Author: A Blog by Greig Robertson

Here’s some more news about those folk down in Todmorden.  When the small British mill town of Todmorden, tucked in between Yorkshire and Lancashire, first began installing fruit and vegetable gardens all around the area as part of theIncredible Edibleprogram, it likely had no idea that the novel, yet simple, concept would make the town a foremost inspirational and self-sustaining model of the future.

Fresh herbs, succulent greens, and tasty fruits can be found growing near civic buildings, college campuses, supermarket parking lots, and various other places. Small garden plots, raised planting beds, and even small soil strips in these areas can be found brimming with fresh produce, all of which are free to anyone who want it, and at any time.

It is all part of a program called Incredible Edible, which was founded by Mary Clear, a local grandmother of ten, and Pam Warhurst, former owner of a local restaurant in town known as Bear Cafe. The duo had a shared goal of making Todmorden the first town in the UK to become completely self-sufficient in food — and their endeavors have been successful, at least as far as keeping up with demand for produce from locals who want it.

The program so far utilizes 70 large planting beds located all around the town to plant raspberries, apricots, apples, blackcurrants, redcurrants, strawberries, beans, peas, cherries, mint, rosemary, thyme, fennel, potatoes, kale, carrots, lettuce, onions, vegetables, and herbs. Not only did locals quickly catch on and begin taking the produce, but they also generally respect the system and do not take advantage of it.

“If you take a grass verge that was used as a litter bin and a dog toilet and turn it into a place full of herbs and fruit trees, people won’t vandalize it. I think we are hard-wired not to damage food,” said Warhurst, concerning the notion that offering free fruit and vegetables might lead to abuse or other crimes. She noted, in fact, that quite the opposite has occurred — theIncredible Edibleprogram has improved community relations, and reduced crime by an incrementally higher amount every single year since it first started.

The program has been so successful, in fact, that many other communities both in the UK and abroad are now interested in starting their own public garden programs as well. Besides improving the sense of community and reducing crime, Incredible Edible has renewed a new sense of appreciation for food and how it is grown, as well as renewed interest in actually growing it among the next generation, which is the envy of many progressive communities around the world.

Research carried out by six community groups across Scotland has highlighted the things that could help excluded and disadvantaged people overcome the barriers that stop them from enjoying the outdoors.

The findings, published this week, are the result of a two year project run by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Community Development Centre to identify successful ways of helping people from a range of backgrounds and circumstances get closer to nature. 

The groups taking part were:

Encouraging wider use of Blarbuie Woodland in Lochgilphead by people with a range of mental and physical health problems was the aim of the research carried out by Blarbuie Woodland Enterprise. “Our research has shown the importance of company in getting people to the wood – not just for support and transport, but also in building confidence,” said Hugh Fife from the group. “It has brought us into contact with new groups and has prompted us to work with the hospital service bus to promote this vital connection to the woodland.”

The GalGael Trust in Glasgow, which supports long-term unemployed adults with addiction, homelessness and mental health issues, looked at why people from deprived urban areas can find it so hard to get out and enjoy nature. They also gathered evidence on how deeply the disconnection from the natural world can affect physical and mental well-being. “Cultural heritage is often intertwined with natural heritage like a strand of DNA,” remarked Tam McGarvey of the trust. “Offering people a chance to get out in the landscape can go a long way to helping them retrieve a sense of connection and meaning.”

On the edge of Dundee, the Broughty Ferry Environmental Project, a community based initiative that helps local people develop and deliver environmental projects, from habitat creation to outdoor art, explored why their approach attracted and retained volunteers. “We found that our wide interpretation of environmental activity helps attract people of differing interests,” explained Ann Lolley from the project. “Many of the folk who come along then go on to interact with the environment in lots of ways.”

The Scottish Association for Mental Health (SAMH) Chrysalis Project, also in Dundee, considered what helps and hinders people with a mental health issue from getting out and enjoying nature. “Organisations promoting the outdoors to people with mental health issues need to get people out to experience nature, so they can appreciate the benefits and gain confidence from doing it,” said Kevin Bruce of SAMH.

The Clackmannanshire Disability Awareness Group looked at the same issue from the viewpoint of people with a disability. They are using their findings to lobby for increased wheelchair-friendly transport and better information on outdoor places for people with disabilities. As a result of their research, the group has already been invited to help develop access at Gartmorn Dam Country Park. “Our research has confirmed what the issues are, and given us the confidence we need to speak to people about our recommendations,” explained Enid Trevett from the group.

South west of Glasgow, Neilston Development Trust wanted to find out the views of the community on the current and future use of a former mill estate on the edge of the village. Once a jewel in the local landscape, the woodland and gardens are now overgrown. “The research uncovered a deep vein of interest about Cowden Hall estate that spans the generations,” commented the trust’s Laura Carswell. “We got lots of feedback on what improvements would make people more likely to visit – this will help us make it a valued place again for enjoying the outdoors.”

