Citizen participation in Israeli Project Renewal

Zvi Weinstein

Ministry of Construction & Housing, Department of Project Renewal, 3 Lincoln Street, Tel Aviv 65220, Israel

[Revised edition. May, 2004] Citizen participation in decision making was accepted as the Project’s central principle and became the core of all the activities performed at the neighborhood level. The paper presented here will describe the idea of citizen participation as it is expressed in the professional literature, its development and changes in Project Renewal in Israel, its aims, goals and achievements, factors that both help and prevent its establishment and the lessons learnt. INTRODUCTION Public participation in decision making processes on one hand, and Project Renewal on the other hand, are two interrelated issues that won great attention in the last twenty five years since its beginning. . In the world at large and in Project Renewal in particular, the public was associated in decision making but the kind of partnership evoked a dispute especially in the framework of Project Renewal (PR). The issue of “Public Participation” have been discussed in the professional literature in many areas: Urban planning, political sciences, public administration, architecture, man-environment relationships, community organization and labor relationships. No wonder, that the concept of “Public Participation” has many meanings and definitions. In English this notion has several terms. We can distinguish between “Partnership” and “Participation”: The first expresses the initiative and the actions of the authority or the professionals who are interested to involve residents in the decision making process. The second term expresses the residents’ actions responding to the initiation or to initiate the involvement themselves. DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The principle of public participation became common during the 1960’s. Several trends brought about that development:

• The increasing acceleration in governmental institutions and the extent of involvement in the lives of the citizen on one hand, and the increasing of alienation

2

and remote feelings between the citizen and the government authority, on the other hand (Kasperson & Breitbrat, 1974: Kweit & Kweit, 1981) .

• The fact that government policy is performed actually by bureaucrats who are not affected as their political colleagues to citizens influences (Warren & Warren, 1977).

• Negative reactions to the urban renewal plans of the 1950’s, and the increasing awareness that physical regeneration that doesn’t integrate the social areas is judged to failure and that the participation of the population is highly significant (Landsberger, 1980).

• The residents criticism against the power and influence of the so-called “experts” on one hand, and the continuing recognition of the experts in the importance of a direct contact with the residents, in order to understand their will and priorities and preferences, on the other hand (Wooley, 1985).

These trends were summarized by Susskind & Elliot (1983): “For advocates of participation, citizen involvement in government decision making is synonymous with (1) DEMOCRATIZATION of choices involving resources allocation, (2) DECENTRALIZATION of services systems management, (3) DEPROFESSIONALIZATION of bureaucratic judgments that affect the lives of residents, and (4) DEMYSTIFICATION of design and investment decisions” (p. 3). The above trends became accepted to the extent that the principle of public participation by many countries which differ in their cultural and historical tradition, in their economic and political structures. Urban planning and social planning are matters that concern problems and issues interrelated to each other in contract interests among different groups in society. Therefore, the significance of the term “Public Participation”, the targets and aims of participation and the ways to achieve them, are the focus of disputes, since public participation can serve different variety ranges of aims. Participation could be implemented in different ways and types of planning. In the past, governments and public organizations encouraged resident participation. But this trend decreased during time. Programs that emphasized residents participation were performed in the USA, The Netherlands, Israel and other countries (Alterman & Cars, 1991). In the United States the first programs were initiated by non-governmental bodies and they carried out a great influence which went over their size and scope (Boyte, Booth & Max, 1986; Perelman, 1976). During the Kennedy Administration the OEO (Office Economic Opportunities) and The Great Society program in the Johnson Administration concentrated on residents empowerment; It was the first time that the poor became central players on the stage and weren’t entitled only for subsided grants. The OEO program emphasized that “the poor involvement in planning, designing, policy and project operation form a vital aspect” (Moyniham, 1969:97) and it fostered social action groups to by-pass the city halls and their deteriorated political mechanisms.

3

During the 1960’s and the 1970’s the new program – Model Cities – asked to achieve citizen participation in a consensus approach through frameworks of forums between citizens and City Halls. The demand was to enable what Moyniham has called “Maximum Feasibility Participation” and Arenstein’s (1969) “ladder for citizen participation”. In less than one decade the Community Development Block Grant Program has replaced the Model cities and gave less emphasized to resident participation. The cities were given powers and authorities to “consult with residents”. But, during a very short term, national budgets were transformed from social programs to plans that supported economic growth, and in many cities the result was fiscal crisis which caused to significant cutting in their expanses. In the winter of 1993-1994 the vice president Al Gur declared on a community program known as – Empowerment and Enterprise Zones – which offered financial assistance to communities in distressed for schools, communication, housing, and infrastructure to rural regions. The States’ governments, the local authorities and the communities could create partnerships among themselves and to bid for resources given by the central administration. In other countries integrated physical and social programs were performed, but the common way was with little attention to residents participation. The government of Canada in 1970 set up the demand for residents participation but it ended after few years and acted mainly in the field of physical improvements. The French government included social aspects but they didn’t ask for residents participation. In contrast to the above, the Netherlands program for neighborhood regeneration aimed to neighborhood development and the creation of participations (Alterman & Cars, 1991). RESIDENTS PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT IN ISRAEL BEFORE PROJECT RENEWAL A strong dualistic streak runs through the Israeli political tradition concerning channels for active citizen participation in public affairs. Apart from the act of voting in national and local elections, most Israelis have had very few formal channels through which they could influence decision making in public institutions or government bodies, especially at the local or neighborhood levels. An important exception to this has been the communal and cooperative settlements: the kibbutzim and moshavim (types of unique rural settlements in Israel), respectively. While formal channels have been traditionally scarce, informal channels of influence on public forums or administrative bodies have developed in abundance. These have been based on a wide variety of personal, family, political, professional, and social connections. Naturally, those in the higher socioeconomic status levels have enjoyed the best developed sets of connections. The residents of distressed neighborhoods labored under major handicaps here as in other spheres. They lacked both formal and informal channels of influence and, in addition, had learned through bitter experience that the authorities were prone to making promises that were often not kept. Neighborhood committees often served as the manipulative

