Competing conceptualisations in active citizenship programmes

This section undertakes a close-up analysis of the specific programmes of active citizenship learning as they emerged during the second and third terms of New Labour’s time in office, and places them into their policy context. The aim is to highlight the conceptions of active citizenship that emerge from these programmes and the extent to which they provide a situated and nuanced insight into New Labour’s vision(s) and how it/they evolved over time. Indeed, ALAC within the Civil Renewal agenda, and the Take Part Pathfinder within the Community Empowerment agenda, were not only conceived at different moments during New Labour’s time in office - respectively, in the second and third terms – but also by different ministers, in different government departments, and under different prime ministers. The examination will consider the extent to which the programmes were consistent with the key policy themes outlined so far or whether there were significant variations including those that may have offered opportunities for the kind of ‘bottom-up’ approaches to empowerment outlined in Chapter 2.

The section starts with the Civil Renewal programme, developed during 2003 and 2004, out of which sprang the Active Learning for Active Citizenship (ALAC) programme, and then moves on to the Community Empowerment agenda of 2007/8 which provided the context for the Take Part Pathfinder (TPP) programme. Additionally relevant to the experiences of the active citizens in this research are the programmes of service user

involvement in health and social care, which will also briefly be considered to complete the policy context.

3.2.2.1 Active citizens: from Civil Renewal to Community Empowerment

The Civil Renewal agenda is associated with David Blunkett in his role as Home Secretary between 2003 and the end of 2004. In light of the fact that Blunkett had in his previous role as Education Secretary initiated the Citizenship Education in schools programme, he is generally credited as the main architect of New Labour’s ‘active citizenship’ policies (Fryer, 2010), and a champion of ‘direct citizen involvement with public services’ (John, 2009:22).

Having studied politics under Bernard Crick may explain his propensity and ability to couch his policy rhetoric in civic republican terms. For example the notion that

‘The freedom of citizens can only be truly realised if they are enabled to participate constructively in the decisions that affect their lives’ (Blunkett, 2003a:3),

can be read as a characteristically civic republican statement. This could have opened the door to a conceptualisation of citizenship with predominant civic republican ideas that promote the political engagement of citizens. Indeed, in his speeches Blunkett often drew on the classical ideal of democracy with its strong focus on citizen duty (Blunkett, 2003a;

John, 2009), citing the ‘social democratic imperative’ that ‘requires us to articulate, defend and practise a new form of democratic politics, based on individual empowerment and active citizenship within strengthened communities’ (Blunkett, 2001, cited in Fryer 2010:174). Like other governments in the West, New Labour was concerned with the

‘democratic deficit’ (Pattie et al., 2004) and the perceived lack of legitimacy of public institutions. The question was, however, whether especially under the aegis of a minister with seemingly civic republican credentials, the notion of politically engaged citizens would be able to counterpoise New Labour’s predominantly communitarian conception of

citizenship, which was critiqued for its ‘depoliticising’ tendencies (Driver and Martell, 2000; Taylor, 2003; Craig, 2007; Newman, 2011). Early indications from Blunkett’s time as Education Secretary were not encouraging: concerning Citizenship Education in schools, Blunkett managed to disappoint not least his former teacher Bernard Crick who, on seeing the outcome of the implementation of his Advisory Group’s recommendations, remarked bitterly:

‘[t]he new curriculum will result in forms of volunteering that will fail to challenge the students to think and act “politically”…’ (Crick, 2002, cited in Annette,

2010:20).

In his 2003 Scarman Lecture Blunkett set out his vision of Civil Renewal:

‘strong, empowered and active communities, in which responsible citizens look after each other, with the state helping to support and enable them to lead self-determined and fulfilled lives.’ (Blunkett, 2003a:6, my italics)

Active citizenship occupied a central place, since

‘The active involvement of citizens and communities with public bodies to improve their quality of life is crucial to the achievement of a wide range of Government objectives. It helps achieve civil renewal, with more people exercising their rights and responsibilities and participating in the public realm.’ (Blunkett, Home Office, 2004b:2)

The agenda consisted of three strands: active citizenship, with citizens supported to

‘defin[e] and tackl[e] the problems of their communities and improving their quality of life’; stronger communities, where self-sustaining organisations bring people together to deal with their common concerns; and citizens and communities working in partnerships with public bodies ‘within the established democratic framework’ to improve the planning and delivery of public services (Blunkett, 2003b).

