Community Residents Neighborhoods

Approaches to governance and planning are changing with decision making being decentralized to take into account effectively the needs of the disadvantaged areas and groups. Governance has shifted towards helping communities get involved in decision making and policy formulation about their neighborhoods. Focus in this paper is put on the role of community programs in helping community leaders, voluntary groups and residents from neighborhoods in policy decision that affect where they live. Community Empowerment Networks were formed in 2001 to enable the Community and voluntary sectors to participate in Local Strategic Partnerships.

The aim was to ensure that the activities of the Local Strategic Partnership took account of the perspective of the community and voluntary sectors and was focused on the needs of local communities.

The examination tends to focus on the extent to which community programs help the deprived communities in getting involved in neighborhood renewal, influencing local decision making and shaping the design and making of local policy.

The role of GIS (Geographical Information system) in collection and analysis of data from the local community and other stakeholders has been cited.

Major challenges affecting the effective operation of community programs have been identified in this paper and the possible solutions that need to be addressed for the programs to be effective in initiating community participation in development.

INTRODUCTION

In this paper we will explore and explain the appropriateness' and the challenges of community appraisal and consultation as a strategy towards rural development. Focus is being increased on community leaders, voluntary groups and neighborhood residents in making policy decisions that affect their life and I the design and implementation of technologies such as the GIS at the local level. In the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's National Strategy for Neighborhood Renewal, community involvement is given first priority at the strategy and integral process of improving the deprived neighborhoods in the various local authorities in England. The paper is focused on examining to what extent the community programs are helping to get the disadvantaged neighborhoods involved in shaping local decision making and local policy -making.

Community programs aim at providing a means of getting the local community participate in policy making which normally influences changes to where they live and the type of services they receive for instance from the government. This report assesses the impact and challenges the community programs encounter in trying to get the local communities improve where they live. It also outlines the good practices that are relevant to the community organizations and public sector bodies which are seeking to effectively get engaged with the local communities.

The report draws lessons that are significant to the community participation strategy initiatives in the government. This is aimed at active citizenship where the people can tackle their problems plus their underlying causes.

.

Hypotheses

The hypotheses in this research were extracted from the literature consulted and tested during the research process.

The hypotheses were:

• The participatory approach is an important factor to consider when collecting and analyzing data about deprived neighborhoods.

• Participation of local community in the implementation of GIS can only be considered in one of the phases of the process, the collection of data.

Research Questions

1. What is the significance of a participatory approach for community development?

2. To what extent do GIS and community participation influence the process of decision making?

3. Can a community participation and GIS Technology be implemented and what are the challenges?

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study had the following objectives

• To suggest the policy recommendations as well as strategic role the stakeholders engaged with the community could play in enhancing community participation in local policy making .

• To establish the role the government plays in encouraging community participation in disadvantaged communities.

• To assess whether the government representatives are committed towards community participation in uplifting standards in the deprived neighborhoods by analyzing policy documents and investigating whether the suggested guidelines are put into practice..

• To investigate how the community members regard community participation in rural development.

TARGET POPULATION

This study involved a number of stakeholders in the entire process for instance community members in the study area and those involved in decision making and policy drafting.Becaouse of time and financial considerations, the whole population could not be interviewed so we had to take samples from the population.

Respondents from the deprived neighborhoods were taken by a stratified sampling random technique because the population was categorized in to two groups; one group composed of men while the other group consisting of women. of men. Men and women had to be given an equal chance of selection as to give both groups equal rights (Habitat, 1996 ).

As for the key decision makers a few members from this group were selected because of their availability and the time allocated for the research activities.

METHODOLOGY

We obtained the views of local communities, organizations administering the single CommunityProgramme locally, local public sector organisations, regional Government Offices, central government departments and national organizations representing

Participants and interested third parties.

Six case study areas were used and I conducted telephone interviews with 30 grant recipients from each case study area using a structured questionnaire that was designed.

. Responses were unprompted wherever possible, with results back-coded into categories to enable quantitative analysis.

Third party information was also sought from the urban forum.

The study employed structured interviews with community members of informal settlements and some government representatives. Participatory observation was undertaken so as to assess the thoughts of the community members. This method allows a deeper insight into the problem by observing and understanding the behavior and feelings of the community.

The observers become participants thereby hiding the real purpose of their presence and therefore easily gain the confidence of the participants.

