Auditing community participation - JRF · 2015-07-13 · Why audit community participation? Partnership is a central theme of government policy today. There is also an increasing

PPP R E S S

��•POLICY

Auditing communityparticipationAn assessment handbook

Danny Burns and Marilyn Taylor

First published in Great Britain in July 2000 by

The Policy Press

34 Tyndall’s Park Road

Bristol BS8 1PY

UK

Tel no +44 (0)117 954 6800

Fax no +44 (0)117 973 7308

E-mail [email protected]

http://www.policypress.org.uk

© The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2000

Reprinted 2001, 2002

Published for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation by The Policy Press

ISBN 1 86134 271 3

Danny Burns is Lecturer at the School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, and Marilyn Taylor is Professor of Social Policy at

the Department of Community Studies, University of Brighton.

All rights reserved: no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Publishers.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development

projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed

in this report are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.

The statements and opinions contained within this publication are solely those of the authors and contributors and not of The

University of Bristol or The Policy Press. The University of Bristol and The Policy Press disclaim responsibility for any injury to

persons or property resulting from any material published in this publication.

The Policy Press works to counter discrimination on grounds of gender, race, disability, age and sexuality.

Cover design by Qube Design Associates, Bristol

Front cover: right photograph kindly supplied by Cadmium Systems Limited; left photograph kindly supplied by

www.johnbirdsall.co.uk

Printed in Great Britain by Hobbs the Printers Ltd, Southampton

iii

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Contents

Acknowledgements iv

Introduction 1Why audit community participation? 1Why should communities participate? 1Is audit relevant to community participation? 2Developing an audit tool 3Designing audit 3What to measure 3How to measure it 5What the measures offer 6Who does the audit? 6

The audit tools 7The audit process 7How the tables are organised 8Using the tables 8

1 Mapping the history and pattern of participation 11

2 The quality of participation strategies adopted by partners and partnerships 19

3 The capacity of partner organisations to support community participation 35

4 The capacity within communities to participate effectively 45

5 Impact assessments 53

Postscript 60

References and further reading 61

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

iv

Acknowledgements

Many of the ideas that have gone into this auditframework have come from over a decade ofwork with community activists and professionals.All of these people deserve some credit.

In relation to this specific project we would like tothank the following people:

Community activists from Lewisham, Kings Crossand Birmingham for initial discussions whichhelped us to create the framework.

Birmingham Community Forum for participatingin focus groups which helped us to refine theframeworks (a special thanks to Barry Toon fororganising these).

Officers from Birmingham City Council whotalked through the draft framework with us.

Members of the Goldsmiths research team whoworked alongside us on this project – Marj Mayo,Michael Keith, Jean Anastacio, Ben Gidley, UteKowarzik and Lorraine Hart.

Alison Gilchrist, Frances Heywood, Lorraine Hartfor detailed comment on the final draft.

Paul Burton for his thoughtful comments on theusability of the tables.

Roger Tarling for an important discussion on theuse of scales.

Members of the Joseph Rowntree FoundationProject Advisory Board:

Bob Colenut

Howard Simmons, Director of Leisure, LondonBorough of Hounslow

Phillipa Holland, Government Office for the West-Midlands

Gary Craig, Policy Studies Research Centre,Humberside University

John Gaventa, Development Studies, University ofSussex

Alan Barr, Scottish Community DevelopmentCentre

Christine Bainton, Community Forum

Mandy Wilson, COGS

Nisa Ahmed

John Low our JRF project manager – for enablingthe project to get off the ground, and supportingus through the process.

Karen Bowler for spending considerable time onthe design, enabling the publication to beaccessible and usable.

1

Why audit community participation?

Partnership is a central theme of governmentpolicy today. There is also an increasingcommitment to community participation andcommunity-led partnerships. But partnership andcommunity involvement are not new; and despitesuccessive regeneration initiatives, all theevidence suggests that, in the past, there has beena considerable gap between rhetoric and reality.Even now communities and their representativesoften feel marginalised – on the edges of power.There have been a number of reasons for this, butbriefly, the evidence suggests that:

• the ‘rules of the game’ are set from above;• the cultures and structures of public sector

partners are not compatible with effectivecommunity involvement;

• communities themselves do not have theorganisational capacity and resources foreffective involvement.

Some of the lessons from the past are being learntthrough the New Deal for Communities and themore recent rounds of the Single RegenerationBudget. They are also enshrined in the proposedNational Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal,where neighbourhood residents are seen ascrucial.

The involvement and leadership of localpeople is vital to turning round deprivedneighbourhoods and helping them tothrive. (SEU, 2000, para 4.10./2)

Introduction

However, there is still a lot of variation in thepractice of partnerships around the country andacross the different departments of publicauthorities. What can be done to ensure thatpublic bodies and others involved in partnershipsgive more priority to community involvement?How can we be sure that the rhetoric ofpartnership with communities is translated intoeffective practice?

One thing that public bodies and partnerships dotake seriously is the need to account for publicmoney through financial audit. Over the years theneed to account for public money has influencedthe ways that public bodies are structured and thesystems and procedures that they set up. It hasalso influenced the way that partnerships aredesigned and run. If a similarly rigorous accounthad to be given of the measures taken toencourage community involvement, would thisensure that public authorities and partnershipswere structured in ways that facilitated genuineparticipation and took community issues andviews on board?

Why should communities participate?

One of the reasons communities are marginalisedis because partners are not convinced of the valueof participation. It is worth, therefore, rehearsingthe arguments for community participation.

2

Is audit relevant to communityparticipation?

At first glance, the idea of applying auditmechanisms to community participation mayseem fraught with difficulties.

First, public bodies and partnerships already haveto deal with ever-growing demands for regulation,recording and monitoring. Is further regulationand audit the way to encourage more effectivepractice in community participation? Or does itsimply add to a system of carrots and sticks thatinhibit effective action and take time away fromthe front line? It is clear from research thatbureaucracy acts as a barrier to participation.Would a community participation audit stifle thevery processes it is meant to encourage?

Second, the culture of audit appears to runcounter to many of the principles that underpincommunity participation. Audit is based on rulesand measures. It is task oriented and specific,often based on quantitative measures imposedfrom the outside. Community participation, onthe other hand, needs to be based on trust. It isabout processes and learning – building quality inrather than testing it out. Neighbourhood renewaland regeneration are complex processes – thereare no simple solutions. Effective partnershipswith communities, some argue, need to beflexible and to have the room to evolve ratherthan being based on the tried and the tested. (Fora discussion of the evolutionary nature ofpartnerships, see Pratt et al, 1999.)

CommunityAudit participation

Rules TrustRisk averse Flexible

Quantitative QualitativeTask driven Value driven

External control Autonomy

However, Ed Mayo of the New EconomicsFoundation (Mayo, 1996) suggests that audit hasthe following strengths. It is:

• comprehensive• regular• comparative• externally validated• transparent.

