Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation

Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation

Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation is an article that aims to encourage people to take control and full charge of their environment through active participation. The poor citizens are often excluded from political, economic and social involvement. However, through citizen participation, this category of citizens’ voices their concerns such that they make sure they shall not be left out in the future. They are then able to get information and have their share of tax resources. More so, the citizens can get the other benefits that they are entitled to such as patronage and contracts. Through the ladder of participation, the citizens can get the benefits that they should be arriving in society. The community can raise issues that are pertinent and need to be addressed. More so, this seems like a delegated power of the government to the people who are involved directly in deciding the fate of their physical and social environment. The unfortunate in the society are therefore assisted in such programs, and the beneficiaries get the chance to alleviate poverty from their communities (Reeves, 2016, p. 15). This helps to bring change to the people at the grass root level. In tenant participation, residents can control their environment and discuss the things affecting their lives from within their estates.

Sometimes, participation is described as merely an empty ritual simply because there is a big difference between participating in achieving results that affect process outcomes and another that is just done for the sake of it. In all the campaigns of citizen participation, the issue is aimed at achieving definite results that would benefit the people. Some of the citizen participation processes are said to attain absolute power which is impossible. The president of the united states is unable to have such control and power. The question is what about citizens who are merely coming together to achieve something that none can while they are alone. Any kind of participation that does not seek to accomplish the redistribution of power is useless. It can only be described as an empty and frustrating ritual that is futile. The power holders enjoy such a situation and boast saying that all the concerned sides have been considered and included in the sharing of resources, information and redistribution of power. Nonetheless, only a portion of these groups, probably just one or two are considered in the empty ritual cases. Only the few benefit and the majority of the powerless rather the have-nots end up being ignored. Such process just aims at maintaining the status quo.

In the project on involving the residents in the housing practice, much has been achieved. For instance, the residents are able to shape the services that they get from the land lords and the government. Residents are able to influence the design as well as the delivery of services. This reduces the work of the regulator in measuring the performance of the providers. The regulator seeks to make the providers more accountable when providing services to the residents. Providers are therefore regulated easily through the participation of tenants because of the resident scrutiny. Furthermore, when the involvement of residents is increased, the satisfaction of the tenants is also taken to a higher level.

Landlords also benefit tremendously from tenant participation processes when service delivery has been improved. The landlords are able to tailor the services that they offer to fit the local tenants they have. Therefore, the needs and priorities of the local tents are considered first. The relationship between landlords and tenants is enhanced because each is doing their part in making sure that the environment is good.

More so, the resources can be prioritized to the targeted groups so that they benefit the areas that are seen to have the greatest need (Randolph, 2018, p. 100). This can be done by targeting the neighborhood level so that everybody at the grass root level benefits from the projects by having their needs addressed sufficiently. Additionally, under-represented groups can be identified and their representation increased and addressed accordingly. The services that are rendered to the tenants are improved so that the quality is not compromised. The value for money or the services can only be attained with the use of participation. Thus, the levels of satisfaction are improved by the participation and the tenants benefit a lot.

Organizational performance is improved substantially by having the residents involved. When each person is satisfied that their group has benefited and attained the aims that are necessary, the relationship is positive. More so, everyone is rest assured that the interest of each group regardless of its social class, are addressed or are in the process of being looked at.

There is a big chance of turning estates around when residents are involved. High level of voids can be eliminated. In the same manner, a high tenant turnover can be eliminated. When an estate is experiencing a high turnover of tenants, there must be a problem with the landlords or the local government in the provision of the services and facilities that are necessary in making the estates a great place to live in. some undesirable things such as antisocial behaviors. The community is able to participate with the police and coordinate with other. Civil disturbance is calmed and the community can build a center which can act as the focal point upon which the issues of the people are raised.

Nonetheless, there are negatives that come with the involvement of the tenants. The financial implications pre to be a pull back. Landlords need to track the expenditures and make a decision before calling for such programs. The attitudes of the landlords on the involvement of residents are informed by the financial burden placed on their shoulders. The resident involvement is a function but not a service and they may incur a lot of resources.

In other circumstances, the activities do not serve the main purpose for which they have been programed. This amounts to wastage of resources. Some of the resident involvement are done merely for the sake of historical reasons, simply because of the expectations of the society. Most social landlords see the involvement of residents as a burden simply because it is costly. Sometimes the landlords may not achieve the anted results and the investment required is heavy. This work requires the involvement of the local government in a bid to make the projects work.

Some of the things that the residents may want addressed by the land lords may be heavier and beyond the jurisdiction of the latter. When the landlords fail to tackle such issue insisting that it is the local authority that has power over such matters, the residents get angry. Also, some of the changes that are initiated are short-term and therefore they last for a limited period. This is because issues to deal with the community need active oversight and surveillance to make sure that they are followed by everyone. Implementation of such programs may pose a challenge. This is because they are not necessarily matters that the federal or the state department of justice could handle. In this way, those who break the rules on such matters do so with impunity because they know that whenever they are taken to higher authorities, they shall appeal against the decisions in a court of law. In this case, the resident involvement groups would lose because the law of the state is greater and powerful over the regulations that are drafted by community based programs. In other cases, the federal laws may be against such agreements because they may not align with what the federal oversight stipulates (Fakhoury, 2017, p. 310). Thus, someone may disagree with the agreements reached at the resident involvement meetings.  However, resident involvement is a good thing which develops estates socially and physically.





Reference List

Fakhoury, W.K., Murray, A., Shepherd, G. and Priebe, S., 2017. Research in supported housing. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology37(7), pp.301-315.

Randolph, B. and Judd, B., 2018. Community renewal and large public housing estates. Urban Policy and Research18(1), pp.91-104.

Reeves, Paul. Introduction to Social Housing. Routledge, 2016.