The disadvantage of this method is that the researcher is likely to sway away from objectivity and also it can give rise to inaccurate information because notes have to be taken from the memory. It is also difficult to apply this method to all aspects of life for instance when you want to capture the believes and attitudes of the participants.(Bless and Hingson 1995, 43-105)

In order to develop a deeper understanding of the situation at the ground the participants were free to express themselves on issues as they saw them. This means that the participants were not restricted to answering the questions as they were asked but rather they could answer them in there own way. Participants in this case mean the people from the community from which the study was done.(Babbie and Mouton 2001:314)

From the interviews the following was noted:

• Community empowerment networks do exist and they are exerting influence in the members by linking with service providers at the neighborhood level.

• There is a threat to the community that bars them from raising their concerns.

• Through funding of community programs has helped to boost trust and confidence locally.

Bless and Higson-Smith (1995:85-86) state that the “… group of people which is the object of research and about which the researcher wants to determine some characteristics is called the population. The subset of the whole population which is actually investigated by a researcher and whose characteristics will be generalized to he entire population is called a sample.”

The members from the community to be interviewed were selected random. According to Bless and Higson-Smith (1995:89)the selection of an element from the population where each element has an equal chance is called random

AVAILABILITY OF DATA

Secondary sources of data

Aerial photographs from the study area collected from past studies carried out in the area

Spatial data from the GIS. Digital files

Collection of socio-economic data from the area of study.

Primary sources

Information on the existing political events in the area.

Describing the actual government decision making process in the area.

The problems the informal settlers are facing and the role the participatory process is helping them to solve the existing problems.

How the community feels about the participatory process in rural development.

The role of the GIS in the improvement of disadvantaged neighborhoods. .

Output

To analyze the implementation of a GIS in collection and analysis of information using the participatory approach is a difficult task.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

This chapter will report all the findings of this study regarding the participatory approach in community empowerment process

The decision-makers were clear about the insecurity of bringing a technology out of their knowledge into the process and base some of their decision in the same technology. Actually there are two barriers to cross when dealing with the subject. On the one hand, the believe in the old practices, although the decision-makers recognize that there is a need for improvements, thus the fear of bringing

a new technology into a process which has few professionals with capability to work and handle, is an issue to be considered by them at this point. On the other hand, there is a need for improvement as it was stated before; nonetheless, the reliability of the information available is yet to be tested.

Therefore, the knowledge about the subject has to be present not only for the technicians involved but for the decision-makers so that they can understand and judge the potential of this tool in the process.

The participatory process achieved a very important stage where by the population is actually heard and their priorities and point of view are discussed and can influence the ones set by the municipality.

How community programmes support the community to play a

greater role in local decision-making

13 The Community Programmes are intended to support community self-help activity in deprived neighbourhoods and to draw community groups into wider decision-making about local public services. The following example illustrates how a s Community Programme is designed to work.

A residents association may identify a lack of recreational facilities for young people as one of the factors behind local incidents of anti-social behaviour. A Community Programme funds may be available to enable the association, with the support of a local faith group, to establish a youth club in the evening and provide facilities in a local hall.

Once established, the youth club may point out better facilities at a local school or sports centre that are not currently available in the evenings. Through the local Community Empowerment Network it may establish contact and good relations with other community youth groups with similar concerns so as to share more ideas on how to improve their lives through participation in sports. The Community Empowerment Network can raise this wider issue with the local authority and local education authority at the Local Strategic Partnership. The Community Empowerment Network can work with these organizations, and with other agencies such as the police and social services, to influence neighborhood community plans to address needs identified by community groups who work with young people.

Helping the community to get involved in neighbourhood renewal

What is working well 16 the single Community Programme has so far supported around 25,000 separate self-help and community projects in the country's most deprived neighbourhoods. Most of these projects (88%) 4 contribute directly in some way to neighbourhood renewal targets (reducing wordlessness and crime and improving local skills, health, housing and the physical environment) or to the broader neighbourhood renewal goal of promoting community involvement and social cohesion.

The remainder contribute indirectly by funding activities such as transport and organisations' running costs..

Examples of funded projects

Employment: Sparkbrook Women's Group in Birmingham received £5,000 to contribute to an IT and business support centre. The centre offers courses for local women to help them return to work.

Crime: QDOS Dance Theatre in Barnsley received £5,000 towards a project called "Kick Off" - a touring production visiting local schools. The production used a workshop to explore the dynamics of gangs. It raised awareness of issues surrounding racism, homophobia and anti-social behaviour. QDOS worked in partnership with the police, victim support and the primary care trust.

