Author: Chik Collins, newstart

Lately there has been some interesting debate about community development and empowerment. It’s by no means a new discussion, but it remains very important.

Briefly, in the late 1960s and 1970s the idea of community development came to the fore -promoting the emergence of independent and assertive community organisations which could get their voices heeded in the corridors of power.

But from the late 1980s this increasingly gave way to the idea of communities working in partnership with politicians and agencies. This was the new ‘approved’ route to empowerment. Community action gave way to community engagement.

The partnership model has always, from the community development perspective, looked at best highly sanguine about the realities of power, and there is much to suggest that in practice this has indeed been the case. Experienced, independent community organisations have come to view many of the purveyors of empowerment and engagement like the way they might view someone called Herod as a purveyor of child care.

Such an organisation is Clydebank Independent Resource Centre (Circ). Its title is relatively new, but the organisation has been around for the best part of four decades. It was previously Clydebank Unemployed Community Resource Centre (1992-2006). Prior to that it was ClydebankUnemployed Workers Centre (1981-1990), and earlier still Clydebank Unemployed Action Group (1971-1981).

I first visited the centre at the end of 2006, to participate in a community conference on poverty in the west of Scotland. I got to know a bit about its history, its solid community roots, its capacity to defend its independence, and the myriad ways it has worked to address community needs over the years.

I was taken aback, not just by the centre’s endurance and achievements, but also by the fact that I hadn’t heard more about it previously. In Scotland, and I suspect more widely, the transition from ‘community development’ to ‘partnership’ and ’empowerment’ has seen very many other community organisations fall by the wayside. But here was an organisation which had proved able to defend its independence and purpose over many years. Consequently it had been able to continue to serve its community -providing education and training, creche facilities, a hugely successful welfare rights and money advice service, social and recreational activities, facilitating local campaigns and much more. It had been able to do this on very limited budgets, and in the kinds of social and political circumstances which had seen other organisations lose their independence, get co-opted to the agendas of others, and quite often get killed off altogether.

Fortunately, Oxfam Scotland felt the story of the centre could make a really important contribution to its aim of supporting genuinely community-based responses to poverty in Scotland. I was lucky enough to get the job of writing that story. It sets out the scale of the centre’s achievements over the years.

Succeeding while others fail

Reflecting on those achievements, one cannot help but note the contrast with the failures of regeneration in the town -and in Scotland more generally -over the same period.

On the one hand, a wee community-led organisation, with just a few staff and its volunteers, and a dogged commitment to the needs of its people. It sets realistic goals and then, in the words of one notable commentator, achieves ‘beyond all reasonable expectation’. But it repeatedly has to fight for its basic existence.

And on the other hand, a parade of high profile. high budget, multi-agency initiatives which promise much more but continually fail to come close to delivering.

So, in Clydebank there was the enterprise zone of the 1980s. Then there was the smaller urban regeneration initiative in the early 1990s, followed by the priority partnership area (PPA) in the mid-1990s, which in turn gave way to the social inclusion partnership (SIP) at the end of that decade.

All very conspicuously failed.

The enterprise zone had the temerity to chase the centre out of its business park -because the centre damaged its image! But its carefully (and expensively) presented image didn’t deliver the ‘economic revitalisation’ -or jobs -it had promised for Clydebank. Meanwhile, the centre worked against the odds to preserve the fabric of community life as the town’s economic base collapsed.

The priority partnership areas, as part of the continuation of the New Life for Urban Scotland programme, promised a ‘renaissance’ for Scotland’s poorest communities. But by the time they were created it was already clear that the New Life programme was failing very badly in its pre- existing, and massively resourced, flagship areas.

As the rather less well-resourced PPA was failing in Clydebank, the centre was delivering badly needed services, and campaigning on vital issues such as the introduction of jobseeker’s allowance and the disempowerment of local government.

And New Labour’s SIPs simply continued the partnership agenda inherited from the Conservatives. Shortly the Scottish Executive’s own research would be criticising them ferociously for their failure to deliver. But by then the only surprise was that anyone found that surprising. Had they really expected the SIPs to deliver regeneration? But as the Clydebank SIP was failing, the centre was gaining national recognition for the breadth and depth of its achievements on its own comparatively minuscule budget.

Today Clydebank has a community planning partnership and an urban regeneration company, which are, unfortunately, no more likely to succeed in delivering for the poorest communities than their predecessors. They reflect the kind of thinking about partnerships and enterprise which has failed so conspicuously in the past. Quite why anyone would expect different outcomes this time is, at least as far as ordinary rationality is concerned, a mystery.

Key lessons

How, then, has the centre has been able to maintain its independence, so as to be able to continue to serve its community over so many years? The key seems to be its roots in, and continuing relationship to, the trade union movement. The organisation was created in the first instance by the local trades union council, and the latter has retained a key role since. So across the years the centre has been able to benefit from the understanding and experience of people who have been active trade unionists and shop stewards. In turn that understanding and experience has become part of the culture of the centre, which has been transmitted to its staff and its volunteers.

