The Conservative Party has proclaimed the virtues of community engagement, community involvement and community action wrapping it up in the concept of 'localism' which in turn is part of the Big Society agenda. One of the leading proponents of localism is Greg Clark the MP for Tunbridge Wells.
The theory looks good, however turning theory into reality is somewhat more difficult. Step forward Kent County Council, under the kosh for its poor showing in the primary school performance league tables. The Council is responsible for youth services and as part of its budget reduction measures has decided to reduce funding for the youth service and moved away from a grants process to a commissioning process.
Kent County Council's commissioners rightly are looking for value for money but in so doing are able to influence the way in which the voluntary sector works, by encouraging mergers to reduce administrative costs and by reducing the number of organisations it has to engage with. Money talks, so the voluntary sector is controlled by the policies and decisions taken in County Hall.
A stark example of this is what has happened in Tunbridge Wells. Two organisations have fallen foul of the new commissioning regime and their future work, indeed the very future of the organisations now is in some doubt. At this point I declare an interest: I have been the chairman of both of the organisations, although my involvement ceased a few years ago.
One organisation, Number One Community Trust, put in a bid for funding, was unsuccessful and has been left high and dry. The other, Rusthall Community and Youth project, was put off applying by the 107 pages long notes for guidance.
Both organisations feel aggrieved that funding has been awarded to an organisation based in Ashford which will provide a mobile bus to service youth provision in the areas covered by the two organisations. The real worry is that the cuts in funding could lead to the demise eventually of both organisations, each rooted in and supported by the communities they serve. It makes a mockery of localism and reinforces my belief that when it comes to budgets statutory authorities (with a few exceptions) know the price of everything and the value of nothing,.
TYKE IN KENT'S THEOLOGICAL RAMBLINGS
Showing posts with label community. Show all posts
Showing posts with label community. Show all posts
Saturday, 1 December 2012
Thursday, 15 November 2012
PCCs and PACT
It has been amusing to hear and read the comments of candidates for the PCC elections expounding on the importance of keeping in touch with people to ascertain their views on policing issues. In sonorous terms candidates have explained how they will test the pulse of communities.
But hang on, the last Labour Government introduced, through the Home Office, Partner(ships) and Communities Together, known as PACT. Police forces established PACTs (in Ashford, Kent alone there were/are over 13 of these) and were responsible for their administration. The idea was for policing issues at community level to be identified by inviting the public to attend meetings along with organisations in the locality: housing associations, local authorities, councillors, community groups, etc.
In fact PACT often is wrongly understood to mean Police and Communities Together. The remit of PACTs extends to other issues - examples: environmental concerns, public transport, health issues
The problem is that many PACTs have not worked well. Attendance of organisations and the public is often poor and some are hijacked by individuals pushing there own agenda.
Like a lot of 'good ideas' for consultation drawn up by civil servants and local government officers, they fail at the first hurdle, the unwillingness of the public to engage. One reason for this is that PACTs became just one more meeting to attend . No decisions taken, little reporting back on resolution of issues equals waste of time attending.
When Local Involvement Networks were established in Kent I suggested that rather than establish a new machinery for engagement with the public the PACTs should have taken on consultation on health issues. At least it would have avoided another round of meetings.
Public engagement and consultation is a chimera: it won't happen if the process is a dull meeting in a community centre or church hall. What is needed is a meeting which is not a talking shop, but one which reaches conclusions and sets specific time scales for reporting back by statutory organisations on progress achieved to resolve issues or reasons why progress cannot be achieved. Sadly parish councils can be part of the problem of unsatisfactory engagement as PACTs can represent a threat.
But hang on, the last Labour Government introduced, through the Home Office, Partner(ships) and Communities Together, known as PACT. Police forces established PACTs (in Ashford, Kent alone there were/are over 13 of these) and were responsible for their administration. The idea was for policing issues at community level to be identified by inviting the public to attend meetings along with organisations in the locality: housing associations, local authorities, councillors, community groups, etc.
In fact PACT often is wrongly understood to mean Police and Communities Together. The remit of PACTs extends to other issues - examples: environmental concerns, public transport, health issues
The problem is that many PACTs have not worked well. Attendance of organisations and the public is often poor and some are hijacked by individuals pushing there own agenda.
