Community Responses

Ian Duke and Joe Penny

April, 2011
Section 1

Introduction to
the Guide
Who is this guide for?

The information in this guide has been written as much for ordinary people as for
‘professionals’. You do not need to be an expert or experienced practitioner to use this
guide. It is designed to help people on the ground, whatever their background, to start-up
community responses to issues that they and their community care about.

We have sought to write this guide in such a way that it should be accessible to anyone who
wishes to learn more about the Community Responses approach. Its primary audience is
likely to be those looking to initiate a community response. Such a person is most likely to
sit within a public authority, although this might not always be the case. This resource will
be suitable for use by officers, residents and community groups alike. Whoever initiates and
initially leads a community response will need to have a basic core set of skills such as
organising, facilitation, and relationship building. This guide has therefore been written on
the assumption that the reader possesses these abilities.

Using this guide

Beyond this introduction, there are 4 further sections. Section 2 provides the background,
theory, and strategic positioning that underpin the community responses approach. Section
3 sets out the work undertaken on behalf of London Empowerment Partnership and draws
out the learning and experience derived. Section 4 sets out the approach to identifying,
designing and implementing a community response drawing on that learning and
experience. Section 5 forms a catalogue of potential community responses for the reader to
consider (although it should be noted here that this should not be seen as an all-inclusive
and authoritative list - there will be other models out there).

Accessing the guide and future developments

MGA has undertaken to host a website dedicated to disseminating this approach and
potentially continuing ongoing learning and development for the approach. This will include
developing the catalogue of potential responses further as well as adding case studies
where the community responses approach has been used. Over time we hope that this will
become an authoritative resource for tackling some of the issues that our communities
experience.

The current website can be found at www.communityresponses.wordpress.com

Acknowledgements

Micah Gold Associates (MGA) would like to thank all of those who have contributed to
developing the community response approach, particular mention must go to:
The London Civic Forum, in their guise of the London Empowerment Partnership, have not
only funded this project but have helped develop the methodology and recognised the need
for flexibility in delivery. Without this recognition, much of the learning reflected within this
guide would have been lost.

The London Boroughs of Camden, Enfield, and Kensington and Chelsea, have approached the
project with a high level of enthusiasm and support without which success on the ground
would not have been possible. At times, the officers within these boroughs have taken a
leap of faith in championing this approach both within their organisations and their
communities. Their input has been crucial.

Finally, the biggest thanks must be reserved for those residents who have taken part,
especially those who have issued leadership roles. Their commitment to their communities
is inspiring.
Section 2

Introducing
Community
Responses
The Idea
The idea behind Community Responses is simple. There are issues that affect communities
that never really seem to go away. When these issues become acute, services usually
respond with additional resources and if the right resources are brought to bare then the
problem improves. When the situation has stabilised the resources are withdrawn (often to
address other issues in other places).

Over time however the issue returns; perhaps in slightly different forms, but they remain
nonetheless. If the problem becomes acute once more, a further service response becomes
necessary. Over time this recurring cycle is costly to the service provider; it also undermines
the confidence communities have in those services. In some cases and in some communities
this can lead to the issue becoming normalised – a part of their everyday experience.

So what is happening in such cases? In short, a service response usually addresses the
symptoms of an issue. Rarely does it tackle the underlying causes. These causes are often
cultural and/or behavioural in nature, and cannot be tackled through traditional short-term
service responses. They are usually complex and multidimensional. As a result, they are
much more difficult to tackle, requiring a more strategic and long-term approach to address
successfully.

This realisation is taking place across the public sector. National campaigns, nudge and think
techniques and, at the more extreme end, shove and enforcement techniques, for example
the smoking ban in public places, are all examples of how authorities are seeking to change
cultures and behaviours. But how do we translate and apply this to everyday issues faced by
our communities?

Adaptive Leadership
It is not only in the public and community sectors where this debate is underway. Adaptive
Leadership is a management approach developed by Professor Ronald Heifetz1. It proposes
an approach to change that is driven by crises. It has three parts:

1. Stablisation
Once a crisis become apparent someone needs to take a leadership role to stabilise
the situation in the short-term, engendering trust and reassuring people. During this
phase a good leader will seek to drive the organisational response to tackle the
immediate issue (or symptoms). This response buys time to undertake a diagnosis of
the issues, using the urgency to engage and mobilise stakeholders.

2. Technical Response
When diagnosing a problem, an organisation will often identify new approaches

1
See for example: Heifetz, R, Grashow, A and Linsky, M (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Harvard
 improve their work, without fundamentally changing the way they work. A technical
response might be described as “how do we do the same things better”. In terms of
change, this addresses systems, processes, training and knowledge. Often when such
changes and improvements are made, organisations will be addressing the
symptoms of the crisis and not the underlying causes of the crisis.

3. Adaptive Change
There are often underlying structural or cultural factors at play however, and these
need to be addressed or two reasons; First, it will reduce the risk of the same crisis
reappearing. Secondly, addressing the underlying causes should mean that an
organisation is better able to meet the future challenges of the next crises to be
faced.

This approach describes traditional responses to community ‘crises’ or issues well. In most
cases a crisis reveals the need for a ‘technical response’, for instance improved responses
across organisations, and the need for a new process, policy or intervention tool and these
are provided when the crisis is acute. However the underlying causes of the crises that exist
within the communities themselves rarely get tackled. More needs to be done.

How? Unlike technical responses there is often no manual or readily available expertise on
how to deliver the required change. Indeed the Adaptive Leadership approach itself does
not provide this. Instead, it offers some basic tenants of adaptive change:

 Retain good things and only introducing change where required

 Experimental; try many new ways before focusing on successful approaches
 360 degree horizon scanning looking for potential crises and planning for them
 Improvisation, being able to recognise (and say) when new problems arise that are
unforeseen and for which the technical ability within the organisation is not
adequate or appropriate allowing much quicker changes of direction
 Model and reinforce consistent orienting values, the core values to which people can
ascribe to
 Developing a stomach for losses, taking the stigma away from short term failure if it
leads to long term success

Policy Context

The idea of community responses and the approach outlined by Adaptive Leadership are
entirely consistent with the Big Society and its localism and empowerment agendas. The
narrative behind the Big Society is that as the state has expanded it’s role and remits it has
displaced ‘civil society’. Where once communities organised themselves to tackle problems,
it now relies on the state. However the state has not always proven effective at sustainably
tackling many of these issues.
The Big Society therefore envisages a more active society able to organise itself to respond
to issues that emerge. To achieve this it is looking for public authorities both to step back,
opening up the space into which civil society can step forward, and to facilitate this by
taking a pluralistic approach to how services are provided. This includes facilitating
communities to step forward.

This is not a short-term agenda. It requires a culture change, not only within public
authorities but also within many of the communities they serve. Some communities will be
much better placed than others in terms of capacity to respond to this agenda. The
implication is that unless support is provided some communities will be disadvantaged (at
least in the short-to-medium term) potentially creating significant differentials in services.

Over time we believe that local authorities will be given the explicit remit to facilitate the
creation of the Big Society. Indeed at the time of writing we are seeing the first shoots of
this.

So the question is if we are right what does this mean for local authorities and other public
authorities? Ironically clues lie in research looking into the now defunct National Indicator
Set; in particular NI4 (% people who feel they can influence decisions affecting where they
live). After three years of including this target with Local Area Agreements it became clear
from national and regional averages that authorities were struggling to achieve the targets
set. Furthermore, MORI had been using this indicator for 10 years as part of its citizenship
survey, and this too showed a flat-line (or even a slight downward trend) despite a raft of
programmes and initiatives designed to engender localism and decentralisation by the last
administration.

So why is this so difficult? Consider this hypothetical, but very plausible, example: an
authority has agreed to achieve a 3.8% increase of people who feel they have influence over
3 years, a seemingly modest target that formed a cornerstone of its Comprehensive
Community Engagement Strategy. However, using population forecasts we estimate that to
achieve such, 7,500 adults who previously thought they could not influence decisions
affecting where they live would need to change their minds. When we describe this
numerically rather than using percentages, and when we consider how authorities seek to
achieve this with the resources available, the scale of the task becomes clear.

Authorities usually engage citizens through dedicated teams, usually relatively small teams,
or a dedicated staff member within a department. An example might be someone who leads
on consultation within a planning department, or a central engagement and consultation
team. However their interactions with citizens are likely to be in the hundreds or low
thousands. Even if the engagement undertaken was so successful that every citizen engaged
felt able to influence afterwards, which given the structural and cultural obstacles is very
unikely, then it would still be unlikely to achieve a target of 7,500 over three years.
There has been a raft of research over the past couple of years into determinants of
perceptions of influence (IPSOS MORI2) and concepts of trust between citizens and
authorities (Demos3). MGA co-authored a report by our partners The Campaign Company on
behalf of the London Empowerment Partnership that looked at the concepts of influence in
London. The findings have significant implications for authorities in how they engage
citizens.

The key finding was the difference in how authorities and citizens perceive influence and
provide opportunities to influence. Authorities provide opportunities for citizens to
influence visions, strategies and plans; what the report refers to as pro-active influence. The
influence sought by communities is the ability to resolve immediate issues affecting them
and their communities; referred to as reactive influence. That is not to say that citizens did
not want to exert pro-active influence too, but that reactive influence was the priority and
occurred in much greater numbers.

Reactive influence is sought not through engagement staff but through front-line services;
either customer service points or people operating in their communities. The experience of
trying to resolve these issues is often negative, not least because the person on the front-
line is not empowered to make decisions that can resolve the issue at hand. Furthermore
the front-line can often be the ‘first-line of defence’ preventing a citizen from getting direct
access to decision-makers. The result is a breakdown of citizen confidence and trust in
authorities. Furthermore it is demoralising for front-line staff who may want to help but can
be stuck between a rock (the customer) and a hard-place (the corporate body).

Separately, engagement teams try to engage citizens to get involved in exerting proactive
influence. Many doing so complain of the ‘apathy’ they find from citizens. Indeed this has
become a common narrative amongst authorities, and is described as if it is a constant
about which nothing can be done. Our contention is that apathy is simply a function of the
primary relationship that exists between citizens and authorities, defined through
interactions at the front-line.

Our analysis is that if authorities are to be successful at mobilising its citizens and co-
producing services and responses to create the Big Society then there must be a
fundamental shift in the relationship between authorities and citizens. Central to achieving
this must be how authorities are seen to respond to issues, and how they engage citizens
around these issues. This requires much greater linkages between the front-line functions
and engagement staff and teams.

2
Duffy, B and Lee Chan, D (2009) “People, Perceptions and Place”, Ipsos Mori: Social Research Institute,
(WWW) (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1270_sri-localgov-peopleperceptionsandplace-
revisedsept.pdf)
3
Parker, S, Spires, P, Farook, F and Mean, M (2008) “State of Trust: How to build better relationships between
councils and the public”, Demos (WWW)
(http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Trust_web_ALL%20_032.pdf?1240939425)
Where does Community Responses Fit In?
Community Responses is one part of a wider jigsaw to achieve this shift of relationship, but
an important piece. Some of the issues that get raised cannot be solved by service
interventions alone and require communities to act in tandem with service responses. The
aim of Community Responses is to provide a framework and a toolkit for achieving this. The
individual components are in no way radical; indeed they are drawn largely from successful
models. The added value is in bringing them together into a single resource to support co-
production between communities and services, building both trust and perceptions of
influence.
Section 3

The LEP Funded

Mode
The Proposal
As described in Section 1 the development of the project was unusual. MGA was asked to
submit our ideas for projects in the final year of activity of the LEP. One of these ideas was
Community Responses. MGA received a steer from the LEP Commissioning Group,
specifically:

 Focus upon specific tools and mechanisms rather than broader philosophical
approaches, including ones that have not been well documented to date
 Ensure work is grounded in practical experience rather than a theoretical exercise
 Analysis of where the approach originates from (i.e. from the community or from
‘above’) and impact on success and sustainability
 Demonstrate benefits for local authorities, including longer term savings balanced
against any ‘investment’ involved in a Community Response

This required a delicate balance to be struck to ensure that the issues identified were
relevant to local communities; that enough Community Responses were identified to
provide a ‘menu’ or a ‘catalogue’ from which local communities can choose; local
undertaking of approaches to test the effectiveness of the approach (both Community
Responses more generally and in resolving the issue at hand); and an analysis of benefits.

