Communities in areas of deprivation.

It never fails to disappoint me the way money is thrown at areas of deprivation  by central government, local councils, housing associations, quangos, charitable trusts and the Big Lottery. Why am I disappointed?  Mostly because so much money is wasted on short-term projects.  When the money stops the project ceases.  It is all very well for the pompous statement to be made that alternative funding should be sought. The problem is that there is either no alternative funding or such funding as there is has to be taken from other projects.  Robbing Peter to pay Paul syndrome.

However there are other factors in play, the most significant to my mind being: incorrect assumptions upon which so many projects are based, unrealistic times-scales, lack of clear outcomes and dewy-eyed optimism.

One would have thought that before any attempt was made at community development or community engagement in an area of deprivation there would be a detailed analysis of the area.  It is true that statistics are pored over: Indices of Deprivation and Neighbourhood Statistics provide a wealth of information.  However, that is what they are: facts and figures.  To find out what an area of deprivation is like you have to get into the field: walk the streets, talk to local councillors, visit the pub and above all talk to residents.  By such means a far better picture emerges.  But it is not foolproof.

A common misconception is that social housing estates (or council estates when owned by the local authority) are the homes of the poor. Of course poor people live in social housing, but it is not the end of the story.

On some estates a majority of the properties have been bought by residents using the 'Right to Buy' legislation. Some of these properties are owner-occupied but a proportion will be buy-to-let properties.  Immediately you have three distinct types of occupation.  Walk down any road on a social housing estate and it is possible to identify the nature of the ownership of individual properties. 

There will be a very wide range of household income.  Some households will have two or three earners, others will have one-parent families, some households will be living entirely on benefits. 

You will discover factions on the estate, minority groups which have no collective identity, but above all a  lack of community spirit given the divergent groups that exist.  There is often an over-laying apathy at best and from some an hostility to the local council, police and social services.

Whatever the statistics might tell you, pushing through a project will be very hard work.  The process of engagement is very slow, erratic and subject to setbacks.

So, not fertile territory for the bright policy wonks who come up with phrases such as community empowerment, localism, stakeholder engagement, social capital, community participation and the like.  The ground is littered with community fora, PACTS (Partners and Communities Together), community associations/ groups which hardly anyone attends.

However, it is not all negative. I shall look at the positive aspects in a future blog.