Housing Research 167 - February 1996
Community involvement in estate regeneration partnerships

There is wide agreement that the effective and lasting regeneration of disadvantaged housing estates can only be achieved in partnership with the residential community. A study by Andrew McArthur, Alan McGregor and Annette Hastings at the Training and Employment Research Unit, Glasgow University considered how the process of partnership with community organisations unfolded in ten multi-sectoral initiatives in Scotland and England. The researchers found that:

• At the outset of most initiatives, different partners had distinct priorities and expectations of the process. In particular, there was little consensus over the role which the community would play.

• Strong community organisations developed in estates after a lengthy process of community development and required extensive resourcing and back up.

• The involvement of the community made a difference to the outputs of most of the regeneration initiatives. However, in some initiatives, the scale of the community's impact was quite modest.

• Most community involvement was concentrated in the implementation stages of initiatives. Community partners did not play a major role in determining the strategic direction of regeneration activity, despite being involved at this early stage in the decision-making process.

• The scale of the community's impact typically varied according to the type of problem addressed. Housing and social issues were more likely to lead to meaningful involvement than were economic development and vocational training issues.

• Other partners did not always welcome a strong input from the community partner. Very often, community representatives were not involved in important informal negotiations and agreements.

• Other partners did not always recognise that they would need to change their working practices and attitudes in order to facilitate community involvement.

Why community partnership?

Since the late 1980s, the need to involve the local community as a key player in regeneration initiatives has increasingly been seen as a prerequisite for effective regeneration. However, support for partnership with local communities is not unanimous. Some suspect that the importance attributed to community participation is merely rhetoric and that agencies have no real intention of extending a major say to local residents. Others fear the co-option of community groups and the loss of their important role as campaigning organisations for resources and improved conditions.

The research

The study of ten estate regeneration partnerships which involved the local community explored:

• how the communities were involved in the regeneration partnerships;
• the contribution of community representatives to the decision-making process;
• the impact of the community partner;
• what good practice lessons could be drawn.

Engaging the community

In top-down regeneration initiatives, how lead agencies made their initial approach to communities often proved important. Good practice involved:

• early contact with local groups both to explain what the partnership was trying to do, and to identify local concerns and priorities;
• officials working in ways which reassured community representatives that they would have an important role to play;
• using local community organisations to conduct initial surveys of residents or to gather information about the area (and paying them for the work);
• setting out the expectations of the community and other partners in a mutually agreed document;
• recognising that a new regeneration initiative can be disruptive for communities. Lead agencies need to allay fears that existing community organisations and projects will be swept aside.

Organising community involvement

The structure of the community partner

The various communities organised themselves in different ways in order to take part in regeneration initiatives. Although some communities began with fairly ad hoc ways of selecting community representatives (with no formal nomination or electoral procedure), in only one case did this persist into the mature phase of the initiative. In the other nine initiatives, there were two main patterns: communities where individual groups nominated delegates; and communities which developed over-arching or 'umbrella' community organisations to speak for a range of groups and interests. This latter type of structure seemed to help strengthen the position of local residents. It allowed the community to participate as a separate entity, as a 'partner', and provided a forum in which to develop a 'community position'. In some estates, where such an organisation did not already exist a new one was created to facilitate resident involvement.

Representation and accountability

A major issue in several of the initiatives was whether or not the community activists involved in partnerships accurately represented the views of the estate and were accountable to them. A number of strategies were employed by community partners to improve links between activists and the wider community, including:

• adopting a membership structure which facilitated the involvement of a wide range of local groups and interests;
• producing a regular newsletter or magazine;
• as new people came forward, providing training to prepare them for participation;
• checking that representatives were in touch with the local population through, for example, conducting surveys;
• undertaking community development work in parts of the estate where community activity was limited.

Participating in decision-making

The case studies revealed a number of difficulties in the process of partnership. For instance:

• It can be difficult for the community to 'keep up' with the decision-making process, particularly in the early days. Meaningful community involvement seems to involve longer timescales for decision-making than many participants expect.
• Partnership meetings can be difficult and intimidating experiences for community representatives.
• Community organisations appeared to have difficulty in retaining a pro-active inputinto a wide strategic agenda, even when backed by relatively heavy resources.
• Conflict between the community and other partners principally occurred when the community partner was relatively strong and able to challenge the priorities orpolicies of other partners. Other partners did not always welcome this.
• The community may develop unrealistic expectations about what can be achieved. Other partners need to take care to reveal the potential limitations to the initiative and the resource constraints under which they are working.

There were, however, a number of ways in which more productive working environments were facilitated. For example, the development of trust and mutual understanding was assisted by providing opportunities before and after formal meetings for informal discussion and mixing. Chairing meetings in ways which welcomed the contribution of the community was important. In initiatives where the community had the resources to recruit its own support staff, it was often better able to 'keep up' with the process and avoid being marginalised.

The impact of community organisations

In most of the initiatives, there was evidence that the involvement of the community did make a difference to some of the decisions made within regeneration partnerships and to the activities subsequently embarked upon. The scale of this impact varied, however, depending on the stage in the regeneration process and the type of issue addressed.