To achieve all of the above whilst ensuring the budget remained affordable and the project
achievable, the methodology set out was built around achieving the following outputs:

1. Identification, agreement and understanding of three community issues that are

common to the three authorities and priorities for their local communities
2. Development of a catalogue of responses for each of the issues encompassing
best practice and new thinking from a wide range of sources
3. Issue workshops (consisting of residents, the community and voluntary sector,
and relevant services) for each issue in each authority to design a bespoke
Community Response for each. This will consist of:
a. Ensuring a shared understanding of the issue at hand
b. Mapping activity to date both past and current
c. Mapping local capacity
d. Choosing and developing bespoke approaches from the catalogue that
best seem to fit the detail of the issue at hand, compliment existing
activity and is relevant to the local area and its capacity
e. Assessing investment required to implement
4. Negotiation with the relevant organisations to agree the chosen Community
Response to be trialled in each local authority including any investment required
5. Facilitation support to local partnerships in undertaking the community
responses
6. Evaluation of each Community Response including success, cost benefit analysis
and wider thoughts about how resources could be reshaped to support
Community Responses on a systematic basis.
In the proposal, MGA’s role in undertaking the community responses was to be strictly
facilitative, providing advice, guidance and knowledge where appropriate. The reasoning is
two-fold:

 Firstly it would help to minimise costs but more importantly it will ensure this
approach is tested in the field without an over reliance on professional support thus
grounding this piece of work in practical experience in a true to life context.
 Secondly, it was felt that such an approach would help focus on response types that
would be less time consuming and therefore more likely to work within the very
tight timescales for the project

The tight timeframes were due to the later than anticipated commissioning of the project
and the end of programme date for the London Empowerment Partnership. Our
methodology therefore contained a best case timetable of activity that was highly reliant on
the ability of participating authorities to link us with communities with existing capacity.

Participating Boroughs
When developing the proposal we approached several London boroughs targeted by the
LEP (18 in all) to test how the project would be received. Seven expressions of interest from
London boroughs interested in participating in the project were received. On receiving the
green light from the LEP we contacted each with a more detailed briefing on the project.
Given the limitations of budget, and the tight timeframes for the project, we were unable to
undertake engagement and community development activity. Consequently we asked
boroughs when considering whether to confirm interest, to take account of the fact we
needed identified communities where there was established capacity and a readiness to
respond.

Ultimately four boroughs confirmed their interest, namely Camden, Enfield, Hounslow
(through their Housing ALMO) and Kensington & Chelsea (K&C). In discussions with the LEP
it was felt that Hounslow had been the beneficiary of much LEP funded activity, and that
consequently Camden, Enfield and K&C should be the participating boroughs.

In addition MGA has been undertaking work on behalf of Tower Hamlets Homes, a social
landlord in that borough. Some of its estates were facing particular issues where a
community response-type approach seemed highly relevant. In parallel to this project we
have therefore been using the approach elsewhere, and we are including this here so that it
can contribute to the learning.

Each of the projects undertaken is described in more detail in the case studies. These are
not yet available at the time of writing but will be added as the projects reach the point
where MGA involvement is at an end. Here we outline each, and their current position.
Camden
The community chosen for the project was Somers Town near Kings Cross. This is an area of
significant need and a community with a rich history of activism, an array of influential
voluntary sector bodies, and various tenant and residents associations. Unlike other areas in
the borough that were also considered (Kilburn and Gospel Oak), this community had not
directly benefited from major renewal programmes, although had derived some benefit
from the nearby regeneration activity at Kings Cross and St. Pancras (although the extent of
this is contested).

Consequently, there is no formal overarching structure linking activity across the community
although the Somers Town Community Association provides valuable linkages. LB Camden
therefore thought this would offer an interesting community to work in given likelihood of
issues, levels of activism and need for co-ordination. It was also hoped that this way of
working might inform the Boroughs Area Action Group model; a ward-based mechanism
which was intended to provide a space where local councillors and local residents come
together and develop community-based action. However, the model for doing so had not
been identified. It was hoped our work might inform this at least in part.

Through the Somers Town Community Association an initial Focus Group was held in
December, 2010 to identify local issues. What became apparent was that the issues raised
were not pressing enough to mobilise residents across the community. The issues were
either not current, or very localised in nature, and therefore did not attract enough interest
at the design stage. Rather than continue, a decision was made to revisit the issues.

At this juncture the ward’s first Area Action Group was being organised. The context for this
was local consultation on the programme of cuts being proposed by the Council and how
this might affect the area. This was a far from ideal forum to look at issues, especially as we
were second on the agenda. And so it turned out with attendees not feeling as if they had
had chance to voice concerns or to decide how they wanted to respond. This however
resulted in agreement that we should look at how we might develop better co-ordination
across the community that supports local action.

Surprisingly for this project we have moved from an issue-based community response to a
process-based community response, albeit one that emerged from an identified issue and
should support future issue-based responses. This required obtaining buy-in and support
from LEP, the Council, local councillors and key organisations and residents within the
community. Now secured, the design phase is beginning.

Enfield
Of all the participating boroughs, Enfield has proven the most straight forward in terms of
process, but perhaps the most challenging in terms of issue. The area chosen was the Shires
Estate, an area of high need that has been increasingly disconnected from surrounding
areas by the North Circular and Meridian Way. Although it does sit adjacent to the
regeneration areas covered by the Leeside Partnership.

This disconnection, the level of need and the proximity to opportunity through regeneration
has led to the area increasingly being a focus for the borough (see below). Another reason
was the understanding that there were high levels of ASB linked to gangs operating on the
estate including the dealing of drugs. Previous attempts to engage residents with a view to
addressing the problem had proven unsuccessful. It was hoped that a new approach would
overcome this.
It should be stated at the outset this was somewhat off-brief. Engagement was an issue
contrary to the approach as set out. This is a highly multi-cultural community with a
significant Turkish and Kurdish population, who had traditionally proven highly difficult to
engage. That said we were told there was a TRA in place that was facilitated by Enfield
Homes, the social landlord, and at least one dedicated resident of Turkish descent. On this
basis we agreed to proceed.

On the advice of the local Involvement Officer at Enfield Homes we undertook the focus
group stage on the back of a TRA meeting. Whilst the turnout was positive with over 20
people attending, it made its facilitation difficult as most people arrived wanting to discuss
estate management issues. Nonetheless clear issues were raised with the priority clearly
being that of gangs and related ASB. To an extent this came as a surprise, as contrary to
what we had been told, residents were more than willing to discuss these issues, even those
of Turkish or Kurdish origin.

We then spoke with agencies looking to address ASB. It soon became clear that whilst there
was a desire to act, the intelligence, information and evidence required to do so was not
available. There was a clear barrier to communication between agencies and residents.
Agencies complained that they could not get the information to act; residents stressed that
when they report things, nothing happens or there is retribution, so they now have stopped
reporting.

At the design stage the focus was on how to overcome the communication disconnect in a
way that provided residents with assurances of anonymity. A closed and secure facebook
group was the solution chosen, but the process underlined the challenges of engagement on
the estate. 35 people attended but only after an intensive door-knocking campaign by a
couple of residents to drum up interest, after the first design workshop was barely
attended. Engagement on this estate works best when direct and peer-to-peer methods are
employed; residents respond poorly to generic leaflets and direct letters from agencies.

Momentum was then lost as support for the approach was sought from agencies. Whilst
conceptually supportive there were concerns raised about a closed group being infiltrated
by gangs and retribution occurring, potentially with any sponsoring agencies being liable.
There were also technical issues relating to agency access due to web restrictions and
security. The design was amended so that the network was resident owned, supported a
wider range of community discussion, and promoted more ‘conventional’ ways of providing
information of gang related issues. The network was seen as being the beginnings of a
communications tree that would link to other forms of peer-to-peer communication.

Recruitment to the network is now well underway, with the aim to recruit 30 or more local
residents, with half-a-dozen talking on its administration and links with agencies beyond our
involvement. Furthermore the project is being integrated into wider work of the Leeside
Partnership which now has a sub-group focusing on the Shires Estate.
K&C
Of the three LEP boroughs, K&C has proven the hardest to activate. Despite the best efforts
of our liaison council officers, community leaders have not taken to the idea easily. Only
when approaching a third community was there interest in the project, and even then it has
taken a great deal of time to identify a specific focus for the activity.

The focus has settled on Cremorne Gardens, a highly valued (by residents) piece of land next
to the Thames created through community gain when the World’s End Estate was built in
the 1970s. The gardens are located in a relatively prosperous part of the capital, but just
across the road from the World’s End Estate, an area of recognised need.

Resident input to date has revolved around two people, the Chair of World’s End Residents
Association and the Chair of the Friends of Cremorne Gardens group. The wider interest in
the gardens has not yet been fully tested, but recently a petition objecting to proposed use
of the gardens to service sewer infrastructure works that would take the space away from
public use for up to 7 years, attracted over 1,000 signatories.

When discussing how community responses might support Friends of Cremorne Gardens, a
number of issues were raised, with the potential for community ownership being the
response prioritised. We are now in the process of finding out what agency support there is
for such a proposal, before testing levels of resident interest. The results will form the
parameters that will define the next steps, namely the design of the response and the
proposed way forward.
Overview of Responses
At the outset, we wanted to choose three boroughs that reflected the diversity of the
capital. In choosing an inner city borough, a west end borough, and an outer-London
borough, we have achieved a good mix, one that is augmented by our parallel work in an
east-end borough.

The make-up of the communities chosen is also varied, and collectively gives us insight into
how a Community Responses approach will work in different areas:

 In Camden, Somers Town is an area of need but with a long history of community
activism, a tradition that remains today. The area is well connected and has a high
level of facilities and services

 In Enfield, the Shires Estate is a deprived community with no history of community

activism, and a recognised lack of social capacity. It is cut off from surrounding areas
and has little in the way of facilities

 In K&C, a mix of relatively prosperous and relatively deprived communities

surrounds Cremorne Gardens. There is capacity within these communities, and some
facilities.

The issues raised have likewise proven varied, and beyond the issues we had anticipated.
We had assumed the focus would be on environmental issues and anti-social behaviour, and
whilst these issues have certainly arisen, albeit not universally, the responses themselves
have not focused directly on these issues:

 In Enfield, the focus has been on engaging the community, creating communication
channels that might also create community capacity in order to tackle the issue of
gangs.

 In Camden, we have been asked to look at how existing capacity can better organise
collectively through a localism mechanism convened by local councillors.

 In K&C we are looking at how communities can have greater ownership and
consequently a greater say in how a community asset is used and developed.

 In Tower Hamlets, we are addressing anti-social behaviour more directly and

develop responses probably more closely aligned to those we had anticipated.

Given that the community responses approach is by its very nature responsive, and
therefore the issues we were working upon could not be pre-defined, we must be very
happy with the variety of responses being developed. Once again the variety provides useful
learning on the applicability and effectiveness of community responses in different contexts.
It also has the advantage that in each case we have been working with a different range of
partners in developing the response, again providing useful learning.

One consequence of the differing nature of the communities, contexts and issues has been
the impact on the envisaged methodology. Whilst the overall approach has remained, we
have found it necessary to adapt it to suit circumstances and to build and maintain
confidence. Contributory factors include:

 Engaging Communities
Despite efforts to ensure existing capacity prior to selecting the boroughs, in each
case much greater effort has been required to engage communities during the
project. Given that this has occurred across all case studies, regardless of existing
capacity, we can surmise that it is likely to be so in most cases.

 The Right Issue

The issue chosen needs to be one that mobilises residents to want to take action. In
Somers Town the original issue chosen failed to achieve this, requiring a different
approach to issue identification. The issue chosen needs to be specific, very much of
the moment and have a level of urgency that promotes a need for action. It also
needs to be relevant to the approach, and in K&C for instance some of the issues
were clearly not and we were up front about this.

