Fairness is clearly very subjective and even categorising it will be a step forward.
The theory I am relying on comes mainly from the field of Social Psychology, which draws its evidence from experiment and Social Anthropological ethnography. Add in philosophical works on Social Justice, a sprinkling of Schön and Rein’s framing and spiced up with biases of empathy, risk and power.
I have chosen councillors as I was one myself, which has proved useful in gaining access as well as for writing engaging vignettes. The three I use are based on Local Government case studies. They took a year to write and are pumped full of triggers, suggestions, biases and frames to see what and how many conceptions of fairness come into view.
The vignette content has been carefully reviewed by four experts (the Expert Panel) including an INLOGOV academic; their modifications were incorporated. The vignettes are driving the conversation, so much so that I don’t actually have to ask many questions!
The first one tempts councillors to break the usual rules for housing allocation by pushing the sympathy button ever so strongly; it looks at breaches where policy and procedures exist (Planning and Housing). The second vignette is placed in a sector with no policy and no procedure – a rare occurrence I know – and the final one tests adherence to policy almost to destruction. I can’t reveal the results, not until next year – sorry.
Thematic analysis (inductive and deductive) is picking up between 80 and 100 conceptions per interview fitting into 11 broad categories. Eight of these are different categories of fairness, or realms as I call them, each having an approach appropriate for certain circumstances. The other three are moral foundations of care, loyalty and liberty.
My current struggle is not the thematic analysis itself, but wondering whether I should investigate if there is any qualitative link between conceptions offered up by councillors compared with the suggestion, trigger or framing at that part of the vignette. For example, if a section of a vignette is supposed to prompt feelings of equality, then how to analyse a reply which ignores equality and concentrates on merit? Surely such occurrences are as significant (not statistically) than a comment discussing equality? Answers on a postcard please.
So where does this fit into Public Policy you may ask? Indeed, my supervisors ask that too. Clearly democratic legitimacy (moral rather than legal) relies to an extent on fairness of inputs and throughputs, and output effectiveness. I have heard, “What’s the point of democracy, if it doesn’t deliver fairness?” Additionally, the resolution of Wicked Problems and getting issues onto Political Agendas require understanding of differing moral values including conceptions of fairness. So, I would suggest, quite a lot really.
Moving briefly away from English Local Government to US Foreign Policy, I recently came across a 2022 paper on International Relations. The authors appeared to be lambasting their colleagues for focussing on just one conception of fairness: equality. Powers et al. the authors, used Social Psychology’s Moral Foundation Theory to explain why the American public and politicians think aspects of foreign policy like burden sharing for defence, peacekeeping, environmental clean ups and emergency response are unfair.
Their paper proposes the field introduce a second conception, proportionality, which they called equity. In the UK Social Sciences, we reserve equity to mean fairness based on need. Fairness conceived as proportionality would suggest, for example, that it might be seen as fairer for NATO countries to pay their way by putting in a similar percentage of GDP rather each country putting in what it can. I hope they succeed for all our sakes but I’m dreading the thought of having to tell them that there might be up to eight conceptions of fairness!
Back to Local Government and I’ll leave the last word with one of my councillor interviewees. I paraphrase, “You know Clive, we don’t really talk much about it, it’s rules and regulations, there’s comfort in them. These vignettes are very interesting to actually spend time thinking about fairness.”
As an ex-councillor in Bristol and author of the book on Local Government, After The Revolution, Clive needed to follow up on politicians’ conceptions of fairness. He is now in Year 3 of a PhD at the University of Bristol interviewing current councillors. His personal blog site is:https://sageandonion.substack.com/
Today we launched our latest report, Equipping local government to deliver national and local priorities. Local government is critical to the delivery of the new government’s five key missions, and to improving life across the country. We argue that, once a series of critical reforms are in place, government should have confidence to equip local authorities with more power and (when public finances allow) prioritise additional resources there, enabling local and national priorities to be delivered. But critical reforms are needed in financial management, audit and performance management, and in community power and participation.
