Theories of Influence and Empowerment in Balsall Heath

In July 2010, Chamberlain Forum used the Structured Dialogue Method to learn about the experience of influence in the Neighbourhood of Balsall Heath in Birmingham.   A group of 10 people – including 6 residents and active citizens, local community and faith organisations, the local authority and the police – came together to gain insight into why people in Balsall Heath feel influential, through a process of listening to two main stories, reflecting upon them, and asking questions[1].  ( see here for more information about how Structured Dialogue works)

Balsall Heath is a priority neighbourhood, 1 of 25 (plus 6 clusters) in the city identified as being disadvantaged according to a number of different quality of life indicators, from education and qualifications, to health and employment.

However, when measured against NI4 (through the use of a neighbourhood level survey) the indicator used to measure peoples perception of influence, Balsall Heath outperformed not only all other priority neighbourhoods in the city, but was also significantly above the city average.  26.7% above the city average.

While such a statistic is not surprising to some people in Balsall Heath, there is a lack of understanding from others as to how and why people in Balsall Heath should feel so much more influential than in other areas.

The following (DRAFT) theory has been derived from the insights gained through facilitating the structured dialogue in Balsall Heath.  It groups together the insights generated through the dialogue into key themes, and connects them into a narrative.  Collectively, these themes explain how and why people feel influential and empowered in Balsall Heath.  They also contain within them insights into what gets in the way of influence and empowerment, and what keeps it going.

THE THEORY

‘Some people who get involved have faith, all have hope…..

People in Balsall Heath believe that change is possible.  People take pride in their community, and approach life with courage, commitment and enthusiasm.   More people than not, feel they are able to influence decisions.  Insights into why and how are ordered below under six thematic headings: Getting involved; authorities; networks and community leadership; communities; the hub, and what is shared

1. GETTING INVOLVED

‘the first step is getting people to a meeting…..

Families and schools don’t always do the job of letting people know that their views matter.  Community meetings help people see that it is OK to stand up and speak. Community meetings can be an education. ‘Getting involved’ means getting real skills people can use at work or to get a job or in their relationships.  Getting involved can also be a life-changing experience.

Meetings are important spaces to talk, share, deliberate and solve problems.  Even if a residents meeting achieves nothing else, if it changes the way people think, then it has succeeded.

The culture of meetings is important – they need rules and good chairing.  Lots of community meetings are spoiled by bad chairing and can be ‘hijacked’.

People have a responsibility to speak – if they want to be heard – but the voices of the timid are also important, we need to find ways of listening to them too.

2.  AUTHORITIES

‘Residents need to see that the ‘grumpy’ people sat at the front of the hall are actually on our side and really want to help….

Officers often look unhappy and unapproachable at ward meetings etc.  Is that because they have been forced to be there?  The system depends upon active people who understand how it works. We want officers that want to meet the community.  We want them (and their bosses) to understand that being at community meetings is a central part of doing their job.  Residents need to see that the ‘grumpy’ people sat at the front of the hall are actually on our side and really want to help.

It is important that residents see local officers ‘doing’ as well as talking.  We respond well to people who take responsibility and don’t ‘pass the buck’.  In fact, ‘People who do’ are often seen as ‘the Council’.

If something really can’t be done, then officers should be honest about it and explain why – maybe residents can help?  The way that things are said can be as important as what is said.  Authorities need to learn to speak a new language – Plain English.  Lose the Council-speak!

When we take action, we want the authorities to back us.  It’s great when residents take responsibility and show initiative, but it is even better if they can rely on the Council to support them and to get involved as well.  Residents don’t want to replace public services, they want to see what they do added to by them.

We need councillors to represent an area, not a political party (or ‘the Council’)

3.  NETWORKS AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP

‘door-to-door still works best overall……

‘neighbourliness keeps the feeling of empowerment alive..

We can influence each other.  So, talking to neighbours matters: residents listen to what other residents say.  Being physically close makes communication stronger.  Face to face interactions are the most important.  We need it so that people feel they have a responsibility (as well as a right) to speak.

Bear in mind, however, people can also be turned off by other residents saying there is no point and nothing can ever get better etc.  That is why residents need to hear about other people’s successes.  If some are successful, then others can follow.  Networking is essential: it enables people to get feedback between meetings on what’s improved; and it spreads the word to get involved.

Despite the rise of internet and mobile phone communications, door-to-door still works best overall.  And ‘role models’ – active people who we can associate with – play an important role.  When you see people not accepting things, you know you’re not alone.  Role models who we see as being from a similar background to us have more influence with us.   There have always been strong women in every community, and they play an important role in inspiring others.  Inspiring people depends on being clear – having a vision for the area.

