What's likely to work where?

The section on 'Why bother with the Internet?' raises many issues about the different agendas for residents and housing associations, and the benefits and barriers to making things happen in different situations. In part, what works will depend upon individual and household needs. We suggest it may also depend upon the attitude of the housing association and the nature of the communities they serve. David Wilcox and David Greenop develop a framework for thinking about these issues. It is intended to be an idea for further discussion and perhaps research, rather than a firm proposition. They suggest that:

  • Demand for use of the Internet related to housing, and what action is taken, is likely to depend on both the general responsiveness of the landlord and the strength of relationships within the resident community.

  • Landlords and residents will, in part, have different agendas for use of the Internet.

  • Residents with responsive landlords may be generally happy with existing services. On the other hand, strong resident groups dissatisfied with their landlord might use the Net to get improvements.

The model

Our model suggests thinking about what may work along two dimensions - weak or strong community, and responsive or unresponsive landlord.

  • 'Strong community' might apply where through locality (an estate) people know each other and have good links with neighbours and other interests. Or it might apply where tenants have built good associations, forums or other networks even when they don't live near each other.

  • 'Weak community' would apply where residents don't know each other and/or have weak networks or organisations. This can be the case on estates, and is likely to be the case where property is dispersed.

  • 'Responsive landlord' means that the landlord is thinking beyond narrowly defined housing service delivery and is committed to resident participation and empowerment.

  • 'Unresponsive landlord' doesn't mean they are doing a bad job - just that residents get what they are given.

What landlords and residents may be saying

Below are some comments (many real ones) offered by landlords and residents. We'll use the model to try and tease out the implications.

Landlords might variously say some or all of:

It's the responsibility of individual residents to get Internet access via normal commercial channels.

Current communication channels between residents and ourselves work well and the Internet doesn't offer any additional benefit.

The Internet could offer us potential cost savings in managing resident services.

Residents are not interested in the Internet.

A community Internet could upset the current forms of consultation and dialogue with and between residents.

The Tenants' Forum only meet every few months, and they can't give us feedback fast enough. Let's give them computers and Internet access to speed things up.

We should have more for and about residents on our website.

We can't justify putting rents up to pay for the work needed to give people Internet access. We may go for projects if there is special funding available.

Residents and their representatives may be saying some or all of:

I am happy with the way things are. I don't need the Internet. Why should I pay for something in my rent that I don't want?

My children are really losing out at school because other kids have computers and Internet access at home.

We live on an isolated estate. I think the Internet could be useful to get information and keep in touch with people. I'd like to find out if I could learn how to use a computer and do some work from home.

We need to liven up the tenants' association and make some links with other groups around the country. The Net could be useful to do that and get information on funding and other problems.

I've heard that on some estates residents have set up their own Internet projects, and it has really brought people together and given people something to talk about.

I'm online already and I do not think local communities are particularly relevant to me. I already have access to other communities that share the same interests as myself.

I already use the Internet and I think our landlord should give us information and services online.

The underlying issues or concerns

Behind these comments are some issues of policy and practice, for example:

  • The UK government wants to get everybody online in some way within the next few years, through work, home, community or public access. People in social housing are less likely to have computers or be able to afford access. They may not have had the opportunity to acquire technology skills.

  • Many government services will become available online and people will be encouraged to use these rather than traditional methods. Tenants of housing associations are more likely to need government services and help and may become disadvantaged through no access.

  • Commercial organisations and national organisations including the media are offering new types of services through the Internet. For example, banks are offering better interest rates and there are increasingly discounts on Internet shopping. People in social housing are at a financial disadvantage.

These - and the issues in the section 'Why bother with the Internet?' - raise questions including:

  1. How far is it the responsibility of housing associations to provide or encourage Internet access for residents?

  2. Does Internet access across a local community encourage improved community interactions? That is, does it help build 'social capital'?

  3. If the government is concerned about this sector, will it use measures to encourage housing associations to provide online access for their tenants?

  4. Will the falling costs of Internet access mean that - like other communication services - most people will eventually get them without major policy and funding programmes?

  5. If people prefer not to use online services, should they expect alternatives to continue to be available?

  6. If the Internet is important - and housing associations don't make provision - is it realistic to expect residents' organisations to develop projects themselves?

To help think through some of the above issues we developed a simple scenario model based upon a four-quadrant grid. The grid represents typical attitudes of both residents and landlords.

The vertical grid line indicates how strong the sense of community is in housing association tenants, and the likelihood that tenants may take the initiative collectively.

The horizontal grid line indicates how committed the landlord is to tenant participation, and that people are not socially excluded from society as a whole.

The characteristics shown in the quadrants on the grid are the situation and attitudes today. Different types of strategies, actions and involvement may be necessary for each of these situations - one solution or approach does not fit all.

The text in the quartiles above is:

We are alright

Landlord and residents have good relationships
There are already participation processes
Online community access would not improve upon current situation
Landlord would have to take initiative

We have a problem

The landlord knows they have a communications problem and wants to do something about it using the Net
Housing may be dispersed
Landlord would have to take initiative, but would closely consult with residents
May need to find some community tech champions among residents

We know what we want

Landlord and resident relationships are poor
There are few participation processes and most interactions are on a one-toone
basis
Residents may see that online community activity could be useful
Landlord doesn’t take the initiative and may discourage online community activism

What’s this all about?

Neither landlord or residents see a problem
The landlord will introduce online services to make their organisation work more effectively internally
Residents may be forced to make their own individual online provisions
Online access does not engender any improved community activity

On to The main Internet benefits and tools >