The new government inherited many challenges. Council budgets per person in England have been cut by 18% in real terms since 2010. Councils are hitting financial crises: twelve have issued section 114 notices in the last six years, compared with zero in the previous 17 years. Representative institutions at all levels of government are suffering from declining legitimacy and increasing polarisation. Local government plays a vital role in increasing democratic relationships and trust.
But councils’ wide remit, local knowledge, democratic accountability, public service ethos, and key roles in working with partners and shaping local places make them critical to the delivery of all five of the government’s key missions. Local governments are best placed to operationalise solutions to interconnected problems, for example, improving public transport and encouraging more cycling and walking helps meet net zero targets. It can also deliver health benefits, reducing the burden on the NHS, as well as increasing productivity by giving businesses access to a wider and healthier workforce.
Action is required to ensure that councils are fit for purpose to make the type of contribution that central government requires of them. Underlying this is a lack of confidence in local government on the part of ministers and civil servants. We have identified three areas in which the government must be confident if it is to equip the local level with more power: financial sustainability, performance standards, and community power and participation.
Policy recommendations
Financial arrangements
Provide multi-year funding.
End competitive bidding and deliver a “single funding pot” for each council/ local area that has been allocated fairly and sensitively to the needs and assets of the community.
Abolish council tax capping.
Audit and performance management
Strengthen the evaluation of councils’ performance management.
Make OFLOG independent and extend its remit and approach.
Reintroduce effective management and support of council external audit by independent bodies.
Community power and participation
Strengthen the role of councillors as facilitators and catalysts of community-driven change.
Embed participatory governance to ensure lived experience and marginalised voices drive policy and service delivery.
Develop public-commons partnerships and community-wealth building to support community-driven sustainable economies.
As the Layfield Commission concluded 50 years ago, local government funding should promote responsible and accountable government. Beyond welcome recognition of acute financial challenges and commitment to multi-year funding settlements, there is a pressing need for additional immediate and longer-term action to improve Councils’ financial position and strengthen local accountability.
Local authorities have different needs for funding, depending for example on levels of population and its composition, deprivation, and spatial factors. Central and local government should develop updated funding formulae and funding models which are as simple as practicable whilst capturing the key elements of local need, and as transparent as practical in operation. There are many reports researching available options for fairer funding, approaches to fiscal devolution, and local government funding options.
Local audit, performance regimes and regulation each have a part to play. Both a parliamentary select committee and the Redmond Review into the Oversight of Local Government have sought to investigate the failings in local government audit. The latter in 2020 critiqued market driven audits, stating that the new audit arrangements have undermined accountability and financial management.
The adoption of the Redmond Review’s proposal for an Office for Local Audit Regulation would provide oversight on procurement, management, and regulation of external audits of local authorities. The government could extend the oversight of local government performance management processes while avoiding the creation of an overly powerful national regulator, by adopting key recommendations on the future arrangements of OFLOG (the Office for Local Government).
Proximity means that local government can play a crucial role in improving relationships between government and citizens. By creating conditions to mobilise the diverse expertise and resources of communities, local government can ensure that public policies and funding are informed by the assets, priorities and needs of local people and places. There are already many examples where local government has made progress with innovations such as citizens’ panels and juries, the delegation of power to the hyper-local level and in building inclusive economies.
We have over thirty years’ worth of research on deliberative democracy, social innovation, and co-production evidencing the value of collaboration with diverse communities and stakeholders. Participatory governance is less about finding perfect solutions and more about transforming organisations to engage with communities in processes of co-producing mutual understanding, shared solutions, and a sense of collective ownership.
Our work on the 21st Century Councillor can help with enabling the role of councillors not just as democratic representatives but also as facilitators and boundary spanners between institutions, communities, civil society and local businesses.
Community-wealth building, pioneered in Preston and several London boroughs, can help strengthen the local economy with insourcing, linking public procurement to local cooperatives and social enterprises. These novel forms of governance can be formalised through Public-Commons Partnerships.
Equipping local government to deliver national and local priorities will leave a long-lasting legacy of a well-resourced, effective, accountable, and engaged local government.
