test message

test message

Economic regeneration strategies with community development spells failure

A report by the think tank IPPR suggests that economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to improve deprived neighbourhoods .  A key finding is that ‘Community outlook’, the attitudes, values and aspirations of local neighbourhoods, often determine whether or not employment and educational opportunities are taken up. It contrasts Speke and Croxteth, as an example of this – see below.

A second finding relates to what it terms ‘residential sorting effects’:  inequalities in income and wealth translate into residential segregation through differences in house prices, rents and tenure. The most vulnerable and those with the least choices are concentrated together in ‘undesirable’ areas while those with more resources tend to move out of the area. The rationed nature of social housing exacerbates this trend- but so can training and employment provision that enhance the economic capacity of individuals, including their mobility. If the newly employed see no positive reason to stay in an area, they will move out, only to be replaced by the most needy and those with the fewest choices and least resources.

The result can be neighbourhoods that remain stubbornly impervious to improvement in time of economic boom.

Community development  therefore has a vital role to play in  economic development and the report argues for a  closer fit  between these two specialisms, with more strategic approaches to economic development   complemented by carefully targeted intervention at the micro-level. In particular it draws on recent research into face to face social networks that shape community outlook (a good overview is given in the Connected Communities report by the RSA).

The impact of ‘community outlook’ can shape economic development. One of the examples given in the report the contrast between Speke and Croxteth in Liverpool, two of the most deprived neighbourhoods in England. Speke has seen significant investment including John Lennon Airport, Jaguar Landrover and a number of new retail business parks- yet levels of deprivation have grown with newly created jobs often going to people who travel from outside the area.  By Contrast Croxteth has had little comparable investment yet has experienced significant improvement with falling numbers of IB and JSA claimants.

Ippr identifies a different community dynamic in each case.  Speke   stakeholders referred to the area as having an “island mentality”. This was reiterated by residents, who also used the metaphor of an island. This closed community outlook appears to be a significant factor in the limited take up of employment opportunities created by investment.

By contrast Croxteth is an ‘improving neighbourhood’ with higher levels of informal community activity. It also has a social enterprise based there, the Alt Valley Community Trust with a mission to support the development of a sustainable local community through the creation of economic opportunities and the delivery of economic development. It works in partnership with two sister organisations, the Neighbourhood Services Training Company (NSTC) and the Neighbourhood Services Company (NSC).

AVCT was identified by a number of stakeholders as a key factor that has influenced improvement in Croxteth. While the scale of its operations cannot explain the entire difference in employment outcomes between the two areas, its community leadership role seems very important and its very existence appears to   generate a sense of shared confidence in the area which means that any local investment is more likely to be turned into local opportunities.

public consultations: how do you engage a wider cross section of the community and not just the ‘usual subjects’?

Too often public consultations end up drawing in the same usual suspects. How can we engage a good cross section of the community? A recent blog by the OPM (I cannot find the article) suggested that instead of open consultations, a special effort should be  made to target individual members of the public known to have a particular skill or interest in the issue concerned. You would invite them by name, not just send a blanket email and you would word the invitation in a way that conveyed a particular appreciation of their attendance.

Another approach might combine social media with face to face contact on a subject of popular concern. What is the one issue that seems to be of common interest right across age, ethnicity and class? crime of course(include anti-social behaviour), so why not use that as a lever to create online networks and greater public participation?

I divide my time between Barnet, London and Southampton. Recently a PCSO knocked on our door and explained that  that there had been a burglary in the street. She asked us to check the back doors and windows before we went out. She then went on to ask if I wanted to sign up to an email bulletin to keep me updated on community safety issues. I’m sure this was not a marketing ploy but mention of the burglary got my attention and despite the fact that I was busy getting ready to go out,  I took the time to complete a brief form and signed up straight away. Now there is a germ of a good idea here but so far, communication has been one way- it is useful to receive bulletins but why not create something more interactive to get feedback from local people-ideas, suggestions, opinions and so on? Why not widen the bulletin to include related issues to do with youth needs, or even links to unrelated issues such as  health? I’m sure that other public agencies would be interested in the kind of online network created by the local PCSO team and might even co-fund it if it were widened to include their agenda.

But whatever platform was created can’t be based on one way broadcast – local authorities and other public service providers have to find ways to engage, involve and, dare I say it, allow communities to shape and direct public policy, not just be the recipients of a consultation process, but allow them to initiate proposals which are then widely shared and discussed.

Promote informal as well as formal means of learning online skills

If the Manifesto for a Networked Nation is to be believed, then we should be doing everything we can to get people online. It saves government money through reduced costs of service provision- and it saves money for cashstrapped families. It also enhances the employment prospects of everyone, but especially the most disadvantaged. Some of the findings of the report include:

• Offline households are missing out on average consumer savings of £560 per year
• If just 3½% of unemployed non-internet users found a job by getting online it would deliver a net economic benefit of £560m.
• People with good ICT skills earn between 3% and 10% more than people without such skills.
• If every non-internet user in employment got online, each of them could increase their earnings by an average of over £8,300 in their lifetime

That’s quite something but are these sufficient incentive to get people online? and is college based provision the only way. I would argue not; many people find the formal setting of a classroom or college computer suite intimidating, especially if their experience of school education was an unhappy one. Then there are the older age group whose education was pre-internet and who do not feel they belong to this new networked world.

