The double dividend: The social and economic benefits of community infrastructure and its potential to level up 'left behind' neighbourhoods ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The double
dividend:
The social and economic benefits
of community infrastructure and
its potential to level up 'left behind'
neighbourhoods
A report to inform the Levelling Up White Paper
July 2021
1About Local Trust
Local Trust is a place-based funder supporting
communities to transform and improve their lives and the
places where they live. We believe there is a need to put
more power, resources and decision-making into the hands
of local communities, to enable them to transform and
improve their lives and the places in which they live.
About Big Local
The Big Local programme has invested £1.15m in funding
from the National Lottery Community Fund into 150
neighbourhoods across the country. This funding has been
placed directly in the hands of local residents, giving them
the ability to make decisions about how to improve their
areas and the quality of life of local people.
About this report
This report is designed to inform the government's
Levelling Up White Paper. It draws on evidence from the
Big Local programme, as well as new research, to make the
case for investment in community led social infrastructure
and to highlight its potential to achieve economic as
well as social change and therefore to level up the most
deprived or 'left behind' neighbourhoods.
Local Trust is registered in England and Wales, charity
number 1147511, company number 07833396.
localtrust.org.uk
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncsa/4.0/
Cover photo: Members of Selby Big Local stand outside
their community-owned building in Selby, North
Yorkshire
Photo credit: Jonathan Pow
2Contents
Introduction 6
The case for social infrastructure 9
Community leadership is key to success 13
Target investment: right place and scale 18
Conclusions 23
Recommendations 25
Bibliography 34
The double dividend 1Foreword
When launching the legislative programme for this Parliament, the
Prime Minister again declared his commitment to “unite and level
up” the country – and announced plans to publish a Levelling Up
White Paper later this year, setting out “bold new interventions to
improve livelihoods and opportunities throughout the UK”.
But if levelling up is the only game in town, As human beings, we have a basic need
what exactly is it? And more importantly, for connection and a sense of belonging,
what might it mean to residents of the and we gain this in large measure through
most 'left behind' communities who institutions that reflect our collective local
should benefit from it the most? identities.
To date, it has been interpreted as Indeed, it is now largely uncontested
primarily about tackling regional that high levels of trust and reciprocity
economic divides, with initiatives such as between residents within a place, and
the Levelling up Fund, the Towns Fund, the the bonding and bridging social capital
Future High Streets Fund and significant they create, underpin the success of
investment in national infrastructure any economy – whether national or
projects dominating headlines. local. Local social and civic institutions
are the fundamental engines of social
However, recent government
capital. Both the civic facilities and the
announcements have suggested a
organisations that operate within them are
broader policy ambition aimed at
key to ensuring communities are happy,
“improving everyday life for communities…
healthy and resilient.
and ensuring everyone can succeed
regardless of where they live”; enabling We know that individuals living in
“people…[to be] proud of their local communities with higher levels of social
community. capital have, on average, better outcomes
across a range of indicators including
These objectives tap into something very
employment and health and wellbeing.
important in the mood of the country right
now. Even before COVID, there was an On the other hand, research by OCSI for
anxiety that the fabric of our shared social Local Trust suggests that a lack of places
and civic life had been torn – with the loss and spaces to meet in a neighbourhood,
in many places of local pubs, bingo halls, low levels of community activity and
community centres and neighbourhood poor digital and transport connectivity
shops: the places where we connect, contribute to worse socio-economic
make friends, build relationships, and outcomes in the most deprived areas.
cultivate a sense of neighbourliness. This People living in areas that are highly
phenomenon isn’t limited to our poorest economically deprived and lack social
neighbourhoods, but the impact is often infrastructure have fewer employment
most obvious in communities that have opportunities, with lower household
also suffered economic decline. income and markedly worse health
outcomes, while educational attainment is
significantly lower across every age group.
2If levelling up is to be a success, it It makes the case for the value of locally
must focus on these communities. But rooted social infrastructure, highlighting
what can be done? How can we, as a how that can strengthen other policy
nation, reweave the social fabric of the interventions taken at a regional or
communities that have been most national level, and charts a new course
‘left behind’? that will level up ‘left behind’ communities
over the next decade.
This submission uses evidence from
over a decade of running the Big Local We need a radical rethink to
programme – the largest ever national neighbourhood-level regeneration,
experiment in neighbourhood level placing community leadership and hyper-
devolution and community regeneration local interventions at the heart of our
– as well as research undertaken by the plans to deliver greater prosperity, starting
APPG for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, with those who have the least.
Frontier Economics and a host of think
As we emerge from a pandemic which
tanks, charities and research institutes to
has demonstrated the good-will and
make the case for trusting local people
resilience of our local communities, it
to deliver the change they want to see
is evident that this is an agenda whose
in their own communities.
time has come. All it needs is for the
government to grasp it.
Matt Leach
Chief Executive
Local Trust
The double dividend 3Summary
The government is committed to levelling up the country. To date,
policy initiatives have primarily addressed regional economic
imbalances. But levelling up, according to government statements,
also embraces a broader and more ambitious social agenda –
enabling people to be proud of their local area, strengthening
community and improving quality of life.