Practical demonstrations of care – for other people and for the neighbourhood – make a huge impact.  When people practice what they preach and speak with respect for others, then that strengthens trust and communication.  Dialogue is very strong, widespread and confidently undertaken in Balsall Heath.

4.  COMMUNITIES

‘you need a community with you…

Residents often don’t feel confident they can influence local decision-making on their own: ‘You need a community with you’.  In the neighbourhood, there are lots of communities.  Different communities can, and do, work together in neighbourhoods.  Muslims and Christians, for example, have been working together in Balsall Heath.  Unity within the community – communities working together for a better outcome – is something that really helps people feel they can influence what goes on.

But… there are other communities we don’t often talk to.  Sometimes we worry we are only talking to ‘the converted’… are we talking to the fly-tippers?  To the late night noise makers?  To the people acting antisocially?  Turning around antisocial behaviour for good often depends on the power of personal action – that is, residents showing people that we not only have standards but that we take practical action to uphold them.  Seeing your neighbours picking up the litter has a bigger effect than seeing the Council do the same thing.   If young people see that values matter and that we put a serious value on the neighbourhood, they are more likely, in time, to get involved and – in turn – to feel that they can influence local decisions.

5.  THE HUB

‘trust has been built up over years…

People have short memories. They need reminding of the progress that’s been made and that is has come about because ordinary people ‘did their bit’.  Trust is a really important asset – it takes years to build up, but without it progress can’t be sustained.

It is important to have a Hub: a place where people can go to find out what’s happening, how they can get help or get involved and a place that reminds people of the story of what’s happened in the area.  In Balsall Heath, the hub is the local neighbourhood forum.  But each neighbourhood is different… each will have its own potential hub.  In some neighbourhoods it might be a church or faith group – that’s OK as long as they want to work alongside residents as a whole.

Ownership is important.  Taking ownership of local land or a building can give people a sense of influence.  The things that everyone owns (in theory) can be hard to share: neighbourhood spaces need to be owned in practice (watched over) by the residents.

6.  WHAT IS SHARED

‘There is something special about sharing food with other people…

Lots has been done in Balsall Heath – but there is lots still to do.  It really is a never-ending journey: a continual battle between good and evil.  A lot of the time, it just takes plugging away at things: involvement can be quite mundane.  But progress keeps people going and gives them the feeling that they at least have influence.  Faith and hope work.

Small things are often very important.  No matter how small the problem, residents need to be encouraged to voice it.  Once they have, the authorities need to take it seriously.  Even unsuccessful attempts to make things better matter: trying to change and improve is still valuable and increases people’s sense of influence.

The environment affects the idea of ‘belonging’ in a neighbourhood.

What happens inside people is even more important than what happens to the environment.  So, that when an area is cleared up it feels good inside people and that feeling is even more important than the area being clean and safe

The next structured dialogue will be learning about communitycohesion in Soho.  If you would like to get involved, please get in touch

Who is the Odd One Out?  Is it….

a) Prince William?

b) Bank of England Governor, Mervyn King?

c) Brummie comedian, Jasper Carrott?

d) Prime Minister, David Cameron?

Answers on the back of a £20 note in a sealed envelope delivered to the Chamberlain Forum office in Digbeth, Birmingham.  (Or see below:)

The answer is c) Jasper Carrott.  The other three are all Villa fans, he supports Birmingham City.

Chamberlain Forum’s report on neighbourhood coproduction in Birmingham – Looking Sideways – is now available online.  The report was launched alongside the Demos publication Civic Streets at a packed meeting in Balsall Heath, Birmingham last week.  Pictured above are Debbie Pippard of Barrow Cadbury Trust (which jointly organised the event with Chamberlain Forum); Max Wind-Cowie of Demos and Paul Slatter of Chamberlain Forum at the launch.

Looking Sideways

Looking Sideways is a study of the way neighbourhoods and neighbourhood services are coproduced in Birmingham.  The research was commissioned by Birmingham City Council as part of the city’s Community Asset Transfer Development Programme supported by Advantage West Midlands.   The central idea is that community assets (tangible assets like buildings and less tangible assets like community networks and ’social capital’) are key factors in how well public services can be delivered.

The whole way we think of public services and the part they play in making neighbourhoods may need to change.  The challenge, identified in Looking Sideways, is to look beyond the management of individual public services and instead at how they work together, and with communities, to create more, or less, good places to live.   As the local State shrinks, the only way it can gain influence is by working better with communities.  Government calls this idea ‘Big Society’.  It requires better use of local assets and the local State to work with the grain of community interest.  This is coproduction.  It is the new Municipalism.