These strengths have been recognised in thegrowing movement over recent years to introducesocial audits into public and private organisations.Social audit is used to check how farorganisations are achieving objectives other thanthe financial bottom line, such as equalopportunities and environmental sustainability.

In adapting traditional audit mechanisms to newobjectives, social audits have developed othercharacteristics. Social audit aims to:

• draw on many perspectives, not just one;• reflect local circumstances – for example,

political context, organisational capacity;• encourage enquiry and learning;• be peer driven rather than top-down;• be qualitative rather than just quantitative.

Why is community participation essential?

• Community definitions of need, problems and solutions are different from those put forward by serviceplanners and providers.

• Community knowledge is an important resource, and widens the pool of experience and expertise thatregeneration and renewal strategies can draw on.

• Community participation gives local residents the opportunity to develop skills and networks that theyneed to address social exclusion.

• Active participation of local residents is essential to improved democratic and service accountability.

• Central government requires community participation in regeneration and neighbourhood renewalstrategies.

Auditing community participation

3

Approached in this way, audit can be usedpositively to facilitate learning and dialogue,rather than as a stick to beat those who have notyet learnt how to perform effectively or jumpthrough the right hoops. It can be done inpartnership rather than imposed from the topdown.

However, developing this approach to auditingcommunity participation does throw up a numberof challenges.

First, ways of auditing would need to be found toreflect the diversity within communities, the timeit takes to involve these diverse communities andthe dynamics of involvement. There are likely tobe waves or cycles of involvement, according tothe stage of partnership and the significance ofthe issues it is addressing. Second, ways ofauditing would also need to reflect the differentstarting points and pressures on different partners.In particular, they would need to take account ofthe complexity of accountability withinpartnerships – the fact that different partners areaccountable to different bodies and constituenciesfor different things. Third, they would need tounderstand and find ways of expressing theintangibles of community involvement and tofind simple measures for complex processes– measures that would be meaningful to all thepartners without reducing participation to alowest common denominator.

It is important that a participation audit should notbe another set of measures imposed oncommunities and their partners from above.Simplistic indicators set from outside the localsituation encourage people to find ways ofavoiding them. If community participation is tobe audited, the tools that are used need to besomething that all partners in participatingcommunities can use and that can be jointly owned.

Developing an audit tool

A study funded by the Joseph RowntreeFoundation and carried out by researchers atGoldsmiths College, University of London, hasbeen evaluating community involvement inprevious regeneration schemes – particularly CityChallenge and Single Regeneration BudgetPartnerships. Although there was variationbetween the case study partnerships that werestudied, the research found that residents still felt

that the power in partnerships lay elsewhere andthat they were on the margins of partnership.

As part of this study, researchers from theUniversities of Brighton and Bristol explored thepossibility of developing a tool for auditingcommunity involvement. They began by carryingout three group discussions with residents andcommunity representatives currently involved inthe partnerships being studied by the Goldsmithsteam. The purpose of these discussions was tofind out what community participants inpartnerships thought were important indicators ofcommunity participation. The researchers thendrew on these discussions and on previousresearch to design an initial set of audit tools.They then ran two further groups – one withcommunity representatives, one with localauthority officers – to find out how useful theythought the tools might be. The attached set of‘audit tools’ is the product of that process. Whiledesigned for regeneration partnerships, the toolscould be used for other initiatives that requirepublic bodies to engage with communities.

Designing audit

The design of the audit tools needed to addressfour key questions:

• What to measure?• How to measure it?• What the measures offer to those engaged in

partnerships?• Who should do the measuring?

Building on the earlier discussion, we werelooking for something that would ask simple butmeaningful questions, that would be easy to use,that would be useful and relevant to all thestakeholders and that would have credibility.

What to measure

The audit tools are grouped under five headings.The initial section is designed to establish thecontext within which participation is beingintroduced.

The next three sections ask what needs to be inplace for community participation to be effective.These questions are based on the three problemareas that we identified at the beginning of thisintroduction, and aim to establish whether

Introduction

4

1 Mapping the history and pattern of participation

Key question Indicator

A What is the range and level of local community Partners have a clear picture of the range and levelsactivity? of community participation which already exist.

B What communities are there within the localities Partners have a clear picture of the differentcovered by the partnership? communities that may wish to participate.

C What local barriers are there to participation? Partners are aware of the barriers to participation andhave considered how they might be addressed.

2 The quality of participation strategies adopted by partners and partnerships

Key question Indicator

1a Who or what has determined the rules of the Local communities are involved as equal partners inpartnership? setting the rules and agendas for the partnership.

1b What is the balance of power within the Communities have as much power and influence aspartnership? other key stakeholders.

2a Where in the process are communities involved? Communities are involved in all aspects of thepartnership process.

2b How much influence/control do communities have? Communities are given the opportunity to haveeffective influence and control.

3a What investment is made in developing and Partnerships invest significant time, money andsustaining community participation? resources in developing participation.

3b How strong is the leadership within partnerships There is long-term, committed and skilled leadershipand partner organisations? for participation within the partnership and partner

organisations.

4 Does the community participation strategy allow (a) A variety of different approaches to participationfor a variety of ‘ways in’? are being tried.

(b) Attention is paid to strengthening all forms ofcommunity participation.

3 The capacity within partner organisations to support community participation

5 Can decisions be taken at neighbourhood level? Decisions can be taken at a level that localcommunities can influence.

6 Do decision-making structures allow for Neighbourhoods/localities can be different from onelocal diversity? another.

7 Are services ‘joined-up’? Partner organisations can deliver integrated solutionsto problems.

8 Are service structures compatible with Service structures, boundaries and timetables arecommunity participation? compatible with neighbourhood and community

structures, boundaries and timetables


5

4 The capacity within communities to participate effectively

9 How accessible are local meetings? Local community groups are accessible to potentialmembers.

10 Are community groups able to run in an Local groups work in an effective, open andeffective and inclusive way? inclusive way.

11 How do groups ensure that their representatives Representatives are accountable and have theare accountable? power to make decisions.

5 Impact assessments

12 How effective is participatory decision making? (a) Issues of importance to the community geton to agendas.(b) Decisions made by the community are implemented.

13 What are the outcomes of participation? Outcomes result from participation that would nothave happened if participation had not occured.

14 Who benefits from participation? (a) Opportunities are provided for all sections of thecommunity to participate.(b) Participation benefits all sections of the community.

adequate systems and processes are in place toensure that the participation can be achieved.They cover:

• The participation strategies adopted bypartnerships and the ‘rules of the game’.

• The structure, culture and management ofpartners’ own organisations and the extent towhich these allow them to engage with andrespond to communities (the ‘capacity’ withinpartners).

• The organisational capacity withincommunities.

These three areas form the core of the audit tools.They are followed by a short section onoutcomes.