 Being Responsive and Being Seen to Be Responsive

Important for residents, this is also important to other partners. For instance in
Enfield, once the gangs issue was identified it became apparent that it was pointless
to design responses to other issues because of the urgency attached to that one
issue. Such flexibility is even required during sessions, where the structure was
adapted according to the temperature of the room.

 Support
The original methodology assumed light-touch support on implementation, mainly
given the constraints of the project. This has proven highly dependent on the
response chosen, skills and capacity available, and even on technical constraints. For
instance in Enfield we have had to take a much more hands on role in
implementation until capacity is built. Without this the project would have been at
risk.

Using this learning we offer a revised approach in the next Section.

Timetable
These issues have also had an impact on timeframes for the project. It has generally taken
much longer to engage communities than the timetable had allowed for, meaning that
implementation of projects have happened much later. In two cases our involvement in the
responses should be complete by the end of March 2011 or soon thereafter, with K&C
probably extending beyond this.
This means that this guide will initially be written prior to completion of the project. For this
reason the dissemination will be online to allow for updates beyond the LEP Programme, as
MGA has committed to completing the case studies and updating and adding any related
learning to this resource.
Section 4

Undertaking
Community
Responses
Introduction
This section builds upon the learning from the LEP work to set out a guide to undertaking
Community Responses. It is important to state at the outset that we do not pretend that we
can provide all the answers to the infinite permutations that might arise when undertaking a
response. The responsive nature of the work will require innovative thinking and iterative
practice to ensure the best possible outcomes.

This guide will however provide a framework for anyone undertaking Community
Responses, including a variety of techniques and tools. The focus for this section is the
processes rather than the responses themselves, which are addressed in the next section.

Building Blocks
Before undertaking a community response approach to tackling issues there are some basic
building blocks you will need in place to maximise the chances of success:

 A current or live issue with sufficient urgency to mobilise people, even within areas
where there are traditionally active communities. The issue must be relevant enough
to get people to attend events and to take part in any response. This means that the
issue is likely to be sensitive to some degree and perhaps political.

 The approach therefore requires leadership of the type that has the confidence of
services and communities. This need not be just one leader providing the leadership
function, but could be a small collective, so long as they can drive the process (but
not the solution!) whilst taking the various stakeholders along with them.

 The process and any response developed needs to be co-productive in nature.

Communities respond better when services can say ‘This is what we can do but we
need help with …’. Community responses are not simply about handing over
responsibility for addressing issues to the community, but about understanding
when communities can contribute to creating better outcomes and providing longer-
term savings. Services must also be willing to play their part in any response if they
too are to gain the benefits.

 A willingness to try new solutions and not rely on so-called ‘best practice’ or the
latest ‘innovation’, unless these have been shown to be the best possible solution for
that community. This requires an appetite from those involved to consider new
approaches, to manage the challenges this creates, and to learn and adapt quickly
from any setbacks. The advantage of the process is that by including all stakeholders
in the design and implementation the chances of success should be higher and there
is greater ownership of the response whatever the outcome.

As the above building blocks suggests the approach can challenge current ways of working
and may challenge the culture of some organisations. Whilst the issues themselves may be
relatively small in scale they may raise more strategic and procedural questions. If
embraced, this can contribute to wider strategic change and help test new ways of working.
If resisted it will lead to greater compromises in terms of the design of the response and its
chances of success.

Outline Methodology
The methodology we followed is relatively simple. In broad terms it is a four-stage process
as follows:

Identification Diagnosis Design Implementation

Below we look at each of these stages in turn, suggesting some of the strategies that can be
used and some of the tools. We use the word ‘some’ because there will always be room for
other ways of doing this, and in each case it should be appropriate and adapted for the
context it is operating in. Once each of the stages has been considered we will then look at
themes that cut across each of the stages.

Identification
There are two broad ways of identifying the issue for which a community response is to be
considered; proactive or reactive. Each approach has different advantages and constraints,
which we will outline and describe below.

In undertaking the LEP pilots the approach we took was an example of a proactive
approach, in which we identify a community we are seeking to work with and look to
engage it around issues that it identifies. Many reading this will recognise this as a
community development-type approach, where addressing the issue is a mechanism to
mobilise people and develop longer-term capacity within a given community.

The primary advantage of the proactive approach is the ability to plan. It is easier to ensure
you have the necessary building blocks in place as being community specific you can obtain
buy in for the approach down to the level of key individuals. That said, the degree of
challenge presented by any solution wouldn’t be known, and so buy-in still needs to be
checked and maintained even here.

It may be possible to identify likely issues that might emerge from any given community,
and to work out the best ways of engaging communities. It is not however certain that a
proactive response will produce an issue that is live and urgent enough to mobilise local
residents. It is possible to take soundings from residents with whom you might have contact
with as part of the planning, but there is no guarantee that this will necessarily be
recognised by the community as a whole.

A proactive approach requires a set piece event where residents are first engaged in the
process. This can be achieved either by using an existing mechanism such as a Tenant &
Residents Association meeting or designing a focus group where residents are incentivised
to come along, for example by offering vouchers. It is important to note that this
engagement seeks only to identify an issue, and it is highly likely that a further engagement
process will be required afterwards to secure interested residents, rather than relying on
those attending the initial set-piece event.

A reactive approach is likely to start with an issue and minimal planning. The advantage is
the issue identified is likely to be one that is already mobilising the community affected, and
potentially there may already be service responses underway. The difficulty is to capture the
issue and who is responsible for deciding to apply a community response approach.

A further challenge is establishing buy-in for a community response approach at very short
notice and in a way that coordinates activity. This requires a high level of leadership, but
will give events a momentum that can contribute towards a successful conclusion. For
instance, a reactive approach may not require a set piece event as the issue has already
been defined. Engagement can focus immediately around the issue itself with the advantage
that those stepping forward initially are those with a direct interest in the issue.

In order to ensure there is a sufficient level of leadership and buy in up front, it would be
helpful if a community response approach has received strategic support from the outset,
for instance through a Local Strategic Partnership. In this way, obstacles to taking a reactive
approach can be minimised and where they do occur there is high-level sponsorship of the
approach. It can also help with issue identification, by ensuring potential issues are captured
from a range of sources, for instance customer service staff, front-line staff and local
councillors.

Diagnosis
The diagnosis of the issue identified is crucial. This needs to consider not only the symptoms
but also the causes of the issue at hand. You need to understand what has been tried
previously and where there is a history of past action, what has worked, what has not
worked, and in both cases why. You also needs to know about any action being planned or
in play, who is involved, and what obstacles might be being faced.

When undertaking this diagnosis it is important to recognise that there are different
stakeholders, with different perspectives and differing knowledge sets. There are two main
groups of stakeholders in services and residents. Each group needs to be approached
(methods outlined in the relevant engagement sections below) to understand their, often
differing, perspectives from different angles.

It is easy to discount the input of residents but this would be a mistake. Firstly they see the
impact on the ground and secondly they are often collectively knowledgeable about
underlying causes that might be missed by services. Their involvement at this stage is key to
the co-production we are seeking to encourage.

In many cases, the information received from the two groups should reinforce each other. In
such cases the diagnosis can be relatively straightforward and collective agreement on what
needs to happen is easy to reach. Where there is contradicting information or clear gaps,
there will need to be more work undertaken to obtain further information. Indeed, it could
be that the community response developed is designed to overcome an information gap
and should be seen as a first step of a multi-phased approach to addressing the issue.

Design
Once a full diagnosis of the issue has been undertaken, and a clear and shared
understanding of what needs to happen is established, the next stage is the design phase.
Using the response catalogue (see next section) and other sources of good practice, the
person(s) leading the community response should develop a variety of different ways of
achieving the agreed outcome. The actual number of options available may vary depending
upon the nature of the issue and the outcome agreed, but wherever possible more than one
option should be presented, and all should be relevant and have a good potential to
resolving the issue/achieving the outcome.

At this juncture we would encourage those leading the design phase to share their thinking
with key contacts from services and any other relevant statutory services identified through
the diagnosis phase. Proceeding with responses that do not have the support of such bodies
is likely to be counterproductive and will harm the process or even the response further
down the line, in turn undermining confidence from residents. By sharing ideas at this stage,
parameters can be identified, relationships strengthened and buy-in can be built.

Once feedback has been received the options should be revisited if necessary. If any such
revision is significant or if other options are introduced as a result, then a further round of
sharing with these bodies is recommended. Only when there is buy-in for the options to be
presented should the next step be taken. At the same time, the process must not take so
long as to lose momentum (see timeframes below).

The broad format for the design workshop with residents is fairly simple. The person(s)
leading the workshop should provide a quick summary of the issue, the results of the
diagnosis, and any work undertaken with services and other statutory bodies. Each of the
options then needs to be described, followed by any questions and an open discussion that
seeks to identify strengths and weaknesses of and likes and dislikes for each option.

There are three broad scenarios here:

1. One of the options is chosen as the way forward. This is the simplest scenario
allowing the person(s) leading the process to move to the implementation stage.

2. A bespoke model is required that contains elements of different options creating a

unique response. This may require further checking with services and other statutory
bodies. It is unlikely, given prior buy-in for the options presented, that the bespoke
solution is not supported, but if so, the design stage will need to be revisited from
the beginning informed by new additional parameters.

3. None of the options, nor any bespoke response agreed upon. This will require the
design stage to be revisited from the beginning informed with the reasons cited
forming additional parameters. This may also suggest a misdiagnosis at the previous
stage and if necessary this should be revisited. It should be said however if the
diagnosis stage has been done correctly, and the options considered properly, then
this outcome is unlikely.

Where it becomes necessary to revisit the design phase from the beginning, or even revisit
the diagnosis, the danger is that a loss of momentum will damage confidence in the process.
Effort will be required to regain that momentum and rebuild confidence, but this is critically
important if the response is to be successful (see momentum below).

Implementation
The implementation phase begins with undertaking detailed design of the community
response agreed. This should set out in detail an initial view on how the community
response will work, and who will need to be responsible for what aspects. Once complete
this will need to be shared with those who would be directly involved for agreement. It is
quite possible that there will be an element of negotiation involved potentially resulting in
some changes to the detailed design. As long as this does not substantively impact upon the
overall response or the outcome sought this should not be seen as problematic, so long as
there is a feasible way forward.

Where such changes do result in significant change to the response agreed or outcome
sought, then there is a judgement call required. The person leading the project will need to
consider whether this requires moving back into the design stage (or possibly even the
diagnosis stage), or whether the response and outcome are close enough to the originals for
the response to continue. This judgement should not be made alone but with key
individuals who should have emerged through the process to date (see leadership below).
Once detailed design is agreed a clear plan for implementation should be developed. At this
juncture the person(s) leading the development of the community response should be
looking at their own exit strategy. Their support may be critical in the early stages of
implementation, but the response should increasing be led, ideally, by communities with
support as required from involved services and other statutory services.

Engaging Residents
Apathy is a barrier often cited by public authorities as a result of trying to engage residents
(or sometimes for not engaging them based on past experience). It is interesting that in such
cases apathy is described almost as a constant that cannot be altered and is quite separate
to the efforts of those public authorities. Recent research into the NI4 indicator (% People
who feel they can influence decisions affecting their locality) from the now defunct National
Indicator Set challenges this assumption.

A report by The Campaign Company (co-authored with Micah Gold Associates) and
commissioned by the London Empowerment Partnership looked at the underlying reasons
for why despite a raft of localism-type initiatives, perceptions of influence had flat-lined
over 3 years and according to Ipsos Mori (who have surveyed this question over a longer
period through its citizenship survey) had even declined slightly over the last 10 years.
Section 2 sets out the main finding in more detail, but in summary the report unearthed two
key findings:

1. The Wrong Kind of Influence

The opportunities to influence being offered to residents were in the main not the
opportunities residents sought. Public authorities provided plenty of opportunities
for citizens to input into visions, strategies and plans. Whilst citizens recognised the
importance of this, the influence they sought more often than not, was to deal with
immediate issues affecting their communities. Their experience of seeking to achieve
this was largely negative and one of frustration, due to a perceived lack of response.