The report was edited by Jason Lowther and Philip Swann, with particular thanks to the following contributors (alphabetically by last name): Dr Koen Bartels, Dr Sonia Bussu, Prof Nicole Curato, Dr Timea Nochta and Dr Philip Whiteman. With thanks to other colleagues and associates in INLOGOV.
Home visits by landlord representatives are a common occurrence in social housing, yet the emotional impact of these encounters on tenants is often overlooked. While landlords focus on property condition, tenancy issues, and behavioural compliance, tenants experience these visits in deeply personal ways, with emotions ranging from anxiety and mistrust to feelings of invasion and belittlement. This blog explores the hidden emotional effects of home encounters and offers actionable steps social landlords can take to make these visits more positive experiences for tenants.
The emotional toll of home visits
Home is more than just a physical space; it is a sanctuary where people find safety, comfort, and a sense of identity. When this private space is intruded upon by an outsider, even for legitimate reasons, it can trigger a range of emotional responses. The early findings report on home encounters reveals several key emotional dynamics at play during these visits:
Anxiety and distrust: Negative historical experiences with landlords and other authority figures, can create a lasting sense of distrust among tenants. The anticipation of a home visit often brings anxiety, particularly when the purpose of the visit is unclear or when tenants feel they have no control over the situation.
Invasion of privacy: The physical invasion of personal spaces within the home, such as bedrooms, can be especially distressing for tenants and discomfiting for visiting staff. The discomfort of having someone inspect intimate areas of their homes can undermine tenants’ sense of ownership, privacy and self-esteem.
Feeling judged and belittled: Many tenants report feeling judged by home visitors, particularly when the visit involves assessing the condition of the property. This can be exacerbated when tenants have invested their own time and money into home improvements, only to be met with criticism, dismissal or punitive sanctions.
The complexity of help: The dynamic of offering and receiving help is emotionally charged. Some tenants may resist help, out of a desire to maintain independence, while others may feel that accepting help makes them appear weak or needy. This complex relationship can lead to misunderstandings and tension between tenants and landlords. Sometimes well intended helping services by landlords, can be experienced as an invasion of privacy, and may unintentionally undermine a tenants right to quiet enjoyment of their home.
Actions landlords can take to improve home encounters
To mitigate the negative emotional effects of home visits and create a more positive experience for tenants, landlords can implement the following strategies:
Clear communication and purpose: Ensure that the purpose of each home visit is clearly communicated to the tenant in advance. Provide detailed information about who will be visiting, the reason for the visit, and what the tenant can expect. Planned home visits, such as property inspections, would benefit from being co-designed with tenants. This transparency can help build trust and reduce anxiety.
Offer alternatives to in-person visits: Whenever possible, offer tenants alternatives to in-person visits, such as virtual inspections or the option to submit photographs of property issues. This not only respects the tenant’s privacy but also provides them with a sense of control over the process.
Social and emotional training for staff: Train staff in empathetic listening and emotionally informed practices. Understanding that a home is a deeply personal space, staff should approach each visit with sensitivity, avoiding judgmental language and focusing on building a rapport with tenants.
Respecting personal boundaries: Be mindful of the emotional significance of different areas within the home. For example, if a visit requires access to a bedroom or other private space, ensure that the tenant is comfortable with this before the visit and consider alternatives if they are not.
Amnesty for tenant-initiated home improvements: Many tenants take pride in their homes and may undertake improvements to enhance their living space, often without seeking prior permission from the landlord. These improvements, while unauthorised, are typically made with the intention of creating a safer, more comfortable environment for the tenant and their family. However, when landlords discover these changes, tenants often face penalties or demands to revert the property to its original state.
To address this issue, landlords could introduce an amnesty programme for tenant-initiated home improvements. Under such a scheme, tenants would be encouraged to declare any unauthorised changes without fear of retribution. The landlord would then assess these improvements on a case-by-case basis, granting retrospective permission where the changes do not pose safety risks or violate planning regulations.