Like a lot of 'good ideas' for consultation drawn up by civil servants and local government officers, they fail at the first hurdle, the unwillingness of the public to engage. One reason for this is that PACTs became just one more meeting to attend . No decisions taken, little reporting back on resolution of issues equals waste of time attending.
When Local Involvement Networks were established in Kent I suggested that rather than establish a new machinery for engagement with the public the PACTs should have taken on consultation on health issues. At least it would have avoided another round of meetings.
Public engagement and consultation is a chimera: it won't happen if the process is a dull meeting in a community centre or church hall. What is needed is a meeting which is not a talking shop, but one which reaches conclusions and sets specific time scales for reporting back by statutory organisations on progress achieved to resolve issues or reasons why progress cannot be achieved. Sadly parish councils can be part of the problem of unsatisfactory engagement as PACTs can represent a threat.
Tuesday, 23 August 2011
What is community?
In previous posts I have argued that 'community' is a chameleon word and for the need to be very careful in its use, particularly when making funding applications. In a given geographic area it is often claimed that there is a community of geography, when on closer inspection it is apparent that people in an area have little in common.
It should be obvious that an individual will belong to a number of communities. A white male, living in rented accommodation, supporting the local football club, working in a factory and relaxing in his local pub belongs to a different set of communities to a black female, an owner-occupier, attending the local theatre, working in a supermarket and relaxing at home. The fact these two people might live in the same street does not per se make them part of the same community. They might have an interest in common, for example if their children attend the same school.
It is too easy to lump people together and claim they are a 'community'. This might explain why community centres are used by only a very small proportion of the residents of the area it is intended to serve. The users form their own community and the challenge is to encourage non-users to become part of a centre's community.
At this juncture I will throw in an idea. Suppose we have 30 people . Analysis shows that all share three things in common: all are white, send their children to the same school and watch the local football team. Does this turn them into a community? We then take another 30 people: all black, all send their children to the same school as the white individuals and they are all interested in athletics.
The one thing in common is the schooling of their children. They may form a community in this regard, but not in any other respect.
So, if we take a given geographic area should we define community by ascertaining common denominators? If we do, is there an heirarchy of denominators, some of little importance, others of significance?
The conclusion I draw is that we should seek to escape from the use of the word 'community' and home in on the identification of the number of people faced with the same issue(s). The use of the word 'community' is not helpful, indeed it slipshod.
It should be obvious that an individual will belong to a number of communities. A white male, living in rented accommodation, supporting the local football club, working in a factory and relaxing in his local pub belongs to a different set of communities to a black female, an owner-occupier, attending the local theatre, working in a supermarket and relaxing at home. The fact these two people might live in the same street does not per se make them part of the same community. They might have an interest in common, for example if their children attend the same school.
It is too easy to lump people together and claim they are a 'community'. This might explain why community centres are used by only a very small proportion of the residents of the area it is intended to serve. The users form their own community and the challenge is to encourage non-users to become part of a centre's community.
At this juncture I will throw in an idea. Suppose we have 30 people . Analysis shows that all share three things in common: all are white, send their children to the same school and watch the local football team. Does this turn them into a community? We then take another 30 people: all black, all send their children to the same school as the white individuals and they are all interested in athletics.
The one thing in common is the schooling of their children. They may form a community in this regard, but not in any other respect.
So, if we take a given geographic area should we define community by ascertaining common denominators? If we do, is there an heirarchy of denominators, some of little importance, others of significance?
The conclusion I draw is that we should seek to escape from the use of the word 'community' and home in on the identification of the number of people faced with the same issue(s). The use of the word 'community' is not helpful, indeed it slipshod.
Friday, 19 August 2011
Oops!
Today, The Courier published photographs of the 37 sites identified for redevelopment by the Tunbridge Wells Regeneration Company. The company is a partnership between Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and John Laing and its formation and activities have been controversial.
Photograph 3 claims to display Showfields Hall, but it doesn't. The photograph is of a different building, the Number One Community Centre which is owned by the Number One Community Trust Limited. Showfields Hall is adjacent to the community centre.
Photograph 3 claims to display Showfields Hall, but it doesn't. The photograph is of a different building, the Number One Community Centre which is owned by the Number One Community Trust Limited. Showfields Hall is adjacent to the community centre.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
The death of Welfare UK?