The result is that the centre never became dependent on development workers employed by others. It has developed its own workers, who have absorbed and carried forward the spirit, aims and purpose of their organisation. And at vital moments, when hostile forces have gathered, the Scottish TUC has, very much indeed to its credit, stepped up to defend it.

This brings us back to the discussion of community development and empowerment. The centre, unlike many other organisations, has not travelled the path from the former to the latter -with all of the negative implications associated. In fact, it seems never to have become as dependent on community development support as many other organisations.

The significance of this is that in many cases it was the organisations which were so dependent that could be led from development to empowerment -as the political and policy landscape mutated from the mid-late 1980s. And this observation poses a significant challenge for proponents of community development today. How are organisations developed by other bodies, which inevitably have their own agendas, to preserve their independent existence over the long haul?

And this is perhaps the key lesson of the centre’s story. It offers an alternative model- one which has been shown to meet the above challenge. Clydebank is not unique, and what has been achieved there can be mirrored in other towns and cities. And this would seem to require a renewal of the kind of positive, mutual relationship between the trades unions and local communities which was in the past an almost defining aspect of the trade union movement in Scotland -but was, and to some extent still is, also in evidence in many other towns and cities in Britain.

If this relationship can be renewed and strengthened in other towns and cities it will be to the mutual benefit of local communities and trade union members. For it is not just local communities that find themselves challenged by poverty and regeneration. Trade unionists are increasingly aware that behind the cloak of regeneration there often lies an agenda for privatisation, ‘flexible’ labour markets and service cuts. And in Scotland at least the unions are increasingly aware that working together, local communities and trade unionists will be more likely to be able to stand up against that challenge.

Those who are in regeneration because they genuinely want to see communities exercising some power over their own lives and futures will welcome that. Others might not.

Author: LPL

The Orkney island community of Eday celebrated the opening of The Eday Heritage and Visitor Centre on Saturday, 5 July. Many years in the planning, the project came to fruition through the work of the community-led Eday Partnership, working closely with the Eday Heritage Association. Funding has come from a number of grant givers including HIE Orkney, the Russell Trust, Orkney Islands Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund. What was the island’s former Baptist Church and a derelict building, is now fully restored and houses a heritage display area, a permanent archive, a café and a tourist information point. The Eday Oral History Project is also housed within in the centre – an exciting 2-year project working with the primary school and with volunteers interviewing local people to gather memories and records of life on the island in the past.

Activities on the day included a guided walk with the Eday Ranger – the Eday Partnership and neighbouring island Sanday’s Development Trust are two of the few community groups in Scotland to employ countryside rangers, both part-funded by Scottish Natural Heritage.
Eday is situated amongst the North Isles of Orkney, which in turn lie of the north coast of Scotland. It is roughly 8 miles long and 3 miles wide and has around 131 residents. The Island relies mainly on farming and has a community Co-op and post office, several B&Bs, self-catering accommodation and a recently refurbished community-run hostel. Eday is centrally located for tourism and there is a tremendous scope for development for islanders, local industry and tourism – the heritage centre is among a number of projects to attract people to visit the island and to enhance the quality of life for all resident there.

Author: LPL

On July 4, a vibrant concert celebrated the end of a week-long summer school, the culmination of the first phase of an extraordinary musical project in the Orkney island of Sanday. The main aim of project is to set up a music-teacher training programme, but also to provide additional music tuition in the school and throughout the community.

The project arose from a crisis when key members of the Sanday Fiddle Club left the island, leaving the group a bit rudderless, but with a membership (numbering around 30 and ranging in age from 7 to 60 plus) keen to carry on. After conversations with all concerned and a bit of help from resident composer, Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, a four-way partnership between Sanday Development Trust, Sanday Fiddle Club, Sanday Community School and the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama (RSAMD) developed and the wheels were set in motion.

For the past nine months, two musicians from RSAMD have been tutoring the Fiddle Club, a traditional youth band in the school, and individuals during the course of two-day residential visits. This foundation year is in preparation for the main project, which has the potential to give every child on the island, and many adults too, the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. The programme allows classical and traditional music to run in parallel, and at the end of it the next phase, all being well, at least 5 islanders will have a post graduate teaching qualification in music. Thereafter, those teachers will help to roll out a similar programme with a school in Malawi that Sanday Community School has ongoing links with.

The first phase of the Sanday Music Project has been part funded by Awards for All, the Scottish and Southern Spurness Windfarm Community Benefit Fund, and private donations.

Author: LPL

Following a £350,000 refurbishment, Community Central Hall in Maryhill, Glasgow is providing the office and venue for the ICL Group Public Inquiry. The Centre, which is yards from the site of the disaster, was a key player in the days which followed the incident – a place where families and relatives waited for news – around the clock.