2. Experience of Getting Involved

Most people who took part in the research had in fact been involved in some form of
engagement previously but struggled to recall its purpose or outcome. They could
however recall a negative experience of getting involved, and one that was
overwhelmingly disempowering.

Rather than see apathy as a constant therefore, we should view it as a function of the
relationship between the citizen and public authorities. This means that over time apathy
can be addressed and overcome, but because the existing relationship is so engrained (for
instance consider concepts of trust as set out by Demos) it will take time and persistence.
Too often, public authorities will too quickly move away from engagement because the
results are not immediate.
Community Responses as an approach has been developed specifically to help overcome
some of these issues. It seeks to define a new relationship between citizens and public
authorities. It gives citizens influence over the issues immediately affecting their
communities. And it seeks to build confidence over time. But that confidence will take time,
and initial improvements will be fragile.

At the outset, the person(s) leading the process needs to understand which engagement
methods work in the target community. Whilst speaking to other operating in the area will
help, it will often require trial and error to come to the best approach and no little
persistence, especially if the method that works is labour intensive. There will also be the
temptation to use less labour intensive methods after an initially good response. This should
be considered carefully as getting it wrong could result in a poor response and a loss of
momentum.

Engaging Services
It is easy to neglect services and other statutory bodies in terms of engagement, but this is
crucial. Community responses as we have established can challenge prevailing cultures and
ways of working, which can be uncomfortable for services and in some cases can create
organisational challenges. At such times the relationship that the person(s) leading
community responses has with those services can be critical to overcoming barriers and
blockages.

Throughout the processes of identifying, diagnosing, designing and implementing it is

important to take services and other relevant bodies along with you. Understanding
parameters and constraints is crucial and these need to be re-examined at each stage of the
project. Parameters and constraints can appear in many forms, technical, capacity, political
or cultural. Understanding and identifying those which can be overcome and those which
cannot, will help get the balance of co-production right; in other words ensuring that
services are responding (critical to secure the confidence of residents) without putting the
response itself at risk.

Engaging Councillors
As identified above, a key potential constraint is political. Depending upon the issue at hand
and the context, political patronage and support can be very helpful. Many ward councillors
are well connected within the communities they serve and can also exert influence over
services and public authorities. In some cases the issue at hand might be significant enough
to be of interest to councillors with relevant portfolios.

A response that is in line with wider strategic thinking is much more likely to be successful
and obtain support. When a response is conflicting with wider strategic thinking, efforts will
be required to convince that it should be supported. It is at this point the person(s) leading
the response approach will discover whether a political (and often other forms) parameter
or constraint can be overcome.

Building Trust & Confidence

As the above sections on engaging demonstrate, the relationship a person or persons build
with different stakeholders, be they residents, public authorities, or elected representatives,
are fundamental to the success of any community response. At the outset, it is crucial to
establish trust and confidence even among those who might initially be sceptical.
Thereafter, it is crucial to maintain that confidence. Once lost, it can be difficult or even
impossible to re-establish.

At each stage, effort should be made to carry the different stakeholders involved along with
you. This can prove time-consuming and in some cases frustrating, but it will ultimately save
time and minimise chances of losing trust and confidence in the approach. Over time this
effort will also help fill good relationships with key people, which may become invaluable as
the project progresses.

Central to achieving this is obtaining the right balance between transparency and
diplomacy. Being open and transparent is highly valued among parties, but so is the ability
to maintain confidence when it is required. When a project is facing challenges and
difficulties it can be beneficial to be upfront and transparent about these wherever possible.
Being clear at the outset of the challenges faced in developing community responses can
also be beneficial later on in the project.

Often the responses developed will be bespoke and may not have been attempted
previously in exactly the same way. The risk of failure should be addressed at the outset as
well as the chances of success. Where failure occurs the focus should be on the learning that
emerges and ensuring that the stakes are not repeated in the future. This is crucial in
creating the right atmosphere to support innovation, but not undermining longer term trust
and confidence should the response designed not be entirely successful.

Leadership
Initiating a community response approach requires leadership from the very outset. In order
to engage both residents and service providers (and potentially elected representatives)
there needs to be someone who is both visible and accessible is seen to drive the approach.

We would suggest that this initial leadership is most likely to come from within public
authorities, or at least initiated by public authorities. This is because public authorities are
often well placed to identify recurring issues that previous interventions have struggled to
resolve. They are also well placed to secure buy-in from other public authorities that need
to be involved. Finally they usually have access to mechanisms and resources to engage
local residents and any other stakeholders.

Over time however that leadership function needs to be distributed more widely. A
community response by definition requires leadership from within the communities in
question. Identifying leaders from within the target communities at an early stage can be
critical to the success of the approach. For instance in some communities peer-to-peer
communication is much more effective when trying to initially engage residents. Critically, if
a response is to be sustained without ongoing investment of resources by public authorities
it must be maintained and taken forward by residents.

Momentum
Getting a community response underway can require significant effort as we have seen
from the above sections. Wherever possible, the persons undertaking the community
response should seek to maintain momentum once it is established. This is especially
important to retain the confidence and engagement of residents, but can also be relevant in
maintaining the support of public authorities and key stakeholders.

That said, momentum should not be maintained at all costs. Where continuing puts at risk
either the success of the approach or the confidence of residents or public authorities, it
should be avoided even when this will require significant effort to re-establish momentum.
Often, the best course of action will require some careful judgement.

Exit Strategy and Sustainability

By its very design, a community response will be sustainable so long as sufficient leadership
capacity is identified and supported from within the community. Wherever possible, the
person initiating the community response should seek to identify where it contributes to a
wider strategic agendas. By making this linkage and in raising awareness of the community
response, any ongoing support or liaison with public authorities should again be built into
the design and implementation of the response.
Section 5

Community
Responses Catalogue
How to Use this Catalogue
The catalogue in its current form has been developed as part of the work undertaken for the
London Empowerment Partnership. The individual responses listed emerged for one of the
following reasons:

1. They were used as part of a community response developed for the London
boroughs piloting the approach
2. They were identified as an option for a community response developed for the
London Borough is piloting the approach
3. They were identified as potential ways of addressing issues relating to environmental
or antisocial behaviour issues, which we had anticipated would be highlighted at the
identification stage.

The intention of the catalogue is to provide those attempting a community response with a
range of different approaches to tackling some of the likely issues to arise. It should be
noted here that this is not therefore an exhaustive list. Indeed, over time, we intend to add
to the catalogue and develop a more comprehensive resource as the community response
approach is used in different places and contexts to tackle different issues. It is our hope
that other organisations that use the community responses approach will also contribute to
the development of the catalogue.

How to use the catalogue

The catalogue contains a total of [insert] types of community responses. These are
organised into three broad categories as follows:

Building capacity: What became clear when delivering community responses to date
is that in some communities there isn’t sufficient capacity and/or mechanisms to
allow communities to organise themselves in such a way as to tackle the issue
directly. In some cases the lack of underlying capacity can be a contributor to the
issue at hand. These responses might be seen as building blocks to strengthening
communities.

Addressing issues: These responses address the issues at hand more directly
targeting both symptoms and underlying causes. At the outset we had envisaged
that the issues that would be raised would relate to the physical environment (for
instance litter, rubbish, graffiti etc) and antisocial behaviour. In the main this
assumption was proven correct and so the responses contained are weighted
towards these issues, although many can be used to tackle other issues.
 Taking ownership: In some cases the best course of action will not only tackle the
issue at hand, but will have a wider impact. To undertake such responses requires
high levels of community capacity and motivation. The responses will often be more
complex, but potentially much more rewarding.

In order to give the reader a sense for how complex each approach is likely to be, we have
also developed a very simple, if a little crude, indicator (see diagram). This takes into
account five complexity indices; the collective capacity needed, the time and resources
required, the level of partnership working involved and the potential risks assumed. These
are then given a 1 to 5 rating, 5 indicating a higher level of complexity and thus difficulty
(see figures 1 and 2). This index is meant only as a rough guide to the complexity of each
approach and as such is not designed to be scientific or precise – especially as a number of
processes can be made more or less complex in their design. Nevertheless, we think it
provides some useful insights:

Collective Capacity: This element refers simultaneously to amount of people that

you are likely to need, the amount of effort that they will have to put in, and the
level of organisation required to make the approach successful. These will all vary
between approaches. Some approaches might involve very few people coming
together in a loose and informal way, yet putting in a lot of effort when they engage.
Others might require a small core of highly organised people who put in a lot of
effort to coordinate the comparatively modest efforts of a much wider group. There
are many different potential combinations which will make an approach more or less
complex.

Time: Different approaches will involve different amounts of time commitment to a)

get going and b) start showing some results. We can differentiate therefore between
quick starters and slow burners and fast results and slower results. It is worth noting
that quicker approaches are not always the best; indeed, they run the risk of starting
strong but fizzing out over time. More important than the time it takes to get going
or yield results is how long the project is sustained for.

Partners: Most of the approaches in this guide require at least some partnership
work. This index aims to give you a general idea of how many partners might need to
be involved, what level of partner is appropriate (are they small and local?; Or high-
profile and national?) and to what extent and in what ways they will need to be
involved? As a general rule dealing with a larger number of partners will require a
greater degree of coordination and organisational capacity; dealing with larger
partners will take longer; and involving partners to a greater extent will lead to more
negotiations surrounding different roles and responsibilities. The levels from 1 to 5
reflect these increasing levels of coordination, time and negotiation accordingly.
Figure 1.

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Collective Capacity Low numbers of people High numbers of people or As level 2, but with two High numbers of people
Low levels of effort High levels of effort or aspects requiring a high High levels of effort
Little organisation needed A lot of organisation needed degree of capacity A lot of organisation needed

Time Fast Starter Fast starter Slow starter Slow starter

Quick results Slower results Fast results Slower results
Partners Few partners Several partners or Several partners and Several partners
Little required from partner More required from partners A lot required from partners A lot required from partners
Local and small in scale Local and small in scale Local and Small in scale Multiple operational scales
and sizes
Resources Single resource Multiple Resources Single Resource Multiple Resources
Low level needed Low level needed High Level needed High level needed
Risk Single source of risk Multiples sources of risk Single source of risk Multiple sources of risk
Low Level of risk Low level of risk High level of risk High levels of risk
Collective
Capacity
Figure 2. 5
4
3
2
Risks Time
1
0

Resources Partners
 Resources: Broadly speaking we can differentiate between the different types of
resources needed, including financial, technical (including expertise), material and
built (buildings and spaces to commune), and the levels to which they are needed.
Again the potential for multiple variations is great; an approach may require multiple
resources, but to varying degrees. To simplify the situation we have divided between
approaches requiring a small amount of a single resource, a small amount of
multiple resources, a high amount of a single resource and a high amount of multiple
resources.

Risk: This element seeks to indicate the level of risk and the sources of risk
(financial, personal, legal, political, individual, collective etc.) associated with each
approach. Some approaches – such as time banking – involve very little risk; because
it costs little, involves a modest level of collective capacity and can be set up quickly
and run without partners. Other approaches, including setting up social enterprises
or taking over community assets, will involve financial risk and also, potentially, legal,
personal and political. Approaches which involve either a high degree of risk and/or
multiple risks have been attributed higher levels from 1 to 5.

For each response we have also provided:

 A brief description of the approach, including an overview of how they work and
what they seek to achieve
 Information about where the approach has been used before, how it was used and
its successors
 Our view about how the response could also be used in ways that may not have
been considered previously, including what other issues it could address
 A sense of how effective you can expect the approach to be, that is would using the
approach in isolation be likely to tackle the issue and what is its track record
 Which other responses could (or indeed perhaps even must) each response work in
tandem with
 An indication of the key skills needed to ensure success.

