This is an extract from a report which was prepared for the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Office Central Research Unit in June 1999.

The Role and Effectiveness of Community Councils with Regard to Community Consultation

5. The Effectiveness of Community Councils as Community Consultees

Introduction

This chapter considers the issues that arise in relation to the effectiveness of community councils as community consultees. The issue of effectiveness raises a number of questions about community councils, such as whether they are representative, what efforts they make to ascertain the views of communities of interest as well as the geographical community they represent, whether they have any influence on local authority or other public policy processes, and what is the nature of their relationships with local community and voluntary groups. This chapter considers these questions under four main headings.

The effectiveness of community councils might be judged in many ways. In this study three broad criteria were used in considering effectiveness. These are:

- that community councils are representative of the population of the locality (which raises questions about the composition of community councils);
- that community councils are aware of, and able to transmit, the views of their population to local authorities and other public bodies (which raises questions about the attitudes and practices of community councils in relation to their role of representing local views);
- that local authorities and other public bodies are willing to listen to community councils (which raises questions about the attitudes of councillors and public officials).

The membership of community councils

It was not possible within this study to collect systematic and comprehensive information about the people who serve as community councillors. Case studies, however, provide some qualitative evidence.

One dimension of the capacity of community councils to represent their population in a ‘representative’ way is the extent to which community councillors reflect the socio-economic and territorial character of their area. Qualitative findings suggest an imbalance in the age profile and probably in other aspects of representation such as ethnicity and disability. In case study community councils few members are aged less than 40 and typically several are retired. These are people with time and often with relevant acquired skills and a desire to ‘give something back’ to the community.

The relative absence of young people on community councils is a matter of regret to many, but not all, community councils. There has, for example, been little demand for an enlarged franchise from community councils consulted in reviews of community council schemes in some case study areas. One local authority suggests in guidance to community councils that they consider establishing junior community councils. Some case community councils have gone to great lengths to attract or co-opt young people, for example by co-opting a former pupil of the local high school. Other community councils have attempted to get closer to young people’s views in other ways, for example by visits to schools to discuss local issues with senior pupils or, in one case, by setting up a ‘youth council’ which runs in parallel with the community council. Three community councillors co-ordinate and facilitate the youth council which provides a forum for 12 to 17 year olds to raise issues and express opinions. The community council has not been deterred by poor attendance and is undertaking renewed recruitment.

Although overall more men than women participate in community councils, the evidence points to a higher proportion of women than is found in local government or at Westminster. In a small minority of case study community councils, women are either in the majority or hold most key office-bearers’ posts.

Representation by minority ethnic groups is found only in urban neighbourhoods where substantial ethnic minority communities reside but even then it is not in proportion to the size of the minority groups in the locality. Some, but not all, community councils in urban areas make substantial efforts to attract the interest and involvement of ethnic minorities, with mixed success.

The breadth of the spectrum of occupational backgrounds represented on community councils varies but is narrowest, generally, in urban neighbourhoods or industrial villages with a homogeneous occupational character. The allegation that rural community councils are dominated by local headteachers, doctors, and representatives of landed interests is hard to justify from the research. Equally, though, the evidence of case study community councils is that the mixed occupational profile of the local population is not fully reflected in their membership.

Two common – and related – characteristics of many community councillors was apparent in case study community councils. As many as half the community councillors in some areas were said by their colleagues to be members of local political parties. At least as many were said to be members of other community and voluntary groups such as churches, advice centre management committees, business organisations, tenants’ associations, uniformed youth organisations (as adult leaders), trades unions, sports clubs and environmental or conservation groups. These latter affiliations were seen as providing strength for the community council and undoubtedly enhance the capacity of many to claim a form of representativeness. Affiliations to political parties were seen by community councillors as of little relevance as long as these remained in the background, as a symptom of an individual’s general interest in civic service and current affairs. However, some local authority elected members were said to feel antagonism towards community councils allegedly dominated by members of alternative parties to their own. This was said to have produced the conditions for poor personal relationships in a few cases but direct evidence of this was hard to obtain.