Central to this new municipalism in practice is the way the physical and intangible assets of a city or neighbourhood can be brought together productively.  Birmingham’s Community Asset Transfer Development Programme offers valuable lessons from experience.  It has shown that: the utility of physical assets – land and buildings – can be increased by transferring their ownership and management to civil society groups; and that less tangible community assets – including community networks and organisations – play a key part in  enabling the improved use of public assets.  Community asset transfer plays a part in enabling and supporting coproduction.

Coproduction, however, does not mean simply handing over public assets and expecting public services to be staffed by volunteers.  The idea that for every pound of public effort, a hundredweight of voluntary muscle might be added may sound appealing.  It is misleading. Society’ is not so mechanically operable.  ‘Behaviour change’ is hard.  Paradoxically, the instruments the State has easily to hand tend also to be the least effective.

Key Findings

This report is on research into the theory, practice and measurement of coproduction in neighbourhoods and neighbourhood services in Birmingham.  Key findings are:

1. Coproduction does deliver ‘more for less’.  That is: more in terms of the value of outcomes – not more narrow public service outputs; and less waste resulting from  delivering services badly.  The ability of public services and communities to coproduce depends on variables in both: it is a ‘coefficiency’.   For agencies, the key to greater coefficiency is more realistic communication; for communities, developing inclusive community networks – with effective neighbourhood hub organisations at their heart – are the priority.
2. Neighbourhoods are coproduced by communities, private and public services; coproduction is an element in the way public services are already delivered.  Appreciation of coproduction, however, varies between public services and within public service organisations (eg ‘front line’ managers may have a better understanding of it than ‘strategic’ management buried within departmental structures).  Rather than seeking a ‘revolutionary coproduction approach’ to work, public services should look at, and develop, their existing coefficiency based on working out where and how they work well and where they do not.
3. Effective and well-networked neighbourhood community hub organisations play an important part in enabling community coproduction.  Neighbourhood management promises likewise to improve the coefficiency of public services.  The common factor is the management of services by place rather than by ‘theme’ or function.  Institutional approaches to coproduction (ie based within a given service or organisation) are less likely to yield potential coefficiency savings.
4. The need for culture change in public services runs through this report like words in seaside rock candy. This is not a report on how to bring about cultural change, but there is a key insight: cultures are the result of organisational values; values depend on measurement.  That is: what organisations measure and how they measure it, is what shapes their culture.  Which is why this report identifies the measurement of coefficiency and coproduced outcomes as a key issue.  The Valuing Worth methodology – developed in Birmingham as part of Community Asset Transfer – is capable of development as a tool in measuring coproduced outcomes.
5. The value of neighbourhoods changes over time and can be gauged by increases in local house prices.  Those neighbourhoods which score highly in terms of community empowerment are also those neighbourhoods in which the increase in house prices is steepest.  The Neighbourhood Equity Model put forward in this report suggests that there is a causal link: that neighbourhood coproduction adds value to neighbourhoods.  On this basis, there is a potential virtuous cycle of regeneration in neighbourhoods based on recycling some of the value added through neighbourhood coproduction to fund investment in community (and neighbourhood public service) coefficiency.

Coproduction in Theory

Looking Sideways defines coproduction, in the context of neighbourhoods and neighbourhood services as:  The process of joining the total resources of public services and communities co-efficiently to add sustainable value to the neighbourhood. Key ideas in the theory of coproduction are presented in Section 1 of the report.  They are:

• the core economy – the communities, families, societies, networks and norms which make up the ‘social operating system’ on which public services and private enterprise depend;
• public services are ‘hybrid’ products – depending on both surface and core economies: the outcomes of neighbourhood services routinely depend on factors outside the control of public service managers;
• production webs as opposed to production lines – one neighbourhood service may have many by-products – which is why transplanting business process re-engineering from the private sector to public services, for example, can be particularly difficult;
• community assets are widely distributed – outcomes depend on resources, physical and social assets, that are spread throughout neighbourhood communities – it isn’t enough, for example, just to listen to ‘community leaders’;
• neighbourhoods are shared by overlapping communities – the ‘neighbourhood community’ is a key idea, but it is really made up of hundreds of communities.  Overlap between communities reflects strong social capital (‘underlap’ – gaps in the social fabric – may reflect ‘social exclusion’ and lack of ‘community cohesion’ in neighbourhoods);
• community networks build social capital – that fuels the core economy of neighbourhoods.  Public agencies have a direct interest in helping networks develop between community groups: community networks make work easier;
• coefficiency – which this report uses as a shorter way of saying ‘coefficiency of coproduction’.  That is: the shared ability of organisations and communities to work together effectively.  Coefficient solutions work ‘with the grain’ of organisational and community cultures;
• public services as change agents – that is: catalysts for communities to add value for themselves – as well as service deliverers and commissioners;
• neighbourhood equity – the combined residual value of a neighbourhood.