We are also keen to stress that these approaches should be seen as guides, and not
panaceas or one-size-fits-all solutions. It is important to be flexible and creative, and to think
in terms of how these approaches can be appropriated and modified for specific local
contexts, rather than applying them as if they were a blueprint. Most of them are very
adaptable and they can all be used in conjuncture with one another. Keeping an open mind
about how they can be varied, adapted and combined will be key to their successful
application. For this reason we have also indicated which approaches might best be used
with others.
Building Capacity
The range of approaches in this section will help those who wish to build
capacity in their community. In practice this can mean a number of things,
from mobilising residents, forming associations, creating organisations,
coordinating activities and groups, weaving networks and raising funds.
They are presented here as important building blocks, which help to lay the
foundations for concerted, participatory and strategic community action.
Often these are prerequisites to more specific community responses, and in
some cases, such as pledge banks, directly support their implementation.
However, these approaches also engender their own set of valuable
outputs. They help develop ‘bonding’, ‘bridging’ and ‘linking’ relationships
between people and between people, organisations and institutions; they
can help to foster a stronger sense of place as the locus for a community of
communities; they also help to strengthen local democratic processes and
practice by increasing the level of influence that people have locally.
Pledge Banks – encouraging participation
About Pledge banks: Many of us want to do something to improve life in our communities;
the problem is few of us believe that we can make a difference alone. We can easily become
discouraged by the size of an issue; what difference can one person make? What’s the point
in trying, if no one else will help? Pledge banks are a simple but effective way of mobilising
support for issues that people care about and want to take action on, but which require
collective and organised responses. They work on the basis of the premise that “ill do it, but
only if you’ll help”. First, you set a pledge. This could literally be anything; I’ll donate £10
pounds to help elect Barak Obama, or I’ll spend an hour a week planting flowers in the park.
Next, you set a target, i.e. I’ll do this, but only if fifty people will do the same and support
me. Once you have enough people willing to help you, with either their time, money
(through a form of crowd funding) or moral support, you can start being the change you
want to see. The great thing about pledge banks is that once people see that lots of other
people are getting involved, they are much more likely to join in too.

How have they been used?

One of most successful
examples of using the
pledge bank idea to affect
real change in a community
is provided by the Bakul
Library, in Bhubaneswar,
India. On the April 1st, 2006
a pledge was set up by
Satyajit Puhan, Sujit
Mahapatra, and Ayushman
Sarangi. The goal was to get
1000 people to pledge to
donate books within a year.
Today “The Bakul library is one of the largest children’s libraries in the state of Orissa. It
houses more than 8,000 books (primarily in Oriya and English, and some in Hindi) as well as
multimedia and other educational material. There are no user charges for reading and
referencing in the library, and there are no formalities involved in terms of becoming a
member till now. Any child can drop in and read. By the time the deadline passed, 1011
people had pledged support, and the library managed to start functioning. Around two
thirds of those who signed up for the pledge were of Oriya origin, the rest being non-Oriya
including some foreigners with significant proportions of both the groups being based out of
Orissa”4.

How else could they be used? A quick look on the website www.pledgebank.com shows the
huge variety of projects that have been started using the pledge idea, from saving local
trees to volunteering to spend time mentoring young disadvantaged people. A good
example of the scope of pledge banks is provided by Cornwall Councillor Graeme Hicks’
pledge. Cllr Hicks has pledged that he will spend at least one hour a month improving the
community through voluntary work, if one hundred people agree to do the same. Currently
he has convinced fifty one people to join him. With the support of fifty one people, Cllr Hicks
has mobilised people to give up 612 hours together. That is the equivalent of 76.5 full days
of work.

Complexity: one of the Collective

capacity
strengths of pledge banks is 4
their simplicity. Thousands of 3
people have been able to
2
initiate pledge banks through
Risk Time
internet sites such as 1

www.pledgebank.com. They 0
do not require the support of
public sector agencies, or
official partnerships. They
don’t necessarily require Resources Partners
funding or resources, and they
do not take up a lot of time to
set up. This is about organising people at a local scale to get things done. If someone cannot
get enough people to support their pledge, nothing is lost, nothing has been risked.

Efficacy: the nature of the issues that can be addressed by pledge banks is potentially
limitless and as the Bakul Library example shows they can be very effective. However, it is
important to note that Pledge Banks are really just the first step to motivate people,
encourage them to join in and potentially raise money. There will be a lot more to do once
people have pledged to help.

Associated Approaches: Pledge Banks are a tool to organise, campaign and potentially
finance. Their applicability to other community responses is therefore wide. Any approach
that seeks to mobilise local people should consider this approach.

Useful Links: www.pledgebank.com

4
Routrey, S (2008) “pioneering Library Sparks Volunteerism” , Indiatogether.org (WWW)
http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/jan/edu-bakul.htm
Time Banking
About Time Banking: Time banks are community based credit systems that reward people
for giving up their time. The system is a tried and tested way of increasing community
engagement, getting people to actively participate as agents of their own community
development and transformation. In a nut shell, time bank credits value and reward the
time that people put into local projects. People can gain credits by giving their time, energy
and skills to volunteering projects as set out by Local Authorities and community residents
and groups. These credits can then be redeemed for cinema tickets, tickets to local events,
or discounts at local shops or on recreational activities.

How have they been used? Time banking has become increasingly well established across
Britain, with over 109 active time banks and 8000 active participants. The most commonly
used models in the UK today are;

Person-to-person time banks; These work by linking people together and helping them
share their skills, effort and time. By doing a favour for someone else in the network,
helping Doris do her shopping or giving Brian a hand fixing his fence, you gain credits. These
credits can then be exchanged for the help of other people in the network, Janet for
example might be able to help you set up your new computer etc.

Person-to-agency (group); In this case you gain credits for doing activities set by an agency
or group (such as a housing association or community group). These credits can then be
redeemed for rewards set up by the agency or group, often in partnership with local
businesses5.

Approach Role of Agency (group) Key Outcomes

Person-to-Person  Host  Builds social capital and
 Administrator community networks
 Organisational Member  Engages hard to reach
 Generates trust and reciprocity

Person-to-Agency  Catalyst to engage people in the  Builds social capital and

design and delivery of services community networks
 Issuer of credits and creator of  Engages hard to reach
rewards with partners  Transforms service delivery
through co-production

5
New economics foundation (2008) “The New Wealth of Time: how timebanking helps people build better
public services”, nef (WWW) (http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/new-wealth-time)
A good example of time banking can be seen in Spice’s work with the TAFF housing
Association in Cardiff. The aim of the project was to broaden and deepen resident
engagement in the design and delivery of services. Particular emphasis was placed on
young, single female tenants. Tenants are rewarded for offering their time to a number of
TAFF projects, including;

 Attending association meetings

 Taking part in focus groups and interviews
 Writing articles for the TAFF newsletter
 Helping to arrange events and trips for residents
 Watering communal plants or doing communal shopping
 Initiating events or creating new clubs
In return credits are accepted by local leisure and arts centres and the Cardiff Rugby team.
The project is facilitated by Spice and funded by Cardiff City Council Housing.

How else could they be used? The range of social issues that time banking can ameliorate is
broad, from social housing, antisocial behaviour, mental illness, social isolation, criminal
reoffending etc. Time banking has also proven to be particularly useful in engaging
traditionally hard to reach groups; BME, military, Students and Youth6. The Clapham Park
Time Bank, funded by the Clapham Park New Deals for Communities, for example has
proven successful in offering young offenders and vulnerable adolescent’s positive
relationships and role models and opportunities to pursue an alternative path, avoiding
truancy and petty crime.

Complexity: Time banks are a

good example of an approach
where a small dedicated core Collective Person-to-person
of well organised people is capacity
4
needed to put in a lot of Person-to-agency
3
effort in order to mobilise the
2
more modest efforts of lots Risk
1
Time
of other people. Time banks 0
are not always going to be
fast starters, time will be
required to set them up and Resources Partners
drum up initial interest.
However, once they have
been set up they often yield
6
New economics foundation (2008) “The New Wealth of Time: how timebanking helps people build better
public services”, nef (WWW) (http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/new-wealth-time)
quick results as people start to get involved. Depending on the type of time bank you set up
you may wish to avoid involving lots of partners. Peer-to-peer time banks for example do
not require the help of other partners, but peer-to-agency time banks might – although it is
likely that these will be local partners. The more incentives you wish to offer, the more
partners will need to be involved and the more complex the approach will become as a
result. The same goes for resources – time banks can be resource intensive or resource light.
Finally, time banks can be said to be a low risk approach. This is because most time banks
grow incrementally as people join them; if you fail to attract people onto the scheme you
are unlikely to have lost anything.

Efficacy: Time banks are generally very effective at encouraging people to do more in their
community. They help people link in to volunteering opportunities and then reward them
for doing so. They help develop social capital in communities and have often been used to
reduce the effects of loneliness and mental health issues. They can also be used to address
specific community issues. For example they can be effective at reducing levels of Anti-
Social Behaviour by providing young people with diversionary activities, and at the same
time they can contribute to things such as the beautification of the public spaces in the
community by setting litter picking or tree planting as one of the volunteering tasks people
can get involved in. A well run time bank can therefore have multiple outcomes.

Associated Approaches: pledge banking, the Woolwich model, social enterprises,

community asset transfers

Key Skills:

Useful Links: new economics foundation (2001) Time Banks: a radical manifesto for the UK,
http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/time-banks; Spice website -
http://www.justaddspice.org/
Fundraising
About Fundraising: when thinking about starting up and/or sustaining a community project,
venture or enterprise it may be necessary to consider the range of different funding options
that are available to you. Here we will discuss briefly how to raise grant funds. This is not to
say that this is the only route to securing funds, indeed there are many other options –
including local charity and fundraising events – but we have found that more significant
funds can be obtained through grants.

There are three main types of funding available to third sector groups:
1. Grants – Organisations compete to get funding from grant makers to deliver time-limited
projects. This is the focus of this guide. There are three main types of grant.

 Public – This might be local (for instance the Council), regional (e.g. the London
Development Agency), or national (e.g. the Arts Council), but is likely to focus on
specific priorities

 National Fundraisers – A mixture of more open programmes, with some

targeting, these are public funds delivered through an independent body (e.g.
Lottery or Comic Relief)

 Trusts and Foundations – Wide variety of funding from different bodies, from
major corporations to family trusts, supporting a wide range of objectives

2. Contracts – Organisations compete to deliver a service on behalf of a particular body (often

statutory sector services). Competitive process usually allocated through commissioning.
See www.fundingcentral.org.uk/Page.aspx?SP=6090

3. Loan Finance – A new tool, loans are used to bridge gaps between grants or to ease cash
flow, but will only be available where you can demonstrate how the loan will be repaid. See
www.fundingcentral.org.uk/Page.aspx?SP=6059

Complexity: Obtaining funding is never easy; people will rarely give away money unless they
can see clearly that you are going to be able to make the most out of it. Applying for funding
will take time to do properly. You will have to demonstrate that you have the capacity to
use the money effectively and that you are in a place to benefit a wide amount of people, or
make significant changes to the lives of a targeted few. You need to remember that many
trusts will be looking to make sure that you are not too risky an option. Having said this you
need not be daunted. There are a number of trusts that are looking to invest in new
ventures and exciting, motivated people. What follows is an overview of how to approach
funding applications, this will hopefully make the process seem clearer and more accessible:
 1. Preparation

Developing your Vision: Being clear about what your group does and what it wants to achieve will
help you identify the right funding opportunities and make it easier for funders to see how you fit
with their own objectives.

If you are not clear as a group what your vision is, take a little time to discuss this and agree it
collectively. The following questions might help you define this:
 Why was the group set up?
 Why did I join the group?
 What are we trying to achieve?
 What does it look like if we are successful?

Fundraising Strategy: The next step is to identify how and where grant funding can help and plan
how to get it. Groups and organisations with funding strategies tend to be more successful because
their applications are better targeted and more easily understood by the funder.