Commenting on the research projects, Elaine Macintosh, Scottish Natural Heritage project officer said: “Despite the differences between the groups, the projects all found that nature can help transform people’s lives and make valuable connections – both to other people and to their local place – resulting in stronger, more inclusive communities.

“They also reported many other benefits: improving fitness, health and well-being; building confidence; learning new skills; a sense of peace, perspective and identity; being part of something bigger; having fun and sharing experiences; finding creative inspiration and a place for spiritual reflection.”

Each of the groups carried out their own ‘action research’ project – defined as research done by the people themselves rather than on them by a third party, with the aim of achieving change. A range of methods were used, including storytelling and campfire focus groups, as well as more traditional questionnaires and case studies.

Overall the groups invested 286 days of their own time and gathered the views of almost 400 people from Glasgow to Dundee.

The groups found that for many people it is important to have someone to go with on an outdoor visit. Having something to do while there can give meaning and purpose and it was clear that people took pride in making a difference to their local area. A wide range of activities, practical and cultural, could encourage more people to get involved. Information on where to go and transport can sometimes be an issue.

Elaine said: “People of all backgrounds and circumstances should be able to enjoy nature but that isn’t always the case. We wanted to help change that by finding out more about the issues people face and how to help them enjoy nature more often.

“SNH and Scottish Community Development Centre (SCDC) have learnt a great deal from supporting the groups to carry out their own research, and the groups themselves have developed skills, knowledge and understanding that are directly relevant to their work. Not only has it allowed them to investigate issues that are important to them, it has also increased their confidence and given them evidence to apply for funding and lobby for change. It has been inspiring to see the commitment that people have to make changes for the better.”

A guide on the techniques used in the project, ‘Action Research in the Community’, has also been published by SCDC and Education Scotland.

Fiona Garven, the director of SCDC said: “We are passionate about action research as a method of working with local people to genuinely empower them to take control of their own issues and to take forward their aspirations.

“The research report is just one outcome – what we also know is that by going through a process of local inquiry, the individuals and groups involved build their knowledge of their own communities and the issues which concern them. They build their networks and their contacts, they find out who to influence, where to get funds and they develop plans on how to take forward local action.”

Lending difficulties are holding back the development of housing co-operatives, despite providing an affordable alternative for families in the housing crisis.

John Lewis, that bastion of middle class consumerism, remains one of the best known and successful of UK co-operative businesses. So if co-ownership models are thriving in the retail sector, why are housing co-operatives not enjoying the same success?

Today, co-operative and mutual housing accounts for just 0.6% of UK homes across all tenures. Compare these figures with European counterparts – 18% in Sweden; 15% in Norway; an 8% share in Austria – and it’s clear we lag woefully behind our neighbours.

Bringing Democracy Home, a 2009 report produced by the Commission on Co-operative and Mutual Housing, found that co-operative housing in the UK had “largely been overlooked by public housing policy debates for many years”. Since the 1960s, successive governments have made home ownership a main housing policy at the expense of shared ownership models, it claimed.

At Sanford, a fully-mutual housing co-operative in New Cross, south east London, residents become members of on paying £1 to enter the scheme. This secures them a voting share in the housing asset and makes them collective landlords of the property until they leave.

Sanford is one example of the many government-funded co-operative models that grew out of freely available capital funding in the 1970s.

Phil Bradley, a 25-year-old professional and a resident of Sanford for two years, says there are many advantages to living mutually. Other than the cheaper rent (rooms at Sanford are £45-a-week including bills), you can also pick up useful skills. “You can learn plumbing, web design, secretarial skills – the DIY is empowering and you learn a great range of skills to add to your CV. It’s not lonely here either. There’s more green space and decisions are made to make your life nicer, not to extract more profit.”

Unlike private rental arrangements, in a co-operative there is no need to ask a landlord if you want to make changes to your home. There is no top-down management structure; at Sanford the residents have monthly meetings where they make maintenance decisions collectively.

Jim and Jill Getrupp live at the self-build housing co-operative Greenstreet, also in London’s New Cross. Outside the co-op the couple say they would be struggling to bring up their two daughters in a one bedroom flat, rather their spacious two bedroom house. The lower rent is secured by way of “sweat equity”, because Jim helped build the properties in 1994, and this gives Jill the opportunity to stay at home with her family without the pressure of needing a second income to house their children.

Higher satisfaction

The advantages of mutual housing are also borne out through the statistics. The Tenant Services Authority’s ‘national conversation’ survey, carried out in 2009, showed an 88% satisfaction rating among tenants of co-operative houses compared with an average of 77% rating for housing associations and council tenants.

If co-operative housing is such an attractive option for tenants, why are there so few new developments? And why are the general public and even housing experts still ignorant about their potential role in the housing sector?