4

instrument of the local ward boss, whose loyalties lay with city hall instead of with the residents he nominally represented. Another characteristic of the system that militated against any tradition of formal citizen participation at the local level was the centralized nature of Israeli’s political parties and public administration. Those at the apex of these institutions preferred to run things in an authoritarian manner, while at the same time being open to influence from the periphery through a myriad of informal channels. Thus the introduction of active resident involvement and participation by Project Renewal as a basic principle of operation was a major departure from practice and precedent. Sentiments favoring such an approach to activating the disadvantaged had entered Israel from Western countries, particularly the United State, where it had become popular in the 1960’s, and by the late 1970’s many planners and social service professionals favored this approach. In the early 1970’s, some elements of resident participation in management of local institutions had developed in community centers and, to a much less extent, through parent participation on school committees and in the educational welfare project, as well as in neighborhood council. None of these frameworks went as far as PR did, however, in granting neighborhood residents decision making authority over the allocation of resources. Public participation in Israel began to accumulate momentum only in the 1970’s. The notion of participation has coped with difficulties due to the following factors:

1. Israel had no democratic participatory tradition or a decentralized democracy: The central government decides on most of the planning and performance of services from all kinds;

2. The Israeli attitude to participation had a paternalistic relation, especially towards the mass waves of new immigrants. The approach was, that politicians, professionals and experts know what is good to the poor people in all aspects of life – housing, education, culture etc. That approach had resulted in a state of dependency and not of independent initiation.;

3. Most new immigrants arrived to Israel from countries where no democratic regime existed and most of them came from cultures where the family traditional structure authority prevailed. Because of that these people didn’t have the previous experiences to influence on the government decisions, they lacked the ability to do so. And they didn’t performed nor a pressure neither initiatives to accumulate more power in the local arena;

4. Most professionals and bureaucrats in the government offices didn’t have the experience how to act participation and not a unique openness to that issue.

The issue of residents’ participation in PR points out on significant change in the concept. The determination that citizen participation is a basic principle in PR and that the residents should take an integral part in the decision making process was a revolutionary step. No one had a clear notion how this is going to work out. Many have seen the concept of citizen participation as a strange idea, imported from the United State, and didn’t believe it can be planted in Israel. The fact that the principle was imposed by the government and the

5

authorities and didn’t result from the residents themselves evoked great suspicions as for the extent to absorb it. On the other hand, there were several factors that supported and strengthened residents’ participation:

1. A centralized structure that decide to devaluate powers can impose a pattern of participation

2. Through the years residents in the neighborhoods learnt something about the possibilities and abilities to influence the democratic networks and they were willing to participate in a process that ensured them these kinds of opportunities. These residents were characterized not by a “poverty culture” and they weren’t alienated totally from society. Protest among denied in Israel isn’t a revolutionary act but an attempt to influence social policy inside the existed normative system.

3. The influence of the Jewish Communities abroad which supported the principle of residents’ participation at large, and in many certain cases in the residents attitudes in particular.

THE RENEWAL CONCEPT OF RESIDENT PARTICIPATION The concept of resident participation that was eventually institutionalized in the project in the form of Local Steering Committee (LSC) in each renewal area, represented something roughly midway between the more authoritarian notions prevalent in the government bureaucracy and the more freewheeling confrontational styles that had emerged in antipoverty programs in the 1960’s in the United States. Some cited a view of the authoritarian style that “participation means consultation”. Action is taken after asking people their views, which professionals then try to accommodate as long as they do not violate their professional or administrative judgments. This approach could be found among some education and housing officials. Another view cited is that the professional really knows best, and should be the one to make decision within the framework of national guidelines; but the actual choice of specific programs should be decentralized to the local professionals working with the resident committee. This approach was common to community centers and to educational welfare program, which set up local committees to decide which types of compensatory and enrichment programs to introduce in an area. The experience gained through these two forums in the several years prior to PR contributed in some areas to the effectiveness of Local Steering Committee and its subcommittees. A more liberal view held by community workers, namely, that resident participation in decision making and implementation should develop through community organization from the grassroots. This approach encouraged informal participation in broad neighborhood forums accompanied by much open discussion. The view taken by the National Social Policy Team ( a government forum in charge of the social strategy and policy established at the beginning of PR. Due to policy and

6

organizational changes the name was changed to the Inter-Governmental Committee which included representatives of government offices participate in PR. The committee continues to function to date) was that informal community organization and resident expression are positive elements of participation, but they should be augmented by formal frameworks and procedures based on democratic principles. Guidelines for the establishment and operation of the LSCs as the primary renewal unit at the local level were formulated and approved in 1979, and further elaborated and modified by the experience of the next two years. Each Local Steering Committee was composed of a total of 23 members, divided equally between residents and government and Jewish Agency officials (the agency was a senior partner in PR through the Twinning Project with Jewish communities abroad in charge of raising financial fund to be invested in deprived neighborhoods mainly for community facilities, building public institutions, education and enrichment activity. The partnership lasted up to seven years), and a chairman who was either the mayor of the local authority or his deputy. The LSC was authorized to decide on the allocation of resources for neighborhood programs within a budgetary limit set at the national level by the Inter-Governmental Committee (IGC). Local Renewal plans had to be reviewed and approved by the IGC (in later years it became the responsibility of the regional management level of PR). In this setup, neither the residents nor the officials on the LSC have a veto and at least in theory, decisions were taken through joint deliberations. This format was adopted to bring local officials and residents together to work for common goals, and sought to avoid the extremes of authoritarian rule by officialdom or confrontational struggle for power by the residents. On the whole, the LSC format has been successful in steering clear of these extremes. In only few cases did residents seek complete autonomy in decision making and implementation, but these experiments failed to get off the ground. The participatory framework of the local steering committee was based on a crucial assumption concerning the “political culture” of the neighborhood residents, that despite their past privations and frustrations they aspired to be part of the mainstream and would respond positively to the opportunities offered by Project Renewal and cooperate, if they saw that the Renewal approach could deliver the goods. Their apathy, pessimism, and cynicism are thus regarded as an adaptive mechanism built up over the years, designed to protect themselves from the anguish of repeatedly dashed hopes for improvement.

PARTICIPATION – PRINCIPLES AND DEVELOPMENT Authentic citizen participation that goes beyond taking part in mere formalities depends on the following factors which were relevant to some extent in Project Renewal: arming the residents with appropriate knowledge and skills that would enable them to deal with officials and professionals with greater self-confidence and authority; assuring that the residents taking part in the LSC and other forums are indeed representatives; frameworks to provide real sharing of decision making power; and the exercise of direct responsibility for programs.