Defining Projects: Grants tend to fund projects. Projects are clearly defined activities that have a
beginning, middle and end. The first step is to turn your vision into a project or a number of projects.
For each project defined, set out the following:
 A short description of the project
 Agree bullet point aims and objective
 What kind of change is the project looking to make (outcome)
 Set out what a successful project will look like and how you measure it (output)
 Identify what you need to undertake the project, do you need premises, equipment, staff,
training

2. Applying for Funding

Tips for Good Applications:

Tailor your Application - You already know you meet the criteria, but there are other small
things you can do to help make sure your application looks like a good fit. For instance try to
use the same language and key words and phrases that the funder uses.
Be Clear and Use Plain Language - When writing it is easy to forget that the reader knows
less about your project than you do. Ask friends with little or no knowledge of your project
to read drafts and check how well they can understand it.
Demonstrate Need and How your Project Addresses it - When setting out your vision (see
Part 2) you detailed who you are targeting and why. This is the need. Try to demonstrate
this by seeking out relevant statistics if available (see Common Questions – Outcomes
below). Clearly state how your project addresses these and how people will benefit.
Show Your Project is Well Planned -Take the funder through the project and how you are
going to do it step-by-step. Let them see you have thought it through. Show that you know
how you will measure what your project has achieved and the difference it has made.
Show Your Project will be Well Managed -Be clear about who is responsible for the
delivering the different parts of the project. Who will oversee the project to make sure it is
achieving what you have set out. How will you know if the project does not seem to be
delivering as expected and what would happen in that instance?

Provide Accurate Costs -You have already identified what you need for your project and
have an idea of cost. For the application this should be as accurate as possible, detailing
costs for each item. Funders can be suspicious of rounded-up figures. £1002.45p suggests a
greater level of research than £1,000.
Outcomes/Outputs and Measuring Success - Many funders want to know how you will
measure success. There are two broad types of measures:

Outcomes are broader measures of success. For instance by promoting healthy

eating you hope to reduce levels of obesity. These are usually requested in bigger
applications where the project can contribute to wider strategic objectives.

Outputs relate more directly to the project at hand. For instance they might measure
the number of people who take up local food growing, or the numbers of people
attending keep fit classes. These are measures that you control directly within the
project.
SMART Measures - Some funders will ask you to make any measures SMART. By this they
mean:

 Specific – That they a clear, well defined and relevant to the project
 Measurable – You have a way to judge whether you are successful
 Achievable – You are clear about how targets will be achievable
 Realistic – The targets can be achieved
 Time specific – You are clear about when targets will be met
Evaluation - Some funders ask for you to undertake an evaluation of your project. An evaluation
usually has two parts. The first part is quantitative which analyses performance against the outputs
and outcomes you have set out. The second is qualitative which looks at the experience from the
point of view of all those involved including your beneficiaries, and can be collected through surveys
or focus groups for instance.
If you are asked to undertake an evaluation, think about the following:
1. Are the outcomes and outputs I have set out enough?
2. How will we collect qualitative information?
3. Who will undertake the evaluation (it is better an experienced and independent organisation
does this to avoid bias)
 4. Have I included any costs involved in the grant application.

3. After the Decision

If you are successful… Applying for funding can seem like the be-all and end-all. It is easy to forget
that it is only the beginning. The hard work is still to come, namely delivering the project. Below are
some of the things you will need to think about as early as possible, preferably during the application
stage.

Documentation - Sign and return any contract or agreements provided along with any policies or
standards required as a condition of funding. Don’t delay hoping this might buy you more time – this
can give the funder early cause for concern.

Systems - There are two main systems you will need in place:
 Finances to monitor spend over time and to evidence that spend.
 Output Monitoring to monitor progress against your targets and to demonstrate this. For
example this could be attendance registers or participants monitoring forms.

A Flying Start - Some tasks take longer than you might imagine. Getting staff and recruiting
volunteers and beneficiaries are common causes for delay. Be ready to go as soon as you have your
decision and use the most efficient means available.

And if you are not… Don’t despair. Any fundraiser who tells you they have never failed with a
funding application is either very lucky, is not telling you the whole truth or not they have really
done very many. It happens to us all.

The important part is to learn why and make sure the next application is even better. Contact the
funder and get feedback on where the application was weak. Don’t be defensive. Instead be open
and try to get as much information as you can. Use the opportunity to build that relationship even
more for next time.

Useful Links:

Research Opportunities: If undertaking a funding search yourself, the following are useful
resources. Funding Central is a free website for all third sector organisations, including community
groups, providing access to thousands of funding opportunities, as well as a wealth of advice. You
can create a profile that will inform you of opportunities that match your criteria when they become
available. GrantFinder is a similar tool. An individual subscription is costly, but there may be a fee-to-
use GrantNet Access Point near to you providing you with free access. To find out go to
http://www.grantnet.com and enter your postcode. The Directory of Social Change has four
subscription-based tools including http://www.trustfunding.org.uk .
Network Weaving
About the Approach: as the name suggests, network weaving is about building – or weaving
– social networks in a community. This approach understands a community as a complex
network, a dense assemblage of people who in varying ways are more or less linked to one
another. The idea is simple; that if we help people to better connect with each other,
building new networks where there are none and growing already established sets of
relationships where they exist, we can enhance local social capital - bonding people
together in relationships of trust and reciprocity and linking people to those with power and
influence. Network weaving then is a process of enhancing social capital, getting people to
know each other better, introducing people to new people and reducing social isolation and
exclusion. In time it is believed our communities will become more vibrant, more resilient
and more adaptive to change because of these connections. In Network Theory language a
well connected community will be likely to have ‘emergent’7 characteristics where there are
multiple sites of energy and potentially citizen/community activity, without a central
decision maker.

How does it work? Community workers Krebs and

Holley have outlined four stages of network weaving
in a community. In the first stage, the ‘scattered
fragments’ phase, we see a community with
fragmented networks and relationships, but with little
coordination or joining up. In this situation a ‘hub’ is
needed to join the scattered networks together and
move to the next
stage – the ‘hub-
spoke’ stage. The
hub in this stage
could simply be a
well placed
member of the
community or it
could be a
physical place where people can meet – such as a local
community centre. Once a common point of contact has
been made, i.e. the hub, the aim is that networks grow
between the scattered fragments, weaving a much more
complex and densely connected web where in time
multiple hubs (again key people or places; pubs, cafes,
meeting halls etc.) develop – the ‘multiple hub’ stage.

7
A concept denoting self-organising properties without central command
Importantly, there are now fewer, if any, people with no connections and due to a cascading
effect people with only one direct relationship will be connected to many others by
different degrees of separation. These networks are now also likely to have a mixture of
strong ties – that is to say strong relationship bonds, like we have with very close friends
and family – and weaker ties – such as those we have with an acquaintance. Where these
continue to develop and grow we see the emergence of the ‘core-periphery’ stage89.

The network weaving model could work as a good platform from which to facilitate multiple
community responses without the need for constant, central control. To do this a communal
space is needed where people can get together and are given the freedom to define their
own agendas. Open space workshops for example bring people together without a decided
upon agenda. Instead the participants shape discussions as they go along by raising an issue
and then encouraging people to discuss it with them. In this way one workshop can
simultaneously catalyse the coming together of multiple groups defined by the issues that
they care about. They could then be encouraged to create action plans and supported to get
in touch with those, in the public or third sectors for example, that can help them move
things forward.

Complexity: In practice Network

Collective
Weaving is much less complex and
capacity
abstract than the theory makes it out to 4
be. Many community development 3
practitioners will already be used to 2
Risk Time
working in similar ways to those 1
described above. There are also very 0

few costs associated with this approach,

in fact – apart from offering
Resource
refreshments – there need be no real s
Partners
additional costs than those associated
with holding regular residents or
community meetings. Financial risk is
therefore low; indeed as a process led approach there are very few risks associated with
network weaving, save raising expectations. This being said, running open space workshops
does require strong facilitative and partnership skills (you will need to engage multiple, local
partners). It can also be difficult to mobilise residents to come to a community meeting;
many have become frustrated and disenfranchised with past meetings where they feel they
are not being listened to, that they have limited influence and that little more is achieved
than endless talk. Finally, whilst there may be initial outcomes from open space workshops,

8
Rowson, J, Broome, S and Jones, A (2010) Connected Communities: How social networks power and sustain
the Big Society, RSA Projects: Connected Communities
9
Krebs, V and Holley, J (2006) “Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving”, (WWW)
(http://www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf)
the process of Network weaving and arriving at emergence is likely to take time to set up,
especially in communities characterised by ‘scattered fragments’, and gains are not likely to
be immediately visible.

Efficacy: Network weaving builds social capital in a community. In and of itself this can be a
very powerful thing. A well connected community will be much better placed to address
local issues than disjointed and fragmented communities. As mentioned it is also a good
way of building a platform and a new set of flexible processes that can help mobilise people
in new ways, giving them the chance to lead on identifying their issues, designing solutions
to them and planning for locally led action. This is worlds apart from the plenary and
consultative style that many active citizens will be used to seeing. Network weaving goes
beyond specific issues and specific interventions. Network weaving however can be used to
address specific issues such as feelings of social isolation, disconnection, low influence and
powerlessness.

Associated Approaches: as a platform for community responses this approach could sit
behind and support almost any community response in this catalogue. Some of the more
closely associated responses include; Community organising, mobilising and engaging, and
fundraising.

Key Skills: Mobilising, engaging, facilitation, and partnership building

Useful Links: Valdis Krebs and June Holley, Building Smart Communities Through Network
Weaving, http://www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf
Community Organising
About the Approach: Community organising has received a lot of attention recently, mostly
thanks to its affiliation with Barak Obama. The theory behind it is very simple; People united
and organised have the collective power to pressure and bring about change on issues that
they define. This means that Community organising is not always about working in
partnership with actors like local government or the private sector. Historically, community
organising has mobilised people against vested interests that run contrary to the public
good or social justice.

The aim of Community Organising is to bring together existing groups and forums within a
defined area to agree a single issue that all are committed to tackling, or lobbying and
campaigning on. The process in its current form is broadly as follows:

 A Community Organiser takes a lead in a geographic area

 Existing organisations (such as schools, residents associations, trade unions and
religious organisations) are approached and nominate ‘local leaders’.
 Community Organiser spends ‘one-to-one’ time to get to know local leaders and
what drives them, and what are the key local issues. This is crucial to developing
relationships at the outset before action is taken.
 The Community Organiser will then mentor local leaders, developing leadership
skills, understanding and motivation. At the stage local leaders come together
creating understanding across organisations
 Local leaders are then asked to go back into their organisations and communities to
identify local issues using similar techniques
 These issues are then brought back, and issues in common are shortlisted
 A wider community forum votes to agree which of the shortlisted issues is prioritised
 Community Organiser facilitates (with the local leaders) the process of developing
effective strategies and plans, and reviewing and adjusting as necessary
 Process begins again (although shortened the second time around)

How has it been used? The interest in community organising has been growing in the UK
over the last few months as the government have endorsed a national programme to train
5000 community organisers in the next two years. However, community organising is
already being done in the UK through Citizens UK the “national home of community
organising”. Since its beginnings in 1989 Citizens UK has grown rapidly. Much of their work is
focused on London where they have most famously campaigned and secured in many places
the implementation of the London Living Wage. They are also working to make London’s
streets safer for young people by setting up over 200 safe havens in partnership with local
businesses and public buildings. At a national level Citizens UK’s work includes campaigning
against the detention of children and for 1% of the £1 trillion bank bailout to be used as
mutual lending money in deprived areas.
As they put in themselves:

This is an experiment in democracy and the exercise of civic power. The

analysis behind community organising is that power has been concentrated in
the hands of a small and largely unaccountable minority in the worlds of
politics and business. Ordinary people feel powerless to influence the
decisions which affect their lives. This is dangerous for democracy. It is
dangerous for politics. When politics fail, violence is the resort of the
desperate.

Our answer is to organise people through the places where they have regular
contact with their neighbours – faith institutions and workplaces and
educational establishments. Our experience of practising broad based
community organising across the UK has confirmed for us that the threads
that once connected the individual to the family, the family to their
community and the community to the wider society are fraying and in danger
of breaking altogether. We believe these strands, connections and alliances
are vital for a healthy democracy and should be the building blocks of any
vibrant civil society.10

How else can it be used? As a process and technique of mobilisng citizen power, community
organizing can be (and has been) used for a diverse number of ends, such as; improving
housing quality, raising the level of minimum wages, addressing youth crime, fighting
against asylum deportation, ensuring the 2012 London Olympics stays true to its promises,
and many others besides. The idea broadly speaking is that it gives voice to citizens and
helps them hold governments and businesses to account for their actions. Currently most
community organizing in the UK takes place beyond the very local level. Citizens UK for
example operates at a pan-borough level at its most local. Questions are now being asked
about how community organizing might work at a neighborhood level so that it might
become a tool for communities of place use. There are still a number of unresolved
questions about how this might work, but the idea of organizing people around very local
issues – such as library closures or unhealthy living conditions of particular estates is very
interesting.