Nic Bliss, chair of the Confederation of Co-operative Housing, believes there remains a “staggeringly paternalistic” model of social housing in the UK which has prevented the co-operative movement growing shoots. “We’ve developed a whole generation of people who expect someone to tell them what to do and expect things done for them”, says Bliss. “Co-operatives are the antithesis of this.”

But it is also current funding models and lack of government support that has slowed growth, Bliss say. “The key messages we were getting from the people who lend to organisations, was that they weren’t in the position to lend to small organisations. In the current climate it is very difficult for small organisations to borrow money.”

Going it alone

Gavin White, who lives at Sanford, found out firsthand how difficult this was when he tried to set up his own co-operative earlier this year.

“The registration of a co-op is simple enough,” he says; “The real difficulties lie in property purchase costs. The co-op friendly banks will only lend 70% over 25 years and to finance that and the other 30% basically means that every co-op is faced with finding and financing 100% of the property costs, and that results in the rent having to be comparable to the private rented sector.”

Chris Handy, chief executive of Accord – the housing association that developed Redditch Co-operative Homes, one of the only large-scale co-operative developments in the last decade – believes three main factors are required for a successful co-operative model: a committed local authority; funding support from the Homes and Communities Agency; and a housing association interested in the priniciples of co-operatives.

These key elements came together for the RCH development when land was gifted by the council, but Handy argues that the government could do even more to promote the growth of this sector.

“The government could encourage local authorities to enter into build now pay later schemes which would mean that housing associations wouldn’t have to pay for the land cost upfront, but at some point in the future when housing prices increase – essentially an interest-free loan.

“They could also encourage developers, who have to meet section 106 planning conditions, to enter into deals with housing associations willing to develop housing co-operatives,” Handy adds. “The government could say to local authorities that a proportion of the New Homes Bonus should be spent on developing new housing co-operatives in their district.”

Co-operative housing ticks many of the ‘big society’ boxes but there aren’t currently the incentives for people to develop them. If they are to become a mainstream housing option, in the same way that co-operative businesses have become viable commercial investments, they need the support of the local authorities and the purchasing power of housing associations.

As a councillor and RCH board member Bill Hartnett states: “Housing associations have got a lot to learn from mutual housing. There is nothing to be afraid of by giving tenants more power.”

The Glasgow and West of Scotland Forum – the umbrella body for community controlled  housing associations – has responded to the Scottish Housing Regulator’s consultation on “The Regulation of Social Housing in Scotland”.

GWSF has expressed concern that the consultation document does not do enough to recognise the generally strong performance of housing associations in Scotland, or the diversity that exists within the sector.

The response sets out many specific suggestions on how the Regulator should improve its proposals, for example in relation to:

• Monitoring and reporting on the Scottish Social Housing Charter in a more proportionate way;

• Meeting its legal duty to say how it will vary its approach for different sizes and types of organisations;

• Setting governance standards that better reflect the independent status and local democratic accountabilities of most Scottish housing associations;

• Abandoning the flawed proposals to set mandatory maximum terms for voluntary committee members, and to introduce payment for committee members.

GWSF’s response includes a detailed evidence paper on mandatory maximum terms for committee members. The evidence paper confirms that the Consultation Document is factually incorrect and that the Regulator’s numerous public statements that its proposals “would align practice in RSLs with what happens in other sectors” are inaccurate and misleading.

A specific  response to the proposal for mandatory terms of office for committee and board members can be read here.

A full response to the Scottish Housing Regulator’s consultation can be read here.

In 1891 a young barrister named Frank Tillyard began offering free legal advice at the Mansfield House settlement in West Ham in East London. He became known as the Poor Man’s Lawyer, and within a few years similar services were running at Toynbee Hall in Whitechapel and in many other places.

Conditions were difficult. There was no funding for this work, and demand was so high that the lawyers were only able to spend ten minutes with each client.

Nevertheless, this was the beginning of the campaign for a nationwide legal and advice centres movement. As early as 1902 the annual gathering of the settlements movement called for a state funded legal aid scheme, and by 1939, when the first Citizens Advice Bureau was set up, there were 125 Poor Man’s Lawyer schemes across the country.

Settlements continued to play a prominent and pioneering role in this field, and in the 1970s the work of the Birmingham Settlement established the nationally accepted standards for Money Advice work.

I think we should be very proud of the growth of the advice movement, from its small beginnings in the East End, to becoming one of the great third sector success stories, achieving redress against injustice and poverty for hundreds of thousands of people each year.

So how tragic to see the systematic dismantling of this movement today! Legal Aid is no longer available for many cases. Advice and legal services were among the main victims of last year’s slash-and-burn local spending cuts. In Newham, the birthplace of this movement, the town hall bosses have declared that advice services foster dependency, and will no longer be funded.