As argued by Barnes et al. (2007), New Labour construed ‘active citizenship’ around four discourses of the public, each with a different emphasis: the citizen-consumer discourse (to improve public services through exercising choice), the empowered public discourse (focused on the social inclusion of marginalised groups and communities), the stakeholder discourse (in relation to the good governance of the public realm), and the responsible public discourse. All four are represented in the Civil Renewal agenda but it is to the

‘responsible public’ discourse that Blunkett most often appeals in his policies and speeches. Moreover, Barnes et al. state:

‘Active citizens are those who are ready and prepared to take on the obligation of citizenship by contributing directly or indirectly to the good governance of their communities. Different levels of support may be needed to enable ‘hard to reach groups’ […] to take on these obligations, but there is a clear assumption inherent in the civil renewal agenda that acceptance of these obligations is non-negotiable.’

(Barnes et al, 2007:20)

At times, as here in Building Civil Renewal, the responsibility theme is phrased in

potentially more empowering terms, highlighting the inherent tension in the conception of the active citizen and their empowerment:

‘Our vision is of a society in which citizens are inspired to make a positive

difference to their communities, and are able to influence the policies and services that affect their lives’ (Blunkett, Home Office, 2004a:1, my emphasis).

The development of the Civil Renewal agenda involved an extensive review undertaken by the Civil Renewal Unit (CRU) at the Home Office Active Communities Directorate and a consultation with the Voluntary and Community Sector (Home Office, 2004a, Building Civil Renewal). Since 2001 New Labour could also draw on the biannual Citizenship Surveys commissioned by the Home Office, which measured the public’s views on issues of community cohesion, civic engagement, race and faith, and volunteering. The surveys highlighted the issue that the majority of people (61% in 2005) felt they had no influence over the decisions of public bodies that affect them (Fryer, 2010). In order to reconnect the people to the public realm and improve services, the government felt that citizens needed to be given opportunities to take part in decision-making, which lent additional weight to New Labour’s participatory governance agenda, which it intensified in its second and third terms. Where previously participation was focused on specific groups of citizens in their relationship as services users, for example in health and social care, the

involvement of citizens was expanded to a host of public authorities and new partnership forums (Taylor, 2007). Before moving on from the Civil Renewal agenda, however, we need to consider its concern with capacity building for citizenship, out of which arose the first of the active citizenship learning programmes that provide the focal point of this research.

Government considered that,

‘Civil Renewal depends on people having the skills, confidence and opportunities to contribute actively in their communities, to engage with civic institutions and democratic processes, to be able to influence the policies and services that affect their lives, and to make the most of their communities’ human, financial and physical assets.’ (Blunkett, 2003, cited in Fryer 2010:173)

In the first instance, Building Civil Renewal argued the need for a two-pronged approach:

first, ‘community capacity building’ was needed to enable people to participate, and second, ‘support’ was targeted at public officials and institutions to enable them to engage with citizens. Whilst the concept of Community Capacity Building was seen by some critics as New Labour’s way of re-packaging old notions of ‘community development’ built on a deficit model and identified with ‘top-down’ state interventions (Craig, 2007), it was important that New Labour recognised that public institutions needed to change too.

Indeed, critical advocates of public participation had for some time pointed to the obstacle represented by existing institutional cultures and practices that were inhibiting meaningful engagement, and claimed the need for ‘working both sides of the equation’ (Gaventa, 2004a., 2004b.).

The notion of ‘Community Capacity Building’ would lead to subsequent policies such as the

£231million ChangeUp programme directed at voluntary sector infrastructure, but in terms of ‘active citizenship learning’, there was very little direct support. The notable, although small-scale, exception was provided by the ‘Active Learning for Active

Citizenship’ (ALAC) programme. An initial scoping report (Woodward, 2004) persuaded the CRU that in the voluntary and community sector valuable work was already being

undertaken (albeit informal and ‘hidden’) which supported active citizens through learning, and that this good practice ought to be captured with a view to informing

government on how to ‘build sustainable programmes of citizenship education’ (for adults) in the future (Mactaggart, Ministerial Foreword to ALAC report, Woodward, 2004:1). ALAC was set out as an 18-month long action research programme to collect evidence of good practice of ‘active citizenship learning opportunities for targeted adult audiences, using different approaches’ (Home Office, 2004b:18) from different ‘active citizenship hubs’