Towards and just after the end of the Second World War great changes were wrought to our society through the Education Act 1944 and the establishment by the post war Labour government of the National Health Service. The Labour government implemented the Beveridge proposals for national insurance. In theory, the state provided a financial safety-net from the cradle to the grave. Beveridge considered his proposals would advance the cause of social justice and that governments would follow economic and fiscal policies to achieve full employment which he defined as no more than 3% of the population being unemployed.
Such was the vision and hope for the post war social settlement.
Welfare UK, as I dub the post war social settlement, has been lurching along the track for years and the riots of the past few days could be the catch-points which hurl the whole rotten lot off the line and smash it to pieces.
Respect and deference to authority, in whatever form, began to collapse in the early 1960s and has continued relentlessly since. The heady release from moral, ethical, social and legal restrictions those of us born in the immediate post-war period luxuriated in has been passed on to our children and thence to our grandchildren. Alongside this has been the development of the concept that people have rights, but scant regard to the existence of duties. We have seen a boom in consumer expenditure.
Since 1945 there has been an acceleration in immigration, increasing ethic tension, insistence on multi-culturalism and the zealous application of political correctness. It might just have been possible to keep Welfare UK on the rails but for the advent of new technologies, loss of manual jobs and periodic economic recession. The Beveridge vision of social justice has sunk without trace and we have incubated, hatched and seen grow a section of the population in low incomes jobs or benefits, with no educational qualifications, in poor health and in poor housing. Successive governments have connived at supporting the welfare dependency culture. Little effort or resource has been put in to tackling the causes of disadvantage, indeed some policies have encouraged dependency. What we have seen is vast sums expended on maintaining the status quo.
I have spent many years working in areas of deprivation and have met many good people who have been overwhelmed by the system. Poor schools, poor health, poor physical environment, threatening neighbourhoods, low income. What has surprised me is that the explosion has taken so long to happen as indicators that it could have been around for a long time.
No-one should seek to condone the outbreaks of violence and looting of recent days, but we do need to understand and counter the deep-rooted causes of the problems. The problems demand attention and would have even if the opportunistic criminality of the last few days had not occurred. What has happened is that the issues have shot up the political agenda.
Governments of all political persuasions are to blame for the failure to address the myriad causes of deprivation and it will be interesting to see if the parties retreat into their outmoded and useless mindsets or come up with radical proposals for change. In this context the following link is to an interesting article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100100666/uk-riots-left-and-right-look-for-simple-answers-to-a-complex-problem/
In the narrow fields of community development and community engagement I argued last week that policies had failed in particular the people they are aimed at. The problems to be overcome are multi-faceted. We need to strike a balance between the welfare model of the past and a purely utilitarian approach. There has to be a period of transition. The problems we have created over the last 65 years will take a long time to overcome. We must avoid knee-jerk solutions, otherwise the events of the past few days will seem minor when the outpouring of anger at social injustice erupts.
The current lawlesness have been sporadic and opportunistic, but people are learning how to organise. Next time it will be volcanic. The post war settlement has broken down irretrievably, not through the fault of the poor, but as a consequence of the abject failure of the political and administrative elites: not only have they failed to tackle problems, they have exacerbated them.
Since I wrote this article I have come across the following which may be of interest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8693544/Our-political-leaders-seem-to-be-paralysed-by-crises.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8693521/Liberal-certainties-tested-to-destruction.html
Such was the vision and hope for the post war social settlement.
Welfare UK, as I dub the post war social settlement, has been lurching along the track for years and the riots of the past few days could be the catch-points which hurl the whole rotten lot off the line and smash it to pieces.
Respect and deference to authority, in whatever form, began to collapse in the early 1960s and has continued relentlessly since. The heady release from moral, ethical, social and legal restrictions those of us born in the immediate post-war period luxuriated in has been passed on to our children and thence to our grandchildren. Alongside this has been the development of the concept that people have rights, but scant regard to the existence of duties. We have seen a boom in consumer expenditure.
Since 1945 there has been an acceleration in immigration, increasing ethic tension, insistence on multi-culturalism and the zealous application of political correctness. It might just have been possible to keep Welfare UK on the rails but for the advent of new technologies, loss of manual jobs and periodic economic recession. The Beveridge vision of social justice has sunk without trace and we have incubated, hatched and seen grow a section of the population in low incomes jobs or benefits, with no educational qualifications, in poor health and in poor housing. Successive governments have connived at supporting the welfare dependency culture. Little effort or resource has been put in to tackling the causes of disadvantage, indeed some policies have encouraged dependency. What we have seen is vast sums expended on maintaining the status quo.