Health: Seaham Stroke Club in East Durham received a grant to pay for audio equipment and a microwave. The club helps stroke victims to develop their speech and mobility in an informal setting

Education: Birmingham Somali Community Family Support received £5,000 to set up homework support sessions and language classes for Somali children

Housing and

Environment: Hayle Allotment and Produce Association in West Cornwall received £2,000 to rebuild paths and improve access. The association worked with the primary care trust to arrange for people undergoing drug rehabilitation programmes to lay the new paths

Social cohesion: The All Community Group received £1,500 for a community festival in Ardwick (Manchester). The festival, which was partly funded by the European Social Fund, brought together different communities who do not normally mix, promoting good race relations.

.

.

.

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Participation is a very significant component of any development process. First, it underscores the needs of the beneficiaries involved, meaning that the project could be more successful (Skinner,Taylor and Wegelin, 1987). This is an aspect that has to be considered, as many projects implemented are not always considered as important for the community. As it was stated by Hales (1995, p. 01),‘choices don't exist unless those who are involved in the decision process perceive them to exist'.Which means that the choices of solution should also come from the people benefiting and should have their support. Salmen (1987), also emphasizes that in an upgrading project the community needs and deserves to be heard, as the aim of such a project is to actually improve the living conditions of these very persons.

No local government is likely to respond effectively to the diverse needs of disadvantaged groups unless there are effective avenues for citizens to influence government policies and

Priorities' (Hardoy and Satterthwaite, 1989, p.139).

Community Participation across government

Community participation is the central principle of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. But needs more clarification and definition if it is to be understood by all those involved in neighborhood renewal. To this end, the NRU has adapted, from work by Gabriel Chanan for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, four goals for community participation. These goals are increasingly used by Government to define what we mean by community participation and what we are trying to achieve through community participation.

• Governance - Community participation aims to develop a community ‘voice' that enables communities to participate in decisions and increase the accountability of service providers.

• Social capital - Community participation aims to increase the confidence and capacity of individuals and small groups to get involved in activities and build mutually supportive networks that hold communities together.

• Service delivery - Community participation aims to ensure that local communities are in a position to influence service delivery and where appropriate participate in service delivery.

• Social inclusion and cohesion - Community participation aims to develop empowered communities capable of developing a common vision, a sense of belonging, and a positive identity where diversity is valued.

The government has to realize that the best decisions are the ones made together with the community and not assume to know the best solution to their problems, as very often it is the case.

From the statement made by Blauert (1990, p.36), where he says that ‘the answers arrived at by the state, and other outside institutions, make assumptions about what is beneficial for people, and way in which environment can be more effectively managed', one can see how this external institutions need to change their way of making decisions regarding community issues. Often, the mistakes found in such decisions, can be attributed to the lack of involvement of the people benefiting from the projects.

They are the ones experiencing the problems physically, meaning that their knowledge and experience should be taken into account and should have the potential to influence decision-making processes.

Community participation is fundamental in ensuring value for money in public services. Services designed and delivered without community input risk wasting of public money because they will be unused ,underused or even misused if they are not what people need. Local people must have the opportunities to identify their needs and contribute to finding solutions to problems facing them in their neighbouhood, rather than feel powerless in the face of public authorities that deliver services on their behalf.

Community participation initiatives are widespread across the whole of government.

Central to the Community Programme are Community Empowerment Networks that aim to give local people a voice on Local Strategic Partnerships.

Community participation initiatives are widespread across government for instance

1.The Home Office aims to promote active citizenship. "The voluntary and community sector plays a crucial role in delivering public services and in building strong, cohesiveand self-determining communities … give citizens and users a voice, but also the means to tackle themselves the underlying causes of their problems."12

2.The Police Reform agenda is driven by a commitment to citizen focused policing. "Community groups play a vitally important role in improving community safety. Many local voluntary and community groups grow out of people's concerns about their neighbourhood and attempts to improve community safety."13

3.The NHS Improvement Plan makes a commitment to ensure that local communities will take greater control of budgets and services. "As the NHS moves from a centralised service to one that is more community based.

4.The Department for Culture Media and Sport sees culture ashaving the potential to increase social cohesion. "Culture and regeneration need to be done with a community, not to a community. Successful regeneration programmes rely on the participation, enthusiasm and voice of local people.

5. Developing the capacity of rural communities to deliver local improvements is a priority for the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. "Many rural needs and problems must be solved locally … we will therefore help by providing additional support to improve the ability of the voluntary sector to support individuals and communities that most need help.