And to cap it all, last week I heard that Birmingham Settlement lost its bid to retain its contract with the regional probation service for its famed and highly successful money advice service. It was undercut on price by a national charity, Nacro, which apparently has no track record locally in this specialist field.

Now, I’ve got nothing against competition, or change, or against Nacro for that matter. It’s not the large national charities which are the real problem. What I object to is the incompetence of procurement panels which have no local knowledge, nor interest for that matter, and which are seduced by the false ‘economy of scale’ argument. In their eagerness to drive down costs, they appear to ignore the most important point, that services of this nature have little value unless they are any good, and that to reject community-driven services with a first rate track record is most unlikely to be in the best interests of the community – or ultimately of the public purse.

My new year’s resolution for Locality is this: in 2012 we will need to redouble our efforts on several fronts. We will need to speak out more strongly about the value of high quality locally-determined and locally-delivered services. We will need to remind people why some things, like advice services, matter so much. And we will need to expose the wretchedness of so much mean-spirited short-sighted public procurement, which is failing our citizens and our communities so badly.

And my New Year’s message to Locality members is this: I think we should be very proud of what we can achieve individually and as a movement. There is work our members are undertaking today which will have as far-reaching benefits in a hundred years time as Frank Tillyard’s work at Mansfield House a hundred years ago. But all social gains require constant vigilance, otherwise they will be eroded and lost. So where you are achieving a pioneering breakthrough, where there are important services under threat, where there is rotten procurement practice, let me know, and let’s see if together, by collecting evidence and pressing for change, we can make this a happier new year for our communities across the country.

Scottish Community Alliance is recruiting a Community Advisor to help deliver JESSICA Trust’s objectives. For more information click here

The following  article appeared in SURF’s quarterly journal – Scottish Regeneration.  Nov 2011.

When we talk about regeneration today, we increasingly talk about resilience. Indeed it was the theme of SURF’s annual conference earlier this year. Regeneration isn’t simply about making immediate improvements to neighbourhoods, but about ensuring communities are able to withstand the future challenges of a turbulent world, re-group, organise and take action for themselves in the face of difficulty, and are set up to learn from experience.

As important as it is to create housing, communications and business facilities that are attractive to employers and residents, physical investment has to be accompanied by steps to build the capacity of local people and strengthen local organisations. To genuinely address long standing disadvantage and social problems in our communities we must recognise that resilience is a function of the people and organisations within them. The JESSICA (Scotland) Trust, currently being established by the Scottish Community Foundation with an endowment from the Big Lottery Fund and expected to be operational from Spring 2012, has an exciting and timely opportunity to test out doing regeneration differently.

The Scottish Government and European Investment Bank are establishing a £50m JESSICA fund to provide loan finance for physical developments in the 13 local authority areas currently eligible for ERDF support . Alongside this, the Big Lottery Fund is providing £15M to establish the new independent JESSICA (Scotland) Trust to make grants and loans and commission or deliver programmes of activity that catalyse or implement community-led regeneration. Operating across the same 13 areas, the intent is for the Trust to complement and enhance the larger JESSICA infrastructure investments.

With up to ten years to apply its £15M endowment the Trust will be an independent, innovative and flexible vehicle, able to take a long-term approach, act on emerging learning and adapt to a changing environment.

In developing our thinking about how the Trust can best achieve its aims, we have sought input particularly from SURF and the newly formed Scottish Community Alliance to consider how to best link the Trust to Scotland’s current regeneration context and to developments in community empowerment, particularly around asset development and community enterprise.

A key conclusion is that the harnessing and controlling assets and services can contribute to community regeneration, but that communities need support to facilitate this. Ownership of local assets gives communities a chance to ensure that local land or buildings are retained in productive use and enables them to use those assets to provide locally relevant services. Additionally, assets can generate income from rent or trading to be reinvested in the community. Community-owned social enterprises also offer the opportunity to involve local people in delivering local services and maximise economic opportunities to retain wealth within communities by creating local employment and again, reinvesting profits in the community.

Developing locally owned assets and enterprises empowers communities to play a greater role in their future – promoting resilience and sustainable regeneration. Locally controlled income streams reduce reliance on competing for external funding to support services or invest in new projects, but can lever-in additional investment; the experience of managing assets and enterprises fosters increased skills and confidence amongst community-based organisations and promotes partnerships between them; it can lead to a more enterprising mindset, fostering a hands-on can-do attitude to address further needs or opportunities. Crucially, it also enables communities to be more active and credible partners alongside public agencies and others by allowing them to bring resources and capabilities to the table when local structures such as Community Planning Partnerships are planning or allocating resources. 