This taps into something very important that individuals and communities with
about the mood of the country and the high levels of social capital have better
need to mend the tears in our social fabric, outcomes across a range of indicators
build shared identity, overcome divides including employment, health and
and provide solutions for communities that wellbeing.
have too often felt ignored and neglected
Yet, this investment must be done in the
by both the national and local state.
right way. Local residents must take the
Yet the shared places and institutions lead. Investment must be empowering
which foster communal relationships, such and enabling, done by communities, not
as community centres, local sports and to them. The evidence shows that place-
arts centres, libraries and pubs, have been based funding programmes need to
in decline over several decades. Often this harness community leadership in order to
erosion of social infrastructure has been deliver sustainable change. People want
most felt in communities that have also the opportunity to build a better future
suffered from the decline and withdrawal for themselves, their families and their
of traditional industries and which have communities. Investing in the confidence,
therefore had high levels of unemployment. skills and capacity of local people
provides longer term dividends, benefiting
The evidence tells us how important social
neighbourhoods into the future.
infrastructure is in the most ‘left behind’
areas. It creates a sense of belonging and Investment must also be targeted at the
identity, generates civic pride and improves right places, at the right scale. Not one-size-
the quality of a place and residents’ fits all but a place-sensitive approach that
satisfaction with the neighbourhoods in reaches the hyperlocal or neighbourhood
which they live. level, targeting those specific areas which
have been 'left behind'. A consensus
However, social infrastructure generates
is developing around these ideas. The
economic as well as social value.
government needs to move beyond
Improving social infrastructure is a
a focus on the physical, economic
foundational investment, which can reap
infrastructure of cities and regions to also
significant economic as well as social and
support neighbourhood-level change in
civic returns. The link between the social
‘left behind’ areas, helping rebuild their
fabric and social and economic success
social infrastructure and invest in and
is clear. A wide range of research shows
empower the people who live there.
4Finally, investment in change needs to ingredients for success. To enable this,
be long term. Just as many ‘left behind’ the government should:
areas have seen a gradual but sustained
• direct dormant assets to a new
decline in both their economic prospects
Community Wealth Fund to provide
and social infrastructure over many years, long-term support to the residents of ‘left
rebuilding that capacity will require long- behind’ neighbourhoods to rebuild their
term investment. Evidence from other social infrastructure
neighbourhood investment programmes
highlights the time it can take to develop • ensure that at least 20 per cent of the
local leadership and build sustainable UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF)
community-led civic organisations and is directed to support community
institutions. Typically, this requires both economic development in ‘left behind’
certainty of funding and support over neighbourhoods
periods significantly beyond government • support the establishment of a
spending settlements or local or national What Works Centre for Community
electoral cycles. & Neighbourhood Improvement
Long-term, hyperlocal or neighbourhood • support a development programme
level investment, targeted at the for community leaders who can drive
places with the greatest need and led forward the vision of levelling up this
by communities themselves are the country.
The double dividend 5Introduction
Boris Johnson, in his first speech as Prime Minister made a commitment
to ‘level up’ – “answering at last the plea of the forgotten people and
the left behind towns” (Boris Johnson, 2019a). As we emerge from the
worst of the pandemic, and with the establishment of a new unit in
the Cabinet Office to drive forward progress, it is clear that levelling
up – above all else – is the core policy goal for this government.
Levelling up has been interpreted as “help places everywhere to strengthen
primarily about addressing regional their cultural and creative infrastructure,
economic imbalances between North and the gathering places that give a
South. As well as “supporting individuals community its life” – the social conditions
across the country to reach their potential” (Boris Johnson, 2019b).
(HM Treasury, 2021) through investing in the
human capital of every area and region,
“creating new jobs, boosting training Our social fabric needs repair
and growing productivity in places that
The ambition to strengthen social
have seen economic decline and the
conditions reflects something key about
loss of industry” (Prime Minister’s Office,
the mood of the country. Even before
2021).The Plan for Growth released by the
COVID, there was an anxiety that in many
government and the Queen’s speech
places the fabric of our shared social
briefing indicate that it is a policy aimed at
“improving everyday life for communities… and civic life had been torn. As far back
and ensuring everyone can succeed as 2007 there was talk of ‘Broken Britain’,
regardless of where they live”. It is about but in recent years we have seen it in the
enabling “people….[to be] proud of their fall-out from the divisive EU referendum, the
local community, rather than feeling as idea of a London or Westminster ‘bubble’
though they need to leave it in order to out of touch with the rest of the country,
reach their potential” (HM Treasury, 2021) and characterisations of UK citizens as
and “strengthening community and local divided into ‘somewheres’ and ‘anywheres’
leadership, restoring pride in place, and (Goodhart, 2017).
improving quality of life in ways that are not 55 per cent of people believe the UK is
just about the economy” (Prime Minister’s divided (Dixon, 2021). 61 per cent say we
Office, 2021). are divided on the key issues facing the
Crucially, Boris Johnson has described UK today (Edelman, 2021). The 2020 Trust
the plan not only to level up in economic Barometer reveals that 3 in 5 Britons say they
terms but also to unite this country “by are losing faith in democracy as an effective
physically and literally renewing the ties form of government, and over half believe
that bind us together” – the more social that capitalism does more harm than good
or community dimension (Boris Johnson, (ibid). Institutions are seen by Brits as less
2019a). The mission is not just to address competent and more unethical compared
“endemic health problems, generational to the global average (ibid). In communities
unemployment, down-at-heel high streets” across the UK, positive engagement with our
– the economic conditions – but also to neighbours, such as exchanging favours
6or stopping to talk fell after 2012, and our A need for investment
sense of belonging to our neighbourhoods in community life
across the UK declined after 2015 (Office for
National Statistics, 2020). To argue that levelling up should be
about investing in the social and
This isn’t a phenomenon limited to our community dimension as well as
poorest places, but the impact is often economic life is not controversial. The
most obvious in communities that have notion has been backed by the Centre
also suffered economic decline – with for Progressive Policy, the COVID Recovery
the loss of shared workplaces, local trade Commission, Onward and the Bennett
union activity and other institutions that Institute in a number of recent reports.