I have spent many years working in areas of deprivation and have met many good people who have been overwhelmed by the system. Poor schools, poor health, poor physical environment, threatening neighbourhoods, low income. What has surprised me is that the explosion has taken so long to happen as indicators that it could have been around for a long time.
No-one should seek to condone the outbreaks of violence and looting of recent days, but we do need to understand and counter the deep-rooted causes of the problems. The problems demand attention and would have even if the opportunistic criminality of the last few days had not occurred. What has happened is that the issues have shot up the political agenda.
Governments of all political persuasions are to blame for the failure to address the myriad causes of deprivation and it will be interesting to see if the parties retreat into their outmoded and useless mindsets or come up with radical proposals for change. In this context the following link is to an interesting article:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100100666/uk-riots-left-and-right-look-for-simple-answers-to-a-complex-problem/
In the narrow fields of community development and community engagement I argued last week that policies had failed in particular the people they are aimed at. The problems to be overcome are multi-faceted. We need to strike a balance between the welfare model of the past and a purely utilitarian approach. There has to be a period of transition. The problems we have created over the last 65 years will take a long time to overcome. We must avoid knee-jerk solutions, otherwise the events of the past few days will seem minor when the outpouring of anger at social injustice erupts.
The current lawlesness have been sporadic and opportunistic, but people are learning how to organise. Next time it will be volcanic. The post war settlement has broken down irretrievably, not through the fault of the poor, but as a consequence of the abject failure of the political and administrative elites: not only have they failed to tackle problems, they have exacerbated them.
Since I wrote this article I have come across the following which may be of interest:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/8693544/Our-political-leaders-seem-to-be-paralysed-by-crises.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8693521/Liberal-certainties-tested-to-destruction.html
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
Unacceptable behaviour
Most weekends the centres of our towns and cities are despoiled by hordes of drunken people engaging in fights, vomiting and generally making a complete and costly nuisance of themselves. Some finish up in A & E terrorising hospital staff. We tut, tut, but little is done about it.
Over the past few days we have seen hordes of people causing damage to property and terrorising people. Understandably people are angry and upset, but why is drunken behaviour tolerated to the extent it is? Says something about our priorities. Both are unacceptable.
Over the past few days we have seen hordes of people causing damage to property and terrorising people. Understandably people are angry and upset, but why is drunken behaviour tolerated to the extent it is? Says something about our priorities. Both are unacceptable.
Systemic failure of our ruling elite.
There is neither justification nor excuse for the criminal behaviour being played out across the country. No room for special pleading. It is wrong. An asinine journalist at the Guardian tried to make a link with the financial cutbacks this government is making to 'explain' the riots and looting. It won't wash.
The reality is that what is happening on the streets is the product of the systemic failure of the Liberal, Labour and Conservative consensus, aided and abetted (if not led) by Whitehall, to tackle the problems of poverty in this country. All are to blame for failing to confront the issue.
The people of this nation have been taken for a ride: the level of immigration, the calamity of multi-culturalism, the failure of our education system, the seeming inability to tackle poverty, the breakdown of communities: all have contributed to the mess we are in. The edifice which the Left and their fellow travellers built has come crashing down.
There will be a welter of recrimination. Nothing will be the same again. Consensus round the old order has gone.
It is not as though we have not had warnings. The problem of feral children is well documented. Gangs of children have murdered children and adults, many children leave school unable to read or write, areas of deprivation have had huge sums poured into them with little to show. The breakdown of communities is there for all to see. These problems have been around for a long time and successive governments have failed to make the necessary step-changes to overcome them.
Since I wrote this I have come upon this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html
JK Galbraith spoke of the underclass, not in a pejorative sense, but to describe those in our society who live in poor housing, have low paid work or no job, poor education and poor health. He made the point that governments had the means but not the will to change things.
Early last Sunday morning before the serious criminality started I wrote the following on my blog:
My concern is that far far too many community development/engagement initiatives are only about making the status quo more bearable. To put it bluntly: this is not what we should be doing. We should be finding and implementing solutions to the underlying problems. So far we have failed to achieve this and wasted a lot of money along the way.