We recognise there are significant challenges to developing successful community-owned enterprises and achieving community ownership of assets in a way that is genuinely empowering and does not leave local volunteers drained of energy or enthusiasm or saddled with liabilities and unrealistic borrowing commitments. However, in many communities, anchor organisations such as development trusts or community-controlled housing associations are interested in pursuing such opportunities and there is a growing track record of such community-led bodies successfully doing so. Meanwhile, organisations such as the DTAS, Community Energy Scotland and CRNS offer support and advice drawing on the growing body of experience and expertise existing in community organisations around the country and further afield.

Our hope is that the JESSICA (Scotland) Trust can use its resources alongside the range of other development support, funding and investment opportunities available in Scotland to foster the further development of community-led initiatives that can connect to and enhance the impact of the physical projects that are enabled by the Scottish Government’s JESSICA fund. By offering affordable loan finance where there is current market failure and complementing this with grant aid and development support, the Trust can offer a supportive, engaged and flexible approach to finance that we hope will build on and extend existing good practice in community-led regeneration, contribute to developing learning, policy and practice and make some in-roads to breaking the cycle of poverty and disadvantage in some of Scotland’s poorer urban communities.

Nick Addington, Rachel Searle-Mbullu

Scottish Community Foundation

Nov 2011

Jan 2012, Daily Mirror

Greedy bankers beware! A new force is about to hit the High Street with fair and affordable financial products for all.

Credit Unions have been given new powers this week, which means they can offer a real alternative to the big boys who rule the financial world.

They can now offer a financial lifeline to millions more low-income families who don’t qualify for any mainstream credit and are forced to turn to rip-off loan sharks. Plus, credit unions will be a more appealing haven for savers too.

New rules allow these independent financial co-operatives – owned and controlled by their members and with no outside shareholders to pay – to extend their services to a whole new range of people.

They previously had to prove that their members had something in common, such as membership of a trade union or other organisation.

Now they are allowed to serve more than one group of people and their members can include, say, tenants of a housing association or employees of a national company.

And to attract more savings they can now pay interest, which means they can compete with banks and building societies. In the past, credit unions could offer only a yearly dividend based on how well they had performed. This will enable them to bring in more funds that will help more people with credit.

Mark Lyonette, chief executive of the Association of British Credit Unions, says: “The new powers are great news. They will give credit unions the opportunity to offer more services to many more people.

“Over the coming months, many more individuals, businesses and organisations will gain access to fair and affordable financial services in their communities.

“Credit unions will be able to provide a more effective alternative to high street banks on the one hand and high-cost lenders and loan sharks on the other.”

Crucially, the rule change will help prevent the most vulnerable people from ending up in the hands of ruthless doorstep lenders who flog easy credit at extortionate rates.

Interest rates on loans are around 12%, affordable and fair, compared to the thousands of per cent charged by dodgy loan sharks.

And they promote better money management by encouraging people to save up and helping them to budget properly and stay within their means instead of constantly overstretching themselves.

While the new powers for credit unions are definitely great news, there is still a lot more that could be done to give everyone access to the basic financial services they have a right to.

Children’s charity Barnardo’s wants credit union services made available through the Post Office.

This is already on the cards… but only if the Government coughs up the sum of £73million which it ¬promised in March last year to help modernise credit unions. This cash would let them link up with the Post Office network.

It would give people access to full transactional banking, weekly and fortnightly bill payments, savings and low-cost credit.

But, as usual, the Tory-led Government is dragging its heels on something that would help the most needy in society.

Credit union helped me out of debt spiral

Mum Debbie Young ended up thousands of pounds in debt after turning to doorstep lenders when she hit financial difficulties.

But now she is on her way to being debt-free and has savings – all thanks to her local credit union.

“I used to dread the knocks on the door from burly blokes, knowing I didn’t have the cash to make the repayments,” says Debbie, 43, from Gravesend in Kent.

“I started off borrowing £50 and that quickly went up to £250 as I took out a couple of loans. But soon, I owed a scary £2,000 and was desperately trying to come up with £40 a week in repayments, which I just couldn’t afford.”

Through her local Sure Start centre Debbie heard that a credit union was opening in Gravesend and she made an appointment to chat over her financial situation. Within a week she had a low-cost loan with affordable weekly repayments.

“I was so relieved when they said I could borrow enough to clear my debts and it would only cost me £16 a week, a much more manageable amount. The credit union went through my finances and worked out what I could actually afford, rather than something way out of my reach.

“I feel so much better now that I’m in control of my money. The credit union has even got me into the savings habit. I’m putting a bit away each week so I have something to fall back on in the future.

“They really are helping me to manage my money better.

“People should make sure they know what they are signing up to, that they can afford the repayments and ask what happens if they can’t afford them.

“It really isn’t worth the heartache of getting into debt and having all the stress and worry.

“I will never go back to doorstep lenders. It’s just a downward debt spiral with no checks on what you can afford and no way out once you get trapped.”