7

It was soon realized that residents’ participation in the LSC would remain a dead letter if something were not done to enable them to take part in committee deliberations on a more equal footing. Very few of the residents had any experience in such forums, and had little or no acquaintance with such basic items as an agenda or a budget, not to speak of the administrative frameworks beyond the neighborhood or locality and the types of policies or programs available. Under these conditions, the officials on the LSC would be able to implement things as they saw fit without any meaningful input from the residents. Weinstein (1983) gave this situation the word coinage “democracy shock”. In other words, residents who were put together with government officials facing each other around a table located inside the neighborhood itself and trying to learn, first time in their life, how to manage the issues and matters of their own neighborhood with an inferior start point level. In addition, as stated above, the residents’ origin background suffered from disadvantages as for the meaning of democracy, rights and duties as a citizen, low education and physical deterioration conditions that added to their lack of using daily services whether social or communal. To remedy this situation the national project leadership set up courses and seminars for neighborhoods activists designed to acquaint them with the nuts and bolts of committee work and the broader political and administrative structures relevant to the project. In addition, special courses of study were developed in conjunction with the Open University and other organizations to produce an academically trained cadre of neighborhood leaders. The overall aim emerged of cultivating an educated group of neighborhood activists who would be able to provide knowledgeable leaderships and to deal completely with various experts and administrators, part of whose power derives from the mystique attached to their arcane knowledge. Another aid to meaningful resident participation provided in the early stage of PR was the appointment of planning advisors, whose job was to help the residents formulate their desires and priorities in the shape of a plan or plans that could be brought to the LSC for discussion. These advisors were usually employees of the government or the Jewish Agency, so that this did not develop into what is known as “advocacy planning”, where planners are employed independently by the residents to represent them vis-à-vis authorities. Residents’ participation in the LSCs did not spring up in a vacuum in the vast majority of neighborhoods. One should beware of the sociological stereotype of “slum behavior” that depicts the residents as living in a sort of anomic stupor, which deadens any volunteering or cooperative initiatives. Just as some areas do not “look like” slums, there are others that do not “act like” slums either. Thus in many renewal neighborhoods before the advent of the project, one could find residents active in a number of voluntary or public bodies. These included clubs sponsored by Israel’s mammoth labor federation, the “Histadrut”; parent-teacher committees in schools; community centers boards; the Civil Guard, a neighborhood patrol linked to the police; women’s organizations representing various political movements; house maintenance committees; neighborhood council and other

8

associations; and local political clubs. Some renewal areas had as many as several dozen of these voluntary groups involving well over 60 or 70 activists, while other had only a handful. The first resident members of the LSCs were usually drawn from those active in neighborhood voluntary bodies, and were appointed to the LSC by the project authorities. In some cases a previously existing neighborhood council was deemed to represent the residents on the LSC, although some of these were not elected either. This step reflected a dilemma facing the project authorities in the early stage: it was felt that holding neighborhood elections for the resident slots on the LSC would be a waste of time and energy, which would be better put to use in working up neighborhood plans and putting them into effect. At a later stage, elections could be held, it was felt once it would be clear to the neighborhood as a whole just what the project is all about. The price paid by this approach was to make the process less democratic, and to put people on the LSC who were not always regarded as representative, either by the other residents or by the officials with whom they had to deal. This no doubt hampered their effectiveness. Another factor that undercut the claim of the resident members of the LSC to “represent” their neighborhood was the attitude of the heads of the local authority. The democratically elected leaders at city hall saw themselves as the “representatives” of the neighborhood, and resented having to recognize others making this claim, especially if they were from another political party. But mayors and other local leaders adapted soon enough to the new reality created by PR since it brought significant budgetary benefits their way. Opportunities for real sharing of decision-making powers by the residents through Project Renewal were to be found not only in the LSCs, but also in their numerous subcommittees that dealt with specific areas such as early childhood education, the aged, youth programs, informal education, public health and so forth. In addition to the 11 neighborhood representatives on the LSC, another several dozen could take part in the subcommittees, where needs and policy alternatives could be discussed. Participation was also on the boards of community centers set up in most Renewal areas, which became the implementing agencies for many of the social programs run through the project. The notion of resident participation quickly broadened to include the dimension of direct responsibility for certain services and aspects of neighborhood improvement through the project. As the variety and amount of supplementary social and cultural services increased through community centers and local clubs, a dilemma surfaced regarding fees. The principle that consumers of these services, which are not mandated services provided by the law by the government, should pay a portion of their cost had been gradually established over the years, especially in the community centers. Yet the PR planners had to face the reality that in distressed neighborhoods, part of the deprivation stems from a lack of motivation to take advantage of the social and cultural services that were increasingly available, such as music, dance, sports, handicrafts, and other programs. Despite some misguided attempts at first to offer services without charge, the principle was eventually established that users would bear part of the cost, with fees gradually rising as

9

residents became motivated to seek out these services for themselves and their children. Thus residents were to be taught that needed services were not provided in vain, and those who benefited from them had a responsibility to cover part of their cost. Another area where resident responsibility developed in the project was in housing and maintenance. Part of the problem of neighborhood deterioration, it would be recalled, stemmed from poor maintenance of buildings and grounds by the authorities, and by the lack of motivation or interest on the part of the residents to pitch in and do the job. Part of the community organization work in the first part of the project was therefore devoted to stimulating the residents to organize house committees so that the renovation works and buildings enlargements done by the Ministry of Housing would not go down the drain. The precondition to deal with housing renovation was therefore to establish a tenant committee and to collect from them a partial cost of the improvements .The tenant committee was responsible to decide which company will do the works. They signed the contract and represented the other tenants before the company to solve conflicts or misunderstandings. This kind of tenant participation in improving their physical housing problems became one of the PR flags up to date. LEADING INTEREST GROUPS: THE SECOND PHASE OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT RENEWAL Nearly a period of more than twenty long years of residents’ participation has passed until a new type of participation idea was born. The new approach to citizen participation came out from one neighborhood where rooted trees of politics from a neighborhood committee have been lasted for some years without any ability to change the situation. As a matter of fact, it was a big family clan which ruled the project agenda, supported by some city hall politicians. This situation caused to conflicts with the project manager, with the government offices and with the local social services in the neighborhood. The decision was made to end their rule in the neighborhood and to workout an alternative to the old system of Local Steering Committees. The alternative is known by its term – Leading Groups or Interested Group. Project Renewal established community infrastructures such as: Local Steering committees, Subcommittees, Tenants Committees, Residents Boards in Community Centers etc. When the Project phased out from a neighborhood not always a local community leadership remained to maintain the achievements and to widen the numbers of volunteers in the community in order to raise the resident commitment to their neighborhood. Project Renewal in its first phase helped to build local leadership in the neighborhood. But that leadership didn’t justify its performances and existence since it focused on supplying its demands whether in local city politics or took advantage of their position as elected residents and in this way cared for their own interests and welfare. When these were completed, they left their positions or left the neighborhood moving to better and well established parts of the city.