This is the first inquiry of it’s kind in the UK, and also unusual to be held outwith a court setting. The Inquiry is headed by Lord Gill, the second highest judge in Scotland.

CCH has been refurbished with new front doors, reception area, toilets and flooring, in a move which is viewed as “providing a community legacy” to a community affected by the disaster.

The Inquiry is expected to last until late in the year.

Author: Carnegie UK Trust

The Inquiry futures work identified a number of ‘fault-lines’ [key concerns] that underpin the Inquiry’s work going forward. The key fault-lines identified are:

The challenge of sustainability. Participants in the Inquiry events were clearly concerned about the growing pressure on global resources and the associated threat this may have on civil society as the ‘good’ society.

Growing isolation of the poorest. There is a strong sense from the Inquiry events that economic polarisation between the rich and the poor and the associated growing social divides are likely to significantly affect civil society. The challenge for civil society associations is to support and to empower the most marginalised and ensure that their voices are heard and acted upon.

Social cohesion under pressure. In addition to fears that society will further fragment along socio-economic grounds, there is a notion that increased cultural and religious diversity may lead to further fragmentation of civil society.

Diminishing arenas for public deliberation. One of the most common themes from throughout the Inquiry events concerned the underlying weakness of the arenas for public deliberation.

Marginalisation of dissent. Concerns were raised about the marginalisation of dissent in the UK and Ireland, especially in relation to those that lack power or confidence to voice their concerns or those who have non-mainstream views.

These faultines highlight a number of ‘burning issues’ which the Inquiry will investigate over the coming year. For more information about each of the ‘burning issues’ please click on the headings on the right.

www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk

Author: The Guardian

Addressing the Local Government Association’s annual conference next week, Blears will not mince words in her personal crusade of community empowerment. It was nurtured in her home city of Salford, where she was a local councillor, deeply frustrated it seems by the old Labour top-down machine. ‘With my own roots in local politics, grounded in the streets and estates of Salford, I’m a firm believer in devolution to the very local level,’ she told parish councillors recently at their national conference.
At the LGA, she will adopt a tough and tender approach – ritually praising councils for improving their efficiency while, at the same time, challenging them to let go and devolve more power to communities. For many council leaders, this will doubtless feel a bit rich. As LGA chair Sir Simon Milton points out, ministerial rhetoric extolling the virtues of devolving more powers from the centre has dismally failed to match reality on the ground.

‘There are things the government has done which should be given credit – pulling back from target-driven performance indicators, reducing ring-fencing [of specific grants] – but, on wider, deeper issues on devolution, I think we are still waiting,’ he laments.

Blears will have none of it, accusing some councils of lacking in ambition and failing to use powers already at their disposal, such as exploiting the prudential borrowing regime and trading services and activities to raise extra cash. She is combative, if a touch patronising.
‘I genuinely think local government has come a long way in terms of professionalism and ability to deliver, and we are at a bit of a moment in time when there is an opportunity for central government to genuinely devolve more powers to local government,’ she insists in a wide-ranging interview with Public Finance.

But there is a caveat, revealing a hint of frustration. ‘The challenge for local government is “are you up for this?” The corollary of greater devolution is clearer leadership, better delivery and the third bit – crucially important to me – a willingness on their part to devolve more power to communities. It’s a deal, basically. If you get more power from us, are you prepared to share that power with the communities you serve?’

Author: COSLA

Community Empowerment Task Group – Remit

Purpose
1. To provide the background to the creation of the Community Empowerment Task Group and recommend to the group a proposed remit.
Recommendations
The task group is invited to:
i) note the background to the creation of this group;
ii) discuss the remit proposed in this paper and suggest any changes;
iii) agree a remit for the group.
Background
2. The Scottish Government has committed itself to taking forward work on Community Empowerment. COSLA and the Scottish Government have since last year been discussing at both officer and political level, how such a programme of work can be taken forward.

3. From COSLA’s point of view Community Empowerment has been approached as an ethos which should be a fundamental part of the way in which local government undertakes its business. Indeed, the new joint working arrangement with the Scottish Government under the Concordat and the accompanying move to Single Outcome Agreements provides both an opportunity and a need to involve communities in the development of these agreements and to play a role in determining the local outcomes that each council will focus on.

4. By 2009 all Community Planning Partnerships will have signed up to a Single Outcome Agreement. Community engagement is a fundamental pillar of community planning work, this work on community empowerment is seen as the next step in further building the capacity of communities to actively engage at the local level.

5. Empowerment however is not a stand alone aim, it is valued for its potential impact on an unlimited number of policy areas, from the anti-social behaviour and anti-poverty agendas, to improving health inequalities and improved local service delivery. An empowered community will by definition have more say with regards to whatever issues are most important to them.

