The official website for National Association for Neighbourhood Management
On 12 March, members of the NANM network met-up in Barnsley to explore ‘Devolution: single or double?’
Read more about the day, resources shared and reflections captured here.
We also intend to write something that briefly captures the key themes that emerged during the day, and which we hope will prompt further discussion.
We would argue it’s more human, more interesting, and more radical by far.
We have heard the word “Devolution” everywhere over the past six months; from Scotland’s referendum, to new financial and political powers for Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. We have also heard increasingly about groups of local activists seizing the initiative in their own communities – to re-open a local pub, to save libraries, or to win contracts to deliver services previously run by local authorities.
The temptation is to see these developments as similar responses at different scales to the same issues; scepticism of Whitehall and Westminster politics, disillusionment with ‘big’ power and big projects, and a widespread sense of traditional power seeming distant and disconnected from daily human local lives.
One reading of all this is that the big devolutionary tilt – in Scotland, and in the English city regions – now just needs to be replicated or given another shove, on a smaller scale and we’ll have achieved ‘more power to local communities’?
We are not so sure. When we meet with others involved in neighbourhood and community projects we often hear them describe their Town Hall or County Halls as feeling just as distant as Whitehall. For many people it seems that shifting power from Westminster to their own city council or local authority doesn’t lead to them feeling decisions are being taken closer to them, or that they have more control. It’s just one group of decision-makers ‘somewhere else’ being replaced by another. The headline priorities of newly empowered cities reinforce this: grand transport schemes and other infrastructure projects; steel and glass, rather than people and communities. The human element is often reduced to workforce statistics – reinforcing our concern that future ‘devolved’ decisions of re-invigorated cities will feel no more focused on local communities than Whitehall’s decisions today (see high speed rail, housing, and healthcare).
And if you study what the more ambitious local authorities are saying about getting closer to communities and neighbourhoods is it really about surrendering decision-making power and budgets to communities? In some cases it is – but more often the stated goals are about building cleverer administrative systems for tailoring services and pre-empting needs. This is smart, necessary and important if public services are to meet spiralling demand, but it is not the same as devolving power, money, and decisions to villages, estates and neighbourhoods.
Yet, almost in a parallel world across the country there is a renewed energy and enthusiasm going into community-led activities to improve or create something right where people live. We have seen this in the take-up (slow but steadily growing) of ‘community rights’ to create local plans, take over community buildings, or to bid for contracts to run local services. We have also see it in the amazing energy which has been collected and released by the Big Local programme where £1million has been offered as a catalyst for change in 150 communities. And then there are myriad examples of new organisations trying to meet pressing needs in their communities in new and imaginative ways, often using technology to turn labour-intensive tasks (like matching users to support, or distributing information) into very simple tasks.
This small and local devolution is not some kind of replica in miniature of city-regional devolution, in many cases it feels like a challenge to the culture and structure of city-regional government. So while the newly empowered cities may quickly start looking like scaled-down versions of Whiltehall, local devolution looks very different; you could even say, the polar opposite.
Thursday 12 March 2015, 10.30 – 16.00, Barnsley, South Yorkshire
The Scottish referendum has put devolution firmly back on the national political agenda. Should neighbourhood activists and managers be rejoicing?
The renewed interest in devolution across the United Kingdom is partly because of the promises that Westminster politicians made to the Scottish people in order to secure a ‘No’ vote, and the expectations that they have raised of similar deals with the other areas. But it is also a reflection of the stellar levels of engagement that the referendum achieved. With election turnout in general decline, and distrust of politicians growing, the 85% turnout was both a boost for advocates of greater devolution and a challenge to those who say that disengagement with politics is an unstoppable trend. In reality the Scottish referendum was not the start of the debate about greater regional devolution. Greater Manchester and Sheffield City Region have both recently agreed devolution deals with the national government, and other City regions are seeking to take on similar devolved powers.
But what will this sort of devolution mean for neighbourhoods? Will it reinvigorate arguments for ‘double-devolution’ and neighbourhood power? Or could it end up diverting attention away from community empowerment?
These are the sorts of questions we intend to explore in the latest NANM share and learn event, on 12 March.
We are delighted to be holding this event in Barnsley where the approach of the council is placing it firmly at the heart of the devolution debate.
Content and approach
Councillor Sir Stephen Houghton, Leader of Barnsley Council, has agreed to start discussions off by explaining how Barnsley is radically devolving real spending power beyond the Tower Hall to community level. Councillor Houghton also chairs the Sheffield City Region Combined Authority which has secured one of the Government’s recent devolution funding deals.
During the rest of the day there will be a variety of opportunities to discuss issues with a range of other contributors, each of whom is a champion for devolution in a different way. Most of these discussions will be in smaller parallel sessions.
The confirmed list of contributors includes:
As with all NANM events, a major focus of the day is the opportunity it provides to mix with, get to know and share experience with other colleagues. So the programme includes a mix of plenary presentations, smaller group discussions and time to network.
Download [download id=”69″]
Who should attend?
In short anyone who is interested in neighbourhoods and devolution. We hope that it will attract a mix of practitioners and policy makers, people working at a local level as well as people working at the national and regional levels. If it piques your interest it is for you.
What does it cost?
The event is free to attend, although we are asking for a voluntary contribution towards catering and logistics (the guide is £10). If payment is a problem do not let it put you off. The contribution is a genuinely voluntary one. If you are already a paid up member of NANM simply choose the ticket for NANM members.
How to book your place
There is an Eventbrite page for this event. This is the easiest way for us to take bookings. You will be offered the opportunity to make a voluntary contribution towards refreshments and logistics (and get 2 year NANM membership) as part of the booking process. Payment can be online using a credit card and PayPal or in cash at the event.
In case you have problems booking through Eventbrite, we are also accepting bookings by email or telephone.
[This event is now in the past, but we have left the the Eventbtrite page up in case it is still of interest.]
On 8 July, 64 people descended on Birmingham to hear and share stories of localism and co-production as the culmination of a month of activities exploring research into models of localism and co-production undertaken over the previous two years by researchers from the Universities of Manchester and Birmingham.
Read more about the day, the research that prompted it, resources shared and reflections captured here. Get a flavour of the stories shared from the visual minutes below.
Earlier this year we invited members of the NANM network – people who have come to NANM events, read the NANM newswire, follow @NM_Association on Twitter or just keep an eye on the NANM web site – to complete an online survey. The purpose of the survey was to find out more about who currently makes up the NANM network, after a period of some considerable change, and how you would like to engage with NANM and other network members. Promotion was relatively low key. A link from the NANM website, mention in the Newswire and a follow-up mailing, and promoted in a few Tweets.
This was the first NANM survey for over two years and as ever we are deeply grateful to all those who responded. The responses we did get were full and enthusiastic.
So what did we learn?
You can read a more detailed summary of the survey findings in this short report. [download id=”65″]
We’d love to hear your responses. Do the findings ring true? Are you involved in projects that you think could help other network members (and would you be willing to write or talk about your experience)? Are there issues that weren’t picked up?
