Tuesday, 08 December 2009

Creating greater value: participation in Milton Keynes

Group at map 2 Back in the summer I worked with Bev Carter reviewing levels of social and civic participation in Milton Keynes. The report has just been published by Citizens:MK - click on the research tab here.

For a small study it's quite a lengthy report, because a lot of stuff came up. We based our work on the belief that social participation and informal involvement with others in everyday life underpins and is critical for civic participation.

Here are some of the main points:

  • Cohesion and stability among existing groups has to precede participative integration into broader civic structures. If young people feel despised and unwanted, or Somalis feel unsupported and victimised, those claims have to be addressed before we can raise expectations about integrated participation.
  • Perhaps partly because of the town's geography, people seem to be lacking association with a defined, distinctive neighbourhood which offers them something to be proud of, to defend and develop.
  • We noted a shift in the areas where young people can or cannot exercise autonomy; and an apparent general decline in their experience of organisation. We think that most young people have no difficulty understanding the nuances of democracy and the value of participation. The problem is more about policy-makers appreciating the importance of social participation in everyday life at local level. It doesn't help that participation principles are not reinforced consistently in the adult world, and loyalty of any kind appears not to be valued.
  • Popular participation does not just create connections, it also depends on connections - between citizens, agencies and representatives. A healthy variety of connections is of massive, barely-noticed social significance. Without them we cannot develop a participative politics that resolves social problems by involving all kinds of people collectively in addressing them.

Previously:

Found difficult and left untried?

Invisible mutual support at the margins

You'd hope they'd be angry

8 Dec 2009 14:50:06 | Citizenship and democracy, Governance and participation, Social exclusion

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Civic health and social impact Yesterday we had another government public service modernisation strategy, Frontline First, which contains a couple of very interesting ideas likely to attract attention. In 2010 government says it will: Build a stronger civic society and give communities more say in shaping public services. We will map civic health in every community through a new Civil Health Index, transfer more public assets to the third sector, and develop new ways of providing capital to civic society organisations - such as through a new social investment wholesale bank and piloting Social Impact Bonds. The idea of social impact bonds is to reward social investors for work that reduces future social costs. Social Impact Bonds seek to drive significant non-government investment into addressing the causes of deep-rooted social problems with returns generated from a proportion of the related reduction in spending on acute services. The ambition is to create positive government spending cycles that enable significant tax payer savings through improved social outcomes. (Social Finance report). There's no detail about the proposal for a Civic Health Index in the UK and an annual Civic Health report. It sounds a bit like an idea I had about 8 years ago for a local community index. Maybe that will follow in time. Frontline first press release.
PREVIOUS POST
Older and young people relate differently to neighbours: shock news Survey research commissioned by the housing provider Circle Anglia and published last week focuses on the difference in neighbourhood connections between young people (18-24) and older people (over-65). As reports on these sorts of surveys go, this is refreshingly informative. The claim is that 92 percent of the over-65s say they know the name of their neighbours (which ones?). This compares with 66% of young people - which I'd have said was pretty encouraging. Older people tend to have lived in the same place for longer than younger people, especially if you subtract the first few years of a young person's life when they're less likely to be that sharp with names. Also I'm surely not the only to have noticed that young people don't tend to place a great deal of demand on informal social care locally, so somehow I wouldn't expect them to be getting into lots of conversation with neighbours. And since their neighbourhoods got covered with cars owned by adults, they're hardly inspired to hang about in the street, so we wouldn't expect much relaxed interaction with adult neighbours to be generated on a day-to-day basis. The report notes that 56 per cent of older people enjoy spending time with their neighbours. For me, this is the worrying statistic, if it means that means 44 per cent don't or are indifferent. The encouraging statistic is that 47 per cent of 18-24 year olds agree that living in a diverse neighbourhood is a good thing. Via the Beeb's coverage.

Kevin Harris

Search

My Other Accounts

Recent Comments