6. Civil servants, at the direction of Ministers, recently conducted a series of events and stakeholder meetings as part of a wide-ranging dialogue across Scotland. This process concluded in December last year and was intended to produce a series of practical steps that need to be taken to develop the Community Empowerment agenda. Feedbcak from this process helped to shape broad proposals that Ministers and COSLA have now agreed.

7. Leaders received a report from the Community Well-being and Safety Executive Group at their meeting on Feb 22nd recommending a set of high-level principles to underpin discussion with the Scottish Government including the need for a single, integrated approach to community empowerment which recognizes the need for an inclusive, responsive and flexible approach which will best meet local needs. The report expressed the agreed position of this Executive Group that there are a range of existing and potential community-based vehicles – tenants’ groups, local fora, community councils, youth groups, for example – for taking forward community empowerment across Scotland. The report made it clear that COSLA would not support an approach where local authorities were directed to devolve power or resources to community councils.

Meeting with Stewart Maxwell MSP, Minister for Communities and Sport
8. Councillor Harry McGuigan met with Stewart Maxwell MSP, Minister for Communities and Sport on the 4th of March to discuss amongst other issues, the Government’s proposals for community empowerment. At this meeting Councillor McGuigan outlined to Mr Maxwell that COSLA was broadly supportive of the concept of empowerment but would have considerable difficulties with any plans to devolve funding decisions specifically to community councils as the sole route to community empowerment. Further he outlined the principles agreed by this Executive Group for empowerment including the view that the community council workstream and the community empowerment workstream should be brought together and that community councils should only be one of several routes to community empowerment.

9. Mr Maxwell informed Councillor McGuigan that there is no intention to direct that community councils should have funding decisions devolved to them; that this was an issue for local authorities to discuss with their community councils; that there is no mention of community councils in the concordat and therefore no expectation on councils to devolve powers in that specific way; and that the Scottish Government agrees that the workstream on community councils should be brought together with the community empowerment workstream such that community councils are just one of many options for empowerment, alongside the full range of community groups.

Forward Actions

10. Following the meeting, Councillor McGuigan and the Minister agreed a draft joint statement of high level commitment to community empowerment between COSLA and the Scottish Government. In addition to the high level commitment, this statement includes an action plan and highlights examples of good practice.

11. The Community Well-Being and Safety Executive Group and Leadership Board have now agreed to proceed with this joint statement on community empowerment and that this work will be over-seen by the Community Empowerment Task Group. This Task Group will report back to the Executive Group and Leaders as appropriate.

12. A letter including the joint statement and action plan will by the time of the first meeting of the Community Empowerment Task Group have been distributed to a wide range of stakeholders including Council Chief Executives.

Task Group Remit
The proposed remit for the group:
• Consider the implications of the joint statement and action plan agreed between COSLA and Scottish Government for Local Authorities;
• Further develop this high level action plan and propose ways of implementing it at the local level;
• Consider examples of good practice;
• Develop proposals jointly with the Scottish Government to progress work in this area;
• Input into related areas with upon which Community Empowerment work impacts, e.g. anti-social behaviour agenda, anti-poverty strategy, etc.
• Report to the Community Well-Being and Safety Executive group, Leaders and others as appropriate.

Task Group Membership
Cllr Peter Duncan CON Dumfries and Galloway
Cllr Scott Farmer SNP Stirling
Cllr Allan Hendry SNP Aberdeenshire
Cllr Kathy Morrice SNP East Ayrshire
Cllr Charlie Nicolson IND Western Isles
Cllr George Freeman IND Argyll and Bute
Cllr Mary Montague LAB East Renfrewshire
Cllr Paul Johnston SLD Aberdeenshire
Cllr Ian Brown SLD Stirling
Cllr Harry McGuigan (Chair) LAB North Lanarkshire
Stewart Murdoch Chair CDAS
Rebecca Spillane Equalities Officer
East Lothian Equalities Officers Network
Sue Bruce Chief Executive
East Dunbartonshire SOLACE
Graham Johnstone Senior Officer Community Development
Glasgow CLDMS

Conclusion
The Community Empowerment Task Group is asked to discuss the above remit, propose any changes and agree the remit of the group.

Kristen Miller
Policy Officer
0131 474 9247
kristen@cosla.gov.uk

======================

Extract from LPL position statement on community empowerment

6.08 Opportunities for ownership and control

As a community becomes empowered – when it has the capacity to do things for itself and exert real influence over local issues – more often than not tangible assets of some sort will also be under community ownership and control. There are few examples of sustainable community empowerment which are not underwritten by an independent, locally controlled income stream. In recent years the policy climate has not always been in favour of communities acquiring assets, but several models are now shown to work and offer opportunities for expansion.

6.09 Community owned housing associations

Particularly when they diversify into wider activities and services, COHAs can be the engine to regenerate struggling communities. Housing and regeneration strategies should be built on the community empowerment potential of the community owned HA model that was initiated in Scotland.