This approach recognises the effort and care tenants put into their homes, transforming a potentially adversarial situation into a collaborative one. It also acknowledges that tenants are more than mere occupants; they are active participants in creating a home. By adopting an amnesty scheme, landlords can foster goodwill, reduce conflict, and ultimately contribute to a more harmonious tenant-landlord relationship.
Peer support during visits: Consider developing a volunteer programme where trained tenants accompany home visitors, providing peer support to those who may feel anxious or uncomfortable during the visit. This can help alleviate stress and create a more positive atmosphere.
Moving towards emotionally informed housing practices
The emotional well-being of tenants should be a central consideration in social housing practice. By acknowledging the hidden emotional effects of home encounters and taking proactive steps to address them, landlords can improve tenant satisfaction, foster trust, and create a more supportive living environment. Emotionally informed practices not only benefit tenants but also contribute to a more professional and caring social housing sector.
Call to action
Landlords, tenants, and policymakers must work together to redefine the home visit experience. By implementing these recommendations, landlords can transform home encounters from a source of stress into an opportunity for developing a trusting relationship with tenants, and a collaborative approach to working together to create safe and stable homes.
Dr Hannah Absalom worked in the English social housing sector for 18 years before undertaking her PhD examining the use of behavioural insights in social housing. Her research interests can be broadly described as the application of relational frameworks and ideas in housing policy and practice. She has recently completed an ESRC Fellowship.
The fact that governments face an array of challenges is a well-rehearsed argument. City governments across the globe are tackling a myriad of social, economic and environmental issues, from trying to reduce homelessness, improving health and wellbeing, or increasing educational attainment. In parallel, philanthropic foundations’ accumulated wealth and knowledge means they are increasingly welcomed as a government partner in addressing social needs. So why do philanthropic foundations engage with city governments?
The UK Association of Charitable Foundations defines philanthropic foundations as “charities with private, independent, sustainable income that supports individuals and/or organisations” (Pharoah and Walker, 2019, p. 1). In 2015, there were over 10,000 charitable foundations based in the UK and some of these are engaging with city governments.
In the U.S. context, philanthropic foundations have a long history of interacting with the government (Zunz, 2012) They have traditionally funded physical structures like libraries and opera houses, and in recent years, foundations have increasingly working directly with governments to tackle issues as diverse as climate change (Madénian and Van Nest, 2023), gun control, and poverty reduction (Barber, 2014; Nijman, 2009; Moir et al., 2014). Yet, there has been little exploration of this phenomenon in the English context.
Based upon the case study analysis of three contrasting English cities, Bristol, Manchester, and Newcastle, I drew upon qualitative interviews and policy reports to understand the interconnections between foundations and city governments.
Why do city governments and foundations collaborate
Philanthropic foundations can be a capacity-building partner of city government, providing direct funding and non-financial resources to help city governments solve problems. Philanthropic foundations provide city governments with direct funding and non-financial resources, including data, research, events, and other outputs, such as toolkits.
Foundations are motivated to improve public services, develop new approaches to problem-solving, advocate on policy issues, and fill funding gaps left by austerity. Foundations select city governments based on personal rapport and perceived ease of working.
City governments are motivated to engage with foundations to access resources, for foundations to help amplify the voice of city governments, and because foundations are perceived as less bureaucratic and more trustworthy funders.
Barriers to city government and foundation collaborations
Foundation engagement with city governments is inconsistent. This study found that certain city governments (in this case, Manchester and Bristol) had more partnerships with foundations. The reason is that foundations often will not work with city governments when the city government’s priorities are unclear, if they are hard to engage, or when there is a perceived slow pace of change in city hall.
On the part of city governments, a scarcity of resources can prevent them from seeking foundation resources. With the impacts of austerity still lingering, it may have been surmised that austerity could prompt cities to seek foundation support, instead, this study has found that a lack of internal capacity can prevent the city government from seeking foundation involvement.