Little did I imagine that the failure would be illustrated in such stark fashion so soon after I wrote those words. I take no comfort from this.
We need to find radical solutions to the problems - and very quickly. What we do not need is more of what has gone before. The old consensus has failed not just those at the bottom of our society, it has failed us all.
Since writing this I came across articles which resonates with my views: See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8630533/Riots-the-underclass-lashes-out.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8698033/New-Labours-toxic-legacy.html
The reality is that what is happening on the streets is the product of the systemic failure of the Liberal, Labour and Conservative consensus, aided and abetted (if not led) by Whitehall, to tackle the problems of poverty in this country. All are to blame for failing to confront the issue.
The people of this nation have been taken for a ride: the level of immigration, the calamity of multi-culturalism, the failure of our education system, the seeming inability to tackle poverty, the breakdown of communities: all have contributed to the mess we are in. The edifice which the Left and their fellow travellers built has come crashing down.
There will be a welter of recrimination. Nothing will be the same again. Consensus round the old order has gone.
It is not as though we have not had warnings. The problem of feral children is well documented. Gangs of children have murdered children and adults, many children leave school unable to read or write, areas of deprivation have had huge sums poured into them with little to show. The breakdown of communities is there for all to see. These problems have been around for a long time and successive governments have failed to make the necessary step-changes to overcome them.
Since I wrote this I have come upon this article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html
JK Galbraith spoke of the underclass, not in a pejorative sense, but to describe those in our society who live in poor housing, have low paid work or no job, poor education and poor health. He made the point that governments had the means but not the will to change things.
Early last Sunday morning before the serious criminality started I wrote the following on my blog:
My concern is that far far too many community development/engagement initiatives are only about making the status quo more bearable. To put it bluntly: this is not what we should be doing. We should be finding and implementing solutions to the underlying problems. So far we have failed to achieve this and wasted a lot of money along the way.
Little did I imagine that the failure would be illustrated in such stark fashion so soon after I wrote those words. I take no comfort from this.
We need to find radical solutions to the problems - and very quickly. What we do not need is more of what has gone before. The old consensus has failed not just those at the bottom of our society, it has failed us all.
Since writing this I came across articles which resonates with my views: See:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8630533/Riots-the-underclass-lashes-out.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8698033/New-Labours-toxic-legacy.html
Monday, 8 August 2011
Theft, Arson, Bodily Harm and Riot
Are these the names of the modern day Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? I doubt it. The mayhem in parts of London are the actions of a few people. The looting, damage and rioting is purely opportunistic and has nothing to do with deep-seated causes of unemployment, poverty and racial tension as the Establishment intelligentsia (?) would have it. The earnest reporting of the BBC and The Guardian in particular, together the the hand-wringing of a few politicians claiming almost that racial tension, poverty and unemployment are the causes of the rioting is pathetic to behold. Click here for an example of the genre.
Of course there are issues to be tackled, but it has to be done through legitimate political processes, not by damaging the property and livelihoods of individuals. It is all a matter of discipline. I don't recall reading that the Jarrow marchers went on the rampage. It has become almost the expectation that mass marches will attract a few people hell-bent on riot and criminal damage. It happened most recently during the student protests and I have no doubt my avid reader can think of other instances.
It is not my intention to minimise the fact that there are problems with youth unemployment, poverty and racial tension but it is patently not the way to gain support for change by cocking two fingers at the law-abiding population, although I suspect the gormless idiots in Tottenham,. Enfield, Lewisham, Brixton et al do not give a damn so long as they can steal.
On the BBC news it was mentioned that millions have been spent in Tottenham to improve the area. Some of the expenditure will have been on community development, community engagement, ethnic minority support and the like. No doubt some good has come from these endeavours, but as I have argued on this blog, there have to be doubts as to efficacy of much of this work. Communities have to be self-policing, or to put it another way there has to be community spirit. My concern is that the way it has been done doesn't work. the London riots may be the wake-up call not for more of the same, but for a radically different approach to community work.
The following article may be interest in the context of the final paragraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8689010/The-real-community-must-be-protected.html
Of course there are issues to be tackled, but it has to be done through legitimate political processes, not by damaging the property and livelihoods of individuals. It is all a matter of discipline. I don't recall reading that the Jarrow marchers went on the rampage. It has become almost the expectation that mass marches will attract a few people hell-bent on riot and criminal damage. It happened most recently during the student protests and I have no doubt my avid reader can think of other instances.