from around England. In Firm Foundations the Home Office which highlighted the ALAC programme it was envisaged that ‘[t]he lessons learnt will inform an expansion in sustainable and appropriate provision’ (ibid), and to this effect commissioned an

evaluation led by academics (Mayo and Rooke, 2006). The sharing of good practice across government levels and departments (as well as within the VCS) was to be ‘reinforced by the Citizenship Education Working Party, convened by the DfES, and chaired by […] the Minister for Schools’ (Home Office, 2004b). This suggested the intention of ‘joining up’

government, with lessons about ‘what works’ in active citizenship learning to be shared with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). As the ALAC programme unravelled, this link did not, unfortunately, deliver the anticipated influence on DfES policies, with very little cross-over, let alone interest by the DfES in the ALAC framework that was developed at the end of the programme. Instead, the findings from the ALAC evaluation stayed within the Civil Renewal Unit relocated to the Communities and Local Government Department (Mayo, 2010).

The conceptualisation of ‘active citizens’ in the ALAC programme thus broadly followed the Civil Renewal notion that ‘[f]or society to work well we need more people to be active citizens who have a say in the decisions that affect their lives’ (Mactaggart, in Woodward, 2004: 2). At the same time ALAC set out

‘…to improve the capacity of individuals and communities to relate to the world around them as active, critical, engaged citizens.’ (Mactaggart, in Woodward, 2004:2)

It also emphasised a social learning process that would be driven by the needs and aspirations of community groups, encouraging citizens to get involved collectively, rather than individually. This was congruent with the Civil Renewal agenda, which promoted a collective approach to community ‘self-help’ (Blunkett, 2003a; Newman and Clarke, 2009).

At the same time, the brief for ALAC (Woodward, 2004) was not particularly specific. While some critics saw this as a weakness (e.g. one critic described ALAC as ‘a strange initiative’

with a ‘vision of active citizens [that] is devoid of any clear political content’, (Somerville, 2011:156)) it could be argued that the adoption of a more open-ended form of active citizenship was essential to the ALAC approach. No doubt, there were tensions to be negotiated between the demand for a more formalised ‘citizenship curriculum’, moulded

on Bernard Crick’s ‘three heads of citizenship’ as had been developed for schools (cited in the report’s appendix) and which would result in a qualification, and the preference for an informal and ‘bottom-up’ approach to learning inspired by community development principles. Rather than pursuing a curriculum akin to ‘political literacy’ as demanded by Crick (who sat on the ALAC steering group) the ALAC report referred to the need to foster awareness-raising of power and of structural barriers to participation and influence:

‘Learning about active citizenship will […] focus on the hidden inequalities in power surrounding everyone and affecting their life chances, as well as on personal abilities and skills. In order to participate and have their voice heard, citizens need to understand power and how to have an impact. Because citizens act together, they need to know and understand something of the conditions of other citizens, to support collective action. Active citizenship education will involve participants in social learning where the educational focus is on collective, innovative, problem-solving processes of action, reflection, communication and co-operation.’

(Woodward, 2004: 11)

During David Blunkett’s time at the Home Office other documents published by the Civil Renewal Unit explicitly endorsed the concept of the ‘critically engaged’ citizen. For example the Building Civil Renewal review proposed this definition of empowerment:

‘[empowerment] should build the skills, confidence, and critical awareness of participants’. (Home Office, 2004a:8, my italics)

It could be argued that these examples are indicative of New Labour’s support of the ‘third sector’, including as partner in policy-making (Alcock, 2010). The sometimes critical

feedback from consultations from the Civil Renewal Unit seemed to have informed policy, for example regarding the necessary changes that had to be made to enable effective citizen involvement in all areas of the public sector. In the section title ‘Getting the Government’s act together’ (Home Office, 2004a:23) the CRU stressed the need for coordination and consistency across all government departments in the provision of support for community capacity building. By directing the ‘pedagogic state’ (Newman, 2010) not only at citizens but also at public organisations and public officials, New Labour had embarked on an intensification of community engagement and governance (Taylor,

2007). Here, the ‘active citizen’ was increasingly placed in the collective context of the local community and the ‘neighbourhood’ and expected to step up the modernisation of public governance ‘from below’ (Clarke, 2010). This development gained momentum in New Labour’s third and last term, which also saw the resurgence of active citizenship learning.