In each area, there are a small number ofquestions that the audit needs to address. Eachquestion is followed by a short paragraphexplaining why it is important and stating theindicator that the response would provide. Theseare summarised below.

There are many more issues that could be auditedunder each heading, but it is important to startwith a process that is manageable. The attachedtools are intended as a starting point only,drawing attention to some of the key issues. The

tools will be piloted and will need to becustomised for local use, drawing on the ideasand priorities of local communities and otherpartners.

How to measure it

For each of these questions, there is a ‘tool’ or‘appraisal exercise’. There are three main types ofaudit tool:

1. Baseline mapping exercises to establish thecontext within which participation is beingintroduced.

2. Checklists of:• activities or approaches that contribute to

effective community involvement;• questions that need to be asked if

community involvement is to be effective.3. Scales to help stakeholders think through the

quality and extent of the participation activitiesthat they are putting in place.

Some of the questions require statements offact, which can be used to make assessments ofparticipation at different points in thedevelopment of a partnership, but many(especially the checklists and scales) requiresubjective judgements, because they are difficult

Introduction

6

to measure in any objective way. Thesejudgements may vary between partners andcommunities.

A fourth type of tool, which applies only tooutcomes, is a ‘decision trail’ to track:

• how and whether selected items raised bycommunities get onto the decision-makingagenda;

• how these items are eventually decided – andby whom;

• how the decision was reported back to thevarious partner organisations and communities;

• what happened to the decision en route toimplementation;

• if and how it was implemented and by whom;• how it was monitored.

The decision trail can be used in two ways. It canstart with an item that a local community puts onthe partnership agenda which can be trackedthrough the decision-making process to seewhether it is implemented or blocked. Using adecision trail would be like putting dye in thesystem and seeing where it flows through andwhere it gets blocked. Alternatively, the decisiontrail can start with a decision that has clearly comeout of the partnership and track back to where itcame from. This is equally important: it isimportant for partners to be prepared to ditchcherished top-down plans that local communitiesdo not see as a priority; it is also important thatcommunities as well as partners are creating theagenda for partnership.

What the measures offer

The tools are designed to:

• identify the elements that make for effectivepartnership with communities – the issues thatagencies and communities in partnershipsneed to think about;

• identify the options that are available foreffective community participation;

• identify where there is room for improvement;• identify where there is already good practice

to build on;• offer external validation.

They give participants in partnership some criteriawith which to engage in debate, but they can becustomised to the local situation. Their purpose is

to act as an aid to analysis, debate and learningwithin the partnership. The intention is that theyshould give partnerships the tools to:

• develop a strategy;• assess their progress over time;• compare different experiences and perceptions

within the partnership;• learn together about what works and what

does not;• benchmark against other partnerships.

For example, those tools that require subjectivejudgements provide an opportunity to compareand contrast the perceptions of differentstakeholders. Thus, asking ‘What is the balanceof power within the partnership?’ will showwhether different stakeholders have differentviews on this subject. It will also provide thebasis for discussion about the evidence on whichthese views are based. The extent to whichdifferent stakeholders make different judgementsmay change over time, with more agreement asand when power is shared more widely. It wouldalso be useful to repeat the preliminary mappingexercises later in the process to assess whetherparticipation in the partnership has had anyimpact on community participation moregenerally.

Who does the audit?

The exercises can be used as a self-assessmenttool, but we suggest that they will be mosteffective if there is an outside facilitator, especiallyif they are to be used for external validation. Themost effective way of providing this facilitationwould be through peer audit, using teams ofexperienced community representatives andcommunity professionals from other regenerationareas. These teams would be trained in the use ofthese tools, perhaps with the support ofresearchers or consultants with relevantexperience. Such teams could form a CommunityParticipation Audit Commission, which woulddevelop the tools further to ensure that theypromote good practice and support those who arecommitted to making participation work. Someconsideration would need to be given to how tofund such teams, but if regeneration funders areserious about community participation, aninvestment in audit might be a good way ofensuring that the rhetoric becomes reality.


7

The audit tools

The audit process

6: Action planning andbenchmarking

1: Mapping the history andpattern of participationWhat is the range and levelof local community activity?What communities are therewithin the localities coveredby the partnerships?What local barriers are thereto participation?

2: The quality of participationstrategies adopted bypartners and partnershipsWho or what has determinedthe rules of the partnership?What is the balance of powerwithin the partnership?Where in the process arecommunities involved?How much influence/controldo communities have?What investment is made indeveloping and sustainingcommunity participation?How strong is the leadershipwithin partnerships andpartner organisations?Does the communityparticipation strategy allowfor a variety of 'ways in'?

3: The capacity of partnerorganisations to supportcommunity participationCan decisions be taken at aneighbourhood level?Do decision-making structuresallow for local diversity?Are services joined up?Are service structurescompatible withcommunity participation?

4: The capacity withincommunities to participateeffectivelyHow accessible are localmeetings?Are community groups ableto run in an effective andinclusive way?How do groups ensure thattheir representatives areaccountable?

5: Impact assessmentsHow effective is participatorydecision making?What are the outcomes ofparticipation?Who benefits fromparticipation?

7: Action andimplementation ofplans

8

How the tables are organised

The categories

As indicated in the accompanying text, the tablesare grouped into five categories.

• Mapping the context for participation.• The quality of participation strategies

adopted by partners and partnerships.• The capacity of partner organisations to

support community participation.• The capacity within communities to

participate effectively.• Impact assessments.

The title

This indicates the general area that the tablecovers.

Type of table

On the table is an indication of whether the tablerepresents a:

• mapping exercise;• checklist;• scale;• decision trail.

Below the title are three boxes. TheExplanation box gives the reasons why this tableis important to participation. The Indicator boxsummarises the key evidence which should besought be those carrying out the audit. TheExercise instructions box explains how to usethe table.

Table

The tables are constructed to help you to thinkthrough what it is that the partnership orpartnership organisation is doing. We haveselected the categories from our experience ofstudying participation over many years; they havebeen refined through focus groups withcommunity activists. However, you may wish toadd categories before any audit is carried out.The table has two columns: in the first column is adescription of a level or type of activity; in thesecond column is an explanation or example of itto help illustrate the type of thing you need tolook for.

Number

On each table there is a number: this is for easeof reference. It also relates to the checklist ofindicators. Where a table is given a number and aletter such as 2a and 2b, the two tables should beused together. The Exercise instructionsparagraph explains how this should be done.

Using the tables

It is important that you should not be constrainedby the categories we have suggested. If you feelthat some of the descriptions are not appropriateto your circumstances, take them out. If you feelthat there are important things missing, put themin. You may also want to construct completelynew tables. This could take place either at thebaseline stage or as a result of the monitoring andassessment process.