Implications for policy and practice
City governments interacting with foundations in England is a relatively nascent and under-explored phenomenon. As well as few academic studies, there is often an opaqueness in the nature of these collaborations. A lack of transparency can hinder scrutiny, which is problematic if city governments and their partners are to be held to account. Going forward, a key facet of city government engagement with foundations should be a commitment to transparency in the nature of the collaboration and an openness to sharing evidence of the impacts of the interactions on the outcomes that the foundation and city governments are trying to achieve.
Areas for future research
As a relatively underexplored topic, more research could usefully explore foundation engagement with city governments across England on a larger scale, particularly to understand the implications for accountability. Futuremore, future research could usefully explore whether philanthropic foundations prioritise collaborating with city governments over different types of organisations, such as charities, and if so, whether this is because city governments enable potentially larger degrees of policy influence than more “marginal” political institutions, such as NGOs or community groups.
To find out more about the research, please contact Dr Ruth Puttick, [email protected]
Dr Ruth Puttick runs a research consultancy and is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose (IIPP) at University College London. She has over 15 years of practical research experience in the public and private sectors advising on public sector reform, innovation and impact. She served as a Senior Policy Advisor in the UK Government’s Open Innovation Team, and before that, she worked at Tony Blair Associates, a global management consultancy, helping establish the policy and research team in the government advisory practice. Prior to that, she spent six years at Nesta, the UK’s innovation agency. Ruth is on X.com @rputtick and can be contacted at www.ruthputtick.com
This is the second of two blogs resulting from this year’s INLOGOV undergraduate summer intern project, which examined how councils can boost wellbeing amid austerity. The first article (last week) summarised some of the key literature. This article explores case studies of community initiatives around the UK that have successfully worked with councils, which have helped mitigate the negative impacts of spending cuts.
Bolton at Home
Bolton at Home is a prime example of how community-based initiative can result in positive results for a community, especially in places like Bolton, which has seen large levels of unemployment due to industries and factories moving. With funding from Bolton Council and Bolton at home, the initiative has put in place several programmes designed to encourage community participation and involvement (Local Government Association, 2023). To improve social ties and lessen loneliness, the taxi discussions programme, for example, provides free trips to people in return for meaningful discussions and helps to map out community networks. In addition, the formation of three poetry groups offers a forum for addressing individual aspirations and worries while fostering relationships and enhancing mental health. Furthermore, the distribution of free smart clothes through the ’working wardrobe’ project can help people get a job whilst increasing confidence and self-esteem, contributing to the community’s overall well-being (Local Government Association, 2023). These endeavours in Bolton, made possible from £180,000 from the Council, show the potential for community initiatives working with the Council to deliver holistic well-being outcomes to help mitigate the effects of government spending cuts.
Nudge Community
The decline of Union Street in Plymouth, combatted by the community-led response through Nudge Community Builders, shows how local initiatives can address urban decay and revitalise neglected areas. Union Street in Plymouth was once busy but in the last couple of decades it has been in decline, with 25% of its buildings vacant. Union Street was left behind as the city concentrated on waterfront and city centre development, leaving the local community feeling abandoned (Nudge, 2024)
The neighbourhood was frustrated that nothing was being done about the abandoned buildings and the area’s deterioration. Although they could not address the many problems afflicting their neighbourhood, they desired to see change. Nudge Community Builders, a community benefit society, was co-founded by local residents Hannah Sloggett and Wendy Hart in 2017 (Nudge, 2024). Their goal was to revitalise Union Street by returning empty buildings to the community to use for lasting local benefit.
Community Involvement: Nudge started off planning street parties to liven up the neighbourhood and alter people’s opinions of Union Street.
Acquisition of properties: Using a variety of ownership structures, they seized four properties with the intention of putting them to communal use.
Physical Improvements: To progressively improve the street’s look, Nudge used creative interventions like artwork and stitching on structures.
The efforts resulted in the reopening of buildings for community purposes, fostering hope, creating jobs, and providing entertainment. Nudge’s initiatives countered authoritarian approaches to urban renewal, showcasing that communities can innovatively address complex issues.
Nudge Community Builders (2024) has demonstrated that community-led initiatives can effectively address urban decay and bring positive change. Their work has breathed new life into Union Street and empowered residents to take charge of their neighbourhood’s future.