For these two categories, social media surgeries with its light touch informality are surely the best way forward. Once people had got over the hurdle of using the internet for simple things – sending an email, using google, planning a journey, it might wet the appetite for more challenging courses of the kind ALISON offer for free.

Big Society NO, Community Businesses Yes

While the whole Big Society agenda gets a mixed review by both press and public, this poll suggests a clear public preference for community based public services. When asked which type of organisation is best-placed to provide public services – including leisure, health and transport services – UK adults chose the following:

• 43% chose ‘A community business that reinvests its profits to improve services’
• 36% chose ‘The government or public sector’
• 4% chose ‘A business that makes profit for its owners and shareholders’
• 3% chose ‘A charity’

Commissioners and Procurement Officers take note!

Your Square Mile – giving a richer picture of where you live

Recently I had an email exchange with  a senior colleague in research quizzing me about the use of Google maps, reminding me of local elections in May and urging me to take down certain information I had put up there. The email was polite but the warning very clear- and it had been copied to certain very senior members of my organisation.

The information in question was a map of Southampton showing areas of multiple deprivation on a very small area scale called LSOA or Local Super Output Areas with boundaries of roughly equal population size – around 1,500. The map was created by  Alasdair Rae, a Lecturer in the Department of Town and Regional Planning at the University of Sheffield,  using a relatively new online tool called Google Fusion. It is free and although in its beta stage, promises to be extremely useful in mapping all types of information. More about this below.

I realise that although this information is publicly available, it is still sensitive and simply slapping it on a website for all to see could lead to all sorts of mischief, especially if that website is a council website or, like mine, an experimental website where I, as a local authority employee, am constrained by corporate rules. So I was careful not to do so; instead I put the map in a hidden folder with no visible link on the website navigation bar: in other words the map was not publicly available and could only be viewed through a link in an email which I shared with one colleague. So I took what I thought were appropriate precautions. He didn’t. He loved the map, so promptly shared it with three other people, one of whom was a stats person working for the local PCT. From there I don’t know who else saw it, not many I suspect, but it clearly rang alarm bells all over the place. Yet all I was trying to do was generate an internal conversation about the kind of information we could share, and how it might be done in a way that was visually attractive, engaging and informative.

Some points to consider

Having had 48 hours to reflect on this incident I guess there are a couple of    important lessons that I felt worth sharing. And it is not about, or not just about, the risks of email information going viral (I’m pretty sure that at most, about 10-15 people in research roles saw it, no more).

1. Information can be dis-empowering

So far my efforts have been to map grassroots organisations, but a second step could be to map information and give people a richer, multi-faceted picture of where they live. Yet information can be dis-empowering, despite the open data evangelists heralding a brave new world of transparency and accountability.  For example how am I supposed to feel if I see a map which shows I am living in one of those black spots of multiple deprivation? Not positive that’s for sure. And what am I supposed to do about it? In all I think I would feel a bit down, rather helpless and a little bit angry with the person who showed me the map. I might also say ‘And what are you, as a representative of my council, doing about this?’

Simply to present information is not enough. You need to give people something to do with it; an explanatory context, tools, resources, networks they can access and opportunities to work with their council. In this case contextual information is especially important because few people will have heard of the Index of Multiple Deprivation despite the vital role it plays in determining the shape and location of public services.

2. The sharing and use of information needs to be part of a wider culture change on all sides.

It’s not just local authorities that need to work differently and be prepared to share information even if it’s not good news. A wider public also needs to change its thinking in how it sees the relationship between state and citizen. Both are currently locked into a public management model of consumerism which sees the relationship as a simple market transaction: ‘to the extent that government treats citizens only as customers, citizens think of themselves only as taxpayers’ (Jim Dears Neighbor Power).  That means it’s very hard for a public to suddenly- given the speed of the cuts now taking place- take on the role of partner and collaborator in the design and delivery of services. The natural instinct will be ‘hold on, I pay my taxes and I expect X in return’ etc. – yet without a change of paradigm, the power of open data   to hold government to account may mean no more than providing a munitions dump with which to expose and attack every service failing, every instance of inequality, rising crime and falling educational standards, while overlooking the responsibility that individuals and communities also have, in shaping the society we live in.

So, at the risk of labouring the point: information needs to be given context and a set of tools so people can do something with it. It also needs to be accompanied by a wider conversation between local authorities and their public about how they work together- a new social contract if you like.

I have had to take down the map but if you take a look at this news article, you can probably work out the rest.