10

Project Renewal felt that something was missing in the process of real citizen participation and commitment to their neighborhood. The new idea speaks on a transformation from the stage of local leadership with all its disadvantages (political influences, self interests, few numbers of activists, years of personal grinding, leadership that remained in power too long, lack of innovative leadership) to the stage of leading group which will adopt a new concept. These leading groups are supposed to be the voice of the residents representing their needs and problem solutions before the local, city wide and national authorities. The main and central goal of the leading group is to take the commitment, responsibility and action, to lead and to be a partnership advancing the issues that are dealt whether for the benefit of their neighborhood or city wide The leading group aims to achieve the following targets: 1. Encouraging and advancing groups of residents focused on a significant issue or area

starting from the accomplishment stage, via giving means for professionalized it as leading group which develop the issue.

2. Developing leading groups from among the population that composed the neighborhood in different areas by making over proficiencies of planning, fund raising, abilities to enhance relevant issues.

3. Establishing social leading groups to be as an imitation model and identification for the neighborhood / city residents.

4. Extending the scope and variety of activists contributing to the development of the neighborhood / city / region.

5. Representing neighborhood residents before the authorities concerned the issue by groups of residents who care.

6. Changing the image of the neighborhood / region by activists’ residents leading processes of change in their neighborhood.

There are numerous examples of leading groups acting in the neighborhoods to develop and advancing local services such as: Kindergartens, schools, community center, health, religion, elderly and childhood services, leisure, culture and art, ethnic music, sports, one parent families, women, youth, community television, preservation new immigrants as well as Bedouins and Druze culture and tradition, environmental issues, transportation ecological obstacles. In order to succeed in this new concept the recommendations to the local residents in the neighborhoods were as follow:

1. To market the concept among the residents through the community workers, local services operating in the neighborhoods and the project manager.

2. To join forces with the local municipality departments which will give their professional assistance, experiences and contacts with other services on the local and national arena.

11

3. Establishing networks for workshops and courses for preparing the residents to their offices giving them the most available and useful vehicles.

Leading groups are operating for more than three years already. The experiment so far points out that the main obstacles are: (1) the recruitment of new residents and the money needed to keep their continuing operation for the long run; (2) to avoid local politics; (3) to determine the preferred strategic choice of the leading group. On the other hand, we can point out some successes: In neighborhoods where leading groups were established the number of residents participants increased tremendously to 80 – 120 instead of the 11 – 25 residents in the LSC and subcommittees; There is a wide range and variety of issues residents are eager to relate; the residents’ level of demand from the local authority became more sophisticated and rational; residents are using their experiences gained during Project Renewal period; the neighborhoods succeeded to win benefits such as: improving physical infrastructure like roads, sewage, street lightening, public areas developments; changes in school enrollment; building new public institutions etc. Leading group concept seems to be the future PR activity among deprived neighborhoods in the coming years. The transit from the usual framework of Local Steering Committee to Leading Interest Groups was unacceptable due to fact that:

• First time in the Project Renewal history a decision is taken to abolish LSC • First time a decision is taken to abolish election process • First time residents are recruited on a voluntary base • First time head of municipal departments became professional tutors to

neighborhood activists • First time contact between neighborhood residents and local municipality is not

based on political ties • First time a legitimacy is achieved from all participants involved to support the

process What is it a leading interest group? A group of voluntary activists, residents of the neighborhood, which is concerned in a specific domain and act to initiate to plan and advance programs connect to their domain for the welfare and benefit of the residents, using cooperative, coordination and negotiation strategies with local authority, local services at the neighborhood level and with agencies and institutions at the regional and national levels. Interest group acts to achieve the following targets:

• Sustainability change in all life domains • Maximum representation and involvement of neighborhood’s residents

12

• Strengthening the organizational and communal infrastructure of the neighborhood Stages of growth in the development of the network model of interest groups The development of the interest group model is represented by the following stages: First stage: Preparing the ground

• Decision making process • Organizing all networks for mutual work coordination • Performing changes in local steering committees

Second stage: Intensive rooting activity

• Recruiting local activists • Training, tutoring and professional support for activists • Training professional tutors • Establishing representative forum

Third stage: Cultivation activity

• Initiating, planning and implementation of projects for interest groups • Mutual work with local authority and local services

Fourth stage: From dependency to maturity

• Gradual breaking up intensive professional training • Transferring toward self management

Fifth stage: Independence community

• Self management of the neighborhoods • Representation of the neighborhoods through forum of representatives • On going recruiting of activists

Sixth stage: Democratic civil society

• Integration among comprehensive networks • Strategic coordination and overall cooperation

The following chart compares between the two phases of residents’ participation during Project Renewal activity. It shows that the transition from one stage to the other caused many positive changes for the benefit of the residents in renewal neighborhoods.

13

Residents can expand their activity and to invite different sectors to establish new partnerships (private, business, voluntary) which were not available in the former LSC organization. The legitimacy achieved enables the leading interest group to act freely in all spheres of their community life. Residents create their own agenda, priorities and ways to cope with the surrounding competing organizations. Pressures from the local municipality to arrange and prepare elections are tackled with great resentment from the residents themselves due to their past experiences with local politics. Residents at the neighborhood have established what they call a “neighborhood council” to be the only representative before local and external organizations whether officials or non-officials. The council was elected from the internal forum of representatives which consists the different leading groups at the neighborhood level. LOCAL STEERING COMMITTEE VIS-A-VIS INTEREST GROUP * Decision of Inter-Government committee > Local neighborhood decision * National network program > Local neighborhood program * Limited number of activists > Unlimited number of activists * Residents elected > No elections * Interest residents are elected > Voluntary activists * Much of politics activity > No political identification * Political party identity > Non political party identity * Benefits to relatives > Benefits for all residents * Fixed composition of participants > On-line activists recruiting * Lots of grounded and activists exchanges > “Positive exchange” * Limited legitimacy > Wide legitimacy * Passive activists pattern > Active pattern * Resources base are fixed > Resources from varied sources * Limited strategic partnerships > Wide strategic partnerships

14

* Social & community workers > Heads of local authority depts. * Segregation > Synergy

POST RENEWAL TYPES OF RESIDENTS PARTICIPATION

One of the questions asked when a certain neighborhood terminates its renewal duration is: what will remain on the neighborhood level after the end of Project Renewal intervention concerning residents and community organization? Will it establish a new type of organization? Will it continue with the existed pattern? Or will it remain unorganized?

