Citizen burdened governance

I’m a big believer in community self-provision and citizen focused governance. In general, I think local services will be better and more accountable if local people are involved in their design, oversight and, where possible, delivery. I don’t think everything can be delivered by volunteers, but I think, as local citizens, we have a responsibility to contribute to the community.

My husband and I practice what I preach - at least as much as we can. We’re busy people and we have a small child, but we both are members of local governance structures. And I have to say that recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation findings on the confusing and complex nature of local governance seems right on the money.

They found:

• The governance of disadvantaged neighbourhoods is in a state of flux. Not only do residents have to overcome the economic, social and political barriers of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, but their opportunities for involvement in shaping public services are constantly being changed.
• Clarity about the purpose of engaging people in governance arrangements is lacking. This can lead to confusion and disillusionment
• Citizens and service users in disadvantaged neighbourhoods are doubly disadvantaged. They have to negotiate the complexities of public service delivery to meet their immediate needs, and also respond to the many consultation and engagement initiatives.

And at the risk of sounding elitist, I think poor folks in disadvantaged areas may be triply disadvantaged.  Our area, like many in London, is very mixed with highly educated professionals living alongside those with few qualifications.  That isn’t to say that a wide range of people can’t contribute, but I will say that I think there’s a certain learned skill to sitting through dull meetings and identifying your “moment” to add something and there’s certainly skill required in challenging the professionals even in a gentle, well-meaning way.

My husband recently tried to recruit someone who is an active and articulate community member and whose work as a barber means that she hears a lot of different views from people in the area - but she confessed that she has poor literacy skills in English.   She’d still make a great contributor, but she’s already put off by the prospect of formal meetings and I can well imagine that she’d be pretty perplexed by the reams of paper on arcane policy and statistical reporting.   To top it off, my husband was recently press-ganged into attending a day long workshop on a pretty complex and subtle set of issues that was more suited to the professional than the lay member.   Many people just aren’t able to give up a Saturday, and I have to admit I was pretty resentful of the loss of family time.

As professionals, we need to be really careful about not overburdening those who want to give and making sure that their time is spent constructively, which is why I think the JRF report raises some very interesting points.

And, of course, there’s still great scope and opportunity for involving a wide range of views and experience in building better communities and we’ll still be there as community members the next time a meeting is called.