Residentled Evaluation RLE of Community Empowerment Mike Beazley
Resident-led Evaluation (RLE) of Community Empowerment Mike Beazley, Centre for Urban and Regional Studies, University of Birmingham, England Transforming Urban Landscapes: Community Perspectives– March 2011
Structure of Presentation § § § Background and context Rationale for Resident-Led Evaluation (RLE) Castle Vale Community Regeneration Team Research Findings Impacts and outcomes of RLE Conclusions
Castle Vale: Location • Eastern edge of the city boundary • 1. 5 sq. miles • Geographically isolated • Largest post-war tower block housing estate in Midlands
Castle Vale 1993 -2011
The Regeneration: Castle Vale Housing Action Trust (HAT) o o o HAT established in 1993 following a 92% vote from tenants. 12 Year regeneration programme with the option to return to the Council Holistic Regeneration Stated commitment to citizen participation Successor vehicles - Castle Vale Community Housing Association (CVCHA)
The Transformation - 2006 o o o 2200 homes demolished 1500 new homes built 1333 homes improved 1461 jobs created 3415 training places New shopping centre, community facilities Unemployment reduced 26% - 5% Educational attainment improved Crime and fear of crime reduced Life expectancy increased 98% of HAT tenants chose CVCHA (84% turnout)
National Regeneration Context o o o 1990 s/2000 s shift towards community led regeneration Resident engagement - key to long term sustainability Investment needs to reflect the priorities of the community Plethora of initiatives Lack of community engagement in evaluation Call for radical alternatives
Rationale for Resident-led Evaluation (RLE) o Builds community capacity o Develops social capital o Reaffirms the democratic process o Active engagement of residents in all aspects of process
Community Research Team o Born in Chicago! o Undergraduate module - RUC o Long term active residents o Research Methods Training o University role
Methodology o Devised by the team o Documentation review o Mapping and recording of residents groups o Review of key agencies o Semi-structured interviews o Focus Groups o Vox-pop survey
Research Findings: Positives o Residents had impact o Culture of resident involvement o Mutual respect o Personal empowerment o Developing social capital o Use of local knowledge o Sense of community ownership
Research Findings: Negatives o Difficulty in pleasing everyone o Unrealistic expectations o Community conflicts and power struggles o Small group of active residents o Not as involved as might have been o Lack of experience in early years o Influence over “minor” issues o Residents felt undervalued o Community voice not always heard
Positive Impacts/Outcomes of RLE o o o o o Skill and dedication of residents Another form of engagement Personal empowerment HAT/CVCHA supportive Sustainability/community ownership Good quality information Resident perspective Research team had a stake in the process Community/University relations
Negative Impacts/Outcomes of RLE o Perceived attitudes of professionals o Professionals/ community skills gap o Lack of self confidence among residents o Lack of trust o Activist “burnout” o Resources and support
Conclusions o Clear advantage to resident led evaluation o Fits into concept of residentled philosophy o Builds social capital/community capacity o Relevant and useful findings o Quality of information o Local knowledge
Thank you and questions…
- Slides: 20