A final dimension of composition is territorial coverage. A minority of community councils are constituted to provide members from different ‘wards’. In three case study community councils (in different case authorities) this seems to provide an incentive to ensure that the ‘wards’ – in two cases separate settlements and in the third neighbourhoods of a large town - are fully represented. More typical is the pattern in most small towns and urban neighbourhoods where community councils are elected in their entirety from one list of nominees. It may be a matter of chance whether particular geographical areas achieve representation and in some case study community councils this is not being achieved. Community councils vary in their awareness of this issue and some make attempts, for example through co-option, to remedy significant gaps. In one area there was virtually no contact between the community council and areas of new private housing. In others, several new community councils had been set up recently to represent new estates, at the request of residents.

Representing local views

The attitudes and practices of community councils in relation to representing local views is a dimension of effectiveness. Their statutory role ‘to ascertain, co-ordinate and express’ is interpreted in many ways: how it is carried out is affected by the resources and opportunities made available to them as well as by the approach and attitude they bring to the activities that were outlined in the last chapter. Here the discussion focuses on approaches and attitudes to ‘ascertaining’, ‘co-ordinating’ and ‘expressing’.

Some observers of community councils commented on the reluctance of some community councillors to accept that their role may not be to express their own personal opinions on the issues considered by the community council. 'Some community councils see themselves as sole spokespeople for their areas and resent it if local authorities should seek views or dialogue elsewhere' one local government officer said. Another described some community councillors as 'like old-fashioned councillors'. Another said the best are 'the ones least likely to claim sole representation rights'.

The evidence points to variety amongst community councillors, with some local authorities currently making efforts to overcome this problem where it has existed in the past, mainly through discussions with community councils, in guidance provided to them and in codes of practice. One large rural authority refers to a concern in the past that some community councils were not as democratically based as they ought to have been. The new community council scheme and related code of practice stresses the need for:

'sound democratic principles and regular contact with the communities they serve. All the evidence now to hand suggests that community councils are accurately assessing and expressing local opinion both to the council and to other public bodies. This is of great value to local authority councillors who ... increasingly rely on community councils for feedback.' (council liaison officer)

Another - large urban authority - says recent experience has shown community councils can 'provide a vehicle' for the community to express its views on important planning issues. How community councils keep in touch with local views has long been a concern: ‘A minority of (community) councils did mention some canvassing but it did not appear to be undertaken frequently’ (Hart, 1986, p.57). Several of the activities of community councils, described in Chapter 4, are carried out in order to establish local opinion.

Case study community councillors varied in the attitude held towards this issue. Some do not think any special effort is required, some find it hard to say systematically what approach they take, and some relate a number of illustrations of ‘ascertaining’. Those who find it hard to answer an abstract question are at times able to give examples of ‘ascertaining’ local views using different language.

A small number of community councillors indicated that they view themselves as having precedence in access to the policy process over ‘single issue’ groups. One chairperson said this meant a heavy responsibility to act responsibly and be sure that what was said by the community council represented local opinion, through a newsletter, advice surgeries and surveys, for example. In other cases it was not clear that local opinion had been ascertained. Some community councils undoubtedly rely on their own members’ insights and views, possibly informed by informal conversations with residents, discussion in voluntary organisations of which they are members, and experience of previous similar issues. The lack of specific efforts to gauge community opinion may be justified in two ways: first by the inadequacy of the resources, including time, available to the community council to engage in surveys or organise public meetings, for example. For these community councils it may be useful to point to the remarkable achievement of others who obtain high visibility and substantial inputs to their policy deliberations through judicious use of newsletters and regular public meetings, for example, funded through a small grant from a fund equally available to other community councils. The real issue here may be lack of skills or attitudes rather than lack of resources. Second, some community councillors refer to their visibility in the area and say that people will approach them if they wish to make a point. For such community councils, representativeness in terms of composition may be more important than for others who seek input from local residents and groups. However, the overwhelming majority of community councillors see the relationship with other community groups as one of partnership assisted by overlapping memberships.

