2 Engaging the community
7. The NDC programme differs from other regeneration
efforts in that communities themselves are responsible for taking
the initiative forward, working in partnership with existing service
delivery agencies such as Local Authorities, Primary Care Trusts,
Police Authorities and other partners. Adopting such a community-focused
approach has potential benefits for the residents in that projects
can be focused on the local needs and condition of each NDC neighbourhood.
8. Each NDC partnership is headed by a board. In
seeking to empower the communities the Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister was not prescriptive about the make up of boards and
no guidelines were issued regarding their composition or the mix
of elected or co-opted community members, council/ward representatives
and support agencies that should be represented.[9]
9. Boards usually have some 12 to 20 or more members.
Typically representatives of the community make up half the membership
with the other half made up of representatives from local public
bodies. Figure 2 illustrates the main participants of NDC
boards. In the majority of NDCs, community representatives are
elected through a ballot. The way in which community candidates
are nominated varies, but is often self nomination.[10]
It is important for governance arrangements to be transparent
and provide assurance of legitimate community representation.
Where the board is not seen as representing the interests of the
community tensions can result, as was the case in the early stages
of the Braunstone NDC.[11]
10. Evidence to date suggests that local authorities
are vital to successful NDC partnerships. In Barton Hill, for
example, the NDC board has worked closely with the Local Authority,
and progress has been good.[12]
In this instance the Local Authority, with NDC participation,
successfully piloted an improved refuse collection and environmental
cleansing scheme in the NDC area. The Local Authority reviewed
the criteria for success and are now introducing the scheme throughout
Bristol. But relations between NDC partnerships and local authorities
have been strained in many communities and progress has been slower.
11. Local Authorities have not had sufficiently clear
guidance on how best to manage their relationship with NDC. Some
have attempted to micro-manage their local NDC for example, by
introducing excessive scrutiny over project proposals. Other authorities
have merely acted as bankers offering little or no professional
support and advice[13]
Government Offices could play a more positive role where there
are tensions or disengagement between boards and Local Authorities.
The Department told us they have nominated a senior director in
each of the regional government offices with personal responsibility
for the oversight of the NDC programmes in their region.[14]
12. The National Audit Office Report concluded that
NDC partnerships have been slow to engage with the local business
community. The Department agreed and told us that a number of
initiatives are now being taken forward to address this weakness
including the issue with the British Retail Consortium of a good
practice guide for establishing new businesses in disadvantaged
areas based on the experience of some major British companies.[15]
Other initiatives including the piloting of business brokers with
the Home Office Active Communities Unit and the Department for
Trade and Industry.
13. Deprived communities often feel that they are
not empowered or able to make a difference to their circumstances
and environment. The National Audit Office reported that NDC residents
often feel that there has been a lack of visible results and a
lack of information about what is happening in the programme.[16]
It is important for the success of the NDC programme for residents
to be able to identify improvements that they feel have arisen
as a direct result of their involvement.
9 Qq 74, 82, 85 Back
10
Qq 4, 70, 122 Back
11
Qq 27, 118 Back
12
Qq 31, 33, 40 Back
13
C&AGs Report, para 3.7 Back
14
Qq 40, 46 Back
15
ODPM Research Report 6, Changing Practices, A good practice
guide for businesses locating in deprived areas Back
16
Q 42; C&AG's Report, para 5.11 Back
| 