Corproduction in Practice

The second section of the report is on coproduction in practice in neighbourhoods and neighbourhood services in Birmingham – assessed through a set of seminars, case studies and other research.  Looking at coproduction at neighbourhood level is like looking sideways at the product of public services including health, education and social security.  How they come together at local level and with neighbourhood services like housing and constituency/local services determines their success.

The potential for coproduction rests to a very significant extent at neighbourhood level. The initiative behind increased coproduction can come from public services (‘top-down’); from communities (‘bottom-up’); or from both in tandem.  Community networks play an important part in enabling community coefficiency.  Front-line managers and staff play a similar pivotal role in the coefficiency of public services.  ‘Community hubs’ (organisations that enable community networks to work effectively in neighbourhoods’) have a significant role in enabling coproduction between public agencies and communities.  Community Asset Transfer can play a key part in developing community hubs and in sustaining neighbourhood coproduction.

The range of factors determining organisational coefficiency includes: seeing coproduction as a process, not a one-off project; valuing organisational intelligence; a community assets based approach; inspirational leadership; the capacity for honest, high quality and real time communication; ‘putting the frontline centre stage’; the ability to engage in conversation rather than consultation; flexibility over boundaries; stressing value added; and a rational approach to risk management.

Organisational barriers to coefficiency savings include entrenched ‘professionalism’ and bureaucratic and ineffective practices and management; the succession of short-term regeneration and community initiatives; too much focus on standardised one size fits all approaches; lack of trust, poor creativity, excessive risk-averseness and restricted scope for experimentation and innovation; short-termism; insistence on rigid models of accountability; and indifference to users and their views.

Effective investment in community coefficiency is often achieved outside the auspices and systems of public programmes designed to achieve it.  Successful strategies depend on clear thinking about incentives; valuing and listening to frontline managers and staff; being clear about the capacity and impact of behaviour change initiatives; investing in community networks; opening up new channels and spaces for communication, including social media; making data available; community asset transfer; and replacing the old mantra of ‘he who shouts loudest, gets most’ with ‘who contributes most, gets heard clearest’.

The second part of section 2 considers links between coproduction/coefficiency and other initiatives and areas of policy:

• Community Asset Transfer is a means of building the sustainability of community hub organisations that play a key part in enabling coproduction of neighbourhoods.  Lessons learnt in the valuation of assets for transfer can be applied in the valuation of coproduced services.
• Total Place is an initiative that seeks to take a ‘whole area’ approach to public services.  Like neighbourhood management, it is a coproductive approach which stresses outcomes, not outputs.  Whereas Total Place focuses on coproduction between public service organisations and at district level, neighbourhood management focuses on service providers working with communities including by making it easier for communities to relate with ‘joined up’ neighbourhood public services.
• Community Development may have the effect of improving community coefficiency, but it is not, necessarily, a coproduced service.  
• Strategic commissioning is a coproductive approach. It aims to work collaboratively to engage people and communities in the design and delivery of services.  Contracting out public services is, however, not necessarily a coproductive approach. 

• Personalisation is not necessarily a coproductive approach although, in practice, it is likely to involve people in designing services.
  • Community Networks are an essential part of increasing coefficiency and strengthening social capital.
  • Local Democracy – elected councillors have a pivotal role to play in representing community interests; drawing attention to under-used community assets; and advocating the neighbourhood perspective.  Healthy, participative local democracy is  an important part of community coefficiency.

Measurement and Valuation – the Key Issue

The final section of this report looks at approaches and issues in the valuation of coproduction.  Valuation may be a more significant barrier to neighbourhood coproduction than organisational factors (‘siloism’ etc) or issues to do with variations in service standards (‘postcode lotteries’).  The fact that coproduced solutions tend to lead to preventive outcomes – things that don’t happen, because something else does – adds to the central problem of valuation: it is harder to justify spending on prevention than it is on ‘cures’.

There is no standard and agreed way of valuing coproduction.  In practice, the value of coproduction tends to be ignored because public services have a ‘deficit approach’ to communities: seeing them in terms of needs rather than in terms of assets.  The Valuing Worth tool developed as part of Birmingham’s Community Asset Transfer development programme is could be developed to provide a project-by-project appraisal of coproduction investment proposals in neighbourhoods.