define local identity. Whilst the welfare Notably, in The State of our Social Fabric
system can provide a safety net for those (2020), Onward argues that levelling up
should mean not just providing security in
most affected by changes in the economy,
an individual’s personal life i.e. secure jobs
successive governments have failed to
and housing, but in community life as well
acknowledge and address the need
– civic institutions, positive social norms
to help communities sustain the social and social relationships. Furthermore,
fabric of the areas in which they live. Onward says that these are things that
Without change on this front, people are the 2019 election result showed people
unlikely to have a tangible sense of their in ‘left behind’ areas, particularly in
circumstances improving. the former ‘red wall’, were looking to
politicians to revive (ibid: 38-41). The
A wide range of research shows that
report concludes that, to be successful,
individuals and communities with a
levelling up will need to “start building
healthy bank balance of social capital local institutions, seeding local networks,
have better outcomes across a range of empowering local leaders and devolving
indicators including employment, health power to places to take back control of
and wellbeing. Indeed, it is now largely their own place” (ibid: 96).
uncontested that high levels of both
The levelling up strategy that we need
human and social capital underpin
to repair our frayed social fabric and
the success of any economy – whether give deprived communities a sense of
national or local (Bennett Institute, 2021). belonging, hope and opportunity flows
This is a virtuous, mutually reinforcing naturally from this analysis. The case we
circle. High levels of trust and reciprocity set out in this report is that investment in
and the bonding and bridging social social infrastructure is a key foundation
capital they create can positively stone but it needs to be made in the
influence human capital accumulation right way – the focus needs to be at
– and vice versa (ibid). the neighbourhood level, and it needs
to be led by the local community, if the
government’s levelling up ambitions are
to be achieved.
The double dividend 7The case for social
infrastructure
What is social infrastructure, why the growing interest and,
more importantly, why should supporting social or community
infrastructure be a key strand of government’s levelling up agenda?
Social infrastructure defined Social infrastructure in sharp
Social infrastructure is at the heart decline, impacting poorest
of creating stronger, more vibrant areas most
communities and a more cohesive
Across the country, social infrastructure
society. In May 2021, the Bennett Institute in
has been in decline. A recent study by
Cambridge produced an influential report
Locality (2018) makes for bleak reading:
on the value of social infrastructure. This is
it finds that over 4,000 public buildings
the latest in a number of reports published
and spaces are sold every year. A high
over the last two or three years making the
proportion never re-open; organisations
case for investment in social infrastructure.
are closed and services boarded up. The
The Bennett Institute (2021) defines social
number of pubs and libraries has been in
infrastructure as community places and
sharp decline. Over 25 per cent of pubs
spaces whose principle function is to foster
have closed their doors since 2001 and
‘inter and intra-communal relationships’.
the number of libraries dropped by nearly
By this, they mean community centres,
30 per cent, from 2001 to 2018 (Office for
local sports and arts centres, libraries
National Statistics, 2018), whilst 70 per
and pubs – spaces that provide people
cent of youth services closed between
with somewhere to meet, build trust and
2010 and 2016 (YMCA, 2020).
connection, and give an area interest, life
and soul. An important fact here is that the erosion
of social infrastructure has been uneven,
Community buildings provide a means
exacerbating existing inequalities
for people to come together and
between better-off neighbourhoods
build connections, but there are other
and those that have historically
aspects to social infrastructure, defined
lacked funding and resources. Locality
as the structures and processes that
(2018: 5) found that “the poorest
enable the development of social and
places are often most reliant on public
economic capital in communities,
buildings and spaces”, therefore their
including neighbourhood community and
closure has a “devastating impact” on
voluntary associations and connectivity
communities which were already facing
– both physical and digital – which is
poorer outcomes. The most deprived
vital to connect people to social and
communities often shoulder the brunt
economic opportunities in their wider
of declining services, facilities and
geographical area (APPG for ‘left behind’
community buildings. The Joseph
neighbourhoods, 2020a).
Rowntree Foundation (2015) found that
the contraction of local government
budgets over the past ten years has
resulted in the closure of many community
8places and spaces which had previously population (ibid: 55). This has knock-on
been key to the social infrastructure of effects, reducing the strength of trust,
deprived neighbourhoods. In addition, reciprocity and neighbourliness, key
efforts by local government to maintain norms which allow community action
provision despite budget reductions have to thrive. Again, the data is even more
led to policies which centralised services striking for ‘left behind’ areas. Such
in town centres. Overall, the result has neighbourhoods are less than half as
been a situation where facilities are now likely to have a charity in their area, 98
often absent from the neighbourhoods per cent have lower rates of volunteering
that need them the most (ibid: 117). and they perform less well than the
England average on measures of social
The closure of community places and
connectedness, such as whether people
spaces has been compounded by the
feel they belong to their neighbourhood
COVID-19 pandemic. Research from UK
and that they can borrow things or
Active (2020) has shown that more than
exchange favours with neighbours (OCSI,
half of public leisure facilities in England
2021b). More information on 'left behind'
are at risk of closure, in addition to the 400
neighbourhoods in box 1 below.
