1. 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

2. 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

3. Castle Vale: Location Eastern edge of the city boundary 1.5 sq. miles Geographically isolated Largest post-war tower block housing estate in Midlands

4. Castle Vale 1993 -2011

8. The Regeneration: Castle Vale Housing Action Trust (HAT)  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)

9. The Transformation - 2006  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)

11. National Regeneration Context  1990s/2000s 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

12. Rationale for Resident-led Evaluation (RLE)  Builds community capacity  Develops social capital  Reaffirms the democratic process  Active engagement of residents in all aspects of process

13. Community Research Team  Born in Chicago!  Undergraduate module - RUC  Long term active residents  Research Methods Training  University role

14. Methodology  Devised by the team  Documentation review  Mapping and recording of residents groups  Review of key agencies  Semi-structured interviews  Focus Groups  Vox-pop survey

15. Research Findings: Positives  Residents had impact  Culture of resident involvement  Mutual respect  Personal empowerment  Developing social capital  Use of local knowledge  Sense of community ownership

16. Research Findings: Negatives  Difficulty in pleasing everyone  Unrealistic expectations  Community conflicts and power struggles  Small group of active residents  Not as involved as might have been  Lack of experience in early years  Influence over “minor” issues  Residents felt undervalued  Community voice not always heard

17. Positive Impacts/Outcomes of RLE  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

18. Negative Impacts/Outcomes of RLE  Perceived attitudes of professionals  Professionals/ community skills gap  Lack of self confidence among residents  Lack of trust  Activist “burnout”  Resources and support

19. Conclusions  Clear advantage to resident led evaluation  Fits into concept of resident- led philosophy  Builds social capital/community capacity  Relevant and useful findings  Quality of information  Local knowledge

20. Thank you and questions…