We do, however, suggest that you follow theorder that we have suggested. In other words itmakes sense to carry out a baseline mapping first(1), then assess the quality of participation (2),and the capacity of partners (3) and communities(4) to meet the demands of communityparticipation. Carrying out an assessment of theimpact of participation should come last in theaudit cycle (5). Following this the cycle startsagain with an action plan, which includes bothbenchmarks and targets against which the nextround of assessment will be measured (6) andfinally (7) an action/implementation stage.

There are different ways in which you can recordthe information.

Brain storming

Start with a blank sheet of paper and put downeverything you can think of that relates to aparticular issue or indicator. Do not worry whatorder it is in, or what sense it makes. When thisexercise is completed see if it fits easily into thecategories in the table. If it does not, add newones or take some away.

Web diagrams

Many people find it easier to see the relationshipbetween things by drawing web diagrams: thesestart with the issue or key question at the centreand work outwards (see diagram below). For

Participation tools

9

The audit tools

example, you might start with the words ‘localcommunities’, then list those communities, mapall of the participation initiatives which relate toeach community.

Work directly with the tables

You may choose to work directly with theheadings in the tables. For example when you areworking with Table 4 you might choose to list allof the different types of forums, all of the groupsthat are funded and so on. Against each of thesethings you might want to record other informationsuch as the amount of funding they receive.

Maps

You may find it helpful to trace the geographicalboundaries of the area that you are consideringand plot your information onto an actual map.

Evidence

Wherever possible evidence should be providedto support the views expressed in the audit. Thismight take the form of documents, hard facts,examples or anecdotes. This evidence should bekept alongside any summary material whichrelates to the tables.

The important thing is that it is stored in a way inwhich it can be retrieved and made sense of sothat progress can be monitored.

Comparison

All of these exercises should be used to enabledetailed comparisons between different groupsinvolved in the audit. It will, for example, beimportant to compare local councillors’ viewsabout barriers to participation with those ofpeople from different local communities.

Web diagram

Mapping the history andpattern of participation

One

12

What is the range and level oflocal community activity?

Table A Baseline mapping

ExampleCategory ��

Individual contributions to community Sweeping closes, keeping garden nice, volunteering

Individual involvement in community activities Local football teams, bowling, luncheon clubs etc

Informal mutual aid Community protection, childcare exchange,neighbouring

Organised mutual aid LETS, Credit Unions, Neighbourhood watch

Participation in local networks and associations Tenants’ and residents’ groups, communityassociations etc

ExplanationParticipation strategies often focus on the creationof structures and decision-making forums withoutthinking about how to strengthen communities.Active neighbourhoods with high levels ofparticipation in the wider community are likely toproduce more representatives to sit on committeesthan inactive neighbourhoods dominated by a fewunrepresentative individuals. Furthermore,effective community participation will build onwhat is already there. Community participationshould be seen as the foundation of participationin institutional decision making.

Key indicatorPartners have a clear picture of the range andlevels of community participation which alreadyexist.

A

Exercise instructionsAs far as is possible all the different types ofcommunity activities that take place withinneighbourhoods should be mapped under thefollowing catagories.

Unless they are particularly relevant to your areatry not to use the examples below. They are therefor illustration.

13

Notes

A: What is the range and level of local community activity?

Decision making in community institutions School PTAs or governing bodies, churches,community centres etc

Decision making on public committees and Area committees, partnership boards etcpartnership boards

14

BWhat communities are therewithin the localities covered bythe partnership?

ExplanationMost public institutions treat ‘the community’ as asingle entity. It is not – it is comprised of manydifferent overlapping communities. Even wherecommunity participation strategies are successful,some communities may be privileged and othersexcluded. It is important that the voices of allcommunities are heard.

Key indicatorPartners have a clear picture of the differentcommunities that may wish to participate.

Exercise instructionsAll communities that are present in the area shouldbe identified. The categories below can be used asa starting point for identifying them.

Unless they are particularly relevant to your areatry not to use the examples below. They are therefor illustration.

Table B Baseline mapping

ExampleCategory ��

Service users For example, school parents, housing tenants, parkusers, residents of older people’s homes, and so on

Ethnic and religious communities There may be a strong mix of religions andbackgrounds within a locality

Economic communities Working-class people have different needs tomiddle-class people. Unemployed people havedifferent needs again

Sub-communities Asian women, for example, may have verydifferent views from Asian men

Age-based groups Very often children and older people have noinvolvement in decision-making processes

15

B: What communities are there within the localities covered by the partnership?

Geographical communities Different neighbourhoods have different needs

Communities of interest For example dog owners

Communities of identity For example lesbian women and gay men

Workplace communities Student nurses or workers at a car plant may be animportant presence in a locality. Small businessesrepresent a different sort of workplace community

‘Outcast’ communities For example, homeless people, ex-offenders,Travellers

Notes

16

CWhat local barriers are thereto participation?

ExplanationThere are a whole range of factors – not all ofwhich relate to the participation process itself –which will have a significant impact onparticipation.

Exercise instructionsLocal factors which may inhibit participationshould be identified. Map the issues that arerelevant to the neighbourhoods within yourpartnership area. Try to list as may as possible –big and small. These can then be monitored overtime. Action plans can be drawn up and these canalso be monitored. Note: It is important to focuson local barriers – things on which partners,partnerships and communities can have an impact.

The examples listed below are just a few of themany hundreds of barriers that could have aneffect on participation in your area – you willinevitably find many more.

Key indicatorPartners are aware of the barriers to participationand have considered how they might be addressed.

Table C Baseline mapping

Example Explanation

Violence, drug use, anti-social behaviour/harassment May deter people from going to meetings becausethey fear going out

Perceptions that nothing changes People may have low expectations of change

Lack of care for and pride in the community May lead people not to care enough about theirenvironment to participate

Racism and ‘not in my backyard’ attitudes Can set different sections of the communityagainst each other and lead some to be excluded

Domination of meetings by individuals or groups Often some people feel excluded from participatingbecause of a few dominant individuals

Poor experiences of participation in the past People may have been involved in previousparticipation exercises where nothing happened

17

C: What local barriers are there to participation?

Notes

The quality of participationstrategies adoptedby partners and partnerships

Two

20

1aWho or what has determinedthe rules of the partnership?

ExplanationThis table identifies how the partnership was set upand, in particular, who the key players were instructuring it. The way in which the decision-making process is constructed at the outset willhave a huge impact on who has power and how itis used.

Key indicatorLocal communities are involved as equal partnersin setting the rules and agenda for the partnership.

Exercise instructionsParticipants should be asked who they think hascontrol over the different aspects of thepartnership listed under the category headingsbelow. This can be done in conjunction with Table1b.

Table 1a Baseline mapping

Category Explanation

The structure of the partnership Who decided on the way the partnership wasstructured – its constitution, what sub-committeesand working groups it has, and so on?

Level of representation and who is represented Who decided who should be represented, howon the main partnership board many representatives different partners should

have and how local communities should berepresented?