gyms, pools and community centres that
have already shut since the pandemic Many communities have also become
began. A separate Local Government less connected to opportunities both
Association (2020) survey also reports that economic and recreational because
one third of councils are planning to close of a lack of digital connectivity and
one or more facilities due to financial affordable public transport. Research
pressures as a result of the pandemic. by Campaign for Better Transport and
OCSI points to some of the poorest levels
The situation is similar for community
of connectivity in the country in ‘left
centres and hubs. A report by Community
behind’ neighbourhoods. Low levels of car
Matters (2021: 18, 28) highlighted that
ownership and limited rail services mean
continued financial insecurity is resulting
that people are more reliant on buses
in many community buildings “closing
than other areas, whilst local authorities
their doors for good”, whilst others are
with ‘left behind’ wards have seen bus
“reaching the end of their financial
use decline faster than other areas. The
reserves”. It concludes that the pandemic
total length of supported local bus routes
has resulted in a “potential crisis” for
provided in local authorities with ‘left
community buildings and facilities across
behind’ wards declined by 35 per cent
the country.
over the last six years, while commercial
Civic engagement and voluntary services declined by 11 per cent (APPG
association have also declined. In 2017, for 'left behind' neighbourhoods, 2021).
just under half of people were members Residents also have poorer internet
of a group of some kind, a decline of access, with a much higher proportion
around 10 percentage points since (almost 80 per cent) not using the internet
1991 (Onward, 2020: 55). The decline in as part of their everyday
membership has particularly hit local lives (ibid).
groups. For example, the number of
people who are a member of a working
men’s or social club has fallen by around
a quarter to one in ten people, whilst
the number who are members of a
tenants’ or residents’ association has
fallen by 38 per cent to 6 per cent of the
The double dividend 9Box 1: What do we mean by ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods?
Although controversial, the term ‘left behind’ became commonplace in political
debate in the run up to the 2019 election. Both main parties were seeking to
highlight the challenges of places that had suffered not just from poor economic
performance, but also wider neglect in terms of public investment and opportunities
for the people who lived in them. Whilst no formal definition was adopted, often the
term was applied by Conservative politicians to former industrial towns and cities and
some coastal communities.
In 2019, Local Trust commissioned research from Oxford Consultants for Social
Inclusion (OCSI) to explore how data might help identify and understand the
challenges of such areas and support the development of policy responses. This work
mapped three different area characteristics: civic assets – spaces and places for
communities to meet, green space and recreational opportunities; civic participation
and community engagement – number of registered charities, voter turn-out, levels
of volunteering; and physical and digital connectivity – travel times to key services,
car ownership, broadband speeds, one person households. OCSI used these
characteristics to create a new Community Needs Index (CNI).
Overlaying the most deprived 10 per cent of areas from the CNI on top of the most
deprived 10 per cent of areas as denoted by the Index of Multiple Deprivation
(IMD) highlighted 225 wards which were notable for being both highly deprived
and lacking in the social infrastructure to support local people to address those
challenges (Local Trust, 2019: 14). These wards have worse socio-economic
outcomes across all metrics than other similarly deprived areas (that is, others also
in the top 10 per cent most deprived on the IMD): worse educational attainment;
lower participation in higher education; fewer job opportunities, with those that
were available often being in low-paid employment; and significantly worse health
outcomes, with lung cancer prevalence over double the national average (Local
Trust, 2020).
Investment in social While this is something we all know
instinctively, there is also research to back
infrastructure rebuilds
it up. Analysis by Pro Bono Economics
community and prosperity suggests that the presence of community
People have a basic need for connection assets may be a better predictor of life
and a sense of belonging; they gain this satisfaction in an area than its GDP or
in large measure through institutions that household income. Polling by Survation
reflect collective local identities whether (2020) indicates that people feel the
that be community centres, rugby clubs or biggest funding deficit in their area has
pubs. Local social and civic institutions are been investment in community provision.
the engines of social capital, providing Work on the foundational economy
spaces for people to meet and activities confirms the contribution local social and
that bring them together enabling them civic assets make to people’s sense of
to address local issues (APPG for ‘left wellbeing and quality of life (Foundational
behind’ neighbourhoods, 2020a). Economy Collective, 2019).
10It seems obvious that a lack of social can collectively provide a framework for
or community infrastructure in an area life-long learning and skills development
erodes the quality of people’s day to day that is crucial if we are to level up. Their
lives. However, how it reduces life chances, contributions include the learning
particularly for those living in the most resources and skills workshops hosted by
deprived or ‘left behind’ areas, and how libraries, apprenticeship and volunteer
it impacts on local prosperity are less schemes. Community organisations
appreciated. And it is this that makes it a key also support people into work by
issue for government’s levelling up agenda. running job clubs and employment
brokerage services or providing childcare,
Research Local Trust commissioned from
community transport or other services
OCSI (2019a) mapped the English wards
and support that makes employment
with the highest levels of socio-economic
possible.
disadvantage alongside a lack of social
infrastructure – these areas lack places and Research by Frontier Economics (2021)
spaces to meet, an engaged community confirms that investment in the social
and physical and digital connectivity, infrastructure of the most ‘left behind’
meaning they are cut off from recreational neighbourhoods can generate significant
and economic opportunities outside economic payback to the Treasury (HMT).