6. To promote the capability of communities to develop their collective base of skills and learning, the Department for Education and Skills is leading the development of Learning

Communities in partnership with Regional Development

Agencies, local Learning and Skills Councils and Local

Core Values of Community Participation

• The community should have a say in decisions about actions that affect their

lives;

• Community participation includes the promise that the community's contribution

will influence decision making;

• The community participation process communicates the interests and meets the

process needs of all participants;

• The community participation process seeks out and facilitates the involvement of

those who potentially affected;

• The community participation process involves participants in defining how they

participate;

• The community participation process provides participants with the information

they need to participate in a meaningful way; and

• The community participation process communicates to participants how their

input affected the decision.

Theron (2005b:117) warns that the outcome of community participation is related to how officials who implement and manage the process define, interpret and implement the confusing concepts of participation, involvement and consultation. Community participation as involvement represents a topdown decision-making process and is regarded as weak participation. “Involvement is probably the most problematic concept in the community participation debate. It has gained a negative reputation for being associated with co-option, placation, consultation, informing and similar slippery concepts in the development debate.”

PARTICPATORY APPROACH

There are different forms and levels of participation in practice today. The definition common participation can vary between the different countries and even within the same national entity (Lisk, 1985).

Therefore a good definition of what is meant by popular participation or participatory process in this research is needed.

To begin with there are two different levels of participation considered in this research, internal

This refers to, the participatory process which occurs within the settlements

External

Participation which occurs between settlements and municipality.

The popular participation process is actually the ability the people have, specially the disadvantaged groups of society, to influence the decision making process towards the improvement of their living standards, through the meeting of their needs. Therefore, a very important aspect of a participatory process is to understand the needs of the people involved in the process and the situation they live in, so that projects and actions towards improvement of their lives can be implemented effectively and solve their problems.

The participatory approach is implemented as to improve the planning process. In projects affecting the urban poor, actions should be taken to eradicate poverty and improve their living environment. It isclear that the best way of making decisions directly affecting this section of society is to include them in the planning process. This can be done through participation. As mentioned by Rietbergen-

McCracken and Narayan (1998, p.09), ‘Participation ranges from sharing information, consultation, and collaboration, to empowerment'. Without such an approach, the motivation of people for their participation can be interfered with.

As Lisk (1985) states in one of the conclusions from his book there is a need for institutions within the planning system to make possible the participation of the most disadvantage groups of society in the decision making process, in a fully and effective way, so that popular participation realize its full potential in influencing development objectives towards basic needs satisfaction.

Another aspect of participation is that people are not only satisfied by meeting their basic material needs, but because they feel capable of organizing themselves as to claim for their needs. This is the result of the self-reliance brought by an effective participatory process and the experience of being empowered by the government to make decisions on subjects related to their needs. But very often this self-reliance is something to be worked in these communities as this people have been excluded from the decision making process relevant to their own well being for a long time. The reason was that the government didn't recognize the important role they can play in this process. Therefore, external help is often needed to work together with the community defining their felt needs and formulating appropriate strategies and programs to meet those needs.

THE BENEFITS OF A PARTICIPATORY PROCESS

An informal settlement upgrading program requires many decisions to be made by authorities. These decisions are regarding different components of this project and relates to the quality of life of those residents.

A participatory approach is seen as a very important approach as no one more than those community's residents know about their needs and the issues inside the community. This statement is not only an assumption, but a lesson learnt from past experiences which were successful due to the implementation of upgrading projects with participation of the community or were not so successful and recognized that one of the determinants for the failure of the project was that the community was not heard and decisions were taken for them without consulting these beneficiaries.

Such lessons learnt in the past are vital for the recognition of the participatory approach that there are programs which aiming to increase these experiences, so that more and other lessons can be learned with the projects, which are being carried out. One example is the Cities Alliance initiated by the

World Bank and UNCHS (Habitat).

Two of the basic assumptions made by the program, are that;

• Communities are equal decision-making partners in the process of upgrading and that they are the ones that know their community and its issues.

• They also state that community involvement increases the sustainability of the project and one of the reasons is that they will live the effects and often participate in the implementation.

• ‘There is no magic solution: each community must be addressed on its own merits'. This has an important meaning since each community has their own problems and the degree of their needs for each of these problems can vary from community to Community. Therefore, many lessons can be learnt from experiences, but not everything can be applied in the same way as it was done in the past and very often changes to the implementation and

Also to the participatory approach have to be made as to adapt to the different situations people live in.

The participatory approach can also bring benefits to the community itself, as it tends to bring the community together to define their problems and to give their priorities to the same ones. A good example of this is the case presented by Gibbon, Hamilton and Kaudia (1998), in Western Kenya.