The structure and proceedings of meetings Often meetings are run according to localauthority custom and practice with littleopportunity for communities to suggest changes.

The strategic agenda Who decided what the overall aims and objectivesof the partnership are?

21

Targets, monitoring and performance criteria Often these are imposed by central governmentand interpreted through local authorities asaccountable bodies. Communities rarely get todevise bottom-up criteria for monitoring andevaluation

The definition of the local community Who defined the geographical area to be covered?

Defining community needs These should be based on a needs appraisalexercise which fully involves the community indesign, collection and analysis

Notes

1a: Who or what determined the rules of the partnership?

22

1bWhat is the balance of powerwithin the partnership?

ExplanationIt is important to identify where real power lies.For example, in some areas political parties are thedominant force. Decisions may be made beforethey even reach the partnership board.Consideration will need to be given as to how thebalance of power can be equalised over the longterm in context of the above. This might include,for example, the construction of jointly agreedpartnership plans.

Note: This is not a broad question about wherepower lies within the local system. It is specificallyabout decision making in the partnership.

Exercise instructionsThis is a general question about the partnership,and participants should rank the different players.Evidence (even in the form of anecdotes) should beproduced to support views expressed. One way ofidentifying where the balance of power lies is toask people who or what they feel accountable to.

This list may also be used as a prompt in answeringsome of the questions in 1a.

Key indicatorCommunities have as much power and influence asother key stakeholders.

Table 1b Checklist

Checklist Examples

Funders � This could include Europe, central government,the RDA, the National Lottery

The accountable body � There may be a lead agency that has more powerin the partnership than other partners

Councillors �

Regulatory agencies � The Housing Corporation, Audit Commission

Professionals or officers �

Behind the scenes networks � This could include political parties or religiousgroupings and so on.

23

Business interests �

Community representatives � Having equal representation on the board does notnecessarily mean equal power. There may be somecommunity representatives who are seen to havemore power than others

Other �

Notes

1b: What is that balance of power within the partnership?

24

2aWhere in the process arecommunities involved?

ExplanationPartnerships may offer communities differentlevels of participation in different decision-makingarenas. These need to be benchmarked. Table 1awill have established who set the rules at theoutset. This exercise will audit ongoing decisionmaking in the partnership. Exercise instructions

These should be ranked on a scale of 1-9 usingscale 2b, asking, ‘What is the level of participation?’

Key indicatorCommunities are involved in all aspects of thepartnership process.

Table 2a Checklist

Checklist Explanation

Policy making �

Strategic planning � This includes budgeting decisions

Commissioning or deciding who gets funded � This includes project appraisal

Budgetary control �

Managing partnership staff � Including, appointing, disciplining, appraising andtraining staff

Recruitment and disciplinary matters �

Identifying performance indicators and targets �

Monitoring and scrutiny �

Planning individual projects �

Managing individual projects �

25

2a: Where in the process are communities involved?

Notes

26

2bHow much influence/control docommunities have?

ExplanationIt is important to be clear about what level ofparticipation is offered in each decision-makingarena. This does not mean that control (2) is betterthan limited delegation (4), but it may be. It isimportant to recognise, for example, that controland limited delegation have quite differentimplications for participation.

This scale is based on Arnstein’s ladder ofparticipation and the adapted framework of Burnset al (1994).

Exercise instructionsThis scale should be used wherever it is suggestedthat the levels of participation are benchmarked.

All arenas of participation should be identified andattributed with a level of participation according tothe scale below.

Key indicatorCommunities are given the opportunity to haveeffective influence and control.

Table 2b Scale

Position on scale Explanation

Ownership Community have ownership of all assets – thereare no conditions which have to be met

Control Communities have control over all activities, butonly within conditions laid out in contractualarrangements

Substantial delegation Partner organisations give substantial control overdecision making to communities

Limited delegation Partner organisations give limited control overdecision making to communities

Advisory input Communities have a formal advisory role

Genuine consultation Communities are properly and genuinely consulted

27

2b: How much influence/control do communities have?

Notes

High quality information 7 Communities are given high quality information

Consultation controlled by decision makers 8 Communities are consulted, but only on optionswhich have been carefully constructed by thosewith the power

Lip-service only 9 Despite the rhetoric participation amounts tonothing

28

3aWhat investment is made indeveloping and sustainingcommunity participation?

ExplanationCommunity participation does not just happen – itneeds a strategy, resources, commitment, time anda planned approach. It also requires attention tocapacity building in partner agencies as well ascommunities.

Key indicatorPartnerships invest significant time, money andresources in developing participation.

Table 3a Checklist


Is there a strategy for community participation? � Is there (a) evidence of a strategy, (b) evidence ofits implementation?

Is there a budget? � How much is allocated (what proportion of totalspend does it comprise)? The sister report to thispublications suggests that 10% is an appropriatefigure

Are specialist workers employed? � (a) Are they free to act on behalf of communities?(b) Are they on time-limited or long-term contracts?

Is there any investment to support community � This could include buildings, facilities, newslettersactivity? or new technology

Is there any investment in community umbrella � Communities need the infrastructure to supportor intermediary bodies to support involvement? involvement and representation

Is there strong leadership to support � To help determine this you may wish to usecommunity participation? Table 3b

Exercise instructionsCareful consideratiuon should be taken of levels,type and quality of investment. This will beimportant for comparison year by year.

29

3a: What investment is made in developing and sustaining community participation?

Notes

Is there a strategy for capacity building within � Too often capacity building is applied to localpartner organisations? communities only. Effective participation requires

skills throughout partner agencies as well

Are there opportunities for joint learning � Joint training can be a very powerful way ofand training? breaking down barriers

30

3bHow strong is the leadershipwithin partnerships and partnerorganisations?

ExplanationMany community participation strategies havecollapsed because they have not had sustainedpolitical leadership. This is critical in situationsrequiring organisational change – even more sowhere powerful interests will be resistant to thatchange. Weak political leadership is likely toconsign a participation strategy to the dustbinbefore it has even got off the ground.

Exercise instructionsAssess the commitment of both partners and thepartnership on the scale below. Community groupsmay also wish to use this scale to help thinkthrough whether they have effective leadership.

Key indicatorThere is long-term, committed and skilledleadership for participation within the partnershipand partner organisations.

Table 3b Scale


No leadership Participation is espoused but is not formulated intoany meaningful policy

Tokenistic leadership (rhetoric) Despite policy statements there is no realcommitment

Instrumental leadership Participation is not seen as desirable in itself. It ischampioned only for as long as it helps to achieveother objectives (for example, when trying toachieve a housing stock transfer)

Resistant leadership Institutions often bring in resistant managers tomanage radical change processes in order to bringthem on board. Evidence shows that this seldomworks

Committed but marginalised leadership Commitment to change may be strong, but it maynot be driven from the centre of power

31

3b: How strong is the leadership within partnerships and partner organisations?