their immediate geography. It found that It reveals that for every £1m invested,
these 225 wards have markedly worse there are fiscal returns of £1.2m (at least
unemployment and health outcomes 50 per cent of which are likely to be
and lower educational attainment than cashable) and there are wider economic
other equally deprived areas which have returns worth a further £2m, including
such community assets. This suggests a £0.7m boost in employment, training
how important social infrastructure is in and skills opportunities for local residents
the most ‘left behind’ areas and how its (for more about this research see next
provision should be a key element in the section). Social infrastructure provides the
government’s approach to levelling up. foundations for spreading opportunity,
improving livelihoods, raising living
As the Bennett Institute (2021) indicates,
standards, and fostering enterprise that
social infrastructure generates economic
can deliver levelling up.
as well as social value. This is the good
news at the heart of the levelling
up agenda – by investing in social
infrastructure we can rebuild community
Social infrastructure vital for
and also rebuild economic prosperity. levelling up the most ‘left
Social infrastructure creates jobs: it is behind’ places
estimated that almost 2.3 million people
Danny Kruger (2020) argues that we need
are employed in social infrastructure
a new economics of place. Amongst other
or related industries (Bennett Institute,
things, he suggests that places need strong
2021). There is also evidence that social
identities and social infrastructure. Economic
infrastructure helps to address disparities
success means liveable places and “the
in human capital (ibid). Many of the
heritage, environment and culture of a place
community organisations that foster and
matter as much as its transport links and
sustain local identity and belonging
business facilities. A place needs a sense of
also have education, skills and health
itself to hold its bright young people, and to
improvement functions that are often
attract others to settle there” (Kruger, 2021a).
overlooked. The Bennett Institute (2021)
And he argues places need infrastructure
highlights that community institutions
The double dividend 11and this includes the “social infrastructure a universal fund rather than one that
that makes a community” (Kruger, 2021a). prioritises places where local social
The Bennett Institute (2021) assessment infrastructure has suffered its biggest
of the civic value of social infrastructure decline and on any measure small scale
echoes Kruger’s analysis. It argues that compared to the nearly £9bn allocated to
when community spaces and facilities are levelling up initiatives so far, predominantly
well-maintained and accessible, they play for physical infrastructure projects
a large role in shaping residents’ sense of (Bennett Institute, 2021).
identity and belonging (ibid). They create
Government should commit to investing in
value by fostering civic pride and building
social infrastructure in the most ‘left behind’
the social capital and community bonds
areas as part of its levelling up agenda
that encourages peoples’ participation in
because it is a foundational investment. It
their community. This enables local people to
would make the ground fertile for targeted
bridge divides, increasing levels of trust and
investment programmes. For example,
cohesion between different sections of the
those aimed at regenerating deprived
community.
areas, by building the confidence and
The opportunity now is for government capacity of communities to apply for them,
to acknowledge fully the value of when they would otherwise continue to
social infrastructure in its levelling up miss out. It is analogous to investment
policy. Some small steps have been in physical infrastructure, in creating the
taken: for example, the Government conditions for future economic success,
has announced a £150m Community and as the Centre for Progressive Policy
Ownership Fund to help communities (2020) has argued, likely to generate a
across the country take over assets that comparable level of return on investment.
might otherwise be lost. However, this is So, the question is, how should
government invest?
12Community leadership
is key to success
Investment in social infrastructure will only deliver if it is done in
the right way. The first key design principle is that communities
must take the lead. Investment must be empowering and
enabling, providing agency and opportunity. It must be done by
communities, not to them. It must give people the freedom to build
back better from the ground up, not chain them to a centralised
model of welfare from the top down.
This means a focus on social infrastructure The academic case for
developed and led by communities. It
community leadership
means securing policies which support
and encourage residents in the most In recent years, leading academics,
deprived or ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods economists and political theorists have
to participate in civic life, and by doing so set out a robust case for how community
building their confidence and capacity to power creates a strong and prosperous
improve their own and their communities’ society.
prospects. Perhaps most famously, in her Nobel-
The last Conservative Party Manifesto prize winning work on community
(2019: 2) made the commitment that governance, Elinor Ostrom (1990, 1993)
the government would “listen to the argues that empowered communities
people who have felt left behind” and with the resources and freedom to make
give those communities “more control of decisions will do so in a sustainable
their future.” It said, “we believe you can and efficient way. Local leadership
and must trust people and communities often allows communities to work “more
to make the decisions that are right for effectively because they are not reduced
them” (ibid: 26). Danny Kruger MP (2020) to recipients of commands from above”
argues that we need to develop a new (Ostrom, 1993: 231).
social covenant and he sets out twelve Recent work by Raghuram Rajan (2019)
principles which would underpin it. The builds on this, arguing that a prosperous
last but not least of these is community society is reliant upon an equal balance
power. He defines community power as between three main pillars – the state,
“the role of local people, acting together the market and the community. He notes
spontaneously or through enduring that strong, independent communities
institutions, to design and deliver the play a vital role in balancing the forces
kind of neighbourhood they want to of the state and the market, improving
be part of” (Danny Kruger, 2020: 13). economic growth and strengthening
He argues that the “real change we our resilience. In a recent lecture,
need is for communities themselves – Andy Haldane called for “community
not councils – to take back control” capitalism” – a new governance model
(Danny Kruger, 2021b). that would see a reinvigorated civil society
The double dividend 13with the autonomy to lead change and Numerous research studies and
rebalance the powers of the market and evaluations indicate that community
state to tackle spatial inequality across leadership can help to solve complex
the country (Haldane, 2021). structural problems and lead to better
outcomes across a variety of domains
We know from our experience
including health and wellbeing, local
administering the Big Local programme
economic development, improving
(see box 3), that civic engagement
the prospects of young people and
generates local pride and a stronger
community resilience. The evidence is
community. It makes the area a safer
particularly well developed and striking for
and more pleasant place to live. People
health and wellbeing (see the box 2).
