process Community/University relations

Negative Impacts/Outcomes of RLE

Perceived attitudes of professionals Professionals/ community skills gap Lack of self confidence among residents Lack of trust Activist “burnout” Resources and support

Conclusions

Clear advantage to resident led evaluation

Fits into concept of resident-led philosophy

Builds social capital/community capacity

Relevant and useful findings Quality of information Local knowledge

Thank you and questions…