Notes

Short-term leadership from the centre of power Initiatives can lose momentum if committedleaders delegate to others

Sustained leadership from the center of power Initiatives need sustained leadership of this sort tobe successful

32

4Does the communityparticipation strategy allow fora variety of ‘ways in’?

ExplanationA strategy that invests in the creation ofneighbourhood forums without building socialcapital within the community may quickly discoverthat few people get involved and those that do arenot representative of their communities. Researchevidence suggests that participation across a widerange of community activity is likely to strengthenparticipation in institutional decision making –increasing the number of representatives andensuring their accountability.

There are many ways in which institutions cansupport community participation. These includebringing community representatives intoorganisational decision-making processes, localneighbourhood forums and voluntary andcommunity sector funding strategies.

Exercise instructionsUsing the checklist below, partnerships andpartners should establish which arenas ofcommunity participation their strategy addresses.

Key indicator(a) A variety of different approaches toparticipation are being tried.(b) Attention is paid to strengthening all forms ofcommunity development as an indirect route tostrengthening community participation.

Table 4 Checklist


Delegated powers to decision-making and � Including neighbourhood forums, area committees,consultative forums community councils

Voluntary sector funding � Funding the voluntary sector can help to buildvibrant local communities rich with social capital.These are the foundations of participation strategies

Funding of community organisations � Funding of tenants’ associations, support toluncheon clubs, and so on . This may be a double-edged sword as local authorities often use thethreat of withdrawing funding as a way of keepinggroups in line

33

4: Does the community participation strategy allow for a variety of ‘ways in’?

Notes

Community development � Tenant participation officers, communitydevelopment workers. This would also includenetwork development work

Support to informal mutual aid and self-help � For example, funding LETS officers, or supportingactivities good neighbouring schemes

Support to community business � This could include advice, subsidised premises,access to professional services etc

Provision of facilities and buildings � These could range from community centres tofootball pitches or places for education

Capacity building and technical assistance � This might include skills training (such ascommittee skills), funding of independent advice(on, for example, stock transfer)

The capacity of partnerorganisations to supportcommunity participation

Three

36

5Can decisions be taken at aneighbourhood level?

ExplanationCommunity participation is based on the idea thatlocal people or key stakeholders can have animpact on issues that specifically affect them. Forthis to be possible local managers and/or localcouncillors need to have delegated authority torespond to local community opinions. Exercise instructions

Using the scale below, an assessment should bemade of the extent to which decisions are made atthe front line by each partner organisation.

Key indicatorDecisions can be taken at a level that localcommunities can influence.

Table 5 Scale


Centralised policy and implementation Everything is determined by the centre

Delegated implementation Policy can be implemented locally but not locallydetermined

Limited discretionary powers Some discretion is given to local officers

Delegated decision making Within broad policy parameters, local officers haveautonomous powers to act

Devolved decision making Policy over issues which have only a local impactis devolved

Devolved planning All departments have devolved decision makingenabling the construction of integratedcommunity plans

37

5: Can decisions be taken at a neighbourhood level?

Notes

38

6Do decision-making structuresallow for local diversity?

ExplanationThe extent to which institutions are prepared toallow diversity is a strong indicator of the extent towhich local participation is real. If communities areable to construct their own plans and identify theirown priorities, these will inevitably be differentfrom community to community (see Baseline TableB).

Exercise instructionsUsing the scale below, an assessment should bemade of the degree to which diversity is allowedby each partner organisation.

Note: This type of assessment should not only beused to assess service diversity acrossneighbourhoods, but also things such ascommunity group constitutions.

Key indicatorNeighbourhoods/localities can be different fromone another.

Table 6 Scale


One uniform product Everybody gets the same (one meal for all)

Set menu Diversity is reflected in pre-set choices. Differentneighbourhoods or groups may choose differentoptions, but they have the same options availableto them. (You can select from a preset menu)

Variations within strict limits Some locally determined variation is possible butstrict limits are applied from the centre to ensurean appearance of equity. (You can ask for carrotsinstead of broccoli with your meal)

Innovation allowed but centrally approved This is most often likely to be in a pilot projectsituation where the organisation sees the variationas a forerunner to a uniform programme. (Localmenus approved by the centre)

39

6: Do decision-making structures allow for local diversity?

Notes

Local flexibility Flexibility to depart from the norm is allowed, butthe norm still represents the dominant force withinthe organisation

Local diversity Diversity is encouraged, and a culture of differenceis supported. (Any meal can be asked for)

40

7Are services joined up?

ExplanationThe degree to which partners and partnerships areable to integrate their services is fundamental. Ifservices are not integrated, community governancewill be limited to tasks such as managing a localhousing estate or governing a local school. Localpeople see issues as being connected and will wantto develop holistic solutions to problems. Ifinstitutions do not have the capacity to integratetheir own services, community planning will not beachievable. For communities, making decisionsacross service boundaries at a local level is ameaningless exercise if institutions do not have thecapacity to deliver on them.

Exercise instructionsEach partner organisation should be assessed onthe scale below. Assessment should be made:(a) in relation to individual projects;(b) overall.

Key indicatorPartner organisations can deliver integratedsolutions to problems.

Table 7 Scale


Hostility to contact Other departments and agencies are seen as athreat

Non-cooperation Agencies often have tunnel vision and seethemselves as the centre of the universe. They areoften unable to see the benefits of cooperation

Information exchange Information is exchanged but it is usually carefullyvetted

Coordination Avoidance of duplication or clashes

Cooperation Contributing to one another’s projects

Collaboration Partnerships, working with others

Joint project working Single team leader, colocation of staff

41

7: Are services joined up?

Notes

Joint planning Cross-boundary planning

Joint decision making Collective decisions over staffing

Integrated services Pooled budgets and resources

42

8Are service structurescompatible with communityparticipation?

ExplanationOne of the most common weaknesses ofparticipation strategies is the lack of administrativecoordination that underpins them. This takes anumber of forms, as shown below.

Exercise instructionsThe checklist below should be used to assess bothpartner organisations and partnerships.

Key indicatorService structures, boundaries and timetables arecompatible with neighbourhood and communitystructures, boundaries and timetables.

Table 8 Checklist


Decision-making structures which mirror � Do the partners have committees which parallelcommunity structures neighbourhood forums?

Effective relationship between representative � For example, do councilors support communityand participatory democratic structures decision making?

Participative decision-making structures � Large numbers of competing and overlappingof partners effectively coordinated forums can sap the energy of a few activists and

create inefficient duplication

Neighbourhood decision making effectively � Is the organisation structured to allowlinked to service decision making geographical, service, user and corporate decision-

making processes to run along side each other?

Geographical boundaries aligned � Without this it is very difficult for communities toget accurate information to assess and monitorservices and budgets for their area

Decision-making timetables aligned � If timetables are not effectively coordinated,community involvement is rendered meaningless

43

8: Are service structures compatible with community participation?