More generally, this report describes a Neighbourhood Equity Model which treats neighbourhoods as if they were enterprises with the aim of increasing stakeholder value.  Research into property prices in Birmingham neighbourhoods coupled with National Indicator scores collected on a neighbourhood basis, suggests an apparent correlation between areas with strong social capital and premium increases in property values.  Experience in two areas with community-led neighbourhood management (both recognised as Guide Neighbourhoods) suggests investment in coefficiency leads to increased neighbourhood equity:

• Balsall Heath has seen the steepest increases in inner city Birmingham housing prices over the last 10 years resulting in a £360m ‘premium’ increase in the value of the neighbourhood over and above similar areas ;
• Castle Vale has seen the steepest increases in outer city Birmingham housing prices over the past 10 years resulting in a £93.6m ‘premium’ increase in neighbourhood value.

The relationship between effective management and ownership of  community assets and premium increases in property value (summed up as ‘neighbourhood equity’) opens up the possibility of self-sustaining regeneration of neighbourhoods based not on large and ongoing streams of public finance, but on community assets.  The neighbourhood equity approach suggests a re-defined role for public services working through neighbourhood community hubs to add ’shareholder value’ to the neighbourhood ‘brand’.

Read the Chamberlain Forum report Looking Sideways (pdf)

Read the Demos Report  Civic Streets (pdf)

Some see it as a classroom or a refuge, but to others it’s the gym or a hospital… or their church.  People tell Birmingham park-keeper Fred Tematema that their parks and open spaces serve a multitude of purposes.  Fred was one of the participants in the Chamberlain Forum conversation on the Culture of Parks and Open Spaces yesterday evening at Cannon Hill Park in Birmingham.  At which Dr Alison Millward presented a powerful case for re-evaluating the role parks and open spaces play in urban life.

Parks alone are, by far, the most intensively and widely used of civic facilities: 33 million people in the UK make over 2.5 billion visits to parks every year; 70% visit frequently and most get there on foot; and we use whatever open space is closest – mostly within 300m of our door.  Even the most average district park may receive a quarter of a million visits a year – the best over a million, and some get more than 4 million visits a year.  Yet there is no statutory requirement and provision is often worse in deprived neighbourhoods.  By and large, our parks are clean and free of litter, but fear of crime and anti-social behaviour, poor levels of maintenance and lack of facilities makes some open spaces poorly used.

There is diversity in what we mean by open space.  In brief, it includes parks and gardens; playing fields and pitches; skate parks; recreation grounds; MUGAs and allotments; green spaces in housing areas; churchyards and cemeteries; pocket parks and community orchards; nature reserves, woodlands, canals and river walkways; and, most extensively, little bits and patches of land left over in and around the places we live.  It is not just open, but profoundly democratic: used by people of all backgrounds and ages and, therefore, common ground in a society that increasingly seems segregated.  Parks and open spaces are meeting points for cultures in a city that is multi-cultural.

Their use and role make parks and open spaces places where ‘Big Society’ is put to the test.  A huge number of groups and citizens are involved in caring for them.  Use and management tend to merge so that open spaces reflect the ‘Us’ that live around them.  In turn, they may help to shape the ‘We’ that share them.  Simon Baddeley of Handsworth Park Association reflected on what Handsworth Park used to say with what it says now about the Handsworth neighbourhood.  Badly managed and ill-used parks and open spaces communicate what’s bad about an area as eloquently as well-used spaces reflect what’s good.  Parks and open spaces cannot be ‘designed’ without reference to the cultures of the people that use them.

For professionals, landscape is not enough; they must consider the role of parks and open spaces in ‘placemaking’.  For the same reasons, Emma Woolf of Birmingham Open Spaces Forum suggested, communities and public services should stop seeing parks as liabilities – as places with grass that needs mowing – and start understanding they are assets that make life better in a thousand ways.  To use the bureaucratic jargon, they are ‘resources’ that help ‘deliver public service outcomes’: in health and education, community safety and cohesion, and in overall neighbourhood satisfaction.

Open spaces will play an increasing role in mitigating the effects of global warming – reducing urban temperatures and providing a natural buffer to floodwaters.  As more land disappears under tarmac, good quality urban green space both enables and promotes more sustainable transport – particularly where it links with cycle paths and safe routes for walking.   Green open space generates health and wealth: perhaps no single factor increases the value of domestic property as directly as well managed park across the road.

Despite the breadth of well-being supported by green space, if you gave people a choice about where to spend public money they’d probably put parks and open spaces low down the list.  These important, overlooked and undervalued community assets seem fundamental to the culture of cities.  They urgently need champions: people able to put across, with both passion and business sense, the logic of looking after them.

Links

Asset Transfer Unit – supported by Development Trusts Association, Community Matters and Local Government Association, advises on the transfer of assets to community ownership

Birmingham Open Spaces Forum - network of 150 user and friends of groups relating to parks and open spaces in Birmingham.

Birmingham Parks Strategies – Birmingham City Council site giving access to strategies on parks and open spaces in the city.

