Array of neighbourhood initiatives causes confusion and 'consultation fatigue'

Two reports published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthening the role of local people in regeneration as a way of making more sustainable. But they highlight a need for other important lessons to be learned if the planned National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal is to succeed as a ‘big idea’ in tackling social exclusion.

They argue for greater coherence in the current patchwork of overlapping initiatives. And they suggest that the central aim of community involvement will not be achieved unless existing mainstream bodies – from government departments to local management boards – accept a change of culture within their own organisations.

Community involvement

The New Deal for Communities, Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) and other area-based initiatives already allow for early investment in consultation, training and other support so residents can make an active contribution. But new evidence suggests wide variations in the commitment being shown to these ‘capacity building’ activities.

A study by Sally Thomas and Pete Duncan of Social Regeneration Consultants found the growing array of programmes that target neighbourhoods – including initiatives on urban renewal, health, education, early learning and crime prevention – was poorly co-ordinated and confusing for local people

• Even when Government Offices for the Regions and local agencies are committed to community involvement, there has been too little understanding or experience of how to achieve it.
• Some communities in areas covered by a number of action zones are suffering from consultation and research ‘fatigue’. Residents come to view consultations as ‘too little, too late’.
• Government timetables for establishing local partnerships and planning programmes have allowed too little time for community empowerment before major decisions have to be reached.
• Councillors, officers and agency professionals have tended to dominate the boards that run local programmes.

The study identifies significant regional differences in the emphasis given to resident participation. Two out of three capacity building initiatives being funded during Round 5 of the Single Regeneration Budget are in London or the North West. Regions with little tradition of community involvement appear to be lagging behind.

The researchers recommend reforms to the way community involvement work is managed and funded, including a Neighbourhood Empowerment Fund of up to £20 million a year, using SRB and National Lottery Charities Board money. This would support small-scale community initiatives and enable local people to articulate their priorities from the early stages of any regeneration programme.

Pete Duncan said: “Putting local communities in the driving seat requires an early start to build up confidence, understanding and capacity well before the investment of major regeneration resources. Community involvement also needs support from the highest levels within organisations. Frontline staff need access to the key decision-makers concerned with strategy and with implementation.”

Neighbourhood management

A report by Marilyn Taylor of the University of Brighton, draws together key messages from existing practice and research in ‘Neighbourhood Management’ – a concept that has been developed by the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit and is expected to play a prominent part in the new National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal.

Programmes based on Neighbourhood Management would see as much decision-making as possible about housing, health, crime prevention, training, employment and other local services devolved to neighbourhood level. Services would be integrated to make sure they contributed to an overall strategy for the area, with a strong emphasis on involving the community in planning and implementing the strategy. The report argues that if Neighbourhood Management is to make a difference, it will depend on:

• Commitment at every level of public policy making and service delivery to ‘joined-up’ working between different departments and agencies. This will mean making fundamental changes to the cultures and career structures of government and the public service professions.
• Willingness to give local people the power and responsibility to take action in their neighbourhoods. This will mean ensuring that government frameworks for performance measurement, regulation and audit are fit for the purpose and do not squeeze out local initiative.
• Community-owned assets – workspace, leisure facilities, community centres, housing and service contracts – that give local communities a stream of income and control over their own resources.
• Good quality employment opportunities for residents in the public services – who are often major local employers.

Marilyn Taylor said: “If Neighbourhood Management is to achieve sustainable change, we need to learn from what has – and has not – worked. The current wave of government policies has absorbed many of the lessons from past failures in the field of regeneration. But the proliferation of partnerships and the sheer pace of change need to be carefully monitored.

She added: “Public sector cultures need to be changed from top to bottom if communities are to be given real power and responsibility to take action. A long-term perspective is essential: otherwise Neighbourhood Management will depend on a few champions and not become embedded in new systems of governance.”