Complexity: As might be expected community organizing is no quick fix solution. It is a

technique which requires a lot of time, effective partnership working with multiple partners,
a fairly high level of collective capacity and resources too. Community organizing works
because it forges partnerships between institutions, such as faith based groups, trade
unions, and voluntary and community groups, to create a strong degree of collective
capacity. Campaigns and projects that community organizing methods have traditionally

10
CitizensUK (2010) “History”, (WWW) http://www.citizensuk.org/about/history/
 Collective
dealt with require support (in capacity
terms of time, effort and 4

money) from a lot of people, 3

groups and institutions. This in 2
turn means that there will be a Risk Time
1
plurality of ideas, interests,
aims, values, morals and 0
methods which will need to be
negotiated. The key here is to
find those common issues,
such as the Living Wage, which Resources Partners
transcend other differences
and which unite people behind
a common purpose. Unsurprisingly this can take a lot of time; time to decide upon a
campaign and project and then time to organize and execute action. As noted community
organizing also requires resources to be invested, including financial resources. Many
community organizing groups prefer to fund their own projects – Citizens UK for example
have refused government funding in the past. This is because community organizers prefer
to stay accountable solely to the communities they advocate, campaign and act for and
with. Finally there is a fairly high level of risk associated with community organizing. This is
because community organizing by its very nature is politically adversarial; that is to say, it
actively seeks to challenge the status quo. This often means coming into conflict with other
local institutions, local authorities and businesses too.

Efficacy: Past campaigns by Citizens UK attest to how successful community organizing can
be, even when addressing difficult and structural issues like acceptable minimum wage
levels. Furthermore, community organizers are usually keen to stress that the ends is not
the only beneficial output; the very process of organizing communities helps promote
bonding and bridging social capital, fostering greater understanding between diverse groups
and injecting some much needed action and vibrancy into public life. The question will now
be how well community organizing can work at very local levels to help make change at the
‘nano’ level of the neighborhood. How well will it work as a place-making method?

Associated Approaches:

Useful Links: the Citizens UK website - http://www.citizensuk.org/; a useful summary of

Saul Alinsky and his principles of community organizing can be found here -
http://www.infed.org/thinkers/alinsky.htm
Social Media Networking
About the Approach: Social media websites such as facebook, twitter and youtube have
become a pervasive part of many people’s lives; facebook alone has over 200 million active
users worldwide. The internet itself has now become more interactive and vibrant; whereas
in the past it acted as a virtual library where users were passive recipients of information,
now the internet provides an interactive experience, enabling people to actively contribute
to ideas and debated by posting their thoughts. This has led people to think of ways in
which these websites can be used to support local democracy and enhance decision making
at micro-scales. Social media connects people in a dynamic and flexible way, we believe that
it can improve communication between local authorities and agencies and their citizens and
community groups; we believe that it can improve engagement techniques and help enable
people to become more active in their local areas. Social media could be seen as an integral
part of any community response.

How can it be used? Although the internet and social media websites enable us to become
far more global in our outlook, a great deal of people using the internet do so to find out
more about their local area. Indeed it is believe that 1 in 4 web searches are for local
information11. The potential uses for social media to help network people locally and to
support community responses to local issues are huge. Social media websites can:

Connect people directly: Many councillors now use facebook and twitter, enabling citizens
to put questions directly to them without going through formal channels. These sites also
enable officials to set up a profile, and put a face to a name as it were. Facebook can also be
used by community groups as a virtual space where they can get together and chat and
share stories and information.

Keep people informed quickly and efficiently: local authorities and community groups can
keep people up to date on a rolling, minute by minute basis. This makes them more
responsive. This can be used for a wide range of issues; updating people about road
closures, about snow hazards, about changes to meetings etc. Through facebook and twitter
information can be instantaneously disseminated to very large audiences.

Help people contribute to debate and discussions virtually and interactively: One of the
main strengths about social media is that they open two way streets of communication.
The following twitter discussion illustrates the power of this well;

11
Young Foundation (2010) Joining the Conversation: a guide to neighbourhood media, the Young Foundation
(WWW) http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/Joining_the_Conversation.pdf
 Facebook can also be used to get ideas from
citizens about how an area could be improved,
acting as an ideas bank. There is also the
potential to use these sites as fora where people
can give feedback on how well they think the
council are doing and what they think could be
improved.

Complexity: Using social media,

Collective
though daunting for many first time capacity
users, is very easy. The websites are 4
designed to be user friendly and 3
intuitive. Training may well be 2
needed, but this can be very informal Risk Time
1
and certainly does not need expert
trainers; family members and friends 0

can teach you how to use these

websites in minutes. Initially it may
be difficult to encourage people to
use social media. Building a network Resources Partners
from people that do not use
facebook will take some initial time
and effort, and because people may be reluctant users at first may time a while for results
to show too. However setting up a network does not take a significant amount of initial
collective capacity. As long as one person can use these tools they can quickly train others,
who in turn can train more people too. These sites can therefore build collective capacity
fairly quickly. A community group that wants to use facebook for example simply needs to
set up their members with accounts and create an event page. From then on any member
can contribute and add their own content easily. In the long run this will save time as
communicating through these sites is so quick and easy. Another benefit of social media
sites is that they are free to use, with no charges. The simplicity of these methods also
reduces risk; there is no financial risk for example, and although there are potential risks to
personal data, these are issues that concern all internet use and not only social websites.
Indeed the amount of information and the security of your information can be controlled by
you. Finally, the need for partner buy in will depend on purpose of use. If you want to use
these methods to communicate better with local authorities and other agencies there may
be some initial obstacles. Many Local Authorities are still wary of the use of social media –
the police in particular. However, with the push for new engagement techniques this is
likely to become much less of a problem in the future.

Efficacy: Social Media Networks have the potential to greatly improve communication and
engagement between citizens and between citizens and the public sector. They are intuitive,
interactive, and instantaneous means of communication. In this way they can also be
empowering. However, it should be noted and considered that these methods have the
capacity to exclude too. There will be many people unwilling and/or unable to engage with
these methods – they require access to a computer, access to the internet and basic
computer literacy; all of these may be barriers. Social media sites are not, therefore, a
panacea. They should not be used as the only forms of engagement, but as one of many
others – including more traditional means such as letters, leaflets and word of mouth.

Associated Approaches: this approach could support any other response in this catalogue,
and indeed many others. Social media networks are about engaging people and
communicating with them, they have almost universal applicability in this regard.

Useful Links: www.facebook.com, www.twitter.com, the Young Foundation have also

written good introductory guide as part of their “local 2.0” project:
http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/Joining_the_Conversation.pdf
Addressing Issues
The approaches in this section are designed to address some of the most
commonly occurring community issues – such as anti-social behaviour and
degrading physical environments – in a direct way; dealing simultaneously
with the manifestations of problems and their causes. To do this many of
these approaches seek to bring about some level of behavioural change,
either through gentle ‘nudges’ or through ‘think’ techniques. We believe that
to successfully implement these approaches a certain level of capacity is
needed (as was dealt with in the last section) however it is not the case that
communities need build this capacity before attempting any of the following
approaches. Indeed, rather than being a prerequisite, capacity can be built
incrementally through more direct problem solving approaches such as those
which follow.
Rewards and Incentives – addressing ASB
About the Approach: Rewards schemes are designed to change people’s behaviour and
instigate pro-social activity by providing tangible and desirable incentives such as rewards
and public recognition. These schemes can either reward a passive desisting of unwanted
behaviour, or require a more proactive demonstration of pro-social behaviour, or a mixture
of both.

How have they been used? Perhaps the most well known examples of how such a scheme
can work is the Irewell Valley Housing Association ‘Gold Service’, where residents are
encouraged to behave well (pay rents on time and behave socially) through a system of
strong incentives; reduced rents, faster service responses, insurance discounts, and
shopping vouchers etc. Young people for example are encouraged to contribute to their
local communities through initiatives such as helping neighbours carry shopping through the
Dream Scheme, which rewards such efforts with points towards day/weekend trips. Other
residents can get discounts at a variety of local and national businesses. For example;
“Vision Select offers discount on spectacles, local garden centres offer discounts on plants
and tools, and via Countdown cards which are issued to all Gold Service members and which
can secure discounts of up to 20%”12.

How else could they be used? The Irewell Valley rewards scheme is an example of how
incentives can work on a large scale, with considerable resources. However rewards and
incentives can also be used to incentivise behaviour change at a much smaller scale, with
more modest resources to hand. The key is identifying local resources and being strategic
about local opportunities for partnership. We are used to hearing of the hidden wealth of
nations – the latent skills and talents of people that lie dormant, ready to be used – and this
is certainly true of people in our communities. The School of everything is a great example of
a scheme that matches talented people (talented musicians, skilled computer whizzes,
expert masseurs) with people eager to learn new skills. It is informal adult education at its
best. A local rewards scheme could look to mobilise these latent community resources and
market them as rewards to young people. Local businesses could also be approached in a
similar way. So although multiple resources are needed, they do not necessarily need to be
great in cost.

Complexity: The complexity of this approach will depend on the scope of the incentives and
the numbers of people involved, however as a general rule these schemes do take a lot of
organisation, capacity, time, partnership working and, as noted, multiple resources
(although of varying levels). A scheme on the scale of the Gold Service is expensive, it
requires the buy in from a wide range of partners, it needs strong leadership capacity, and is
risky; it will not guarantee results. However, rewards and incentives will also work on a

12
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) “Incentives and Beyond?”, ODPM (WWW)
(http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/323444.pdf)
much smaller scale, becoming less complex as a result. Costs can be reduced by partnering
with local businesses and
Collective
organisations, such as football capacity
clubs, independent cinemas and 4

other social/cultural clubs. 3

Rewards can also be offered by 2
local residents who could, for Risks Time
1
example, run sporting or training
0
courses to engage people.

Efficacy: The effectiveness of

rewards and incentive schemes is
contested. In certain cases such as Resources Partners
the Irewell Valley Housing
Association they have proven to be
very successful, in other places less so. Two main lessons have come out of past examples;
First, when incentivising people it is often more effective to encourage group incentives, as
positive peer pressure can help keep people motivated. Secondly, it is also worth involving
the target group in the design of these schemes to ensure that incentives are attractive and,
if you are trying to instigate pro-social behaviour, that you have buy their in from the start;
getting people to sweep corridors will probably be less successful that asking them to get
involved in mentoring or vocational courses.

Associated Approaches: Time banking, Pledge Banking, Community Dividends

Useful Links: Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007) Rewarding Young People for Pro-Social
Behaviour, JRF (WWW) http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/rewarding-young-people-pro-
social-behaviour
The Woolwich Model/ Conflict Diffusion

About the approach: one the most common and persistent issues that communities face is
anti-social behaviour (ASB). ASB comes is a variety of forms, from low level nuisance and
noise pollution to more serious intimidation, prostitution and violent behaviour and causes
a serious drain on community spirit and individual wellbeing.

Coming from the RSA13, the Woolwich model is an innovative, skills based model of co-
producing community policing. Based on the principles of first aid, the Woolwich model
advocates training key local figures (park keepers, care takers, community and youth
workers) as well as shopkeepers, publicans and interested members of the public more
broadly, in how to deal with low-level incivility and ASB. The skills include;

 How to read situations: knowing when it is safe to intervene, and when trained
police officers are needed.
 How to resolve conflicts: Understanding the skills needed to diffuse a situation,
notably meditative and restorative skills.
 How to protect yourself and others: Emphasising the importance of being able to
restrain someone in a last case scenario.