This case study exemplifies the potential of community action in urban revitalization and the possibilities for sustainable development through grassroots endeavours.
Stirchley Baths
Stirchley Baths, a converted Victorian swimming bath, opened as a community centre in 2016. Stirchley Baths in Birmingham shows how local councils can collaborate with communities to promote wellness despite financial constraints. This community centre, supported by Birmingham City Council (Stirchley Baths, 2024), provides a variety of activities that cater to different age groups and abilities, supporting physical and mental health, social connections, and skill development.
The Baths’ offer:
Diverse clubs: The centre offers fitness classes and art groups to accommodate various interests and needs.
Inclusivity: The hub provides activities for children, older adults, and individuals with specific needs.
Community leadership: Many activities are led by local instructors or groups. This has been shown to help foster a sense of community ownership (Imbroscio, 2013).
Affordability: Ensuring wide access through low-cost or free sessions.
Efficient space use: Maximising the venue’s space by hosting regular classes and private events.
Support for vulnerable groups: Offering targeted programs such as the Memory Cafe for individuals with dementia (Stirchley Baths, 2024).
Partnerships: Collaborating with health services, local government, and other organisations.
Community engagement: Actively seeking the community members’ input on new activities.
This approach is consistent with research on community well-being, including:
– The significance of co-production in designing and delivering services (NHS Providers, 2024).
– The “Five Ways to Wellbeing” framework (Connect, Be Active, Take Notice, Keep Learning, Give (Mind, 2024)).
– The role of community hubs in building resilience and social capital (Trup et al., 2019).
By leveraging community assets and partnerships, Stirchley Baths showcases how local councils can deliver a range of well-being services within financial limitations. This model has the potential to uphold and even improve community well-being during times of austerity, offering valuable insights for other communities facing similar challenges.
Community initiatives are proven to be effective and mitigate the negative impact of austerity measures while enhancing local well-being. Research consistently demonstrates our positive influence on public health, social capital and economic outcomes. The asset-based community development (ABCD) approach is a transformative strategy that emphasises strengths within communities. Case studies from Bolton, Plymouth, and Birmingham illustrate how lake authorities can successfully partner with communities to achieve Well-being outcomes despite financial constraints. These examples demonstrate the potential for community-led initiatives to revive neighbourhoods, repurpose abandoned spaces and provide essential services. By encouraging these collaborations, councils can effectively address service gaps, promote sustainable development, and improve overall community well-being in the midst of ongoing austerity.
Alice has recently graduated from the University of Birmingham with a first class degree in Policy, Politics and Economics. She was awarded the Jane Slowey bursary in her final year for her research on the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Alice is currently seeking further opportunities and can be contacted at [email protected]
References
Imbroscio, D. (2013) ‘From Redistribution to Ownership: Toward an Alternative Urban Policy for America’s Cities’. Urban Affairs Review, 49(6), 787-820. doi:10.1177/1078087413495362.
This is the first of two blogs resulting from this year’s INLOGOV undergraduate summer intern project, which examined how councils can boost wellbeing amid austerity. This first article summarises some of the key literature, the second article (next week) will explore practice examples.
In a period characterised by fiscal austerity, local governments confront major hurdles in providing basic services while working with tight resources. Spending cuts have far-reaching consequences for communities, frequently having a negative impact on the public’s well-being and standard of living. In response to these issues, community initiatives have arisen as viable mechanisms for minimising the harmful effects of austerity policies whilst also promoting community belonging in neighbourhoods. This paper will begin with a literature review surrounding the topic, examining studies that have demonstrated the impact of community initiatives.
This article starts with a literature review examining the potential for community initiatives to achieve wellbeing outcomes, emphasising how councils may successfully collaborate with communities to reduce the negative effects of budget cuts in an age of permanent austerity. Since the 2008 global financial crisis, several nations have undertaken austerity measures that have considerably impacted local government finances and services (Lowndes and McCaughie, 2013). This ‘age of austerity’ has caused councils to reassess their approach to providing public services and ensuring community well-being (Hastings et al., 2015). In response to the spending, councils can and, on occasion, have turned to community initiatives as a possible way to preserve or improve wellness within the community.