The global financial crisis is making its impact felt across all parts of society (or at least 99% of it) but inevitably it will be our poorest communities who will feel the worst of it.  But even when the economy was strong, and when public expenditure enjoyed year on year growth, many of the most deep rooted inequalities faced by those living in our poorest communities were showing little sign of improvement.  Despite the best efforts of successive regeneration strategies over the past thirty years, evaluation of their long term impact has consistently flagged up that any success has been, at best, limited while many of the disadvantages these initiatives were specifically designed to tackle have actually became more pronounced.  But despite the mounting evidence that these regeneration strategies have been pointing in the wrong direction and achieving little in the way of positive and lasting change, a form of sustained and collective amnesia seems to have prevailed amongst policy makers in respect of learning from the lessons of the past. As a result, official regeneration policy over many years has persevered with variants of the same top-down approach, focusing largely on physical regeneration and driven by the public sector in the hope that the private sector will eventually find sufficient traction and the incentive to finish the job.

But now, at last, it looks as if the Government’s obsession with top down regeneration is coming to an end. In its recent policy paper – Towards a Sustainable Future – the Scottish Government appears to acknowledge that previous approaches to regeneration have either simply failed to deliver the desired outcomes or, because of the fundamentally changed economic circumstances within which regeneration now has to take place, these approaches are effectively no longer fit for purpose.  The financial climate and in particular the long term constraints now biting into public spending budgets mean that the traditional top down public sector led approach is simply no longer an affordable option.  And the absence of public sector funding to pump prime investment opportunities, combined with the slump in land values, means that regeneration is no longer attractive to the private sector.

Whether this change of tack has come about because the Government has finally recognised the futility of pursuing approaches that have consistently failed in the past or whether it is because circumstances have conspired against them, is not entirely a moot point.  Although the Government now seems prepared to countenance a different approach to regeneration, one which is bottom up and community led, the implications for government, both local and national,are highly significant if this change in direction of government policy is to be successful.  It is important therefore that the Government is wholly committed to this new approach and recognises the full implications of what it means. Although the resource implications of community led regeneration are not insignificant, as much as anything else this approach implies a fundamental change in the culture of government, both at a local and national level, and new ways of thinking about communities and what they are capable of achieving. If Government is a reluctant conscript to the idea of community led regeneration, it is unlikely to succeed.

The fundamental assumption underpinning most regeneration effort in the recent years seems to be that it is the principle responsibility of the state, both national and local government working together, to deliver solutions to the complex challenges facing our most disadvantaged communities. It is this particular assumption that now needs to be laid to rest if the challenge of how to deliver successful community-led regeneration is to be met.

A community-led approach to regeneration is one where the emphasis in terms of the shape and direction of the regeneration process shifts from being determined principally by external stakeholders (local government, public agencies) to being determined principally by internal stakeholders (local people).  Regeneration strategies in the past have typically incorporated some degree of community involvement with the aim of providing local people with an opportunity to feed into the process and to have their voices heard. Essentially, the role of the community in previous regeneration strategies has been primarily consultative and passive in nature.  Community-led regeneration demands a much more proactive contribution from local people and as such it is not necessarily an approach that will suit all communities from the outset.

Community-led regeneration can take many different forms and these will largely be determined by the local context.  However, where a community led approach has been successful there are likely to be a number of features that can be observed in each instance:

• one or more local organisations playing a leadership role within the community and has the capacity to provide support to a wide range of less formal community activities

• significant assets under community ownership or control

• community owned enterprises generating an independent income stream

• a locally conceived community plan or ‘charter’ which identifies the short, medium and long term priorities for action as determined by local people 

• a level of engagement with external stakeholders which reflects a sense of genuine partnership and mutual respect

• an absence of top down initiatives driven unilaterally by public agencies

Above all, community led regeneration requires significant culture change on all sides. Communities need to realise that it is no longer an option to assume that it is the responsibility of the public sector to meet all of their needs or to ‘resolve’ many of the problems that they face. Public sector agencies need to realise that it is neither appropriate nor realistic for them to imagine they should seek to be doing this.  In essence, community-led regeneration requires the relationship between the state and communities to be recalibrated so that there is a much greater sense of mutual respect and equity of status. This aspect was recently reinforced by the Christie Commission who looked at the future delivery of public services. The report argues that the public services of the future must be built around people and communities and highlights the importance of co-producing services with local people rather than delivering to them. The report concludes that , “people’s needs are better met when they are involved in an equal and reciprocal relationship with professionals and others, working together to get things done.”