They were using the community participation approach to assess basic needs with the internally displaced using well being ranking. The interesting findings about the participatory approach were that, first; the neighbours which were in conflict before because of their tribal origins became aware of the common effects of the disturbances and their shared needs. Second, as discussions were inclusive

Mukherjee (1998) presents a good example of the need for the community to identify their problems in an early stage of project design with the case study of Bangladesh. He shows how the community was active in the first stages of the project by asking the community, which were their problems and how they saw their problems. He also asked them to think of ways to help them in overcoming their challenges, which would become the project's activities, in this case. Afterwards, this design was exposed to the different stakeholders who were related to the problems found and there the difference in points of view was realized and tentative of bringing them closer were realized. This was an example that demonstrated how community participation should be implemented and how planning and implementation should be done. This case began with the community's perspective of their own scenario and with this in hand the next step was to formulate alternatives for problem solution.

Afterwards the stakeholders were consulted, but with the community's feelings in relation to their problems in hand, so that they could try to understand it and bring their point of view closer to the community's reality and not the other way round. This could be one of the solutions to avoid misunderstanding the community's needs and considering solutions provided by them to their own problems, which could help the different stakeholders in finding the right solutions to the problems present in informal settlements.

Another benefit that can be brought by stimulating a participatory approach is community empowerment. In many projects community participation was restricted to the implementation phaseof an upgrading program (Phnuyal, 1998), which led community to feel as they were imposed to some decisions made by the governors. Instead, if authorities would actually make community part of the whole process, starting from the early phase of design, would motivate community participation and they would feel that their needs were understood and that their ideas and point of view influenced the

process.

This empowerment can be felt in a variety of ways, for example, by motivation brought by involving people in the solution of their problems and by making them feel that the decision-making process can

be influenced by their knowledge and experience. Another way of feeling empowerment is when such process makes the community realize its capability to perceive their own problems and therefore, be able to negotiate with authorities to improve their life conditions. This is the meaning of empowerment.

As it is stated by Gajanayake and Gajanayake (1993, p.6) ‘community empowerment ‘ is, in essence,the ability to stand independently, think progressively, plan and implement changes systematically, and accept the outcomes rationally'. Therefore, community needs to think about their problems and needs, alternatives solutions to these problems making the choice for the one that best fits the community's needs and implement it.

COMMUNITY INTERACTION

The level or quality of community interaction is determined by the social capital in the society.

Social capital refers to a collection of networks which share a common norm according to Office for National Statistics, taken from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

The World Bank defines social capital as "the institutions, relationships and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society's social interactions".The

Performance and Innovation Unit defines social capital as "the networks, norms, relationships, values and informal sanctions that shape the quantity and co-operative quality of a society's social interactions. … Levels of social capital are determined by a range of factors. The key ones appear to be: history and culture; whether social structures are flat or hierarchical; the family; education; the built environment; residential mobility; economic inequalities and social class; the strength and characteristics of civil society; and patterns of individual consumption and personal values. … Social capital may contribute to a range of beneficial economic and social outcomes including: high levels of growth in GDP; more efficiently functioning labour markets; higher educational attainment; lower levels of crime; better health; and more

ROLE OF COMMUNITY PROGRAMMES IN SHAPING POLICY

The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal recognized that community involvement is a complex phenomenon that includes at least the following steps:

The single Community Programme is designed to provide funding and support for community activity in deprived areas, so that people may become more involved in the improvement of their communities and neighborhoods;

Help residents in these areas gain the skills and knowledge they need to play a more active role;

And support community and voluntary sector involvement as equal partners with public service providers in Local Strategic Partnerships

The community empowerment approach

A good community participation network programme should aim at the following key issues:

Confident

You involve local people in discussions about the roof, about what the planning, budgeting and work entails, about how you go about getting building work done. You make sure that the information you provide is accessible, and you take time to ensure people understand. As a result local people gain skills, knowledge and confidence, which will help them take part in this and future projects.

Inclusive

You are aware of the make-up of the group you are working with - how reflective are they of the local population and users of the centre, in terms of age, gender, race etc? You find ways to involve people who have not used the centre so far, but might have an interest in doing so. You encourage discussion. As a result you gain a cross-section of views, experience and expertise; people learn more about each other and work together.

Organized

People must be encouraged e to work as a team and work to each other's strengths. You support them to develop processes for discussions and decision-making which are understood by everyone there. As a result, they all understand how the decisions will be made about which contractors to use, what the design will look like, what the budget is and why. They have collective responsibility for the project.