A note about Google Fusion: it is a way of combining spreadsheets from different sources to create bar charts, pie charts and maps. At the moment I am having an exasperating time trying to understand and use the thing. However Google Fusion is only in its Beta stage and it may be a combination of my ham-fisted attempts together with certain technical flaws which mean I have made little progress.  I would be really interested to collaborate with anyone who starts using this tool.

GET THE TRAINING AND SKILLS YOU NEED THROUGH ELEARNING

Many people doing great work in their communities or local charities lack the skills that could make them even more effective. One estimate suggests as   many as 60% of people working in the voluntary sector have never accessed training to help them do their jobs. Training is the single biggest need for frontline organisations but getting that training is difficult because of time, travel costs and the expense of face-to-face training.

KnowHow NonProfit exists to provide low or no cost online learning solutions for the voluntary sector. It covers a wide variety of topics with measuring impact being the most popular topic area.  Take a look at their Study Zone.

MAP OUT THE NETWORKS AND CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ORGANISATIONS

“Having strong networks with other organisations able to offer peer- to- peer support and mentoring is highly valued.. mixed networks offer opportunities to build profile, learn about business opportunities and form consortia”.

The quote is taken from a report Ed Cox and Katie Schmuecker who looked at the most successful charities and community enterprises in their report ‘Growing the Big Society’. They found that strong networks and profile was one of the key ‘enablers of success’. So whether you are a small community centre looking for new ways to bring in revenue or an established charity with a good track record of delivering services, it’s worth taking the time to look at your networks and how these are part of a wider set of network in your area or line of work. 

Draw a map of who you work with and how- not just groups and associations in your local area, but any group or organisation that you have contact with. Use this map of Southampton to help you groups in your area.

Once you have done that, look at the other organisations and see whether you can map some of their connections. Better still, share the map with them so they can add in what they know.

The result could be a really good picture of networks and activities that you and other local groups can use. Use it to develop contacts, widen and strengthen your networks and improve communication through sharing information and co-ordinating activities and services. Use the map to develop partnerships, share costs and reach a wider number of people.

Just as importantly, such networks can develop into learning networks where people can share ideas and expertise, troubleshoot problems and learn from each other- the mistakes as well as the successes. This kind of ‘peer learning’ or mentoring can be done by telephone, face to face or over the internet. In fact the most effective networks use all these forms of communication

Review the skills and assets of Board members

A full organisational review should cover this, but if it doesn’t, it is worth conducting a separate exercise further down the line.  

Often social and community enterprises’ board members reflect their social mission rather than the appropriate mix of skills and experience. Board members with experience of a commercial business environment can be crucial given the tight funding environment and the pressure to move away from local government grants to other sources of income.  Some questions you could ask are:

• What skills does the board have?
• What skills does the board need?
• How does the board gather information about the local area and the community organisation?
• How can we attract new trustees?
• What is the best structure for the board?
• How well does the chair work with the board and the management team?

Taken from: New Philanthropy Capital ‘Community Organisations, a guide to effectiveness’. Click here to download their report

Conduct an organisational review

This continues my efforts to find useful and tools and suggestions for third sector organisations, especially community groups that want to move towards a more enterprising approach to tackling local issues.

“Most of our case studies highlighted an organisational review as a key turning point on their journey to becoming a successful enterprise…. Often this involved stopping some activities and embracing a more enterprising mindset”. Section on ‘Enablers of Success’ for voluntary organisations, IPPR report Growing the Big Society, 2010.

What’s involved?

This requires the board of trustees to take a hard look at where they are now and where they want to be in a years’ time.  It is a process of careful, collective self reflection that includes consultation with the wider community and covers among other things: an organisation’s finance, people (volunteers and management), operations, governance and more.

Such a process can be facilitated by an outsider- an expert moderator, paid or volunteer. There are also   web based  tools and forums that help- part of a sea change now taking place across the third sector with the use of social media and internet tools to conduct their work.

Tools

1. The Charities Aid Foundation conducts Organisational Reviews and you will need to be clear about any costs that attach to this. Click here for more information.

2. Online self –assessment: try out the online self-assessment tool provided by Knowhownonprofit, a website which offers a range of advice and information resources for the non profit sector.

• The self-assessment tool covers eight key areas in your organization, among them Compliance, Governance, Direction, Finance, People, Operations and Networks.
• The answers you give will generate a report summarising the state of your organisation. You don’t need to have completed all of the areas of the assessment to get a report – for example, you might want to focus on one area at a time.
• The report then makes suggestions for each area of your organisation; extra things you might like to consider once you have achieved something, or advice for areas where you need to make improvements.

Advantages: online tools such as these are very useful to give structure and direction to your thinking.

Disadvantages: avoid the temptation to reduce this to a desk-based exercise. Such online tools are no substitute for active face to face consultation with a wide range of stakeholders within and outside your organisation.