What it might mean to ‘co-ordinate’ the views of local people or voluntary organisations is unclear to many community councils. The perception of many local government officers is that community councils represent ‘a view’ rather than ‘the range of views’ within a community. This becomes a problem for public bodies in cases such as planning proposals where opinions may be sharply divided. Community councils seem reluctant to report such divisions (although a few examples were found) and often feel an obligation to provide a view – sometimes reached through a vote of the membership of the community council – to the public body seeking it. Local authorities and other public bodies say it is helpful to know what the view expressed by a community council represents – the outcome of a vote at a large public meeting, or a vote by the community council, or the result of a sample survey, for example – and there is evidence of this being encouraged and sometimes provided particularly where community councils consider it enhances the legitimacy of their view.

Several examples of systematic attempts at co-ordination were encountered in case study community councils. Office bearers may visit community organisations and major institutions in the area to canvass opinion on particular issues and community councils may seek to co-ordinate comments to housing and planning departments with the local tenants’ associations and conservation societies respectively to try and ensure they speak with a common voice, if possible. Some community councils invite local groups to attend their meetings and collaborate with other community councils, community groups and public bodies over issues such as the impact of a power station or a sports facility in an area. Community councils are selective in the issues they choose for such co-ordination, feeling it is unnecessary or impractical in some cases.

The overlapping memberships between community councils and voluntary organisations, which are common, facilitate this co-ordinating work. Where no such overlap exists there is some evidence of disaffection with community councils. For example, a federation of tenants’ groups in one case study area sees community councils as ‘stuck in their ways’, middle class and not interested in tenants’ concerns. However, this image of community councillors as narrowly-focused ‘do-gooders’ or ‘the golf club set’ was contested elsewhere, including by tenants’ groups.

The capacity of community councils to measure and transmit the view of local residents and community groups is dependent on a wide range of factors. It is a product of the resources, including time, information and opportunities available to volunteer community councillors, the practices of members of local authorities and other public bodies, and the voluntary time, commitment and skills of members. These have been considered in relation to community councils. This chapter concludes by considering how the attitudes and practices of public bodies can assist or hinder community councils’ effectiveness and the extent to which community councils feel they actually make an impact.

The response of local authorities and other public bodies

The attitudes, policies and practices of local authorities and other public bodies towards community councils are an important factor in creating the conditions for their effectiveness. The pattern found is a mixed one, not entirely confirmed by direct questioning of elected members who very rarely display negative attitudes though sometimes report them in their colleagues. Officers display a more varied set of stances, at one extreme seeing community councils as worthless, unrepresentative and even an impediment to community development and at the other seeing them as a valued addition to the process of local governance and as providing a valuable service to their own localities. Most local government case study respondents feel that community councils are varied, with some good and some bad, and given that they exist they should be included in consultation.

At least some of the community councils in all the case study authorities perceive themselves as having good relations with officers and councillors. In many cases community councils report ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ working relationships and believe they are listened to. In all areas, except case authority E, incidences of councillors apparently ignoring or neglecting community councils are rare. However, these relationships are dynamic and can alter over time or with the election of new councillors or community councillors. There is some evidence of poorer relationships where community councillors are known to be members of political parties other than that of the local councillor. For councillors with senior roles to play in a local authority or with more than one community council in their area, there may be difficulty in attending community council meetings. In such circumstances, community councils appreciate apologies for absence being given. Councillors' participation in community council meetings seemed to vary from observation to active participation in debates. Some community councils provide space on the agenda for a councillor to raise any issues of interest or concern.