Cooperative

You encourage the group to look at projects elsewhere. How have other groups worked with contractors, what did they learn, who did they use and what happened? As a result the group learn from the experiences of others, they widen their field of contact and may create some support networks. They find out about different

models of working, which may inform this project and the way the community centre is run in the future.

Influential

You encourage the group to make decisions and they do this within known parameters. They decide on the design and timescale of the work, based on aesthetics, ecological considerations and the practical and economic context. As a result, they can see the benefit of their involvement in the change that takes place and feel collectively responsible for the new roof.

Taking a community empowerment approach, based on the five dimensions, is about making the most of opportunities. The short-cut may be easier, quicker and financially cheaper, but it misses out on the long term benefits - for the individuals taking part, for the community working together, for your organization and for society more widely.

ADVANTAGES OF COMMUNITY NETWORKS

Community development

“Community development is about building active and sustainable communities based on social justice and mutual respect… it is about changing power structures to remove the barriers that prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives”

(www.cdx.org.uk)

The average membership of a Community Empowerment Network is just under 300.32 Member organizations include neighbourhood and residents groups, umbrella groups and networks, professional voluntary sector organisations and a range of specific interest groups Most Community Empowerment Networks have a steering group while some have a written constitution. Around half have thematic groups and neighbourhood-based sub-networks.

CHALENGES THE COMMUNITY NETWORKS FACE

The major challenge towards community participation is that the voice of the community can be challenged. This comes in terms of whose behalf they are speaking for and whether they are legitimate or not.

ODPM's evaluation noted that some Community Empowerment Networks had problems in finding a way to work alongside existing structures of community representation.38 Examples include parish councils, rural community councils and forums set up by local authorities. ODPM did not consult or provide guidance about relationships between Community Empowerment Networks and established organisations. In Birmingham, for example, there is an unclear relationship between the Community Empowerment Network and the BirminghamAssociation of Neighbourhood Forums, which leaves people uncertain about where to go to exert influence. Progress has been greater where Community Empowerment Networks have worked with existing tructures rather than independently

Programme are not transparent enough to sustain the confidence of communities

Some aspects of single Community Programme process and structures are not transparent to community groups Many grant-administering organizations have felt uncertain about what information to collect to confirm that grants have been spent properly. Some have sought guidance from Government Offices but have not received it. Any concern that grants lack careful control would damage the single Community Programme if it undermined confidence about the fairness with which public funds are distributed.

Tensions are exacerbated where there is poor mutual understanding. Most public sector members in this case study areas knew little about the fund that supports the

Community Empowerment Networks or about the single Community Programme grants. This lack of knowledge may limit public sector organizations' appreciation of what Community Empowerment Network members can bring to Local Strategic Partnerships.

Power and trust between community sector and public sector

Community sector

Community members can be suspicious that public sector organizations might consult them for appearance rather than to make real changes. They fear Community Empowerment Networks and Local Strategic Partnerships may not last, wasting the time and effort that people have given voluntarily. Community members lack many benefits that tilt the balance of power firmly in favour of public sector members. ODPM'sevaluations found that "voluntary and community partners remain junior partners in Local Strategic Partnerships and that central government needs "to strengthen Local Strategic Partnerships' commitment to working with the voluntary and community sector as equals".

Public sector

Public sector members can be suspicious about whom Community Empowerment Networks represent. Local authorities, in particular, can point to an electoral mandate that Community Empowerment Networks lack. At the heart of the tension is a debate about the relationship between representative democracy and participative democracy.

Public sector organizations control much of the business of

Local Strategic Partnership meetings: usually chairing them, setting agendas, preparing papers, choosing meeting places and times, and even determining the number of community members. Public sector members commonly receive

briefings about forthcoming meetings and are recompensed for their attendance costs.

Community Empowerment

Networks have minimal influence on the main boards of Local

Strategic Partnerships

Representation on Local Strategic Partnerships varies greatly.