CABE Space works with national, regional and local bodies to deliver well-designed and managed public spaces across England.

Discover Yourself Outside (pdf) – looking at new landscapes for civil spaces in the context of global warming published by the Urban Forum of the UK Man and Biosphere committee

GEML – the local food and fitness programme based in Ladywood in inner city Birmingham.

Landlife – Liverpool based environmental charity behind schemes like The Great Outdoors in Knowsley and the Get Growing local food programme.

Living Landscape – Wildlife Trust led conservation plan.

Open Space Research Centre – based in Edinburgh

National Forest – transforming 200 square miles in the Midlands through planting and looking after trees to create a new National Forest – see also the Conkers visitor centre.

Ryton Gardens – national centre for organic gardening expertise based near Coventry.

The Value of Public Space (pdf) – CABE publication summing up research on valuation of open space.

Urban residential environments and senior citizens’ longevity in megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces – article in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health on research into links between green space and life expectancy in urban areas.

The Old Victoria Jubilee Allotments – beautiful video of photos of the site by photographer Luke Unsworth

10.30-12.30pm and repeated at 1.30-4.30pm

It has been said that the shortest path between a human being and the truth…Is a story. Why is it that with all the money spent on collecting and displaying data relating to the success of public services, the everyday stories people tell of how public services work receive relatively little attention?

Chamberlain Forum has developed a technique for listening critically to stories; using storytelling in policy evaluation and development.  It is called the ‘Structured Dialogue Method’ (SDM).

Come along to one of the workshops to find out about:

• Why stories are important
• How SDM works
• How it can be used to listen critically
• SDM in practice in Birmingham

To see how the method works in practice, take a look at how it has been used in Birmingham to learn about Asset Transfer

Learning from Stories about Community Assets from Chamberlain Forum on Vimeo.

To book a place, complete the booking form below, email us via info@chamberlainforum.org, or call 07795 448 462

cforms contact form by delicious:days

EVENT POSTPONED – APOLOGIES.  NEW DATE COMING SOON…….

Wednesday 21st July 6.30-8.30  @ The Edge, 79-81 Cheapside, Digbeth

A Chamberlain Forum discussion led by Professor David Bailey, looking into how manufacturing has shaped life in the city. What has manufacturing made of Birmingham? What happens when we lose it? Do we want it back?

David Bailey is a leading academic economist, with particular expertise in industrial and regional policy and globalisation. Join him and a panel including Karen Leach of Localise West Midlands and Monika Vykoukal, a Curatorial Research Associate of the University of Wolverhampton.

The discussion is part of a series organised by Chamberlain Forum. It aims to get people talking about city cultures and thinking about what ‘Big Society’ looks like in Birmingham.  Results and conclusions from the discussion series will be published in 2011.

To book a place, complete an online form below, email info@chamberlainforum.org or call 07795 448 462

cforms contact form by delicious:days

Chamberlain Forum discussion led by Dr Alison Millward looking into what parks and open spaces mean for life in the city.  How do we use open spaces?   Do they change the way we behave?  Who should manage and look after them?  Are they an extravagance or a necessity?

Alison Milward is a leading environmental consultant and an expert in the design and management of green space.  Join her and a panel including Fredy Temalema of Birmingham Open Spaces Forum and Simon Baddeley of Handsworth Allotments Information Group to discuss what parks, allotments, playgrounds and shared open spaces mean to the city.

The discussion is part of a series organised by Chamberlain Forum.  It aims to get people talking about city cultures and thinking about what ‘Big Society’ looks like in Birmingham.  Results and conclusions from the discussion series will be published in 2011.

The Cultures of Birmingham series continues on 21^st July with a discussion on the Culture of Manufacturing.

To book a place, call 07795 448 462 email info@chamberlainforum.org, or use the booking form below

cforms contact form by delicious:days

First is the most ambitious and high-profile of the related policies – the Conservative Party’s Big Society idea.  Earlier today, Michael Gove went on the record as saying that it was intended to reflect the messages that Dick Atkinson of Balsall Heath Forum and others have been pitching: the ‘Welfare Society, not the ‘Welfare State’.  Indeed, David Cameron and his shadow cabinet colleagues have been frequent visitors to the Balsall Heath neighbourhood: Red Tory thinker Phillip Blond gave the Chamberlain Forum lecture there last November on the subject of ‘Welfare State – What Next?’, and Shadow Communities Secretary Caroline Spelman spoke on Community Self-Help in Birmingham in July.

