This paper is a first presentation of some of the themes emerging from this work in progress. It looks at how community involvement is understood in the Urban White Paper of November 2000 and current developments flowing from it. And asks whether these differ significantly from the picture in 1997, whether involvement has in practice increased and what we have learned from recent experience about the strategies that should be adopted to achieve effective involvement.

The government last issued comprehensive guidance on community involvement in 1997 making it a firm part of the structure of approved outputs and budgets in. The guidance played a major role in a move from principle to practice; the multiplication of regeneration schemes into most social policy areas, the adoption of partnership and involvement through local government modernisation, the community and national strategies for neighbourhood renewal followed.

Community involvement is trumpeted in the Urban White Paper. Six principles can be distinguished: Involvement is people’s right; overcomes alienation and Exclusion; strengthens the community; maximises the effectiveness of services and resource; helps ‘join-up’ different contributions to development; helps sustainability.

Guidance literature, debate and experience on community involvement has been reviewed.

There are several new relevant concepts:

The distance travelled can be appreciated by glancing back at the 1997 guidance. It provides still relevant and valuable advice, also on subsequent frameworks of community strategies and neighbourhood renewal.

The purpose of this manual is to provide advice to those responsible for regeneration activity at the local level on how to involve the community A study from the LSE’s Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion is also reviewed.

The Urban White Paper and accumulated guidance literature should be revisited and further digested. It should be possible to say whether community involvement is being achieved, what this consists of and how it interacts with objectives in other fields.

Existing community development practice has built capacity in community organisations, yet still appears fragmented, with separate treatment in different programmes. Developing a co-ordinated approach to community involvement would be advantageous.

The Treasury’s review of service delivery sets out a detailed plan for co-ordinating national action on capacity building. However, the review skirts round rather than resolves some of the longstanding dilemmas.

Communities and Local Government
contactus@communities.gov.uk

//

/09/2002

Gabriel Chanan of the Community Development Foundation.

research

Urban Policy > Social inclusion & integration > Community development

Capacity building, Support for local groups, Citizens' participation