6.10 The ownership of commercial and social buildings

This is probably the most common trigger for community empowerment. This can vary from a single shop or even a hut – to thousands of square feet of workspaces. This model has high potential as there will always be some surplus and underused council properties.

6.11 The ownership of land

Particularly in rural areas, this can be a catalyst which galvanizes communities into action. With the 2003 Land Reform Act, Scotland leads the field in this area – but aspects of the Act don’t work well and needs revisited along with legislation relating to the management Common Good funds across Scotland’s ancient royal burghs.

6.12 Control and ownership of renewable energy production

This presents a unique opportunity for communities to establish a long term income stream and thereby a degree of financial sustainability. Highland & Islands Community Energy Company (HICEC) is proving the success of this model in rural areas and there is no reason why it could not be replicated in our cities.

6.13 Community owned social enterprises

Community owned social enterprises are active across Scotland in a variety of markets including: transport, recycling, childcare, training, care of vulnerable citizens, recreation, education, land management etc. Community businesses help communities build their capacity and confidence and can help to establish a local culture of enterprise and entrepreneurship.

Author: LPL

Comrie is a village of 3000 people in the heart of rural Perthshire. We are a highly motivated community with at least 56 local organisations active in the village.Comrie is the name given by the Scots invaders of the 7th century and is derived from the Gaelic Conruith meaning ‘flowing together’ as our village sits where the three rivers of the Earn, Ruchill and Leadnock meet. Inthe 21st century it is a place where ancient rivers are meeting new ideas through our new Development Trust. Established less than two years ago, we have already:

One of the best represented Development Trusts in the UK

-Purchased 90 acres of land for community benefit
– Attracted over £650k of investment
– Built strong partnerships with charities, banks, government and local groups
– Have an unrivalled network of volunteers advancing projects from youth drama to renewable energy
– Been short listed for the Big Green Challenge £1
million prize fund to reduce our carbon footprint.

We are a community determined to take care of our village and rise to the economic, social and environmental challenges of the 21st century.

NESTA (National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts) are offering a £1 million prize fund to communities who can reduce their carbon footprint by 60% in one year. Acknowledging the extraordinary community involvement, Comrie is 1 of 10 communities in Scotland short listed for the second stage. Our idea is to motivate and galvanise our whole community for our Big Green Challenge. This will involve two complementary approaches.

Firstly, we will continue our work on the sustainable development of Cultybraggan Army Camp. The zero carbon development of the camp will include:

– Ecological building construction methods
– Training local tradesmen and architects in eco
construction
– Renewable energy sources for the site and village
– Local food production including allotments
– Training local school children in food production
– Homes and workspaces for local people and
enterprises
– Biodiversity areas and woodland planting.
– Footpath and cycle ways to the site
– Holding learning events in the village on all aspects
of sustainable development.

Secondly, we will role out the learning, enthusiasm and
ideas across village life to include (for example):

– Work with the schools, local businesses and local
organisations
– Action on personal responsibility (travel, energy
use, shopping habits)
– Energy audits and renewable energy sources in
homes and community buildings
– Renewable energy schemes and promoting technological
solutions for rural communities.

Our work to rise to the economic, social and environmental challenges of the 21st century will continue irrespective of our progress in the Big Green Challenge. We will be seeking investment from the new Scottish Government Climate Change Fund to support our work.

Author: Scottish Federation of Housing Associations

Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1. Introduction
7.1.1. This research has suggested that there is a clear and important role for housing associations in the future of community regeneration in Scotland. Both housing associations and regeneration stakeholders welcome the sector’s involvement in community regeneration to date and want these activities to expand in the future. They recognise the ability of housing associations to target very disadvantaged client groups and make a significant impact on improving people’s lives. At a national level the Scottish Government has demonstrated its commitment by making provision for a dedicated Wider Role Fund to continue for the next three years and through the establishment of a specialist team to manage it.

7.1.2. There are some qualifications to this positive picture.
• Everyone – housing associations, stakeholder and government at all levels – continues to believe that the primary function of housing associations should continue to be the development, management and maintenance of housing.
• Whilst a high proportion of housing associations have engaged in community regeneration, some of this involvement has been small scale and a noticeable minority of housing associations do not think community regeneration will be a significant part of their future business.
• Housing associations make a significant contribution to community regeneration over and above the management and development of social housing, but, in resource terms at least, when this is set against the global levels of investment in regeneration in Scotland, it is relatively small scale.
• The review of Scottish housing policy and the current consultation paper, Firm Foundations, pose significant challenges for housing associations’ core functions. It is asking a lot of the sector to find additional time and energy to drive forward its engagement in community regeneration at the same time.

7.1.3. The recommendations below have been developed in the light of the evolving policy context and analysis of the extensive interviews and scorecard responses. They are divided into those which target housing associations and others at the local level and those targeted at the SFHA and others at the national level.