Examples of community led regeneration can be found in many different parts of the country –  from the island based community buy outs where local people have assumed control over virtually every aspect of community life (Isle of Eigg, Isle of Gigha, South Uist) to more urban communities where various combinations of development trusts and community based housing associations have acquired control and ownership over a wide range of assets and enterprises and where local people are now instrumental in shaping their own futures (Renton, Neilston, Easterhouse).   Historically, issues of urban and rural poverty have been treated by Government within distinct policy silos. While this might have been appropriate in the context of the top down models of old, community led regeneration offers real opportunities for much closer integration of effort to be developed  – indeed there are many principles and practices that have underpinned successful regeneration in rural Scotland that could and should be transferred into the urban context.  

At the heart of community led regeneration is the notion that it is about redefining the nature of the relationships between a local community and the world about them.  In this respect it is worth considering the transformational impact that the acquisition of land, and in particular the land on which a community lives, can have.  When the community of Eigg finally took the step to free itself from being subjected to the whims of an absentee and disinterested feudal landowner, a wave of energy, creativity and passion was unleashed from within the local population that today seems to be unstoppable. Prior to taking the final step towards owning their island (and a sense of control over their future) the community had showed none of this passion or interest in their collective future.  There is now a sound body of evidence stretching back over twenty years that indicates that this shift in the relationship between people and the land they live on can generate local energy like nothing else – regeneration begins to take care of itself.   The fact that not every community is an island does not negate the fact that owning land or other forms of community asset and taking control over different aspects of community life can galvanise local people in unforeseeable ways and unlock a hitherto untapped human resource. 

Indeed there are many close parallels between the experience of a remote island community such as Eigg and any one of hundreds of disadvantaged urban communities. For the absentee feudal landlord, substitute the urban local authority delivering public services within a traditional municipalist framework. Both are equally disempowering for the people who live under these paternalistic regimes. For a community land buy-out substitute the formation of a community led housing association and the purchase of the land and housing stock from the city council. Both are equally empowering for the local people involved and there is now plenty of evidence to support the argument that with appropriate external support, both models of community led regeneration, albeit in very different physical environments can produce the most stunning results.  

Despite the prevailing wind of regeneration policy having blown in the opposite direction for so many years, nonetheless many fine examples of community led regeneration have emerged across the country.  They all share a story in common with each other which describes many years of struggle in order to get to the stage of development that they are now at. In particular, and without exception, the community leaders involved would, in part at least, ascribe that struggle to varying degrees of opposition encountered from across a range of external stakeholders. While there may be some merit in the argument that the process of engaging in a struggle of some sort can forge a deeper level of commitment in the long term, the fact remains that community led regeneration has evolved as it has, in spite of the attitude and behaviour encountered from external stakeholders rather than because of them. 

In many respects, given the history of regeneration in this country this oppositional behaviour that communities have encountered is entirely predictable. The state has hitherto assumed that its principal job was to ‘fix’ whatever the problem was and any suggestion from local people that perhaps the solution lay in a different direction ran counter to the received wisdom. This state sponsored resistance to the idea of communities taking responsibility for resolving their own issues, is further exacerbated in part by the overall size of the public sector in this country, and in part by the degree to which local government has become increasingly centralised through successive reorganisations and consequently more remote from the communities it is supposed to serve. 

It is worth noting however, that in the Highlands and Islands, a particular approach to strengthening communities has been pursued by economic development agency, Highlands and Islands Enterprise.  HIE work in the belief that the economic and social development of the region are inextricably linked and as such have developed a modus operandi of getting alongside communities to help them play their full part in the regeneration of the region.  Although the effectiveness of HIE’s approach to strengthening communities attracts widespread acclaim, for whatever reason it has not been pursued elsewhere in the country.

Consequently, although perhaps to a lesser extent in the highlands and islands, there remains a very significant barrier in the way of delivering widespread and successful community led regeneration. And that is the dominant culture and prevailing mind-set within the agencies of the public sector.

In those parts of the country where community led regeneration has been successful, there is a compelling  argument to be made that the process should not have been as difficult to achieve or as costly in human terms as it has turned out to be.  Nor should the whereabouts of the successful examples be as randomly haphazard and dependent on the fortuitous presence of key individuals or local circumstances.  If the Government’s new regeneration strategy is to place an emphasis on community led regeneration, it will be essential that a more systematic and strategic means of achieving this end is identified.  It won’t be cheap and it won’t be easy – particularly for those who will need to reappraise their beliefs and attitudes towards the community sector –  but it will build local resilience where it matters most and it may help to ameliorate some of the worst impacts of the financial crisis that is spreading across Europe and beyond.

Author: Alan Kay

Tribute by Alan Kay

John Pearce was a close friend, a colleague and a source of inspiration.   I shall miss his patience, his humour and his wisdom.   He strode through life…with original ideas that he put into practice…with a strong sense of values and social justice…and with an ability to include and support the most vulnerable in society. 

He had little patience with misguided authority and self-justifying power structures. He was always on the side of the common folk.   

