Barriers to community involvement: the example of housing services

NISMP Seminar: Building Diverse and Sustainable Communities

Dr Jenny Muir

16th October 2014

j.muir@qub.ac.uk

Contents Definitions of involvement

Who is ‘involved’ - and who is not?

What is participation for in housing services?

Participation and power: levels of involvement

What prevents effective involvement?

Lessons from community involvement in housing

services

Definitions of involvement (1)This definition relates to social housing:

‘Resident involvement in social housing is about how tenants or

others living nearby can influence a social landlord’s activity. The

remit of such influence may range from contributing to landlord

decisions on local service delivery, at one end of the spectrum, to

bearing on an organisation’s strategic policy, at the other.

Irrespective of whether it incorporates governing body membership,

resident involvement is an aspect of housing and urban governance’

(Pawson et al, 2011: 3, emphasis added)

Definitions of involvement (2)This older definition of tenant participation in social housing is also

useful:

‘Tenant participation is about tenants taking part in decision making

and influencing decisions about housing policies, housing

conditions, and housing (and related) services. It is a two way

process which involves the sharing of information, ideas and power.

Its aim is to improve the standard of housing conditions and service’

Scottish Office (1999) Partners in Participation, emphasis added

Who is ‘involved’ - and who is not? (1) Organised resident involvement is most common between social

housing landlords and their tenants:

In NI, the Housing Executive’s Housing Community Network provides a comprehensive participation structure

The 26 housing associations run their own systems e.g. involvement forums; many have tenants on their Board of management

Tenant organisation in the private rented sector is generally weak:

In NI, the Housing Rights Service runs a Private Tenants’ Forum to campaign for better conditions

Tenants of individual landlords may also seek help from their local council’s Environmental Health Department (councils will also deal with registration of Houses in Multiple Occupation from April 2015, currently done by the Housing Executive)

Who is ‘involved’ - and who is not? (2) Homeless people are often excluded from giving their views:

Council for the Homeless NI have just started a Service User Network

Great potential for people who have been rehoused through the ‘homeless’ route to share their experiences once settled

Vulnerable people receiving housing support services to help them live independently (e.g. through the Supporting People programme) are often excluded from input into decisions about these services

s.75 groups and other ‘easy to ignore’ groups can be excluded from any of the above e.g.

Living in rural areas, poor literacy skills, experiencing poverty, migrants

Owner occupiers may form residents’ associations but they have a different social role e.g. planning, local environment, crime

What is participation for in housing services? Service improvements e.g. repairs, environment:

In social housing, ‘voice’ is important due to lack of ‘choice’ – it’s hard to move. Research has shown that social housing tenants are most interested in involvement around service improvements

Service issues for other groups include: conditions in the private rented sector, suitability of homeless services and support services for vulnerable people, suitability of all services for all groups

Contributions to policy and strategy:

Statutory requirement to consult on rent increases. Some areas off limits e.g. location of new housing, allocations policy

Housing Executive’s Housing Community Network: good practice

Capacity building and community development

e.g. Supporting Communities NI for the Housing Community Network

Participation and power: levels of involvement Information: Telling people what is planned; sharing knowledge

Consultation: Identifying problems; checking preferences against a number of options; listening to feedback

Deciding together: Encouragement to create additional ideas or options; deciding jointly on the best way forward

Acting together: Form a partnership to carry out the joint decision

Supporting: Support independent community initiatives through funding, advice and other resources. Can include community ownership or management e.g. a social economy business (Wilcox, 1994; derived from Arnstein, 1969). As the levels progress:

The number of people involved tends to decrease

The amount of power devolved or shared increases

What prevents effective involvement?

By the service provider: Inappropriate issue identification and

agenda management Inappropriate method of consultation/

involvement for the issue of concern Preconceptions about responses,

interests and/ or capacity Allowing insufficient time Manipulation of ‘representatives’ Making the decision in advance

By the service user: Failing to consult/ becoming detached

from constituency Failing to ask questions

Lessons from community involvement in housing services (1) Recognise power relationships within the group. These can be

based on, for example: knowledge and skills; professional networks; political networks (can include tenants/ service users)

Be clear about what is on offer: consultation on a policy document? Setting up a social economy business?

What level of ‘involvement’ do you really want? What will you do if this is challenged?

Accept you have to work hard to get people involved

Ensure issues are relevant; open agenda management

Re-frame ‘hard to reach’ groups including migrants as ‘easy to ignore’ (see Oliver et al., 2009, in references) How much does their exclusion say about your organisation rather than about them?

Lessons from community involvement in housing services (2) Allow plenty of time – for everything

Try different types of involvement techniques e.g. citizens’ juries, tenant-led surveys, planning for real ‘fun’ days plus simpler approaches such as meetings at different times (weekends??!)

Provide relevant practical support e.g. travel costs, caring costs, interpretation/ translation, written material in plain language

Provide ‘capacity building’ training for all participants not just ‘community’; employ a community advocate on basis that they work themselves out of a job

Use a common interest to unite people from different backgrounds (Phillips et al, 2010; Muir, 2011) BUT appropriately structured – tensions may well still arise

Lessons from community involvement in housing services (3) The Glasgow GoWell project:

Studying the impact of investment in housing, regeneration and neighbourhood renewal on the health and wellbeing of individuals, families and communities

Glasgow Housing Association is the housing provider and regeneration agency

GoWell conclude that community empowerment through a community development approach is necessary so that the community has the ‘capacity to make effective choices, and then to transform those choices into desired actions and outcomes’ (GoWell, 2013: 3)

Lessons from community involvement in housing services (4) GoWell’s model for community empowerment involves three stages,

forming a virtuous circle:

Capability: access to knowledge and information; understanding; and critical awareness

Deciding: making choices; influencing decisions; and being democratic and accountable; and

Achieving: instituting actions; engendering actions by others

However, the effectiveness of any or all of these actions depends on:

The neighbourhood and community context

The organisational context

The effectiveness of the regeneration strategy [or service plan]

Thank you… any questions?

References Arnstein, S. (1969) ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’, Journal of the American Institute of

Planners, 35(4): 216-224. Copy available from Jenny, please e-mail

GoWell (2014) Community empowerment in transformational regeneration and local housing management in Glasgow: meaning, relevance, challenges and policy recommendations. Briefing paper 13. Glasgow: GoWell Project

Muir, J. (2011) ‘Bridging and linking in a divided society: a social capital case study from Northern Ireland’, Urban Studies 48(5): 959-976. Available from Jenny

Oliver, A., Lloyd, D. and Kowalewska, S. (2009) Are You Being Equal? Encouraging Equal Tenant Participation in Social Landlords in Wales, Cardiff: TPAS Cymru and Tai Pawb.

Pawson, H., Bright, J., Engberg, L. and van Bortel, G. (2011) Resident involvement in social housing in the UK and Europe, Hyde Group

Phillips, D., Athwal, B., Harrison, M., Robinson, D., Bashir, N. and Atkinson, J. (2010) Neighbourhood, Community and Housing in Bradford: building understanding between new and settled groups, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Wilcox, D. (1994) Guide to Effective Participation, Brighton, Delta Press.

All except Arnstein and Muir available online.