7.2. Local Level

Wider Role Becoming More Efficient and Effective
7.2.1. There is increasing pressure on housing associations to respond to the Scottish Government’s efficiency agenda and to make best use of the resources at their disposal, as Firm Foundations has illustrated. This will require associations both to use community regeneration work to support their own core business activities and to deliver such work more effectively.

7.2.2. There are, however, numerous examples of ‘self-help’ within the movement, where housing associations have come together to pool resources and share good practice and developmental capacity. In the case of wider role, there is a case for more partnership working with others, particularly in the third sector, but also with local authorities and other agencies.

Recommendation 1:
Housing associations should examine the scope for pooling resources amongst themselves or with other organisations, so that expertise might be shared more broadly and the most efficient use made of resources. There may be a role here for the SFHA, perhaps in conjunction with representative organisations from the third, social enterprise and local authority sectors, to broker such arrangements and to source skills outwith the housing association movement.

Recommendation 2:
There are a number of forums across Scotland where housing associations are currently coming together to share information on Wider Role and other topics. These forums could play a key role in helping facilitate Recommendation 1, particularly if they sharply focus on sharing good practice, information and resources.

Social Enterprise
7.2.3. Many housing associations consider themselves to be social enterprises and some have social enterprise subsidiaries of their own. Housing associations want to engage in more social enterprise activity; help other social enterprises to get established and flourish; and do more trade with social enterprises.

7.2.4. The environment for this seems favourable. The other social enterprises who responded to this study were even more enthusiastic than housing associations themselves about the prospect of joint working. The Scottish Government is encouraging the sector both by improving the environment for social enterprise and by providing direct funding, although housing associations are unlikely to be funded directly because they have exclusive access to wider role funding. In their concordat with the Scottish Government, local authorities have given a commitment to growing the turnover of social enterprise.

Recommendation 3:
Housing associations that wish to expand their social enterprise work should use the opportunities provided by the concordat to proactively approach social enterprises, local authorities, Community Planning Partnerships (see Recommendation 5) and Local Social Economy Partnerships to explore opportunities for joint working.

Community Engagement and Empowerment
7.2.5. The relationship that housing associations enjoy with their tenants, many of whom belong to “hard to reach” groups, is recognised by many stakeholders as one of the sector’s key strengths. The sector generally regards engaging with communities on issues relating to their role as a landlord and developer as standard practice.

7.2.6. Some associations described the work they have been doing in supporting local assessments of community needs and opinions. The use of more systematic approaches to surveys and opinions, drawing on the professional skills within housing associations, could therefore be helpful in bringing more rigour to local debates about how scarce resources should be deployed and may act as a useful counter-balance to less fruitful oppositional forms of protest that dissatisfied elements in some communities resort to.

7.2.7. There was, however, less enthusiasm from other regeneration stakeholders for housing associations acting as advocates for communities and a concern that this could potentially cut across other representative or consultative processes, particularly in the context of Community Planning.

Recommendation 4:
Housing associations should carefully consider their particular circumstances when engaging in community engagement or empowerment beyond their role as a landlord. In particular they should ask themselves:
a. Whether they can legitimately assume a lead role? Such a role may be appropriate where they are the majority landlord or the main organisational presence in a rural area;
b. Whether they would be welcomed in this role by other agencies and organisations? If conflict is a probable outcome, they need to carefully consider whether this would be in the best interests of their organisation or the community concerned.
c. Whether they can draw on their professional expertise to help communities to take on new roles and responsibilities?

Community Planning
7.2.8. The Scottish Government is actively promoting the devolution of power to the local level. This is underpinned by the Concordat with local authorities and characterised by a reduction in ring fencing and the development of single outcome agreements with local authorities and Community Planning Partnerships. Communities Scotland has, rightly or wrongly, been viewed by many regeneration partners as a proxy for housing associations at the local level. The abolition of Communities Scotland removes this explicit link into CPPs and LSEPs.

7.2.9. Housing associations reported that they do not feel that they are as well-connected with CPPs and other local decision-making forums as they should be. Regeneration stakeholders tended to agree that this is the case and that other third sector organisations felt much the same. With the possible exception of those associations created by whole-stock transfers, it is clear that individual housing associations are not of a sufficient scale to command a place at the “top table” in most CPPs. It is also the case that housing associations’ engagement with CPPs will tend to focus on their core housing role and that wider community regeneration will be a secondary consideration.

7.2.10. Further account must be taken of the fact that housing associations are often competitive with one another and with other organisations for funding, territory and influence. It is clear, however, that the Scottish Government, both in Firm Foundations and in the Wider Role funding programme, is keen to encourage housing association to come together and work jointly.

Recommendation 5:
Housing associations at the local authority level should make greater efforts to act jointly with one another to represent their sector within CPPs and on other relevant forums. They should also give consideration to whether local circumstances lend themselves to wider cooperation with other third sector organisations.