Project renewal has considered these questions and offered neighborhoods which were on the phase out stage to establish types of organizations to maintain the Project’s achievements in the future. These types included: neighborhoods committees; collaboration with the local community center; extending the partnership with adjacent neighborhood. These types were used as recommended ones and the choice of the neighborhood depended entirely on a wide range included many factors which were supposed to determine and decide at the end of the day what step and shape will the neighborhood community organization take. A partial list of factors included: Human, political and financial resources; size of the neighborhood; population composition of the neighborhood; level of socio-economic characteristics held by the residents; relationships between the mayoral and the residents; the political support given to the city hall; the extent of legitimate and recognition given to the neighborhood committee by both the residents themselves and external organizations; the extent of achieving democratization on the neighborhood level; investments of budgets and other resources in the neighborhood by the local municipality; the extent of decentralization process and concept performed by the local authority.

We have to point out in this stage, that step by step with the development of Project Renewal ideas and their assimilation among cities in Israel, several cities like Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ashkelon have begun to employ new community structures which became successful models to the notion of resident participation where renewal neighborhoods were annexed after phasing out of the Project.

Due to the uniqueness and distinction of these models, we’ll give here a brief description, as follow:

The Jerusalem model: Based on division of the whole city into neighborhood units. It combines two competitive, general-purpose neighborhood associations (the local community center and the community administration or neighborhood committee) into a single community administration. The neighborhood unit grants autonomy to this local community administration in the legal form of a non-profit association. It receives official recognition from the municipality as the sole all-purpose representative body in the

15

neighborhood; Obtains and operates budgets with annual cash flow as high as 1.2 M pounds in one community administration; Generates a wide range of resident deliberative participation; Exhibits a wide variety of programming in the social, physical, and environmental areas.

Authoritatively, the community administration system is anchored in a bilateral agreement between the Israel Association of Community Centers and the Municipality. The city Administration, a number of departments, and the City Council are formally linked and actively involved with both a Headquarters Association and with local units.

The Tel Aviv model: Based on borough units composed of constituent neighborhoods; Operates in a pluralist environment. In the borough arena, it competes and cooperates with municipality operated community centers. In municipal arena, there are three independent links to general-purpose organizations in the field: the borough administration through the city’s deputy general-manager; the neighborhoods through the Neighborhood Bureau; the community centers network through the Education and Social Services Departments.

The model integrates the boroughs directly into the municipal system as an arm of the municipal executive. Borough managers are city employees located in the local borough offices. It engages in presentations of requests and highly dependent upon advocacy/mediating role of Borough Managers. The Borough Unit concentrates its activities in the physical field principally around issues related to traffic patterns and construction of public facilities; community development focused on fostering local leadership (neighborhood committee elections, workshops for activists) and co-sponsorship of social and educational events. Departments involved in planning, physical infrastructure, and transportation are currently more closely involved in borough administration operations than the social side, in part because the city-operated community centers and the education and sports departments were not part of the initial efforts in their establishment.

The Ashkelon model: This model is not self-defined as a community administration, consists of a central Neighborhood Council with seven loosely-coupled “boroughs”. These “boroughs” include an association of three small neighborhoods, five sub-quarters of a very large neighborhood, and one complete neighborhood. It exhibits some autonomy and political clout as grass-roots representative of “the (distressed) neighborhoods” but its long term identification with the municipal regime and almost total dependence upon operating funds from Project Renewal weigh heavily as a form of dependency.

The Ashkelon model is provided with paraprofessional and managerial assistance through the Department of Social Services. It focuses its activity largely in the social are and provides feedback to municipal officials concerning social distress (youth at risk) and physical infrastructure problems.

Research findings on patterns of decentralization and democratization among neighborhoods which phased out of Project Renewal pointed out on two groups of

16

neighborhoods which developed new organizations networks (Weinstein, 1997) . The first group of neighborhoods continued the organizational concepts of the local steering committees but have a significant difference: The residents committees are acting according to a mandate given to them by joining the local community center where they consist 40% of the directory board. Neighborhoods belong to this pattern are characterized with high level of democracy and low to medium level of decentralization. The predominant features of this group are: First, local municipality is in charge of all the activities taken place and which aim to prevent physical and social deterioration of the neighborhoods; Second, residents involvement on the board of directors enable them to participate and decide about formal and informal activities in the neighborhood. Third, strengthening the relationships and accountability between local government bureaucracy and the neighborhood.

The second group of neighborhoods established new organizational frameworks. They are defined as semi-autonomous organizations such as: A ward, community centers networks and community management. All these organizations were partially local initiatives and were accompanied by internal organization changes inside the local municipality departments. The neighborhoods which developed new post-renewal organizational modes have common four processes:

1. The first process concerns residents involvement which is characterized in

transition from the institutionalized model of local steering committee to wider and more developed models of both community involvement and participation in policy and decision making in the relationships between local government and neighborhood.

2. The second process deals with the financial sources of the neighborhood and it is characterized in transition from dependency on external sources mainly from government and local authorities budget during Project Renewal period, to independent sources such as the community organization trust, the voluntary sector and the community – business partnership.

3. The third process concerns the delegation of powers to the residents. A transition from dictation originated and stemmed from national government level to empowerment of bottom-up. Its expressions are: High level of citizen involvement in community life and the use of collaboration and negotiation strategies toward the surrounding organizations.

4. The fourth process concerns the strategies taken by the neighborhoods: The transition is characterized by challenging position from advocacy and protest to organizations that supply and deliver services. This process was the most significant change in those neighborhoods where multi-services centers were developed. This process pointed out on internalization of behavioral values and norms in the local organizations relationships with their surrounding.