Notes

The capacity withincommunities to participateeffectively

Four

46

9How accessible are localmeetings?

Table 9 Checklist


Adequate notice of meetings � People need time to arrange childcare etc

Childcare available � This could take the form of crèches or childcareallowances and so on

Warm meeting rooms � People are put off by cold meeting rooms and donot come back

Accessible buildings � Consideration should be given to siting meetingson bus routes, to making sure there is gooddisabled access and so on

Meetings on community territory � More people are likely to come to meetings if themeeting feels as if it is ‘their’s’

Refreshments � This should be culturally appropriate

Varied meeting times � People have different commitments; sometimes itwill be appropriate to hold the same meeting twiceat different times

ExplanationCommunity participation often centres on localmeetings. Effort needs to be made to attractpeople to meetings and to ensure that they feelthat it is worth coming back.

Key indicatorLocal community groups are accessible to potentialmembers.

Exercise instructionsCommunity meetings should be identified. Theymight be assessed through visits by communityactivists in another region.

Note: This checklist should only be seen as a list ofbasics. Without the addressing the other issues inthis audit, they may have little or no long-termimpact.

47

Meeting arranged in a circle � Traditional meetings which are arranged with atop table do not encourage people to engage indiscussion with each other

Interpretation and translation (where necessary) � This could include signing

Technical aids such as hearing loops �

Simple information and not too much of it � 50-page agendas in complicated language are stillnot uncommon

Accessible language � Make sure that jargon is kept to a minimum

Problem-solving format � It is better for community activists to workthrough issues and come up with solutions thanto be presented with options

Time for strategic planning � Community decision-making meetings can quicklyget drawn into examining small detail; they rarelyspend time thinking about what people want forthe whole neighbourhood

Separate sessions to air individual complaints � Too often meetings get clogged up withindividuals’ complaints about their own problems– these need to be aired but not during the mainmeeting time

Agendas constructed by tenants and residents � Too often tenants and residents are there simplyto comment on reports and issues presented bycouncils or partnership officers

Expenses for attendance � Many people cannot attend meetings becausethey have to take time off work or get childcare

Provision of transport where appropriate � Transport does not have to be provided formally;often facilitating informal arrangements helppeople to get to meetings that they wouldotherwise not be able to get to

9: How accessible are local meetings?

Notes

48

10Are community groups able torun in an effective andinclusive way?

ExplanationThere are a whole range of problems associatedwith community groups. For example, groups maybe dominated by a few individuals who are notacting in the interest of the groups as a whole.Because these people often have control over theinformation it is easy for them to disguise theirnegative behaviour.

Exercise instructionsUsing the scale below, groups should seek evidenceof good meeting skills and mechanisms.

Key indicatorLocal groups work in an effective, open andinclusive way.

Table 10 Checklist


Is the group able to retain the participation of Many groups fail to retain interested newcomersthose who come to meetings? because they are put off meetings, by the

established members of the group. Evidence couldinclude the ratio of those who attend once tothose who return over a period of time

Does the group have the diversity and experience Evidence of diversity of backgrounds and of skillsto work effectively and to represent communities? should be sought

Do group members have the information that Specialist professional knowledge, knowledge ofthey need? local governance structures, equal opportunities

and so on

Does the group have the skills and mechanisms Cynicism and/or domination of groups by thoseto deal with negative group behaviour? who shout the loudest will often put others off.

Conflict is inevitable but groups need support inhandling and mediating difference.Mechanisms could include limits on speakingtimes; skills needed include mediation skills

49

10: Are community groups able to run in an effective and inclusive way?

Notes

Are there mechanisms for ensuring turnover These might include time limits on holding office,and bringing new people on board? shadowing, and so on

Do group members have the procedural skills For example, committee skills, education, training,that they need? mentoring

Do group members have the skills for What proportion of people have recognisable rolesinvolving and supporting people? in the group? Is there evidence of motivational

leadership, good facilitation, mediation, creativeways of involving people and so on?

Does the group know whether it is being Are there an effective benchmarking, target-successful? setting and monitoring processes?

Are group members encouraged to move Good methods include, visioning sessions, away-beyond the day-to-day agenda? days, integrated community planning, mutual aid

activities, visits to other places and groups

50

11How do groups ensure thattheir representatives areaccountable?

ExplanationAs indicated earlier, representatives are more likelyto be accountable if they are delegated fromthriving groups and communities who aredemanding information and answers to questions.However, there are also a number of proceduralfactors that can help to strengthen accountability. Exercise instructions

This assessment should be made of all of therepresentatives on the partnership board, not justthose of communities.

Key indicatorRepresentatives are accountable and have thepower to make decisions.

Table 11 Checklist


How are representatives selected? For example, are they self-selected or selected onthe basis of their expertise? Are they appointed orelected?

Who do representatives report to? Is there a formal requirement for them to reportback?

What information do they make available to those For example, does the group have access to all theto whom they are accountable? documents that the representative has, or just a

note of decisions taken, or nothing at all?

Are representatives briefed and mandated? Is there a formal process of consultation/instruction prior to decisions being made?Do representatives have the authority to makeautonomous decisions?

Can groups and organisations get independent Often the only information people get is from theirfeedback about the quality of their representatives? representatives which makes it hard to judge the

quality and impartiality

51

11: How do groups ensure that their representatives are accountable?

Notes

What provision is there to ensure turnover It is normally good practice to ensure people areof representatives? representatives for a time-limited period?

Impact assessments

Five

54

12How effective is participatorydecision making?

ExplanationIt is important to check, not only that communitiesare involved, but that issues of importance to themare discussed and that decisions by them areimplemented.

Exercise instructionsThe decision trail can be used in two ways. It canstart with an item that a local community puts onthe partnership agenda which can be trackedthrough the decision-making process to seewhether it gets implemented or blocked. Using adecision trail would be like putting dye in thesystem and seeing where it flows through andwhere it gets blocked. A range of partnershipdecisions should be tested. Their path should betraced back into the partner organisations to seehow they have (or have not) been implemented.

Key indicator(a) Issues of importance to the community get onto agendas.(b) Decisions made by the community areimplemented.

Table 12 Impact assessment

Decision trail

How and whetheritems raised bycommunitiesget onto thedecision-makingagenda

How the decisionswere made and bywhom

How the decisionwas reported backto the variouspartnerorganisations andcommunities

What happened tothe decision on itsroute toimplementation

If and how it wasimplemented andby who

If and how it wasblocked and bywho

55

12: How effective is participatory decision making?

Notes

56

13What are the outcomes ofparticipation?

ExplanationIt is not enough to establish mechanisms forcommunity participation. It is necessary toestablish that they have a tangible impact(although this may not necessarily be measurable).

Exercise instructionsAnswers to the questions below could beascertained through focus groups and individualquestionnaires.