Local Strategic Partnerships "must demonstrate that they have consulted the community and voluntary sectors as part of their self-assessment, including the emerging

Community Empowerment Networks"; they must” capture the views of their Community Empowerment Network representatives in the self-assessment and action plan" and they must enable the "Community Empowerment Network to fulfils its functions as a key

partner with the Local Strategic Partnership". The vision of every Local Strategic Partnership must be” owned and agreed by all partner agencies and the Community Empowerment Network" and there must be"genuine community involvement (including the Community Empowerment Network)".Community Empowerment Network members of Local Strategic Partnerships believe they have too little influence on the main boards They are much less satisfied than other members, mainly from the public sector, that local Strategic Partnerships listen to

Community Empowerment Network members' views and take account of them. Community Empowerment Networks' wider membership similarly believes their

representatives have limited influence on Local Strategic Partnerships. The Government Office for London found that Local Strategic Partnership structures and processes needed to be reviewed to ensure community members feel able to participate as equal partners.42 ODPM's evaluation provided an example of how dispirited one Community Empowerment Network member has become

GIS AND THE COMMUNITY

There are clear evidences, for example the need for the municipalities to acquire data concerning neighborhood renewal , be it for upgrading or any other purpose, that there is need for community and government to communicate, so that they can bring their ideas more closer and understand each others point of view. This can be done by the participatory process, which was and is being experienced in some countries already.

In the participatory process there can be room for implementation of new technology as to improve understandability of expressions. For example, when one

GIS can represent the problem spatially in a way that both actors, government and community, can build a new view of the problem in a way never done before.

Using GIS simplifies the performance of spatial analysis and the preparation of

excellent graphics (maps being the most obvious example) which lend an aura

persuasiveness to policy reports that public and private institutions prepare' (Obermeyer,

1998, p.65).

A GIS can help the decision making-process by , improving the visualization of the problems and providing the people involved in the participatory process with the possibility of analysis and clear spatial view of the problems present in the area.

To make this possibility more realistic there is a need to improve the access of people, such as community residents, which are a kind of non-governmental organization in this case, so that the tool can be operated by the two groups involved in the process of participation, governmental institutions and non-governmental institutions (Obermeyer, 1998).

Of course the role of GIS in this process should not be summarized as a simple map-making tool, but one should make use of the great potential that GIS has to perform many kinds of analysis.

This fact is clearly mentioned in Obermeyer (1998, p.65), when he states that to understand the relation between GIS and society there is also need of understanding that GIS is not ‘a tool designed to solve one aspect of a particular problem - that of translating spatially referenced empirical information into a spatial language to enable cartographic representation of patterns and relationships, and of analyzing the nature of these relationships.'

CONCLUSION

In conclusion for community empowerment networks to function properly there are five key challenges that need to be addressed to.

Empowerment Networks to influence neighborhood renewal

It was found as a result of the research described in this part of the report that there are five key challenges in enabling Community Empowerment Networks to influence decisions about neighborhood renewal and improvement.

There are five key challenges for community influence

• The issue adequate representation should be addressed

• Be clear about the roles of members members'

• Redress the power imbalance

• Support the members

• Work with local democracy

• Community Empowerment Networks should be represented in proportions high enough to exert influence on Local Strategic Partnership boards and sub-groups.

Community Empowerment Network members on Local Strategic Partnerships should receive "job descriptions" to give them clarity about their roles.

Public sector members and secretariats should take steps to redress power imbalances in Local Strategic Partnerships. Practical points include rotating chairs so no organization dominates, meeting papers published well in advance and meetings held at times and places that enable community members to attend and feel at ease.

Community Empowerment Network staff should give members support including a secretariat, training, reimbursement of expenses and briefings before Local Strategic Partnership meetings.

Community Empowerment Networks enhance their impact where they work alongside existing community engagement initiatives driven by local authorities and public sector providers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There should be reliance on existing channels of communication so as to restrict the community from engaging to those which are already active. Innovative ways should be used to involve the diversity of the area.

Many community groups do not make a connection between their activity and the wider neighborhood.

Helping community groups see the wider impact of their work will strengthen their involvement with public service providers.

Single Community Programme grants attract inexperienced groups. Community Empowerment Network staff need to nurture their confidence by providing or pointing towards training in skills relevant to influencing neighborhood improvement

Community Empowerment Network staff should promote community leadership by providing policy and secretariat support. They should provide leadership only where Community Empowerment Networks are very inexperienced and then only as a temporary speed up measure or accelerator.

Community Empowerment Networks must reflect the population of their areas to have effective influence with public sector bodies. Community Empowerment Networks should take steps to ensure that communities of deprived neighborhoods are well-represented in matters of policy and decision making.

Community Empowerment Networks should make information on their processes readily available to attract the widest range of groups and help groups see their contribution neighborhood renewal

Residents and community groups, particularly in the more deprived communities, need more, higher quality capacity building support at neighborhood / community level to make the most of the personal, financial and physical resources that they have in their communities.