Research consistently demonstrates that community-led initiatives can effectively address service gaps resulting from austerity measures while enhancing local decision-making practices and overall community well-being. Crisp et al. (2016) believe that community-led alternatives can assist in addressing service gaps caused by funding reduction. Their research of community-based organisations in the UK revealed that these projects might assist in areas such as employment, training and social care. Evans (2008) and Fletcher-Etherington (2010) also draw attention to the advantages of community-led initiatives, particularly highlighting enhanced decision-making procedures. Building on this concept, Fung and Wright (2003) provide further empirical support through their examination of participatory governance cases. Their research demonstrates that including the community in the decision-making process can result in more successful and fair policy results, which are more likely to improve the community’s general well-being.
Community initiatives are vital for improving public health outcomes, with research consistently showing their positive impact on physical and mental well-being. There is a strong link between community initiatives, social capital, and health outcomes, as revealed in various studies. For example, Kawachi and Berkman’s (2000) research provides compelling evidence that social connections, cultivated through community efforts, are associated with better physical and mental health. This link between community involvement and health is further explored in specific contexts, such as mental health initiatives. Knifton et al. (2010) investigated community-based mental health programs in Scotland and found that they have the potential to reduce stigma, increase social support, and improve access to mental health services. Moreover, South (2015) offers a comprehensive guide to community-centred approaches to health and well-being, emphasising the crucial role of local government and the NHS in supporting these initiatives. South’s research underscores the importance of integrating community-led approaches into broader health and social care strategies, highlighting how such integration can lead to more effective and sustainable health outcomes for the community. Strong partnerships between the council and the community, along with insights from studies like Kawachi and Berkman (2000) and Knifton et al. (2010), are crucial in this process. These studies underscore the value of community-centred approaches in improving public health and suggest that policymakers and health professionals should prioritise integrating community initiatives into mainstream health and social care strategies to promote positive well-being outcomes.
Community initiatives provide significant economic and environmental benefits, offering viable solutions for councils to improve well-being within financial constraints. Imbroscio (2013) has found in many cases that locally-driven community initiatives can create more sustainable and equitable economic outcomes compared to top-down approaches. Krasny and Tidball (2009) examined community-based environmental initiatives. They discovered that these programs not only benefited local ecosystems but also promoted social learning and community resilience. These findings are consistent with a growing global trend in communities engaging in environmental stewardship (Bennett, 2018). Examples include community-based conservation and locally managed marine areas, which have emerged in sectors such as fisheries, forestry, and water management (Berkes, 2004). This shift recognises that community initiatives can address environmental concerns while also building social connections and, therefore, well-being.
Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) has emerged as a transformative approach to community well-being initiatives, emphasising the inherent strengths and resources within communities. McKnight and Kretzmann (2005), pioneers of the ABCD approach, argue that sustainable community development must start with recognising the capacities, skills, and assets of local residents and their associations. Their work emphasises the importance of mapping community assets as a starting point for development initiatives. The methodology is driven by community members and focuses on harnessing the inherent strengths and assets of individuals, associations, and communities to promote social change (Mathie, 2003). ABCD represents a shift from traditional deficit-based approaches to community development. Instead of focusing on needs and shortcomings, ABCD emphasises the existing strengths and resources within a community. This approach is based on the principle that every community, regardless of its challenges, possesses a wealth of assets that can be mobilised to address local issues and enhance overall well-being. The effectiveness of ABCD relies on several key mechanisms. Harrison (2019) highlights the importance of building strong, trusting relationships within the community as a fundamental aspect of this approach. These relationships form the foundation for cooperation and collective action, which are essential for the success of community initiatives. Additionally, Harrison emphasises the role of reciprocity and accountability among community members in sustaining engagement and ensuring that initiatives are both community-driven and beneficial. While ABCD is fundamentally community-driven, the role of local authorities in supporting and facilitating this approach is crucial for its success.