17

GOALS AND ACHIEVMENTS ASSESSMENT OF CITIZENS PARTICIPATION IN PROJECT RENEWAL First goal: Enhancing democratic values This goal of resident participation in decision making expresses the basic principle of democracy. That’s to say that people have the right to participate in the process of decision making in issues concern their lives. A specific goal is to enable those who are concerned to reach decisions. In all neighborhoods this goal was achieved: new formal institutions were established (Local steering committees, subcommittees, project management) in which decisions were adopted and residents took part. The question raised is whether the democratic principle wasn’t achieved due the small number of residents actually participated in those institutions? According to the representative democracy principle, there is nothing wrong, as long as the residents’ representatives are elected to their positions in these frameworks. In most neighborhoods elections were held for several rounds every three years. According to the principle of participatory democracy one has to look at the extent of the process’s openness to enable as many residents as possible to participate and not only to those who were elected. Since the neighborhoods differed from each other in size, location, number of residents, social and demographic characters, scope of public institutions etc, there were differences in the number of residents’ participation and the range was 11 to 60 people. The small number of participants at the public level raises the question: to what extent did the residents who take part in the process represent the whole neighborhood’s residents? Usually there wasn’t a full representation of the population composed of many different groups. The representatives were homogeneous in their characters: most of them were men, age 30 – 50, originally immigrants from Islamic countries and their social and economic status was high in comparison to the rest of the population. As for the sub-goal concerning the increasing supervision on the local authorities’ the question asked is: To what extent the obligation of accountability from the side of the authorities was implemented? In the relationships between the authorities and the residents a significant increasing of control and supervision were achieved. A basic condition to inspection was the residents’ knowledge about what was going on the project. In the new created process the residents became aware of the government offices and the authorities involved in the project. The government offices couldn’t any more to rule solely on the process. They couldn’t reach a decision inside their offices without letting the other partners to know about their next step or not to present an account of their activities without waiting for the residents’ reaction. The residents representatives accountability to their constituencies was performed only partially. Only in few neighborhoods there were established communication channels through which the residents’ representatives could

18

transfer their accounts and achievements. The main communication means were neighborhood’s newspapers and leaflets. Another aspect of increasing democratic values was the delegation of powers to the residents and decreasing of concentrated powers. To some degree planning delegations were transferred to the residents. It was different among neighborhoods, different local authorities and in different periods of PR. The fact that the authorities had to received the residents support or at least to neutralized their objections, enforced them to take into consideration the residents’ views and increased the residents influence on the decision making process. The more organized and united were neighborhoods committees, the more they succeeded to achieve greater influence on the decisions of the project. The following are the areas which residents succeeded to perform their influence: • Identifying neighborhood problems • Identifying the neighborhood goals • Initiation of programs • Decision making about programs’ changes • Rejection to programs • Influencing the implementation rhythm • Influencing the manner of project management and personnel The project succeeded to penetrate the local municipality personnel the consciousness and the necessity of sharing both information and responsibility with the residents even though they didn’t like the idea to devaluate powers. The fact that large numbers of neighborhood committees succeeded to keep their independence expressed in their mode of operation, whether in a way of confrontation or in a way of building partnership and collaboration with other parties pointed out, that the new institutions established and created by Project Renewal didn’t bring about a process of cooptation of activist residents and assimilation of the elected resident committee inside the project frameworks. There was a possibility to maintain the independence of the residents’ institutions and on the power balance between them and the authorities. That possibility relied on the mayor attitude towards the residents and the mode of relationships built. Other factors that gave their support the to residents independence were government representatives mainly from the Ministries of Welfare, Education and Health who had a commitment for deep involvement and expanding the residents participation in decision making process. One of the main issues of participation the project had to cope with was the question of legitimacy given to the resident representatives. In order to solve at least part of it, the Inter Government Committee issued the code for Local Steering Committees in which it stated the confirmation of neighborhood election every three years with the equal right to every

19

resident in the neighborhood to participate in the election process and to be elected as well. A full legitimacy to the elected residents was given by the social services frameworks working in the neighborhood and the IGC. Partial legitimacy was given by the local authority and the opposition groups inside the neighborhood. Second goal: Achievement adjusted planning to the will of different groups There are some basic assumptions concern this goal: (a) there are differences in the needs and wills of population groups in the neighborhood and the planning process has to take them into consideration; (b) these needs and wills are not necessarily known to the professionals; (c)people who lack professional education in planning are able to express their wills and to point out on problems, goals, priorities and solutions; (d) there isn’t one definite solution to a given problem, and therefore to reach some solutions it could be done by negotiation process with the residents; (e) there isn’t one universal solution to each neighborhood. There must be a differentiation among the neighborhoods and the plan has to be adjusted to the specific local conditions. The assumption in this goal is that residents’ participation in the process of planning enable to reach a planning adjusted to the whole different population groups in the local level. In the first years of the project life there wasn’t much of adjustments between the residents and the project’s partners because of professional knowledge lack among the residents. To overcome this issue, the IGC arranged planning days with the residents, transfer information through meetings and special courses, executed surveys among the neighborhoods and later on the residents were asked to chose relevant plans from given sources. The more access to information was given to the residents the more they could plan properly their priorities for their neighborhood’s agenda. The experience accumulated by the residents along the years enable them to cope with the most professional people. Information, accountability, personal relationships, direct contacts to the IGC and local authority department, decentralization of services to the neighborhood level, developing of public institutions, comprehensive and integrated planning approach, active subcommittees – all these factors paved the road to achieve wide understanding to the needs and wills of the residents. Third goal: Education Healthy and proper democracy is characterized, among the rest, with citizens who hold information about what is going on in the country and are aware to that. Therefore, it enables us to look at the goal of enhancing education as supporting the advancement of democratic values. One sub-goal is to learn how to exploit the establishment and use it. This goal was fully achieved. Many activists and the ordinary residents learnt to know better the establishment structure and the network of decision making in the local municipality and in the government offices and most important, the persons who manned the establishment. They

20

learnt how to deal and negotiate with them inside the establishment and how to use maneuver tactics, to act against and sometimes to win, too. They became aware of their power as the neighborhood representatives, to get full knowledge about their rights and demand them. Another sub-goal was to teach the public to reach a compromise and to take into account compulsions. Residents who participate in the planning process, learnt about the planning and about the characteristics of the existed plans in the different offices more then an ordinary resident in Israel without intermediacy. That sub-goal was achieved almost by the whole neighborhood through participating in the LSC, in the sub-committees, on community centers boards and especially among tenants who organized to renovate and enlarge their apartments. In this case, they became very well equipped with information and knowledge about the physical aspects of Project Renewal and took direct involvement in the physical planning aspects of their building. The achievements mentioned above weren’t limited solely in the teaching process of the residents. Training and teaching education processes began also among the authorities’ personnel and the different parties. On the public level the authorities’ personnel got to know very close the people in the neighborhoods for whom they were to serve. They learnt how to work with them, to listen to them and persuade them to come to compromise. On the private and semi-public level the planners and architects who worked with the residents acquired unexpected experience while working with population strata they had never before have close touch. The mode of participation implementation in Project Renewal points out that there wasn’t awareness for need of knowledge and experience as to how to shape and plan the steps of participation. The assumption was that the issue is very simple and understandable to every layman intuitively. But it was a wrong pre assumption taking into consideration that there wasn’t any framework in which citizens became part of a participation process in decision making. People who took an active part in the participation process accumulated a lot of experiences during the long years of PR. That experience was taught in a way of trail and error which influenced the style and mode of participation. Fourth goal: Social and/or personal change A basic goal on the social level is the advancement of community involvement of the neighborhood’s residents. Indeed, in the framework of the project the involvement of residents was tremendously achieved. Residents took part in the formal networks of the project, in sub-committees, in voluntarily operations and in election campaigns. The involvement of the activists demanded great investments of time and effort more than it was accustomed among other neighborhoods in Israel which weren’t included in Project Renewal. The less activist residents were pushed to get involve with the encouragement of the community workers and the project manager.