are more likely to know each other
and engage in small, informal acts of And if the specific objective is to level
neighbourliness. up the most ‘left behind’ areas, there is
evidence that community leadership
is a key success factor. An in-depth
Sustainable change requires analysis of all major local area initiatives
community leadership undertaken over the last forty years found
that previous funding programmes
The argument for community leadership had failed to leave a lasting legacy in
is pretty simple. If local people are neighbourhoods because of a lack
encouraged and supported to take on of genuine community engagement
the task of improving their local area, and control over decisions (Cambridge
there are clear and tangible benefits. University, 2019). The report notes that the
Civic engagement generates local pride community “has to feel they have real
and a stronger community. It makes the influence and real power, otherwise they
area a safer and more pleasant place to won’t engage” (ibid: 8). Undertaking
live. People are more likely to know each qualitative research amongst experts in
other and engage in small, informal acts community regeneration, Cambridge
of neighbourliness. The activities and University found “a broad consensus
services the community designs and that building community capacity
delivers are tailored to local needs and was important for creating a lasting
aspirations which means residents are legacy” (ibid: 8-10). One of the most
more likely to use them, so they achieve important lessons to learn from previous
greater traction and better outcomes. funding schemes is that funding must
They tend to be low-cost because “harness the knowledge and energy
rooted in local resourcefulness and of local people or empower them to
entrepreneurialism; often preventative develop their own solutions in order
as opposed to remedial, they can for change to be sustainable” (Social
evidence significant savings to the Exclusion Unit, Cabinet Office, 2001: 7).
public purse over time.
14Box 2: Community power: the evidence for improved health
and wellbeing
There is a wealth of evidence regarding the positive role communities play in
improving health and wellbeing. The Marmot Review: Ten Years On (Institute of Health
Equity, 2020: 98) highlights a clear association between community leadership and
improved health outcomes. Higher levels of community leadership have been found
to lower levels of stress and anxiety and result in higher engagement with health-
promoting behaviours.
Findings from research examining resident-controlled housing associations also
demonstrate that community leadership and control “effectively enhances
community engagement, activates citizenship and significantly improves both
individual and collective well‐being” (Rosenberg, 2012: 1462).
There is also significant research demonstrating that community participation in
decision making improves mental health and wellbeing: participation “frees people
from loneliness and isolation, enhancing their wellbeing and improving their mental
health” (Britton, 2020). Separate studies into the effects of meaningful participation in
public life on residents’ health and wellbeing found that feelings of control over issues
that affect them act as a ‘stress buffer’, improving mental health and reducing stress
(People’s Health Trust, 2018: 3). Similarly, the What Works Centre for Wellbeing (2018: 3)
has highlighted that meaningful engagement is “closely related to the likelihood of
experiencing positive outcomes from engagement in projects”.
Since 2011, Wigan Council has been developing a ‘citizen-led’ and ‘asset-based’
approach to public health, where public services seek to build on the strengths and
assets of individuals and communities to improve outcomes (The King’s Fund, 2019).
As a result, healthy life expectancy has increased significantly, bucking the trend of
stagnation England-wide.
An economic payback Pointing specifically to employment and
Frontier Economics (2021) has brought skills data, they say:
together the existing evidence to
provide an independent assessment
of the economic basis for investment Compared to the national
in community-led social infrastructure average, left behind areas have
and to quantify the potential scale of over 13 per cent more working age
economic, social and fiscal returns from people without qualifications and 15
these investments. Their overall conclusion per cent fewer with NVQ4 equivalent
is that targeted investment in community- qualifications or above. They also
led social infrastructure would provide a have a higher proportion of the
significant scale of opportunity to improve economically inactive population
outcomes in ‘left behind’ areas with
who want a job, and this is highest in
knock on benefits for the Exchequer.
the most left behind areas.”
The double dividend 15Based on data from the Big Local at £0.7m as a result of supporting
programme (see box 3), Frontier unemployed people into work are
Economics assessed the likely ‘cashable’ as they provide a direct saving
economic pay back from a typical to the Exchequer.
basket of community investments in a
The Frontier Economics estimates are
neighbourhood. Using a very conservative
likely to be significantly lower than the
approach to developing its estimates
benefits that might be achieved for two
consistent with economic appraisal
reasons. Firstly, the research focused only
processes used by HMT, the report
on those outcomes for which robust
concludes that £1m in investment would
quantitative data, indicating a plausible
be likely to generate £3.2m in social
causal link, was available and such
and economic benefits over a 10-year
data was relatively scarce. Secondly,
period. This includes £2m in increased
the report concludes that there is strong
employment, health and wellbeing, GVA
qualitative data for a range of outcomes
in the local economy, and reduced crime
which could not be quantified and
and £1.2m in fiscal benefits through
therefore monetised. These outcomes
employment, tax and benefit savings, and
include improved social cohesion, civic
the reduced costs of crime, healthcare
engagement, reduced loneliness and
and employment services. The return in
environmental benefits.
employment taxes and benefits estimated
Box 3: The Big Local programme
The Big Local programme has invested £1.15m in funding from the National Lottery
Community Fund into each of 150 neighbourhoods across the country. This funding
has been placed directly in the hands of local residents, giving them the ability to
make decisions about how to improve their areas and the quality of life of local
people. Areas were selected on the basis that they suffered from higher than average
levels of deprivation and had previously missed out on their fair share of lottery or
other public funding.