This indicates that there is at least part of the Conservative Party that really gets the link between their politics and mutualism. However, the manifesto ultimately fails to set out a convincing picture of how and why the Big Society initiative will work.  In particular, it fails to recognise why successful community groups and networks come to be so; why people give up their spare time to join neighbourhood groups.  It isn’t because they have been told that they ought to, but because there are (generally non-cashable) rewards for doing so. The Conservatives should have emphasised self-help and fulfilment, but this has been lost to the imperative, an emphasis on compulsion and duty.

The Conservatives are also promising to use budgets to fund training for community organisers to help people set up and run neighbourhood groups.  Who, in practice, are these independent community organisers? What makes them more of an expert on community groups than any other community activist? How would you even measure that, given the wide variety of things community groups do? This sort of ‘doing-to’ approach reads like an attempt to manage community activism, rather than respond, and learn, from it. Other blogs have raised the issue of where the money for these community organisers will come from – Cameron has indicated that it will come from the Futurebuilders programme, but that is not large enough to sustain a meaningful network of such organisers, so what would have to be given up for this scheme to work will remain to be seen.

Community groups don’t necessarily need more middle(wo)men.  What they do need is public servants that are smart and appropriately trained, allowing them (at least) to understand that working with them is the only way of making a success of public services in the future.  Cameron’s plans for the Big Society are a refreshing (or seem to be), and will help to push forward and reshape the discussion on co-production and community groups, but ultimately aren’t sufficiently robust enough to survive the twin pressures of budget cuts and the hostility of the old ‘Nasty Party’ dinosaurs who still thrive in parts of local and national government.

More specifically pertaining to the area of community asset transfer, all three parties seem to be pushing for the transfer of buildings and land to the ownership or control of voluntary and community groups. This already occurs in many areas, but is the sort of scheme which is empowering in principle, but does need to be kept a close eye on so that it is not abused – community groups need to know what they are taking on, and how the asset will work for them. The Conservatives have (once again) garnered the most media attention for their policy on communities and schools, believing that “appropriate providers, such as educational charities and parent groups,” should be able to set up schools – a policy which has attracted a great deal of discussion and censure. In the case of the Lib Dems, those schools would be accountable to local authorities, but it is less clear where accountability would lie in the case of the Conservatives.

Labour, for their part, promise to continue to promote Community Land Trusts, and to turn British Waterways into a mutually owned co-operative. There is also an emphasis on community-owned energy, an area which Labour has previous form in (e.g. The Low Carbon Communities Challenge), and which the Liberal Democrats also pledge their support for in their manifesto. Labour adds that they will also be supporting community shares that support investment into football clubs, pubs and shops, if elected. Indeed, in the area of mutualism, Labour seems to have (finally) re-embraced its sister party, The Co-operative Party, and promises mutualist solutions throughout its manifesto. “We want to see more local organisations run on co-operative principles with an expansion of Community Interest Companies and third sector mutual organisations that reinvest profits for the public good,” asserts the manifesto, explaining that this will be delivered via the Co-operative Party, Business Link, enterprise education and the Regional Development Agencies. The Liberal Democrats are similarly enthused, promising to turn Northern Rock into a building society, to transfer Post Office Ltd. into public ownership, as well as to establish a new “Mutuals, Co-operatives and Social Enterprises Bill to bring the law up to date and give responsibility for mutuals to a specific minister.”

In conclusion then, while the rhetoric and many of the ideas from all three parties are welcome in principle, the proposed solutions still have a rather managerial (rather than a mutualist or grassroots) slant, and this is likely to limit the potential of any co-production.

In the area of local government governance, there is as much cross-over as there is divergence from the three main parties. It’s a slightly muddled picture, but what is clear is that a combination of deep cuts and the potential reforms outlined by the manifestos will create a very different environment for local government service provision. Funding will be slashed, and what there is will need to be accessed in a very different manner. This is something that Chamberlain Forum is keeping a close eye on, given our close links with public service providers in the public and voluntary sectors.

Some goals seem to transcend party lines. For instance, both Labour and the Conservatives have shown inclination to help more cities to directly elect their mayors – the former promising to extend the power to the major city-regions, the latter to England’s 12 largest cities. The Liberal Democrats are slightly less clear-cut on the matter, promising rather “fair votes for local elections in England.” This could potentially encompass the creation of more elected mayors, and in the event of a coalition government, this policy is likely to prevail. Nonetheless, it is a mostly popular measure, widely viewed as a way of strengthening local leadership and civic engagement, both of which are no bad thing.

In addition, all of the parties are interested in making local government more open, transparent and intuitive for the people it serves. Notably so with regards to data – for their part, Labour promise to make all non-personal datasets held by government and government agencies public, and to explore options to give citizens direct access to the data that public agencies hold on them – thereby empowering them in their dealings with service providers. The other two parties instead focus on scaling back the amount of data that is held on people, but do not make any proposals associated with access to personal data. All three parties are committed to improving access to data pertaining to government and public services, and to using technology to ensure that voters are more able to be a part of the democratic process.