21

Weinstein (1997) pointed out the new community organizations that were established in the neighborhoods after PR phased out. They took several forms such as: residents in the community center board who are responsible for the informal activities at the neighborhood level; the neighborhood as part of a wider borough; neighborhood organization which continued to keep the frameworks of project renewal period. These types of new community organizations became the source of new local leadership. The parties participated in PR acted in different directions in order to achieve the establishment of local leadership before PR ends its term. The new leadership was more democratic, received full legitimacy and succeeded to maintain both its independence and activity in negotiating with local authorities, government departments and other public institutions. The results were very positive towards the neighborhood, for example, the local authority changed its budget priority for the benefit of the ex-deprived neighborhood; the relationships with the local level were modest and problem solutions were found more easily by both residents and the local municipality representatives. In some neighborhoods residents were taught how to mobilize funds from the business sector partners, private funds and other Ngo’s. This in contrast to the period of PR where residents were depended on subsided programs. The sub-goal of responsible advancement of the individual to his life and his surrounding interrelated in this goal was fully achieved. In the project framework there were two interrelated aspects in this goal. On the one hand, Project Renewal executed the principle of payment, even if it was only symbolic, in return to each social and physical services the resident was eligible. In the first years of its activity the project policy was not to charge residents with payments. There was a vast objection from the residents’ side and their complain was: “We deserve it for nothing. 30 years you (the government and local authority) didn’t pay attention to us and we suffered a lot from bad physical infrastructures, remote from employment centers, lack of education, social and community services; therefore we won’t pay”. It took several years to negotiate with the residents and persuade them to change their attitudes not before their belief in the government authorities strengthened with projects established and could be seen in the neighborhoods. On the other hand, Project Renewal increased the self help responsibility among neighborhood’s residents. The numbers of residents volunteering for their environment and needed individuals increased. Most buildings established tenants committees to collect money for renovation and maintenance but not all had kept on with it for long periods. Another sub-goal was to increase employment work places. This goal was achieved in various levels among the neighborhoods. Project Renewal paid great attention in advancement women labor and groups of population that were out of the labor market for decades, like the Orthodox population, the Druze and Bedouin women. Residents enjoy a wide range of opportunities in the employment field: courses, workshops, incentive funds, completion of basic education, and matriculation, upgrade professional skills etc. Thousands of residents have made use of these incentives and improve their income.

22

Using the variety of services the project offered to the neighborhood residents, they could go through personal changes that left their seal on the residents. That goal is considered on of the most influential factor on the individuals in the neighborhoods. Fifth goal: Support recruitment and legitimacy for planning Generally speaking, there was a full support in the Project. The residents’ activities were channeled to positive tracks inside the Project’s networks. Instead of protest and confrontation against the establishment collaboration and partnership became the prevailed way of relationships between the parties. The argument that residents participation in discussion and planning process extends the time of projects’ approval wasn’t true. In PR delays were prevented through pre adjustments achieved between the residents and the authorities on the grounds of both mutual interests and goals that played an important role in the neighborhood’s strategic plans. Sixth goal: Political change Through residents participation PR created a new local leadership that became acquainted with the political game rules and knew that the arena to cope with the interests of the neighborhood, existed in the local municipality board and equipped for democratic struggle. The privilege to arrange neighborhood’s elections strengthen the importance of political change among residents in deprived neighborhoods from several reasons:

1. The contest of the neighborhood representatives in the municipal elections pointed out the recognition of political struggle among equal rights.

2. The recognition that the best place to compete for the neighborhood’s benefits is in the local municipality board which stands above the level of the neighborhood where significant decisions could be taken.

3. Inclusion of distressed population which wasn’t an electoral power in election campaigns to local municipality form a recognition’ legitimacy and taking down the neighborhood’s stigma, decreasing of alienation, discrimination and injustice.

4. Residents received support from political parties who have the organizational and financial resources. They enjoyed the privilege to be in a real place on the list of candidates.

According to research findings (Churchman, 1988; Dery, 1990; Weinstein, 1986, 1997) many of the candidates who ran for election contests were elected. Few became the new mayor of their local municipalities; two became a parliament members; and others became members in the local municipality broad.

23

Residents’ participation in Project Renewal brought about a significant change because it obliged in the first time in Israel to enable residents direct participation in decision making process on issues that concerned them. Residents in deprived neighborhoods received the recognition of constituencies which have to be considered significantly in national election campaigns from most political parties represented in the Knesset (the Israeli parliament). As a matter of fact, the coming to power of the Likud rightist party after being 30 years in opposition had been built on the discrimination and alienation feelings of the residents in distressed neighborhoods. One of the factors that prevented the disadvantaged neighborhoods from getting their fair share of resources for social, economic and cultural advancement over the years was a combination of excessive dependence on the authorities and lack of independent advocates or representatives who could articulate and press their case to the establishment. In the case of many developed towns, their weakness and backwardness stemmed from an inferior position in the political and administrative system, even though they had an elected council or municipality. Moreover, in the developed towns, the dependence of the individual residents on the various government bureaucracies was much than in the disadvantaged neighborhoods of the cities. In this context, the principle of resident participation in Project Renewal was both an end in itself, an attempt to change the “political culture” of apathy and dependence among the residents, and an operating principle that would ensure that the project, such as the need for residents to bear part or all of the cost of certain services, to take responsibility for maintaining improvements made through the project, and to help themselves through volunteer work and other activities. Project Renewal has passed through many waves and stages concerning residents’ participation. As was pointed out in the paper, participation levels between residents in deprived neighborhoods and the authorities whether local or national witnessed ups and downs in their relationships: from the basic demand expressed in their words “we deserve it (Project Renewal) and you (the government) owes us everything for nothing” >>> becoming part of the establishment system through means of elections, volunteering actions, participating in local steering committees >>> benefits and returns of participation >>> paying cost for using community services >>> activists empowerment >>> leading groups. The paper pointed out on changes in participation structures too. From the starting point of “Democracy Shock” through a long study and learning process of power relationships between residents and the authorities >>> to neutralization of politics >>> legitimacy >>> devolution of powers >>> transition from self interest to general community demands >>> identification of positive factors inside the community >>> working in close relationships with both local services and city hall departments >>> leading groups >>> creating new pattern of neighborhood organizations.