The impact of the community at key stages of the regeneration process

Although the community was represented from the early stages of the partnership initiatives, the influence the community representatives exerted tended to be concentrated in the implementation stages of initiatives. Considerable energy was devoted by volunteers to running projects (such as credit unions, youth clubs or community-based housing associations) and to deciding on the fine details of policies or programmes. Community organisations also played important roles in bringing regeneration initiatives to estates in the first place. Even in estates where top-down initiatives were imposed, the level of existing community activity may have been the reason why those estates were chosen. In addition, prominence was often given to residents' perceptions of the estate's problems, at least in the early stages of initiatives when initial plans and policies are discussed.

Despite these positive signs, the community partner typically had a minimal input into some important stages of the process. In the top-down initiatives, the community did not generally become involved until key decisions had been taken about the most appropriate way of tackling the problems of the locality. Crucially, the community partner did not take part in deciding what role the community itself should play. Tensions subsequently emerged in two of the initiatives as the community tried to renegotiate a stronger role for itself. Further, they had no impact on decisions made by other partners about the scale of resources deployed to deal with the estate's problems.

There were occasions, however, where the community played a more unique or major role. In a minority of the top-down initiatives, the community partner pressed successfully for certain issues to be incorporated into the initiative's agenda. For example, there were instances where the community was successful in introducing other social issues, such as crime or health, onto agendas where the initial focus had been on housing change or employment and training schemes. There was only one example, however, where the community partner successfully mounted and sustained a challenge to a major strand of policy developed by the lead partner.

The impact of the community on different issues

The scale of the community partners' contribution also varied according to the nature of the issue. There was generally more resident involvement in running projects and taking decisions about housing and social issues than there was in relation to economic development or employment. Thus, although there was substantial variation between the estates in relation to housing change (ranging from successfully challenging government policy to fine-tuning refurbishment plans), in all ten the community made some kind of difference.

Residents also made an effective contribution to addressing social and community issues, mainly through extensive involvement in running projects but also by persuading other partners to take such problems on board. There was typically less involvement in economic issues, particularly in relation to the development of plans and policies. However, in two bottom-up initiatives, a 'hands on' project-based approach to local involvement in economic development proved productive.

Accounting for the impact of the community partner

The scale of the impact of community organisations on regeneration initiatives varied. A number of factors seemed to contribute to this. These can be divided into characteristics of the community itself and aspects of the partnership as a whole.

Characteristics of the community

The case studies suggested that communities with the following characteristics were more likely to make strong contributions to regeneration partnerships:

• a history of community activism pre-dating the onset of an initiative by some years;
• a high level of community activity with a number of organisations of different types;
• a sophisticated level of organisation amongst activists, particularly extensive networking;
• the existence, prior to an initiative, of one organisation perceived as a valid mouthpiece for the various interests on the estate;
• minimal factionalisation among activists or at least the capacity to unite at key moments;
• a readiness to challenge or question the status quo.

Characteristics of the partnership

Both the decision-making structures and the decision making cultures of regeneration initiatives were significant in facilitating and constraining community involvement. Community representatives found complex structures burdensome and very formal meetings often intimidating and difficult to participate in. At times, other partners appeared to use formalised proceedings to contain dissent and to place community representatives at a disadvantage. Community representatives were more at ease in structures where they were in a majority and where the proceedings were less formal. There was a danger, however, that such organisations could be sidelined by other partners.

Lessons

The research showed that communities can intervene effectively in important aspects of the regeneration process. However, it also revealed the practical difficulties entailed in achieving this. A number of key lessons emerged both for community organisations who wish to maximise their input and for other agencies committed to ensuring meaningful community involvement.

• Building capacity A lengthy process of community development (probably around five years) seems to be required before a community has the confidence to become involved in a comprehensive regeneration partnership. Large estate-wide initiatives should build on existing strengths within the community rather than start again from scratch.
• Engaging the community Involving the community in dialogue about the early development and publicising of top-down initiatives can engage local interest and help develop a sense of ownership over the regeneration process.
• Organising for partnership Community-based umbrella organisations assist in involving a wide range of local interests and present a single point of contact for both local residents and other partners. For the community to be a genuine partner it must have access to the type and level of back-up resources which other partners enjoy. It is important to clarify and agree objectives at the outset and to ensure that both realistic aims and timescales are set. Structures and processes should be kept as simple and informal as possible.
• Raising the impact of community involvement The community may find that the development of accountable or democratic organisations can help them to negotiate with other partners from a position of strength. It must also find a way of becoming involved in the important informal networks and meetings which take place 'behind the scenes' in most partnerships. Similarly other partners must work to openup the informal decision-making structures to the community partner.
• Life after regeneration? Estate regeneration may be more sustainable if the community is left in charge, perhaps of key assets, after the end of the formal initiative. This, however, requires resources and a commitment to build up the capacity of the community during the regeneration process.

About the study

The research focused on ten estate regeneration partnerships which involved the local community. The case studies covered a range of organisational models drawn from a number of British cities and included Scottish 'New Life' Partnerships, Community Development Trusts, a Housing Action Trust and an Estate Management Board. In each case study area in-depth consultations and local meetings took place. Overall around 400 people were interviewed. The research team comprised Andrew McArthur who directed the project and is now at the Department of Environmental Planning at Strathclyde University, Alan McGregor, Director of the Training and Employment Research Unit, and Annette Hastings, who is now a Research Fellow in the Centre for Housing Research and Urban Studies, both at Glasgow University.

Further information

The full report, Less than equal? Community organisations and estate regeneration partnerships, is published by The Policy Press in association with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation priced £11.95.