Moving on to more radical changes, Labour puts particular emphasis on Total Place in their manifesto, promising that it will be “giving local areas additional freedom to achieve better services and more savings, cutting bureaucracy and management costs, while placing a greater emphasis on early intervention,” and that there will be a reduction in ring-fenced budgets, central targets and indicators. Neither of the other manifestos mentions Total Place by name, but the indication is that they are broadly in favour of the concept. The Conservatives promise to end ring-fencing so that money can be spent more freely on local priorities, and say that they will end “the bureaucratic inspection regime that stops councils focusing on residents’ main concerns”, and the Liberal Democrats agree.

The Liberal Democrats, for their part, pledge to get rid of Council Tax, replacing it instead with a local income tax. The reasoning here is that this is a fairer way of funding local services, and local authorities under a Lib Dem government could volunteer to pilot the initiative. They also vow to “[r]eturn business rates to councils and base them on site values, as a first step towards the radical decentralisation of taxation and spending powers to local people.” In the event of a Lib Dem victory, or indeed if it becomes one of the bargaining chips in the event of a coalition, it would be very interesting to see how this played out, and whether it would ultimately give local authorities more flexibility with regards to fundraising, or simply drive higher-income individuals out of the pilot areas elsewhere.

But perhaps the most interesting development in this area is the Tory plans to introduce a ‘Powers of General Competence Act’, which will allow a local authority to “to do anything which it considers likely (whether directly or indirectly to a) the whole or any part of its area; or b) all or any persons resident in the area.” Fairly straightforward (and indeed positive) on the surface of things, but what is quite curious is that it has been given the same constitutional weight as the Human Rights Act. There is a thorough analysis on the matter here, but the gist of it is that local authorities will “be allowed NOT to do things which are currently required of it under different sets of existing legislation, as long as it considers it to be beneficial to its population.” And ultimately, if there is an abuse of that power, the constitutional weight of the legislation will mean that parliament will have no authority to stop it. Devolution of those powers is a positive move, but emphatically not without oversight and accountability, and this will not necessarily work well for users and providers of public services.

This is not the only approach to empowering and modernising local government, and the other parties have form in this area. Labour established the so-called ‘Well-Being Power’ in 200o, which allows local authorities a discretionary power to “undertake any action to promote or improve the social, economic and environmental well being of their area.” Similar to the above, but importantly, central government still has accountability, while allowing local government to, capacity allowing, be more reflexive to local needs than otherwise. There are still potential problems and pitfalls – not all councils will act with the needs of the communities they serve in mind, which could ultimately see the local authority losing legitimacy with local stakeholders and central government.

Closely related to this is the Sustainable Communities Act, which received ascent in 2007, and allows local people to ask central government to take direct action regarding the improvement of the sustainability of their community. In their manifestos, both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats promise to bring into law the amendment to this Act, which adds measures such as a rolling programme for proposals, the involvement of parish and town councils, the involvement of citizens, and the clarification of local spending reports – but this may have been an error of timing, as the Bill passed into law during the ‘wash-up’ phase at the end of the last Parliament, on April 8^th.  The Well Being Power in conjunction with the updated Act should be an effective way for local government to act in the interests of its citizens – which begs the question, what does the Powers of General Competence Act add?

About 70 Birmingham Residents joined Resident University over the two days it spent at St George’s Community Hub in inner city Newtown.  They included young people taking part in  the Young Resident University who learned about using social media and film-making in carrying out research with the University.

Resident University is a peer and shared learning program run by Chamberlain Forum which aims to help residents gear up to be more involved in local decisions; to make the most of their skills (and learn new ones); and to build wider networks across and between neighbourhoods in the city.  It is funded by the city’s strategic partnership BeBirmingham; the Big Lottery Fund; and donations from local business.

Sessions during the two days 26th and 27th March included: Co-Production; Total Neighbourhoods; Community Watch; Ideas Bank; Influencing Skills; Using the Planning System; Learning from Stories; Time Banking; Social Media; and D-I-Y Funding.  Session leaders included Linda Hines of Witton Lodge Community Association; Eddie Currall of East Yardley Neighbourhood Forum; Richard Hammersley of West Midlands Planning Aid; Jon Bounds and Stuart Parker of We Share Stuff; Birmingham City Council neighbourhood managers – Christy Acton and Alex Powell; and Hannah Worth and Paul Slatter of Chamberlain Forum.

Reports on the sessions and a Resident University prospectus for the year ahead will be available from the Resident University website by mid-April.