Local authorities play a pivotal role in nurturing and sustaining ABCD initiatives through strategic support and facilitation. Forrester et al. (2018) identify several key strategies local authorities can employ. These include participating in appreciative inquiry, which is asking positive, strength-based questions to identify and build on community successes. Local authorities can also build social capital by developing networks of connections, which are critical for community resilience and well-being. Furthermore, sponsoring local economic initiatives can assist in establishing long-term economic prospects while improving general community well-being. ABCD emphasises empowerment. According to García (2020), empowering people in the community to identify their own assets and skills can help local authorities to establish long-term community initiatives. This empowerment boosts self-efficacy and gives community members a stronger sense of ownership and duty. ABCD’s success depends greatly on a supportive and trustworthy atmosphere. Harrison et al. (2019) observe that when community members feel supported and trusted, they are more likely to actively participate and contribute to the success of community efforts. ABCD offers a promising approach to community development by focusing on the positive aspects of communities rather than their deficiencies. This strengths-based approach can lead to more sustainable and impactful outcomes. However, it is important to recognise that the success of the ABCD relies heavily on the presence of a supportive environment and the active involvement of local authorities. Local authorities must adopt a facilitative role, providing necessary support and resources and allowing community members to lead (Forrester et al., 2018). ABCD represents a paradigm shift in community development, offering a promising framework for sustainable well-being outcomes when effectively supported by local authorities and embraced by community members.
Alice has recently graduated from the University of Birmingham with a first class degree in Policy, Politics and Economics. She was awarded the Jane Slowey bursary in her final year for her research on the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Alice is currently seeking further opportunities and can be contacted at [email protected]
References
Berkes, F. (2004) Rethinking community-based conservation. ConservationBiology, 18(3), 621–630. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.
Forrester, G., Kurth, J., Vincent, P., & Oliver, M. (2018) Schools as community assets: an exploration of the merits of an Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) approach. Educational Review, 72(4), 443–458. doi:10.1080/00131911.2018.1529655.
Fung, A. and Wright, E.O. (2003) Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.
García, I. (2020) “Chapter 4 Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD): core principles”. In Research Handbook on Community Development. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi:10.4337/9781788118477.00010.
Harrison, R., Blickem, C., Lamb, J., Kirk, S., and Vassilev, I. (2019) ‘Asset-Based Community Development: Narratives, Practice, and Conditions of Possibility—A Qualitative Study With Community Practitioners’ Sage Open, 9(1). doi:10.1177/2158244018823081.
Hastings, A., Bailey, N., Gannon, M., Besemer, K., and Bramley, G. (2015) ‘Coping with the Cuts? The Management of the Worst Financial Settlement in Living Memory’. Local Government Studies, 41(4), 601–621. doi:10.1080/03003930.2015.1036987.
Henderson, C., Evans-Lacko, S. and Thornicroft, G. (2013) ‘Mental Illness Stigma, Help Seeking, and Public Health Programs’. American Journal of Public Health, 103(5), 777-780. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.301056.
Imbroscio, D. (2013) ‘From Redistribution to Ownership: Toward an Alternative Urban Policy for America’s Cities’. Urban Affairs Review, 49(6), 787-820. doi:10.1177/1078087413495362.
Kawachi, I. and Berkman, L. (2000) ‘Social cohesion, social capital, and health’. Social epidemiology, 174(7), 290-319.
Knifton, L., Gervais, M., Newbigging, K., Mirza, N., Quinn, N., Wilson, N., and Hunkins-Hutchison, E. (2010) ‘Community conversation: addressing mental health stigma with ethnic minority communities’. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 45, 497-504.
Kretzmann, J. P. and McKnight, J. (2005) Discovering community power: A guide to mobilising local assets and your organisation’s capacity. Evanston, IL: Asset-Based Community Development Institute, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University.
Lowndes, V. and McCaughie, K. (2013) ‘Weathering the perfect storm? Austerity and institutional resilience in local government’. Policy and Politics, 41(4), 533-549.
INLOGOV Blog 