The Big Local programme began in 2012 and will run until 2026. It is administered
nationally by Local Trust, who also engage in research and policy work guided by
learning and insights from the programme.
Outcomes from the programme so far evidence benefits for individuals – including
reduced social isolation, increased confidence and aspiration, and greater access
to employment opportunities – and broader community change. Resident-led
investment has resulted in the creation and growth of local community and voluntary
organisations; physical and environmental improvements; new community hubs and
services addressing local needs; new confidence in engaging with local political
and consultative forums; and improved community cohesion (Third Sector Research
Centre, 2020).
16‘Left behind’ areas want Some suggest that supporting and
to lead change promoting community leadership
would undermine formal democratic
Some may argue that it is unrealistic structures. Of course, local democratic
to expect communities, particularly structures are an important part of our
those living in the most deprived or ‘left national settlement and require proper
behind’ areas, to mobilise to improve resourcing in order to play their vital role.
their neighbourhoods. However, polling Our proposal is for relatively small-scale
data indicates that there is an appetite complementary investment in building the
amongst people in ‘left behind’ areas capacity of communities to participate
to ‘take back control’ and a conviction in civic life, securing much stronger
that doing so is likely to shift the dial. hyperlocal community engagement and
Survation (2020) polling, commissioned by accountability by giving communities
Local Trust, found that the residents of ‘left power over some local decisions and a
behind’ neighbourhoods had a strong budget to implement them.
belief in the power of community action,
with 63 per cent agreeing that residents Vesting decision making power in
have the capacity to really change the communities in the way envisaged,
way their area is run. When asked if a fund particularly for those that feel most ‘left
were set up to help their community, who behind’, who often feel disenfranchised
should lead decisions about how the and ignored, would also be a concrete
money was spent, a clear majority (54 way of demonstrating that they are not
per cent) said local people, with a further forgotten. It would reinforce the notion
17 per cent saying it should be local that they are not simply regarded as a
charities and community organisations problem, but instead are recognised as
(see figure ) (ibid). This desire for greater having creativity, resourcefulness and
community leadership supports Local skills to contribute. All they need is to be
Trust’s experience of administering the Big given an opportunity to show, with the
Local programme; given the right support right support to start them off, what they
people in deprived areas work with might achieve to build a better future
enthusiasm and energy to improve their for themselves, their families and their
neighbourhoods. communities.
Figure: If a fund was set up to help provide more support to your community,
who should lead decisions about how the money is spent?
Local people 54%
Local government 21%
Local charities and community organisations 17%
National government 2%
Other 2%
Don't know 5%
Base: All Respondents Unweighted Total: Total = 1003 Total
Source: Survation/Local Trust polling. 2020.
Note: All repsondents unweighted total: 1003
The double dividend 17Target investment: right
place and scale
The second key design principle for success is that investment must
be targeted in the right places, at the right scale.
The 2019 Conservative Manifesto said: designed to reduce differences in the
economic fortunes of different places
because this was regarded as inefficient.
Talent and genius are uniformly The new approach is more sophisticated
distributed throughout the and more in Iine with the evidence of
country. Opportunity is not. Now is the what works, but is it local and ‘place
time to close that gap – not just sensitive’ enough and is it targeted on
because it makes such obvious the neighbourhoods that need it most?
economic sense, but for the sake of
simple social justice.”
Focus investment at
neighbourhood level in ‘left
Build Back Better: the government’s plan
behind’ areas
for growth says that “the most important
pillar in our approach to levelling up Much discussion of levelling up refers
is supporting individuals to reach their to regional imbalances and the gap
potential in every place and region” (HM in the fortunes of the north and the
Treasury, 2021). It suggests that this will south of the country. But this ignores an
be achieved by addressing differences in important fact, imbalances within regions
levels of “human capital” between places are often as great if not greater than
and tackling “geographic disparities in differences between them; both the north
key services and outcomes, like health, and the south have pockets of extreme
education, jobs” (ibid). The Queen’s deprivation and community need. This
Speech similarly described levelling up as government has placed a significant
being about “creating new jobs, boosting emphasis on investment in towns but the
training and growing productivity in scale of towns or even boroughs often
places that have seen economic decline masks the varied nature of inequality at a
and the loss of industry – not through a neighbourhood level.