It is not my intention to minimise the fact that there are problems with youth unemployment, poverty and racial tension but it is patently not the way to gain support for change by cocking two fingers at the law-abiding population, although I suspect the gormless idiots in Tottenham,. Enfield, Lewisham, Brixton et al do not give a damn so long as they can steal.
On the BBC news it was mentioned that millions have been spent in Tottenham to improve the area. Some of the expenditure will have been on community development, community engagement, ethnic minority support and the like. No doubt some good has come from these endeavours, but as I have argued on this blog, there have to be doubts as to efficacy of much of this work. Communities have to be self-policing, or to put it another way there has to be community spirit. My concern is that the way it has been done doesn't work. the London riots may be the wake-up call not for more of the same, but for a radically different approach to community work.
The following article may be interest in the context of the final paragraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8689010/The-real-community-must-be-protected.html
Sunday, 7 August 2011
Working in areas of deprivation.......begging the questions?
My previous post on working in areas of deprivation has led me to ask the following questions:
Not many years ago I was an enthusiastic adherent and promoter of community development. Also, I was heavily involved in a major community centre capital project. Now I am much more cynical, or should that be realistic?
What has brought about this change in my attitude? Below I summarise some of the factors. I intend to develop my thoughts in future posts.
My concern is that far far too many community development/engagement initiatives are only about making the status quo more bearable. To put it bluntly: this is not what we should be doing. We should be finding and implementing solutions to the underlying problems. So far we have failed to achieve this and wasted a lot of money along the way.
- Why do it?
- Is it worth it?
- Why do we open community centres in areas of deprivation?
Not many years ago I was an enthusiastic adherent and promoter of community development. Also, I was heavily involved in a major community centre capital project. Now I am much more cynical, or should that be realistic?
What has brought about this change in my attitude? Below I summarise some of the factors. I intend to develop my thoughts in future posts.
- The theory is optimistic, the reality a disappointment. It is as though the people writing the manuals on community development and engagement have no understanding of the reality.
- Experience in the field of the difficulties involved in achieving anything meaningful and lasting.
- Under-utilisation of community centres.
My concern is that far far too many community development/engagement initiatives are only about making the status quo more bearable. To put it bluntly: this is not what we should be doing. We should be finding and implementing solutions to the underlying problems. So far we have failed to achieve this and wasted a lot of money along the way.
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Working in communities of deprivation
Earlier posts concentrated on the difficulties surrounding community engagement and community development. In this post I shall look at positive aspects, based on my experience.
The most important thing is to think small. The starting point is to set out and find people in the area who are willing to do something, anything, to improve their community. It is not easy, but with some effort it is possible to find a few people who are prepared to turn up to a meeting. They might well be people with a range of individual problems, as well as having a catalogue of complaints about the area in which they live and a mistrust of statutory organisations. Let them rip. From this a number of themes will emerge and the trick is to turn the negativity round to a discussion of what needs to be done and who should do it.
The next step is the most difficult: what do they think they can do? This is where you can hit the proverbial brick-wall. Lack of confidence, low self-esteem, feelings of apathy can all rear their heads. An atmosphere of helplessness and hopelessness can develop and once into that it is difficult to retrieve the position. This is why it is important to think small, to have an idea that fits in with one of the positive suggestions at the meeting and is achievable.
It is not difficult to come up with ideas. The problems do not change much from area to area. Walking round the patch, talking to people, looking at the neighbourhood statistics will identify issues that need to be tackled. The important thing is that any suggestion for action that is put forward is seen as a response to what is said at the meeting. Indeed, it should be possible to tease the idea out of the people at the meeting.
One meeting suggested it would be a good idea to have a Millennium Garden. A small plot of land was identified. Then the questions? Who owns the land? Who will pay for the plants and seating? People at the meeting were happy to draw up a plan, prepare the ground and do the planting. The community worker talked to the owner of the land (the Council), secured funding from the housing association and dealt with the planning issues. The local garden centre supplied plants at cost and sent a man with a rotavator to start the ground preparation.
Come the day the original group plus a few more arrived with spades, forks etc and within three hours the job was done. The following week local bigwigs arrived, the mayor declared the garden open and the press published a report. With a success in the bag, time to consider the next idea.........