I first met John in 1988 when I applied for a job with Community Business Scotland (CBS) and we went out for a coffee at the People’s Palace in Glasgow.  I think he wanted to check me out.  After the coffee we went on a visit to the hard-pressed Ferguslie Park housing estate in Paisley and he explained that what was lamentable was not that places like Ferguslie Park existed, but that they seemed to be allowed to continue to exist…

He converted me to a form of community development based on the need for local people to take charge of their own economic activity. By helping local communities to do this, we are empowering them.

John has inspired and influenced many people thoughout his life.  He was an activist in the Community Development Programme in the early 1970s in Cumbria.  He then worked tirelessly on promoting and developing community businesses in Glasgow and the West of Scotland.  He established and ran Strathclyde Community Business which was the first development unit supporting the growing community business movement in Scotland. That led to the founding of Community Business Scotland in the early 1980s and the Scottish Community Enterprise Investment Fund.

After leaving SCB in the early 1990s be became self-employed and worked on ways community enterprise could account for their social purpose.  This led to the development of social accounting and audit and work with the New Economics Foundation and others.

He had an agile mind coupled with a curiosity and sense of fairness which impressed nearly everyone he came into contact with.  He truly was a social entrepreneur but with an understanding that lasting community change would only be achieved if it involved collective action – people working with each other for the common good.

Over the years he and I worked closely together – in odd places from Shetland to Wales, from Newcastle to Liverpool; and with the occasional trip aboard on European research projects.

I learnt a lot from John as he always behaved with integrity and showed me ways in which we can help others, maintain a set of values and do interesting work – all at the same time!

For me John is irreplaceable and I look back on the work we did together over the last fourteen years with affection. They are filled with good memories – too many to go through but ones that will stay with me and be remembered with fondness.

And so, if any of us in the future stop long enough in the lay-bys of life and contemplate the origins of social enterprise and social impact we shall stumble across the work of John Pearce – much more than a footnote in the history of the social economy.

I shall miss him – my friend, John Pearce.

Author: Andy Milne, SURF

On 12th December, the Scottish Government launched a new ‘National Regeneration Strategy’ called ‘Achieving a Sustainable Future’. 

As Scotland’s independent cross-sector regeneration network, SURF welcomed the Scottish Government’s intention to produce a new national regeneration strategy – the first since the February 2006 ‘People and Place’ regeneration statement. It is therefore important both as the first since the economic collapse of 2008 and the first under an SNP-led administration.

SURF is working hard with local authorities, community organisations, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and many others to find practical ways to support community regeneration at a time of huge changes and challenges for everyone. 

The Scottish Government is a vital partner in these efforts, particularly in setting out an inspiring vision within a deliverable strategy. It has to make difficult choices in that key leadership role but, for SURF, there are some big concerns with the strategy that it launched on Monday:

While the strategy sets out to make, ‘no assumptions about future economic circumstances’, the content confirms a sharp reduction in dedicated Scottish Government ‘preventative spend’ in support of community regeneration efforts. 

The strategy indicates that the Scottish Government will provide £7.9m per annum from 2012 to 2015 in the form of a new ‘People and Communities’ fund to support its vision for community led regeneration. 

This compares with the pre-existing £118m/yr Community Regeneration Fund (subsequently rebranded and amalgamated with others to be the £148m/yr Fairer Scotland Fund) in addition to the earlier level of £12m/yr for the Wider Role Fund. All of this previous annual dedicated support (£160m) for targeted community based regeneration activity is now reduced to the new £7.9m People and Communities fund.

SURF Chief Executive, Andy Milne, said: 

“The rhetoric in the strategy for more ‘community led’ regeneration is not matched with adequate resources to help make that a practical reality. It appears that the increase in rhetoric on the importance of supporting community-based regeneration is in direct proportion to the reduction in resources allocated to that purpose. 

“The strategy represents a shift of the remaining greatly reduced resources to more market-based delivery mechanisms. SURF and many of its members are concerned that these loan based, speculative business models are not viable for local organisations in disadvantaged communities which are suffering the impacts of increasing poverty and unemployment. 

This is a particular problem in a strategy which is specifically dedicated to supporting hard pressed communities.” 

SURF and others have called for adequate, top-sliced investments to be directed to reliable, locally based ‘community anchor organisations’ such as housing associations, development trusts and other established social enterprises. These are widely recognised as being well-placed to support practical community led projects and services as the basis of genuine community led enterprise and regeneration. 

This, and a wide range of other practical measures in support of a more sustainable, community-focused form of regeneration, were proposed in SURF’s pre-election Regeneration Manifesto statement (‘Protect, Empower and Invest’) of March 2011. 

In following through on that collaborative programme, SURF is working creatively with its members and supporters across Scotland and beyond to promote effective ways to offset the worst impacts of the recession and to develop more sustainable approaches for the regeneration of Scotland’s disadvantaged communities.