3.2.2.2 Active citizens in the context of Community Empowerment and Localism (Empowerment White Paper 2008 and the Take Part Pathfinder programme)

In 2006 the Civil Renewal Unit, in a major departmental reorganisation, was moved from the Home Office to the newly created Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Under its new name ‘Community Empowerment Unit’ it combined the

responsibilities for ‘neighbourhood regeneration’ from the now defunct Office of the Deputy Prime Minster (ODPM) with those for ‘community’ from the Home Office. The voluntary and community sector policies became the remit of a new ‘Office of the Third Sector’ in the Cabinet Office (Taylor, 2007).

Under its second Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, the new Communities Department (launched by David Miliband, its first minister) published the ‘Local Government White Paper’, Strong and Prosperous Communities (DCLG, 2006). This continued the key policy themes of citizenship and stronger communities, but focussing on the ‘radical reform’ of local government that was required to make local services more ‘responsive’, ‘effective’

and ‘accountable’ to ‘local people’ and communities. The shift of power from central to local government, and from there to ‘local people’ (rather than active citizens) and communities (what Miliband had termed, the “double devolution”) was again presented as a mechanism for driving up service standards. Hence, ‘responsive services and

empowered communities’ are held up as a central point of reference throughout the paper and the two terms are presented as standing in a reciprocal, mutually reinforcing relationship.

Among the measures launched by the two-volume White Paper were the ‘Community Call for Action’, an instrument through which citizens could challenge their local authority through their local Councillor(s), and a New Performance Framework for local authorities and Local Area Agreements. As a managerial instrument this National Indicator (NI)

framework would take on particular relevance for setting the parameters of the Take Part Pathfinder programme two years later. Out of a set of 200 National Indicators, local authorities and strategic partnerships were to prioritise 35 for their strategic plans, on the basis of which their performance was to be measured and evaluated for central

government through the Comprehensive Area Assessment. Indeed, while this framework was presented as giving ‘local public services and their partners’ greater freedom ‘to meet the needs of their communities’ (‘responsive services’) government could at the same time ensure delivery against ‘national priorities’ for ‘complex cross-cutting issues like climate change, social exclusion and anti-social behaviour’ (DCLG, 2006, Vol 1:11).

This White Paper reserved the term ‘responsibility’ for local public services and local government, rather than citizens and communities. The rhetoric strives hard to present these new institutional changes from ‘top-down’ central government as a positive

development which grants greater powers and freedom to authorities in their ‘new’ roles as ‘place-makers’. However, not only was their performance controlled by central

government through performance management and a new ‘Place Survey’, but also the framework added new responsibilities to the statutory duties of local authorities such as 'sustainable economic development’ and the ever-present host of ‘complex social problems’ (DCLG, 2006). On the one hand, the local strategic partnerships would need to work harder to coordinate their activities across the sectors and agencies involved, but on the other, the stronger emphasis on localism could be seen as a mechanism whereby central government divests itself of its responsibility (and the potential blame for political failure) for the wider structural conditions created by its policies (Taylor, 2007; Lever, 2011). The representation of the voluntary sector, local people and communities in local governance would ensure that they too are seen as being implicated in the success or failures of tackling these policy issues.

Paradoxically, then, it has been argued that the shift of responsibility from central to local government and the dispersal of power across local governance partners has had the effect of decreasing rather than increasing political and democratic accountability, since no single government body or authority can be held to account. Moreover it has been argued that government’s claims of decentralisation and power transfer from central to local government, and into the hands of communities, were in fact counteracted by the strengthened monitoring and auditing regimes allowing central government to stay in

control (Taylor, 2007; Newman and Clarke, 2009). For example one study into the

workings and impact of a Community Safety Partnership (Lever, 2011) showed the biases introduced by central government targets and funding prioritisations on the local decision-makers in the strategic partnerships, linked to the National Performance Framework: this distorted the process of strategic decision-making and resource allocations within the city to the extent that individual decision-makers were knowingly having to make choices which were not beneficial to tackling the long-term social problem the partnership was set out to tackle – thus disproving the assertion that local strategic partnerships would

automatically lead to an ‘improvement’ in local decision-making (Lever, 2011). This, however, did not prevent the next Communities Secretary, Hazel Blears, from asserting that:

‘There isn’t a single service or development in Britain which hasn’t been improved by actively involving local people.’ (Blears in DCLG, 2007:2).

In its third term in office, New Labour reaffirmed its commitment to community

In its third term in office, New Labour reaffirmed its commitment to community