The most important thing is to think small. The starting point is to set out and find people in the area who are willing to do something, anything, to improve their community. It is not easy, but with some effort it is possible to find a few people who are prepared to turn up to a meeting. They might well be people with a range of individual problems, as well as having a catalogue of complaints about the area in which they live and a mistrust of statutory organisations. Let them rip. From this a number of themes will emerge and the trick is to turn the negativity round to a discussion of what needs to be done and who should do it.
The next step is the most difficult: what do they think they can do? This is where you can hit the proverbial brick-wall. Lack of confidence, low self-esteem, feelings of apathy can all rear their heads. An atmosphere of helplessness and hopelessness can develop and once into that it is difficult to retrieve the position. This is why it is important to think small, to have an idea that fits in with one of the positive suggestions at the meeting and is achievable.
It is not difficult to come up with ideas. The problems do not change much from area to area. Walking round the patch, talking to people, looking at the neighbourhood statistics will identify issues that need to be tackled. The important thing is that any suggestion for action that is put forward is seen as a response to what is said at the meeting. Indeed, it should be possible to tease the idea out of the people at the meeting.
One meeting suggested it would be a good idea to have a Millennium Garden. A small plot of land was identified. Then the questions? Who owns the land? Who will pay for the plants and seating? People at the meeting were happy to draw up a plan, prepare the ground and do the planting. The community worker talked to the owner of the land (the Council), secured funding from the housing association and dealt with the planning issues. The local garden centre supplied plants at cost and sent a man with a rotavator to start the ground preparation.
Come the day the original group plus a few more arrived with spades, forks etc and within three hours the job was done. The following week local bigwigs arrived, the mayor declared the garden open and the press published a report. With a success in the bag, time to consider the next idea.........
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Social Return on Investment (SROI)
A few days ago I wrote the following:
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.
There is a method of determining the value of investment in areas of deprivation. It is called Social Return on Investment (SROI). SROI can be used to scrutinise previous investment and also the value of proposed investment.
The impression I gain is that a lot of money spent already has produced a poor social return. One effect of SROI should be a greater sense of realism in proposed projects
It is essential proposed projects deal with causes of deprivation rather than dealing with symptoms. This is even more vital in the current economic climate. We need to place emphasis on lasting solutions, not short-term palliatives, although it has to be recognised that the latter will still be essential during the transition from where we are to where we wish to be.
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.
There is a method of determining the value of investment in areas of deprivation. It is called Social Return on Investment (SROI). SROI can be used to scrutinise previous investment and also the value of proposed investment.
The impression I gain is that a lot of money spent already has produced a poor social return. One effect of SROI should be a greater sense of realism in proposed projects
It is essential proposed projects deal with causes of deprivation rather than dealing with symptoms. This is even more vital in the current economic climate. We need to place emphasis on lasting solutions, not short-term palliatives, although it has to be recognised that the latter will still be essential during the transition from where we are to where we wish to be.
Wednesday, 3 August 2011
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.
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.
Community: what does it mean?
The word community is bandied about a lot: faith community, community spirit, community engagement, local community, European Economic Community, community development are examples which spring to mind. But what is community? At best it is a chameleon word, at worst it can be used as shorthand and be meaningless.
My opinion is that there are two major usages: community of geography and community of interest, although there is a third usage gaining traction to which reference will be made .
Community of geography is quite straightforward, isn't it? The village in which I live is a community of geography in the sense that we share a physical location. It is a small area. Would the town I live close to be regarded as a community of geography, or a county, or a nation? The test surely must be: do the people within a geographic area feel they have a common belonging? Credit unions have a defined geographic area within which there is a common bond (subject to a caveat: see later) which binds them together, or at least that is the theory.
Communities of interest covers a multitude of things. Members of a church have a common interest, as do supporters of a football club and members of a lunch club. Indeed any membership organisation is a community of interest. A credit union can be formed for members of the co-operative: the common bond being that of membership of the co-op. It strikes me that in order to belong to a community of interest requires an individual to take a positive step to join and belong to that community.
The third use of the word community relates to status or condition. There is the gay community, ethic community, disability community, feminist community. It is really a form of categorisation or labelling and I am not sure the word community is appropriate.
Our lives are spent as members of a number of communities determined by where we live, work and play, by our interests and if one accepts the third category by what we are. During our lives we will join and leave communities. We leave the school community, we go to college or university and become part of the academic community and a new community of geography. Our interests change and our inter-actions with other people change.