Key indicatorOutcomes result from participation that would nothave happened if participation had not occurred.



What real differences have resulted from What has happened that otherwise would notcommunity participation? have happened?

Who has benefited? This should be assessed with reference to thecommunities identified in the mapping stage.

Are there examples of problems that have For example, in one area a community consultationresulted from the community not being listened to? which said that the area could sustain 15 shops

was ignored and a whole shopping center wasbuilt. Only 15 of the shops in it are still open!

Are there any negative impacts of participation? Would more have been achieved using anotherstrategy, for example campaigning? Arecommunities suffering from ‘committee overload’etc? Are representatives being incorporated intothe system?

57

13: What are the outcomes of participation?

Notes

58

14Who benefits fromparticipation?

ExplanationIt is important to establish whether somecommunities are more involved than others, and toidentify what should be done to change this.

Equally it is necessary to establish whether somegroups benefit more than others from theirparticipation.

Exercise instructionsYou should identify who is involved in what andhow they have benefitted, or otherwise.

The groups in this table should be the same asthose in Table B.

Key indicator(a) Opportunities are provided for all sections ofthe community to participate.(b) Participation benefits all sections of thecommunity.


Checklist

Service usersEthnic and religious communitiesEconomic communities

Sub-communities

Age-based groups

Geographical communities

Communities of interestCommunities of identity

Workplace communities

‘Outcast’ communities

59

14: Who benefits from participation?

Notes

60

Postscript

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has providedfunding to roadtest this audit tool, together with aframework for ‘benchmarking communityinvolvement’ devised by COGS. The twoframeworks will be tested over a period of oneyear in two Regional Development Agency areasacross a wide range of partnerships. This processwill lead to a refinement of both, and possibly tothe creation of a unified framework.

61

Arnstein, S.R. (1971) ‘A ladder of participation inthe USA’, Journal of the Royal Town PlanningInstitute, April, pp 176–82.

Atkinson, R. (1999) ‘Discourses of partnership andempowerment in contemporary British urbanregeneration’, Urban Studies, vol 36, no 1, pp59-72.

Barr, A., Hashagan, S. and Purcell, R. (1996a)Monitoring and evaluation of communitydevelopment in Northern Ireland: Report,Belfast: Voluntary Activity Unit.

Barr, A., Hashagan, S. and Purcell, R. (1996b)Monitoring and evaluation of communitydevelopment in Northern Ireland: A handbookfor practitioners, Belfast: Voluntary ActivityUnit.

Burns, D. and Taylor, M. (1998) Mutual aid andself-help: Coping strategies for excludedcommunities, Bristol/York: The Policy Press/JRF.

Burns, D., Hambleton, R. and Hoggett, P. (1994)The politics of decentralisation: Revitalisinglocal democracy, London: Macmillan.

Beetham, D. (1994) Defining and measuringdemocracy, London: Sage Publications.

Bussmann, W. (1996) ‘Democracy and evaluation’scontribution to negotiation, empowerment andinformation’, Evaluation, vol 2, pp 307–19.

Chanan, G. and West, A. (1999) Regeneration andsustainable communities, London: CommunityDevelopment Foundation.

Clarke (1995) A missed opportunity: An initialassessment of the 1995 SRB approvals and theirimpact.

Clegg, S. (1989) Framworks of power, London:Sage Publications.

COGS (2000) Active partners: Benchmarkingcommunity participation in regeneration, York:Yorkshire Forward.

Connell, P., Kubisch, A., Schorr, L. and Weiss, C.(eds) (1995) New approaches to evaluatingcommunity initiatives: Concepts, methods andcontexts, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

Day, P. and Klein, R. (1987) Accountabilities: Fivepublic services, London: Tavistock.

Department of the Environment (1995) Involvingcommunities in urban and rural regeneration:A guide for practitioners, London: DoE.

Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions (1997) Involving communities inurban and rural regeneration: A guide forpractitioners, London: DETR.

Gaster, L. and Taylor, M. (1993) Learning fromconsumers and citizens, Luton: LocalGovernment Management Board.

Hastings, A., McArthur, A. and McGregor, A.(1996) Less than equal: Communityorganisations and estate regenerationpartnerships, Bristol: The Policy Press.

Leat, D. and Taylor, M. (1997) ‘Community’, Non-profit Management and Leadership, vol 7, no 1.

References and further reading

62

Mawson, J., Beazley, M., Burfitt, A. et al (1995)The Single Regeneration Budget: The stocktake,Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

Mayo, E. (1996) Social auditing for voluntaryorganisations, London: Volprof, City UniversityBusiness School.

Morrissey, J. (2000) ‘Indicators of citizenparticipation: lessons from learning teams inrural EZ/EC communities’, CommunityDevelopment Journal, vol 35, no 1, pp 59–74.

Parachini, L., Mott, A. with Rees, S. (1998)‘Strengthening community voices: community-based monitoring, learning and action for anera of devolution’, NFG Reports: Newsletter ofthe Neighbourhood Funders Group, vol 5, no 1.

Paton, R. and Foot, J. (1998) ‘What do externallyaccredited standards do for voluntaryorganisations? Findings from an exploratorystudy’, Paper to the NCVO ‘Researching theVoluntary Sector’ conference.

Paton, R., Payne, G. and Foot, J. (1998) ‘Whatdoes “best practise” benchmarking offer non-profits?’, Paper presented to the BritishAcademy of Management Conference.

Paton, R. and Foot, J. (1998) ‘What do externallyaccredited standards do for voluntaryorganisations? Findings from an exploratorystudy’, Paper presented to the NCVO‘Researching the Voluntary Sector’ Conference.

Power, M. (1997) The audit society, Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Pratt, J., Gordon, P. and Plamping, D. (1999)Working whole systems, London: King’s Fund.

Rhodes, R. (1995) The new governance: Governingwithout government, Swindon: Economic andSocial Research Council.

Rhodes, R. (1997) Understanding governance:Policy networks, governance, reflexivity andaccountability, Buckingham: Open UniversityPress.

SEU (Social Exclusion Unit) (2000) Nationalstrategy for neighbourhood renewal: Aframework for consultation, London: CabinetOffice.

Smith, M. (1998) Effective community monitoringof partnerships.

Stewart, M. and Taylor, M. (1995) Empowermentand estate regeneration: A critical review,Bristol: The Policy Press.

Vanderplaat, M. (1995) ‘Beyond technique: issuesin evaluating for empowerment’, Evaluation,vol 1, no 1, pp 81–96.

Woolf, E. (1990) Auditing today, 4th edn,Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Wales Council for Voluntary Action (1998)Evaluating community projects for Europeanfunding, Caerphilly: Wales Council forVoluntary Action.


63

Auditing community participation - JRF · 2015-07-13 · Why audit community participation? Partnership is a central theme of government policy today. There is also an increasing

Documents