This case study focuses on a housing improvement policy in England aimed at low-income neighborhoods, and the participatory process that exists to affect that policy. The research explores factors which affected the participatory process and as a consequence, policy outcomes in two London boroughs (local governments). The recipients of the housing policy in both boroughs are low-income, working-class residents, yet one borough council is controlled by the Labour Party and the other is controlled by the Conservative Party. Based on arguments made in the literature on the prerequisites to participation, it was expected that because Labour decision-makers are supposedly more politically and socially congruent with these residents and their interests than Conservative decision-makers, that there would be greater likelihood for the decision-making process to be open to participation, and thus more responsive to the needs and expectations of the residents within the Labour borough. Findings indicated that the participatory process was generally the same in both boroughs and that decision-makers in the Labour borough were no more tolerant of or responsive to the residents' needs and demands than were those in the Conservative borough. The process of participation yielded similar results in both boroughs. Using a comparative case study method, this research explores reasons why the process and results were more similar than dissimilar. Where different results were achieved by the resident groups, they were mainly due to differences in the existence and quality of resident leadership. / M.U.A.