• Government departments and agencies need to establish more coherent, professional and explicit approaches strategies to community capacity building within their programmes, if the potential for community engagement and civil renewal is to be fully realized.

Finally all Partners in rural development must recognize that addressing inequality and social exclusion at all levels of society will provide clear economic, health and social benefits to individuals, private, public and voluntary and community sectors. We will build upon the experience of able organizations within the Region by fostering networks which already play a critical role in raising awareness, promoting compliance and good practice on equality and human rights. To give greater prominence to this issue we will support the Equalities and Diversity Partnership under the umbrella of the Assembly.

• Better Intelligence - Better Decision Making

Partners should show commitment to supporting and funding the development of better intelligence as the focal point for regional intelligence gathering, monitoring and analysis.

The development of regional structures has prompted the need for better regional intelligence to inform decision making and monitor progress against agreed strategies and plans. The West Midlands Regional Observatory has a key role to play.

It will work in collaboration with organizations which have their own monitoring systems in place, such as the Assembly and the WM Public Health Observatory, to assess the impact of the regional strategies. We must strive for an intelligence base which enables us to improve our decision making and ensures the Region is making its case on the basis of the best information and analysis we can achieve.

• Planning for a Diverse Region

As we keep planning for the future, the Partners should commit to embracing the increasing diversity of the West Midlands in the development, review and monitoring of strategies and delivery plans. The West Midlands is the second most culturally diversified region in the UK and this diversity represents both an opportunity and a challenge to this Region. The diversity and size of our black and minority ethnic communities is on the rise.

REFERENCES

www.gos.gov.uk/497745/docs/275849/634603/InTheKnow6 5/05/2008

Sheppard, E. 1995. GIS and society: Towards a Research Agenda, Cartography and

Geographic Information Systems, 22 (1), 5-16.

Harris, T. and Weiner, D., 1998. Empowerment, Marginalization, and “communityintegrated”

GIS, Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25 (2), 67-76.

Habitat II Global Conference, 1996. New Delhi Declaration: Global platform on access to

land and security of tenure as a condition for sustainable shelter and urban development,

South African Journal of Surveying and Mapping, 23 (5), 291-304.

DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS AND THEIR RELEVANCE

Capacity refers to the ability of a community to carry out its functions more effectively

(Glickman and Servon, 2003:240). Morss and Gow (1985:135) define capacity

as the ability to make informed decisions, attract and absorb resources and to

manage resources to achieve objectives in an efficient way.

Community -A number of conceptual problems are associated with the definition of

community. One reason for this is that communities are seldom, if ever,

homogeneous and unified (Emmett, 2000:3). Swanepoel (1992:11) defines a

community as a living entity, which like its people, continuously changes

physically and psychologically. A community means interaction, equality and

opportunity within the group and the possibility to grow in a collective

consciousness (Oakley et al., 1991:220).

• Brown (2000:173) states that community participation is the active process by

which beneficiary groups influence the direction and the execution of a project

rather than merely being consulted or receiving a share of the project benefits.

The beneficiary groups do this with a view of enhancing their well-being in terms

of income, personal growth, self-reliance or other values they cherish (UNDP,

2000; Theron, 2005b:115-116). Nghikembua (1996:2) states that community

participation is about “… empowering people to mobilise their own capacities, be

social actors …, manage the resources, make decisions and control activities

that affect their lives.” Theron (2005b:117) agrees that community participation

“… implies decentralisation of decision making” and “… entails self-mobilisation

and public control of the development process.”

• Oakley et al. (1991:196) defines conscientisation as “… a process of liberating

the creative initiatives of the people through a systematic process of

investigation, reflection and analysis undertaken by the people themselves.

People begin to understand the social reality through a process of self-inquiry

and analysis, and through such understanding, perceive self-possibilities for

changing that reality.''

• Meijer (1992:53) regards effectiveness as the ability of the community to

determine objectives and support administration.

• Oakley et al. (1991:17) and Meijer (1992:52) regard efficiency as a process in

which available resources could be used more efficiently.

• Kok and Gelderbloem (1994:58) regard empowerment as seeking to increase

the control of the underprivileged sectors of society over the resources and

decisions affecting their lives and their participation in the benefits produced by

the society in which they live.

• Namoya-Jacobs, Wellman, Joas and Hokans (1995:2) state that informal

settlements “… are generally referred to as ‘squatter' areas.” Their definition of

the term squatter refers to “… a resident who illegally enters and occupies land

belonging either to the local authority of a certain area, or to private landowners.”