Recommendation 6:
Housing associations need to articulate (preferably collectively) a clear and simple offer to CPPs on the contribution they can make to formulating and delivering CPP priorities. The nature of that offer will be dictated by local circumstances and the particular priorities of each CPP.

7.3. National Level Recommendations

Making the Sector’s ‘Offer’ Clear
7.3.1. The housing association movement has a clear ‘offer’ to make to other stakeholders in contributing to community regeneration through wider role activity, the growth of social enterprise, community empowerment and community planning. That offer is grounded in its financial, organisational, human resource and relationship assets and the roles it can therefore play as a community anchor, creative contractor and trusted intermediary.

7.3.2. There is evidence from the policy literature that there is a growing understanding of this potential contribution within the Scottish Government. However, it is essential to address this lack of clarity on the part of regeneration stakeholders and to some extent within the housing association movement itself.

Recommendation 7:
• The SFHA should work with the Scottish Government to ensure that all its policy documents in relation to community regeneration, social enterprise development, community empowerment and community planning clearly articulate the potential role of housing associations in delivering their objectives.

Recommendation 8:
• In particular, the SFHA should work with the Scottish Government on the proposed further strategic review of the Wider Role Fund to ensure that the unique contribution that housing associations can make is fully recognised and supported.

Recommendation 9:
• SFHA should work with CoSLA and the Improvement Service to explore how this offer can be better promoted to local authorities and Community Planning Partnerships.

Recommendation 10:
• The SFHA should work through the Scottish Government, CoSLA, SCVO, social enterprise networks and their own members to disseminate a clear understanding of the role of housing associations as community anchors to a broader range of stakeholders.

Wider Role Fund Priorities
7.3.3. This study has highlighted considerable concerns within the housing association sector about its capacity to become more widely involved in community regeneration and in the reduction of resources available to support generic development work.

Recommendation 11:
• The SFHA should work with the Scottish Government to consider how housing associations might be best supported to increase the capacity and skills of their organisations and staff to more effectively and efficiently deliver community regeneration outcomes.

Demonstrating Added and Business Value
7.3.4. It can be difficult to demonstrate the added value of housing associations’ engagement in community regeneration. Whilst both housing associations and regeneration partners had a positive sense about there being added value, this sense was often based on anecdotal evidence. There is widespread interest in the development of more systematic and consistent monitoring and evaluation frameworks for community regeneration that would capture not only the narrow inputs and outputs of project work, but also the wider social, economic and environmental benefits.

Recommendation 12:
• The SFHA and the Scottish Government should support the development of ‘social accounting’ or ‘social return on investment’ models for measuring the performance and reporting on wider role, social enterprise and community empowerment projects. This should build on, or be consistent with, the Scottish Government’s exploration of such approaches for their work in promoting the third sector. The models developed should be usable across a wide range of activities and should be easy to implement by housing associations and their partners.

7.3.5. Housing associations are often restricted in their ability to devote increased resources to community regeneration by a concern that the activities undertaken are not financially justifiable for the organisation – a fear that there is little or no business return on them. The business case for engaging in community regeneration therefore needs to be made more specific.

Recommendation 13:
• The SFHA and the Scottish Government should support the further development of the models outlined above to ensure that they encompass effective mechanisms for auditing the business impact of such engagement, i.e. the impact on organisational effectiveness and on business performance on issues such as rent arrears and tenancy turnover.

An ‘In Business for Neighbourhoods’ for Scotland
7.3.6. One of the objectives in the brief for this research was to consider whether an initiative similar to the NHF’s In Business for Neighbourhoods should be promoted in Scotland.

7.3.7. There was a mixed response to this proposal. The advantages to such an approach were seen to be:
• the articulation of a clear and consistent message;
• a higher profile leading to greater recognition;
• the dissemination of good practice to a wider audience;
• promoting a more welcoming invitation to potential partners;
• clear identification of those housing associations that wanted to promote wider role.

7.3.8. The main disadvantages were seen as:
• a national brand might conflict with local branding;
• a distinct wider role brand might conflict with the promotion of housing associations generally;
• there are already too many web sites and publications, often of poor quality;
• a concern that such an exercise would be cosmetic and lacking in real substance.

7.3.9. The advantages of a national initiative to promote housing associations’ involvement in community regeneration seem to outweigh the disadvantages. However, it is clear that such a campaign would only succeed if it was properly resourced and if it enjoyed widespread involvement and support from housing associations. Given the range of opinions encountered, the issues of cost and support could only be properly tested in the light of specific proposals, rather than as an abstract proposition.

7.3.10. It was also clear that respondents felt a replication of InBiz would not encompass all the elements of support for enhanced involvement in community regeneration that would be welcomed by the housing association sector, such as opportunities for sharing good practice and training.