24

One important achievement of Project Renewal concerning resident participation was the establishment of a unique process in Israel. A public decision-making process where residents were involved according to a right put into validity which enabled them a certain measure of influence. Indeed, not in every neighborhood residents succeeded to make that opportunity feasible. But resident participation as an end which enabled changes was a significant achievement. All goals of resident participation were advanced at least partially. Both the system and the culture of Project Renewal have gone through significant changes. The participation process enabled the residents who cared to act in improving the neighborhood physical, social, communal, educational, welfare and health conditions. A better balance has been created between the power of the citizen and the authorities, and the cities halls couldn’t ignore anymore the needs of distressed neighborhoods. The authorities bureaucracy learnt to negotiate with the residents as equal to each other. Many residents acquired experience in community initiative and in democratic values. Indifference decreased and new norm of participation was established, especially among the elites of different neighborhoods, and in less extent among the general public. Democratic values were spread over the neighborhoods themselves since in the framework of every program negotiation, the bureaucrats have to recognize the right of the residents to act as full equal partners. Project Renewal was the first national plan where the political establishment was exposed to direct struggle with resident participation. Project Renewal proved that the public is enable to act with the authorities as an effective partner, and can learn, negotiate and get organized. The pattern of social planning in an agreed mode has been revealed as a practical pattern which brought to decision making process to be accepted along with the public will and reduced objections in the performance stages. The neighborhood leadership has changed its protest behavior to a more democratic one and the elections held in the neighborhoods encouraged the demand for accountability. Final Words The paper presented here tried to describe one of the most influential aspects among others in the Israeli Project Renewal – resident participation in decision making process. Not everything could be said here both because of the very long experiences the author is involved and because of the vast and huge information existed which caused many dilemmas concerning the context and the best way to present the issue of resident participation in a clear way as possible before audiences that are not acquainted with the Israeli Project Renewal. The Project is celebrating these days its 25 anniversary. Yet, the work hasn’t finished. Much more has to be done in the future among other neighborhoods on the waiting list. The concept of resident participation must be reconsidered and reorganized in order to find new ideas which will make a better preparation for the residents in distressed neighborhoods towards social and community developments and changes; Building a

25

better civic and democratic society which sees the establishment of partnerships among different part of society aiming to contribute to community cohesion; strengthening the contacts between the neighborhood and the rest of the urban mosaic, mainly around mutual services for the benefit of the whole population; Building new local organizations with enough powers to mange their communities matters; and at last, but not least, the development of local democratic community which will behave according to the code of honoring the needs of different groups in our society.

26

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Alterman, R, and G, Cars (Eds.) (1991). Neighborhood Regeneration International Evaluation. London, Mansell. Arenstien, S., (1969). “A Ladder for Citizen Participation”. JAIP , 35 (4), 216-244. Alterman, R., & A. Churchman (1991). Israel’s neighborhood rehabilitation program: The great experiment and its lessons. Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning. Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. Haifa. Boyte, H. C., Heather Booth & S., Max (1986). Citizen Action and the New American Politics. Temple University Press: Philadelpheia. Churchman, A (1990). “Resident Participation Issues Through the Prism of Israel’s Project Renewal”. In Carmon, N., (Ed.) Neighborhood Policy and Programs, Past and Present. England: MacMillan, 164 – 178. Dery, D., (1990). Citizen’s Participation and the Emergence of Local Leadership in Project Renewal Neighborhoods. Research Report No. 8. Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies. Kasperson, R., and M., Breitbart (1974). Participation, Decentralization and Advocacy Planning. Assoc of American Geographers Resources Paper No. 25. Washington D.C.: Commission on College Geography. King, P., (1995). Models of community administration in Israel. Jerusalem center for public affairs. Jerusalem. Kweit, M., & R, Kweit (1981). Implementing citizen Participation in a Bureaucratic Society. New York: Preager. Landsberger, H. (1980). “The Trends Towards Citizens’ Participation in the Welfare State: Countervailing Power to the Profession”. In C. Foster (Ed.), Comparative Public Policy and Citizen Participating, Energy, Education, Health and Urban Issues in the United States and Germany. New York: Pergamon. Moynihan, Daniel P., (1969). Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty. Free Press, NY. Perlman, J.E., (1979). “Grassroots Empowerment and Government Response”, Social Policy, 10, pp. 16 -21.

27

Susskind, L., & M., Elliot (1983). “Paternalism, Conflict and Co-production: Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in Western Europe”. In L., Susskind and M., Elliot (Eds.), Paternalism, Conflict and Co-production. New York: Plenum Press, 3-32. Warren, R. & Warren, D. (1977). The Neighborhood Organizer’s Handbook. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Weinstein, Z. (1997). Decentralization and Local Democracy in Neighborhoods Which Phased out of Project Renewal Framework. Thesis for the PH Degree Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem. Weinstein, Z. (1987). Post Renewal Organizational Patterns in Deprived Neighborhoods. Research Thesis submitted to the faculty of Social Sciences Department of Public Policy, Tel Aviv University, for the Master Degree. Weinstein, Z. (1983). Grassroots Organization in Distressed Neighborhoods in Israel. Research Thesis submitted to the Senate of the Technion – Israel Institute of Technology. Haifa. For the Degree of Master of Science in Urban and Regional Planning.

Dr. Zvi Weinstein works at the Ministry of Housing & construction, department of Project Renewal since 1978. He is the PR coordinator in charge of the central region which consists most of the deprived neighborhoods. On the national level Zvi Weinstein is in charge of building partnerships between the business sector and the communities, and the R &D unit of PR. His fields of interest include a long list among them: Citizen participation in decision making processes; Developing social services; economic development; Exit policies and strategies; Integration of physical, economic and education aspects of regeneration; Human capital; Neighborhood sustainability and best practices. DR. Zvi Weinstein is invited by many professional organizations, governments, academic institutions to discuss different aspects of neighborhood regeneration. E-mail addresses: zwiw@moch.gov.il and/or zviw@nonstop.net.il Postal address: Dr. Zvi Weinstein, Ministry of Construction & Housing, Department of Project Renewal, 3 Lincoln Street, Tel Aviv 65220, ISRAEL