Presentation on theme: "1 Regeneration ties with traction? An inter-organisational case study of social networks and social capital in urban regeneration Beth Carley Centre for."— Presentation transcript:
1 Regeneration ties with traction? An inter-organisational case study of social networks and social capital in urban regeneration Beth Carley Centre for Census & Survey Research, University of Manchester Presentation to 6 th UK Social Networks Conference, University of Manchester, 14 th -16 th April 2010
2 Background to study Comparative study of the inter- organisational networks of community groups in 2 out of 3 admin areas of New East Manchester (NEM) NEM is an urban regeneration area, overseen by urban regeneration company of same name- responsible for strategic development of area
3 City centre New East Manchester
4 Part of New East Manchester (Beswick) pre- regeneration (1998)
5 Background to study Within NEM area three neighbourhoods targeted for £75 New Deal for Communities (NDC) funding starting 1999= Beacons area Other two areas to north and south absorbed into NEM boundary in 2007 South area- Gorton- is comparator area for study
6 Beacons Beswick, Clayton, Openshaw NEM boundary
7 Background to study NDC community-led approach to regeneration on multiple indicators of deprivation Community involvement at all levels including governing board Substantial investment in residents group development- and Residents Forum- attempting to bring active residents together for the area Beacons NDC recognised as a success of NDC scheme nationally- in community involvement and across other areas
8 (Part of) Beacons area now (Beswick)
9 Where my study comes in My study enters as NDC ends NEM taken over reins- but very limited funding End of scheme means capacity of residents to remain active in and for the area critical to avoid return to decline Community partnerships- one in each of three areas- part of this.
10 NEM Community Partnerships New East Manchester Board of Directors Beacons Community Partnership Gorton All Together (Gorton Community Partnership Miles Platting, Ancoats and Newton Heath Community Partnership Residents groups Elected resident board members One community partnership in each of three NEM areas
11 The study Empirical investigation of network inter-organisational relations i) between residents groups: one-mode complete network data ii) Between residents groups and mainstream local services: two-mode Comparing Beacons regeneration area and non-funded area of Gorton
12 Research questions i) How connected are residents groups in each area? ii) How connected are groups to local services? iii) Who are the key players? iv) What benefits do relations and the structure of relations confer to the network?: Operational, micro/meso- level, versus strategic macro-level benefits (How social is the social capital value of ties?)
13 Network specification/ data Network boundaries defined i) by admin boundaries of Beacons and Gorton ii) Eligibility for participation in community partnership (NEM lists) 54 groups in Beacons area; 47 in Gorton Circa 50 mainstream service- providers
14 Data collection Networks questionnaire administered face-to-face: 75/90 minutes Self-completion questionnaire on attributes of their group and short attitudinal questionnaire for individual respondents
15 Relations: one-mode 1. Direct personal contact and tie strength (eliminatory question) 2. Receiving/ giving valuable information and frequency on 4-point scale 3. Colloboration (working together)- whether single/multiple incidence and whether will recur 4. Co-membership of groups by committee members- how many members shared
16 Relations: two-mode 1. Direct personal contact and tie strength (eliminatory question) 2. Receiving/ giving valuable information and frequency on 4-point scale 3. Colloboration (working together)- whether single/multiple incidence and whether will recur 4. Formal role of group members in service- how many members Plus: reasons for non contact with other groups/ service and perceived benefits of contacts with each
17 Attributes Set-up funding/support from NDC/NEM/other services? Size; level of activity; embeddedness of group in neighbourhood Individual respondent perceptions of effectiveness of regeneration and role of NDC/NEM
18 Data analysis- foci Focus on: network characteristics which promote effectiveness of network in serving needs of groups in improving area- and factors which may explain these structures Descriptive analysis of global network characteristics Global structure in terms of hierarchy/polycentricity Actor centrality and prestige and associated attributes Micro-level structures- levels of reciprocity/ transitivity and associated attributes Possible regression modelling/ p* modelling
19 Preliminary findings: Beacons groups Beacons groups less connected than Gorton?? Groups got their little piece, and were off. Residents still fighting for their patch Hard core, well connected to each other and with formal roles in local services Cross-neighbourhood hierarchical structure? Hard core also those with formal ties to services Non-contact: neighbourhood focus; lack of time/ burn-out; Money: no money; no influence
20 Preliminary findings: Gorton groups- same curve; different point? NEM are the only people whove tried to bring Gorton together and I think theyre [sic] working. Role of Gorton 100 events in gelling network, as well as symbolic value Geographically proximate key players Evidence of network polycentricity
21 Preliminary findings/ implications for policy approach Top-down approach can be valuable: People in power are more accessible than they used to be. Flip-side is disappointments in dependency relationship: Theyve trained residents up and given them a voice and now theyve been dropped. Both operational and strategic value of ties can shift or evaporate when money and bodies move on: social capital to social liability Unintended consequence of time-limited social capital building from above?
22 Thats all folks! Thanks for listening Questions/ suggestions?