Recommendation 14:
• The SFHA should work closely with its members and national and local partner organisations to carry out a detailed examination of how training, networking opportunities and good practice advice relating to the sector’s role in community regeneration can be provided at a national and local level. Alongside this, the SFHA should identify appropriate campaigns to promote the diverse work of the housing association sector in developing and maintaining successful, sustainable neighbourhoods across Scotland.

Download full document here

Author: Tommy Kane and Kyle Mitchell

Worldwide there is a water crisis. The crisis is one that is often addressed in terms of scarcity. The crisis, however, could instead be defined in terms of over-use, unequal production and distribution and a lack of political will to deviate from the present direction and policy that promotes the commodification and privatisation of water services. We find ourselves in a global dilemma: at a time when First and Third World governments are adhering to neo-liberal policy demands and increasingly slashing public spending, billions are required in order to build and improve water infrastructure.

Today’s reality is that water is unfairly shared and distributed and those who are doing without find themselves in a situation where they are doing without because they lack the financial wherewithal to gain access to adequate levels of water. Those lacking access to clean water and adequate sanitation are, disproportionately the world’s poor. It is our belief that the free market is not, and indeed cannot, remedy the unjust correlation between poverty and insufficient access to clean water and adequate sanitation. Moreover, and more disconcerting, because private water providers not only seek to re-coop costs but also profit from their capital investments and service provision, they exacerbate all forms of inequality thus making water scarcity a reality for those unable or not willing to pay.

The commercialization of a public water utilities is not exclusive to Scotland. From North America – Canada and US; to Latin America – Bolivia, Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Nicaragua; to all over Europe; Asia Pacific – India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Korea, Australia; and Africa – South Africa, Namibia, Ghana, Tanzania, and among many other places around the world the change and pressure is the same. By deregulating, liberalising and privatising water services, governments throughout the world are acquiescing to the dominant neo-liberal ideology that frames the global economy. This is the grander context in which we should situate that commercialisation of Scotland’s water services.

It is increasingly apparent that the status of Scottish Water as a public utility is once more under intense scrutiny. The privatisation of Scottish Water will result in the private control of water delivery in Scotland and subsequently the destruction of any semblance of democratic governance of water in Scotland. Moreover, if privatised, decisions regarding Scotland’s water will be made in a manner that is consistent with the contours of the global economy and its capital markets and not in the interests of the Scotland’s citizenry. Given the uncertainty over water supply in the future coupled with the uneven distribution of wealth on a global level, commodifying and privatising water and thus handing the ownership and control of this vital asset to transnational water corporations, is not only dangerous but wrong.

This would be in no small part, because the transferring of control of water is, and would be, characterised by a displacement of decision-making capability and public involvement in its governance. Decisions regarding use, allocation and distribution are transferred from local officials who represent community interests to corporate executives who represent the interests of private corporations. Eric Swyngedouw – a well-known academic studying water issues – notes, “Traditional channels of democratic accountability are hereby cut, curtailed, or redefined” (Swyngedouw, 2005, p.92). Yet still the debate in Scotland takes place within a narrow field that recommends such a direction.

We recommend rejection of all market-led reforms including both mutualisation and privatisation. Change would require a move away from the current preponderance towards economic efficiency and towards a new way of thinking about how we manage and govern socially necessary goods and services. Indeed, we suggest that the status quo should be changed along much more democratised lines whereby local communities become involved in the decision-making processes of all things that affect their lives both as individuals and communities: such as water services. Clearly, the mechanics of such a change would entail some detailed consideration. If we are to truly consider ourselves a democratic country wishing to bring governance to the people, as was said at the opening of the Scottish Parliament, then such change should be welcomed as a step in that direction.

Furthermore, it is no longer sufficient to simply say we are against privatisation without suggesting alternatives; nor is it adequate to propound the logic and democratic tendencies of widespread political participation without implementing the appropriate political tools that would facilitate and encourage such participation. The provision of water and its governance are multifarious, capital intensive and technologically complex; alternative models to privatisation must reflect these factors. This entails further research and a level of public engagement that would consider the potential and possibilities for alternative models – models that are ultimately geared towards fundamental change in the direction of increased community involvement at every level of water governance and provision.

By way of conclusion we propose the creation, promotion and implementation of a formalised Scottish National Water Policy. Such a policy would address the almost continual uncertainty surrounding the level of publicness of Scottish Water. This would include the enshrining of laws not only protecting Scotland’s water as a public good and service but also extending the rights of communities with respect to decisions over water resources. The formation of such a law would include the following principles: fresh water and its related services are a form of the commons and should be governed as such; water is a human right; all decisions with respect to Scottish Water are to be made in proactive consultation with the Scottish public and therefore reflect the broader public interest; the institutionalisation and legalisation of sufficient, non-discriminatory access to fresh water and sanitation services; and the extension and increased capacity of Scottish Water as the sole public provider. In so doing Scotlands fresh water commons will be protected to serve the common good and interests of the people of Scotland.

Download document here