Before Mrs Thatcher destroyed the mining industry there was the mining community. At one level this referred to miners, but it referred also to the tight-knit communities in which they lived and included their families and people in other jobs who lived and/or worked in the area. People working in the post office, the co-op, the miners' welfare were part of the mining community.
Most community development and engagement is around communities of geography, but not exclusively. Working with ethic communities and hard-to-reach groups involves community development and engagement. Within a community of geography there are a number of communities if one applies the third use of the term community.
The danger is that the term community can be used to lump people in a geographic area together even though they have little in common except living in the same area.
In the final analysis community is a label and the danger is that community development and community engagement presupposes a commonality which does not exist. The relative failure of community development and community engagement initiatives is rooted in a simplistic understanding of the complexity of peoples' diverse attitudes, needs and concerns within a given geographic area.
NB: Interesting article on communities - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8693558/Immigrants-love-this-country-more-than-we-do.html#.TkPeY3519JQ.facebook
NB: Interesting article on communities - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8693558/Immigrants-love-this-country-more-than-we-do.html#.TkPeY3519JQ.facebook
Tuesday, 2 August 2011
Volunteering and communities
My plan is to post a series of articles on volunteering, community development and community engagement. I have had involvement with all three and it has taken up much of my life over the past fifteen years.
If I have learned anything, it is how misunderstood and difficult it is to achieve community development and engagement. My posts will call on my experience in the field and will, I hope, convey something of my frustration and disappointment.
The Conservative Party's Big Society and Labour's Good Society fail to come to grips with the problems surrounding community engagement and community development. The Localism agenda may have some impact, but I fear the proposed changes do not go far enough.
If I have learned anything, it is how misunderstood and difficult it is to achieve community development and engagement. My posts will call on my experience in the field and will, I hope, convey something of my frustration and disappointment.
The Conservative Party's Big Society and Labour's Good Society fail to come to grips with the problems surrounding community engagement and community development. The Localism agenda may have some impact, but I fear the proposed changes do not go far enough.
Monday, 6 June 2011
Pumping more money into Sherwood
Over the years a lot of money has been pumped into Sherwood, Tunbridge Wells, both capital and revenue. Capital expenditure on the Little Forest Children's Centre and the TN2 Community Centre are two of the major projects. Now Town & County Housing Association, the major social housing landlord in the area, is pumping money in as part of the Sherwood Regeneration Project (SRP).
One does wonder what the social return on this investment will be. The SRP did not get off to an auspicious start, with accusations of secrecy and failure to consult with the local populace. When two borough councillors spilt the beans they were hauled over the coals by the chief executive of the council (as I commented on last year in this blog).
I have become more cynical about the value of regeneration projects, community development initiatives and community engagement schemes as they are 'top-down' usually and do not engage with the causes of problems. Instead, they provide sticking plasters to put over the symptoms.
The past sixteen years had seen me working in areas of deprivation in Kent and East London and my cynicism is borne of experience of seeing projects, initiatives and schemes fail as they do not engage with the real issues and certainly do not provide solutions.
One only has to look at the indices of deprivation in Thanet to realise that years of investment have failed to produce significant improvements. The same can be said of others parts of Kent and indeed nationwide. Why is this? Will the Big Society and Localism produce a step change in improving well-being in areas of deprivation? I have my doubts
One does wonder what the social return on this investment will be. The SRP did not get off to an auspicious start, with accusations of secrecy and failure to consult with the local populace. When two borough councillors spilt the beans they were hauled over the coals by the chief executive of the council (as I commented on last year in this blog).
I have become more cynical about the value of regeneration projects, community development initiatives and community engagement schemes as they are 'top-down' usually and do not engage with the causes of problems. Instead, they provide sticking plasters to put over the symptoms.
The past sixteen years had seen me working in areas of deprivation in Kent and East London and my cynicism is borne of experience of seeing projects, initiatives and schemes fail as they do not engage with the real issues and certainly do not provide solutions.
One only has to look at the indices of deprivation in Thanet to realise that years of investment have failed to produce significant improvements. The same can be said of others parts of Kent and indeed nationwide. Why is this? Will the Big Society and Localism produce a step change in improving well-being in areas of deprivation? I have my doubts
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)