Community councillors' perceptions of local government officers is almost as positive. Fairly typical of the more enthusiastic was the comment of a community council chairperson that relationships are 'excellent' with all departments except one. This office bearer is on first name terms with many of the officers who provide public services in the area, many of whom consult the community council or keep in touch over issues of concern. The department complained about was accused of arrogance in presenting proposals for change as a fait accomplis. Another office bearer elsewhere sees the relationships with officers as part of a process in which the community council has to be 'constantly vigilant'. Many community councils have far better developed relationships with some departments than others, depending on local issues of concern such as roads, cleansing or housing. There is some evidence of specialisation with other voluntary groups, for example in one community council covering a mainly owner-occupied neighbourhood, there is a ‘good’ working relationship between the housing department and the tenants' association, but the tenants' association looks to the community council for support over any particularly difficult issues that may arise in that relationship or more generally to 'look after' the wider interests of the area with other departments and agencies.

Other public bodies vary greatly in the extent of their visibility in the activities of community councils. In many areas, the police are most visible, attending many community council meetings in response to requests to discuss crime or traffic problems. Many community councils have close relationships with neighbourhood watch schemes and crime prevention panels.

There was some evidence that other public bodies are increasingly developing relationships with community councils as consultees. There were examples of community councils receiving regular correspondence from water authorities and several community councils were members of local consultation groups established by water authorities.

Achieving influence and improvements

One measure of the effectiveness of community councils is the extent to which they influence the policy process and secure improvements in their area. All case study community councils could point to some achievements, although a few report it was some time since any impact had occurred. In some cases the achievement was something that would not have occurred without the community council’s involvement. In case authority B, for example, a community council raised funds to redesign and landscape a small public park. Community councils in case study F provided a list of achievements that included:

· Provision of environmental amenities

The community councils had identified needs for additional amenities and had been able to secure these from the local authority, either through direct contact with the relevant service department, or making use of the influence of their local elected councillor. These amenities included such things as: dog poop bins; goal posts in the local park; improved street lighting; and bus shelters. One community council covering an area with a lot of public sector housing had also used its influence to argue for housing improvements in the form of double glazing and central heating. Given that the housing concerned was in an old post-war scheme, it is probably the case that such improvements would have been undertaken anyway at some point, but the community council felt they had been influenced by the timing.

· Provision of other services

One of the community councils reported providing personal alarms for all the elderly people living in their community. This was supported by special project funding from the council.

· Advice and information services

Two community councils had achieved the provision of advice sessions in the locality by bodies with offices some distance away.

· Reversal of decisions perceived as detrimental to the community

On a number of occasions, community councils reported ‘victories’ where their representations had reversed or presented decisions inimical to the local community. Examples cited included: the removal of a two-hourly bus service through the locality and a decline in the frequency and duration of the home-help service.

Finally, two community councils in case study A negotiated a code of practice with a mining company whose lorries frequently drove through their settlements. The code is intended to regulate timing, dust and identification markings on lorries.

Effectiveness as community consultees

This chapter has considered the membership of community councils, their approach to representing local views, the responses of local authorities and other bodies to community councils and the influence and improvements they feel they achieve.

In summary, in relation to membership, community councils appear to be more representative than other elected bodies in respect of gender but less representative in respect of age profile. They are about as representative in respect of ethnic and occupational background. They are distinctive in the nature and intensity of the involvement of community councillors in local community affairs.

In representing the views of their population, community councils depending on the issue concerned and their approach to the task of ascertaining and co-ordinating views. Some local authorities have recently taken steps to clarify what they expect from community councils in relation to this role but in many areas uncertainties still exist. Many community councillors are also involved in other community and voluntary groups, a feature of membership that enhances relationships between groups.

Community councils report mainly positive relationships with officers and councillors and with other public bodies. With some exceptions, they feel they are listened to. Most community councils report positive improvements to their area as a result of influencing public policy or service delivery.

The views expressed in this report are those of the researchers and do not necessarily represent those of the Department or the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Further extracts can be found here

The full report can be found here