Community organisations view ownership of community assets as something of the Holy Grail of community development, although in practice they can be something of a mixed blessing.
Of course, I need to define what I mean by assets. Usually when we talk about community assets, we mean buildings. On reflection people may add a few other things such as a mini-bus or play equipment but normally assets mean buildings.
Asset or Liability?
I want to challenge this view in two ways. The first is perhaps more superficial but still important. Assets can be liabilities. Anything that requires investment of time money or passion can become a liability. It can be a drain on resources. For all the effort invested it is possible you won’t see the benefit you expect.
From my experience I can think of examples of buildings that have worked for communities and buildings that have not. I have seen buildings divide a community as local people wrestled for control. I can think of several examples, to the extent I would argue this conflict is the most common outcome for a community that owns a building.
Perhaps this most likely happens with buildings controlled by weak organisations, where two or more factions lay claim to them. Organisations established for the benefit of the community but at the same time independent of the community, perhaps fare better. Their building belongs to them and not to the community.
Two Examples
Perhaps an example of a building I was involved with some years ago, where the organisation is strong enough to withstand these power games is The Wesley Centre in Maltby. I haven’t been in touch with them for some time and so don’t know their recent history. However, this looks like a thriving community centre, supported by rental income from small businesses.
An example of assets that did not work out for a community is Burngreave New Deal for Communities. I’ve written about this at some length because the lessons are important. £50 million invested in a community that is now worse off than similar neighbourhoods in the same city that did not receive the same investment. One of its slogans was “legacy not history” and the idea was that income from the assets would fund community development in the future. The City Council owns the assets now and nothing finds its way to the community. (I don’t blame the City Council for this. They had to take on the assets and have had to close other buildings in the area to keep the New Deal buildings going. If they sell the New Deal buildings the money has to be returned to national government.)
So, I’ve offered two examples from my experience, with very different outcomes. It is easy to see buildings can be liabilities as well as assets. Loads of well-managed organisations own buildings and many buildings offer benefits to local residents. The point is they are not guaranteed to be an asset and can just as easily become a liability.
What are Community Assets?
There is a deeper argument against viewing buildings as assets. What do we mean by assets? Too often we set off asking the wrong questions. Buildings can be an asset in the technical sense of bringing value to its owners and they can be an asset to the wider population if they bring a perceived benefit into an area.
However, buildings and other equipment are not the only types of asset there are. Indeed, I would argue the assets behind a building that works are the assets that matter. It is not the monetary value of the building so much as the contribution of the organisation that manages it.
If only we could find the assets that make building ownership successful and isolate them! Maybe we would find they work as assets even without owning a building.
Six Categories of Community Asset
A few months ago, I wrote about Asset Based Community Development (ABCD). In this post I reviewed a book about ABCD which lists the assets available to communities in six categories:
Over the next few weeks I shall explore these in turn. They are part of my spirituality sequence but could equally be in the community development strand.
Why spirituality? Well as I explained in an earlier post, spirituality is essentially about paying attention. All these assets imply a commitment to a place and digging deep to discover the assets already present.
I am not very familiar with ABCD and intend to read more about it. However, I thought it would be interesting to explore these six types of asset from my experience and then perhaps compare my notes with the findings of those who practice ABCD.
So, next time I shall explore local residents’ skills.