one-size-fits all approach, but nurturing The OCSI and Local Trust (2019a)
different types of economic growth and research mapping ‘left behind’ wards
building on the different strengths that found they were concentrated in post-
different places have” (Prime Minister’s industrial areas in northern England and
Office, 2021). the Midlands, and in coastal areas in
The emphasis on people and the southern England. A high proportion are
particularities of the place in which they post war housing estates on the edges
live and seek work is a welcome shift. of towns and cities. These are some of
The previous approach was ‘one-size-fits- the places that have suffered economic
all’ – investment in cities and ‘functional’ blight over decades because of the
economic areas. Interventions were not closure or failure of previously buoyant
18traditional industries including mining and This sense that people have of missing out
tourism. Many have been in economic is confirmed by hard data. A deep dive
decline for decades. These places suffer into the education, employment and skills
worse socio-economic outcomes than all data for ‘left behind’ wards, commissioned
other areas and are often found next to from OCSI (2020), emphasises the
areas of relative affluence. These places real challenges of levelling up these
are missed by analysis of whole towns, neighbourhoods. Compared to other
cities or functional economic areas. equally deprived areas, these wards are
characterised by unemployment – there
Polling reveals that four in ten residents
are lower numbers of locally based jobs
of 'left behind' neighbourhoods feel
and a striking lack of self-employment;
that they have less access to resources
a greater likelihood of residents being
compared to nearby communities
excluded from the labour market due to
(Survation, 2020). Over half of these
poor health or disability; lower educational
referred to a lack of economic
attainment from primary school to post-16
opportunities as one key area where they
and a higher proportion of adults with no
were not getting their fair share (ibid).
or low qualifications who lack basic skills
(see box 4 for further detail) (ibid).
Box 4: Education, employment and skills in 'left behind'
neighbourhoods
The people living in ‘left behind’ areas have notably fewer employment opportunities,
there are just over 50 jobs per 100 residents in ‘left behind’neighbourhoods,
compared to over 70 across England and over 80 in those areas that are similarly
deprived but benefit from a foundation of social infrastructure. There are far fewer
high value and high growth employment opportunities, meaning that people with
jobs are more likely to be in low-skilled, part-time positions within low-value and
contracting sectors such as manufacturing, retail and transport and storage. People
in these neighbourhoods are also half as likely to be self-employed or running a small
business than the England average.
For the past decade,‘left behind’ neighbourhoods have suffered from increasing
levels of unemployment. Whilst current overall unemployment rates are comparable
with other equally deprived areas, people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods are
more likely to be excluded from the labour market due to a wide range of factors,
most notably poor health and disability.
‘Left behind’ neighbourhoods also rank below the average on educational attainment
compared to other equally deprived areas and England as a whole. This means that
pupils in these areas have lower basic literacy and numeracy skills at Key Stage 2,
attain lower grades at GCSE and face some of the lowest levels of participation in
post-16 education. Disadvantage extends into young adulthood, with just one in four
young adults from 'left behind' neighbourhoods progressing to university.
The research also reveals that more than half of all adults in 'left behind'
neighbourhoods possess no or low qualifications. People in these neighbourhoods
are also more likely to lack basic literacy, numeracy and IT skills than those in other
equally deprived neighbourhoods and across England (OCSI, 2020).
The double dividend 19These findings chime with other research Prosperity comes from patient
which shows that, over the last decade or
investment in local economies
so, jobs growth in high value sectors, and
higher value jobs, has been concentrated When given a budget to improve their
in city centres and major urban clusters. area and the freedom to determine
This has led to the creation of ‘productivity their own priorities, communities tend
coldspots’, identified as those ‘left behind to engage in various forms of local
suburban-rural communities’ who have economic development. Activities include
experienced a decline in high quality, running apprenticeship schemes, training
locally based employment opportunities to help people access employment,
(Centre for Social Justice 2018: 6). operating bus services or community
Therefore, further interventions looking to transport schemes to connect areas
boost productivity in towns and cities are to employment hubs, encouraging
unlikely to improve employment prospects employers to locate to the area, and
in the most ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. micro grants and other support for
sustainable enterprises (Centre for Local
Other research by the Social Mobility
Economic Strategies, 2020). Communities
Commission (2020) reveals a link between
have also acquired assets such as
place-based deprivation and lower
community centres, pubs, boating lakes
educational attainment. We know that
or solar farms. Such projects are enabling
low educational attainment continues
the development of a broad range of
into adulthood, resulting in additional
assets and skills that serve as a vital
barriers to employment, given a skills
foundation for building generative and
system that lacks funding, flexibility and
sustainable wealth in deprived areas
take-up (Department for Education, 2019).
(Friends Provident Foundation, 2019: 18-
The Augar review of post-18 education
20). Box 5 below provides some specific
found that weaknesses in the skills
examples.
system cause “young people to opt for
full-time degrees (Level 6) […] to the The current resurgence of interest in these
near-exclusion of other options” (ibid: 37). very local economic models is rooted in
This lack of high-quality options for skills evidence that community economies
development disproportionately affects deliver better on job creation than more
residents of deprived areas, who are less centralised approaches, particularly in
likely to enter higher education and who peripheral and disadvantaged areas.
face greater barriers to full time training Localise West Midlands (2013) have
(ibid: 38). Furthermore, those who do enter conducted in-depth research into the role
full-time higher education often have a of community economic development
‘brain drain’ effect on local communities, in delivering long-term, sustainable
whereby they are attracted to highly growth in their region. This included an
paid jobs in cities, hollowing out those extensive review of existing literature on
neighbourhoods on the periphery. community economic development,
in addition to fifteen case studies from
National or even regional attempts to
two sectors relevant to the urban West
boost skills will fail to take account of these
Midlands (five from the relatively mature
nuances in skills development and the
food economy and seven from the new
impact on ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods,
and emerging energy retrofit sector)
thereby failing to properly support
(ibid: 16-19). There was strong evidence
the levelling up of the most deprived
that local economies with higher levels
neighbourhoods.
of small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
20You can also read