How is it used? This model has been designed specifically with low-level ASB in mind, and
would be aimed at diffusing and dealing with issues including; teenagers hanging around on
streets, drug dealing, nuisance behaviour, vandalism, property damage, theft, drunken
disorder and noisy neighbours. A common problem identified by communities is that police
presence is inadequate during the evenings. The general public also feel wary about
intervening in ASB cases for fear that they may be attacked themselves or victimised later.
Training a number of respected people in the neighbourhood to deal with ASB as it occurs
and build up positive relations with young people based on mutual respect could potentially
go some way to resolving this issue, without constant recourse to the police.

Although the model is yet to be piloted by the RSA, the principles behind the idea have long
been put into practice by Dfuse. Dfuse is a CIC that has developed a community diffusion
and intervention curriculum which is currently, and successfully, being taught to businesses,
schools and community groups by trained police officers and professional hostage
negotiators. They teach people how to communicate in conflictual circumstances, how to
deescalate situations, cool people’s tempers and respond to risk. There are even self-
defence components just in case things boil over. Their aim is to empower people to deal
with conflict wherever they find it, at work, at home or on the streets.

How else could it be used? This approach is geared towards resolving conflict defined in its
broadest sense. Skills gained from these approaches could therefore be used in a variety of
13
Rogers, B (2010) “The Woolwich Model: can citizens tackle anti-social behaviour”, RSA: Pamphlets, (WWW)
(http://www.thersa.org/about-us/rsa-pamphlets/the-woolwich-model)
contexts and are not limited to ASB or physical conflicts. Indeed people who have gained
these skills are likely to become good facilitators too. The Citizens University, a project that
will hit streets in April 2011, demonstrates the variety of skills that can be taught to ordinary
people through short courses held at high street locations. Skills to be taught will include
first aid, how to set up community activities and projects, and skills in deescalating conflicts.

Complexity: Setting up an initial Collective

community policing model requires capacity
4
buy in from a core number of people
who are willing to put in quite a lot of 3

effort in a well organised way. It is also 2

critical that you get buy in from the Risk Time
1
police; they are a key partner in this
0
process and you will need to work
closely with them. They may even be
required to provide training to those
residents willing to get involved. As
Resources Partners
this approach is skills based and
training will be required you will need
to gain a high level of expertise; this could be done through the police or through a specialist
third sector agency, such as Dfuse. If the latter option is chosen you will also most likely
have to raise financial resources too. Given the level of training needed this approach will
take some time to get off the ground, however the results should be seen quickly if the
project is successful. Finally, it must be recognised that this approach does involve a fairly
high level of individual, political and institutional risk.

Efficacy: it is important to note that conflict diffusion techniques will not solve ASB issues;
ASB is the product of a more fundamental social malaise, the roots of which go deeper than
the actual event which approaches such as the Woolwich model address. They are incident
based responses and work to reduce the impact or effect of ASB as it occurs. This being said
they do make people feel more confident about intervening to address ASB events in their
local area, and this in turn makes them feel less helpless and better about themselves. If
enough people are trained in this way it would send the message that the local community
are ready and willing to take back their spaces; this, in and of itself, can discourage ASB.

Associated Approaches: restorative justice, time banks, pledge banks, and

rewards/incentives.

Useful Links: The Dfuse website - http://www.dfuse.org.uk/; the Citizens University website
- http://citizensuniversity.org.uk/; the Woolwich model pamphlet -
http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/327082/0882RSA_21CE_benrogers_w
eb.pdf
Restorative Justice
About the Approach: Where the Woolwich model might be described as a community
model of policing, restorative practices can be described as community methods of Justice.
Restorative justice is an umbrella term used to describe a family of approaches that seek to
heal harm caused by conflict, such as ASB, by bringing both the victim and perpetrator
together. Rather than asking what happened, who is responsible and what punishment is
appropriate (the formal judicial process), restorative justice asks what happened, who was
harmed and how can amends be made. More emphasis is placed on helping the perpetrator
accept what they have done, and understand the damage they have caused, whilst the
victim can convey their feelings and express their needs. Through this process the aim is to
reach an agreement on what action can be taken to heal the damage caused, this may
simply be a heartfelt apology.

In sum restorative practices are based on three principles;

 Victim Satisfaction – reducing the fear they feel and ensuring they believe that their
needs have been met and just action been taken
 Perpetrator Engagement – to ensure that they accept what they have done, make
steps towards healing the damage, and are not isolated by the process
 Community Capital – to ensure that the community feels confident that they can
trust the process to make fair and progressive decisions for all involved

How is it used? One of the benefits of restorative justice is its flexibility as a problem solving
approach to addressing ASB. There are a number of variants that in different contexts may
be more or less appropriate depending on the type of conflict, the number of people
involved and the varying needs of different stakeholders. Restorative methods can
therefore address small scale ASB where there is a clear victim and a clear perpetrator, or it
can address issues where the whole community is affected and there are numerous people
responsible for the nuisance and harm caused.

Restorative techniques work as a community alternative to formal processes of justice in

some of the most conflict affected communities in the world. Dominic Barter, an
internationally respected restorative practitioner, has applied restorative principles
throughout Sao Paulo, giving young criminals and drug offenders the option of going
through a restorative process instead of the police station14.

14
Gillinson, G, Horne, M, and Baeck, P (2010) “Radical Efficiency: Different, better, lower cost public services”,
Innovation Unit (WWW) http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/radical-efficiency180610.pdf
 Complexity: Restorative Collective
capacity
techniques require skilled 4
facilitation and support. There
3
needs to be a core group of
people in a community who are 2
able to lead restorative Risk Time
1
sessions, or circles, and so
0
initially training will be
required. This does not
necessarily mean that a great
deal of collective capacity is
needed however; it is more Resources Partners
likely that a small core group of
interested people would be
involved directly. They will have to give up free time as required, especially for training
which will be needed, but this should not be overly onerous and could be split between
several facilitators and police staff. Once people are trained the process can begin relatively
quickly, however results may not be immediately obvious. Initially people might be wary of
restorative processes and because they seek to address conflict there will always be an
element of risk to personal safety due to retribution. This approach therefore requires buy
in and support from key partners – in particular the local police force. The presence of the
police force at these sessions is necessary to minimise risk and ensure legitimacy. This
should not be too difficult as restorative practices are being recognised as legitimate and
progressive by police in the UK; indeed some forces are practicing it already. After the initial
costs associated of training restorative justice should save money in at least two ways; first,
they reduce the number of people who go through formal judicial processes and secondly
they can reduce rates of recidivism (see below).

Efficacy: Importantly, by placing

the emphasis on addressing
conflict head on, healing and
building relationships, restorative
techniques can help to reduce
reoffending and help people
within a community engage with
each other in more productive
and lasting ways. Formal
procedures rarely do this, in fact
they can often do the opposite. In
appropriate circumstances
restorative methods have
enabled communities to take more control of how justice is dealt out in their areas where
local people and local issues are involved and in the process help reintegrate offenders back
into local life. In Sao Paulo, for example, Dominic Barter’s restorative circles have cut
reoffending rates by 50%; an unprecedented level that the police were previously unable to
match.

Associated Approaches: the Woolwich model, time banks, pledge banks,

rewards/incentives

Useful Links: The innovation unit’s paper Radical Efficiency has a useful summary of
restorative justice http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/radical-
efficiency180610.pdf as does the online resource, asbonline, see
http://www.asbonline.org.uk/upload/documents/webpage/RJ%20Toolkitdec09.pdf
Taking Ownership
In certain circumstances there may be opportunities for communities to use
responses that as well as addressing the immediate issue also derives wider
community benefit beyond that issue through taking on greater control. In
this section we present three approaches which detail how this can be done;
setting up a social enterprise – taking control of the delivery of a service,
initiating a community asset transfer – taking ownership of underused land
or buildings for the communities benefit, and implementing a community
dividend – assuming responsibility (either in part or in whole) for an issue
and taking a cut of the associated public sector savings.
Social Enterprises
About the Approach: In the emerging Big Society agenda and the context of austerity cuts
the role of social enterprises is likely to become more and more important. Broadly speaking
social enterprises are very much like commercial businesses in the way that they run but
with one crucial difference. Like commercial businesses, social enterprises identify a need
and a market, and then seek to provide services accordingly. Unlike commercial businesses
however, the ultimate aim of a social business is not the maximisation of profits, but social
or environmental benefit – either to the general public, or a more specified target group.
Social enterprises do seek to make profit, however these profits are then reinvested back
into the business or community. The services that social enterprises provide are also likely
to address social challenges, either directly – by for example providing youth services for
looked after and vulnerable children – or indirectly – by investing profits in pro-social
causes.

How are they used? The UK is widely seen as an effective incubator of social enterprise.
Currently there are about 232,000 social enterprises in the UK, meeting needs as diverse as;
micro-financial lending, youth and children’s services, apprenticeships and work schemes,
peer-to-peer education, mental health and even data management. Most existing social
enterprises have been formed to meet needs that the public sector does not. There is also a
range of specialist national and regional umbrella bodies15 whose aim is to nurture and
support social enterprise from their fledgling beginnings all the way through to their scaling
up to national levels. As noted, in the current context, as libraries, children’s centres, old
peoples services and parks, bear the brunt of reduced financial support, the need for social
enterprise will increase.

The Scottish social enterprise Working Rite has recently received a number of plaudits for its
innovative work linking young NEETS with apprenticeship work – stressing the need to
provide young people with real work. Since it was set up in 2004 the Working Rite project
has supported hundreds of young people gain invaluable experience and skills. Furthermore
the project has now spread from Scotland into the north of England, with plans to scale up
further.

In 2009 “The Centre for Social Justice recognised the success and potential of Working Rite
by granting them their 2009 Award for Social Enterprise, saying that the organisation was an
‘excellent example of the third sector’s capabilities: providing innovative solutions to
problems that have long defeated the State’”16.

15
Including; The social enterprise coalition, UnLtd, Social Enterprise London, as well as number of regional
social enterprise partnerships from across the country.
16
Working Rite (n.d.) “Our Aims”, (WWW) http://www.workingrite.co.uk/aims.htm
Complexity: setting up a social Collective
Capacity
enterprise is no small task. 4
Ideally it should be taken as
3
seriously as starting up any
2
other small business. You are
Risk Time
likely to have to do a mixture of 1
the following; 0

Thorough market research – to

identify the need and the target
customers, and to gauge who
Resources Partners
else is providing similar
services, what gap in the
market you aim to fill, and how your service or product will fill this gap and provide a social
benefit. This will also be the time that you might wish to identify potential partners who can
help you – including other providers and regional/national umbrella organisations.
Stakeholders and Partners will invariably be important figures in the progression of a
community asset transfer, be they for better or worse. Put simply, stakeholders are all those
people, groups and institutions etc. That will in some way be affected by the project, or who
have the capacity to affect the project themselves. Not all stakeholders will be willing
partners. It is important
therefore at an early stage to
identify a full range of These stakeholders are These stakeholders are likely
stakeholders and assess what important, but may not to be instrumental to the
have a strong interest project, having high interest
roles different people or in your mission. They and high influence. It is
are a potential risk to important therefore that
groups might be able to play. the project and require strong working relations are
careful managing. maintained with these
You may need to work on
Influence

groups.
winning reluctant stakeholders
over, or to ensure that certain These stakeholders will These stakeholders are likely to
be of lower priority, but be the main beneficiaries of the
groups fears are taken into it might be a good idea project, people in the
to keep them informed community. It is important that
due consideration. and up to date where the project reflects this groups
they want. needs, and keeps these people
Stakeholder identification informed and engaged
then is about simultaneously
seeking opportunities and Interest

mitigating potential ‘risks’. The

stakeholder matrix to the right can help with this analysis.

Develop a strong identity – it is important that your business has a specific and tangible
vision, mission and set of aims. This will help people identify who you are, which will be
important for obtaining funding, and it will also help you focus the work that you do.
Develop a business plan – your business plan will help you ensure that your business is
viable. Like any business you will be required to invest resources to get the project off the
ground and consequently there is an element of risk involved (the amount depending on the
initial sum invested). The reason for this plan is threefold;
1. First, it can serve as the basis, or as a key component, of any proposal that your
group makes – such as a proposal to transfer the asset, or to raise funds.
2. Secondly, it is a useful way of communicating your ideas to potential or existing
partners.
3. Thirdly, a business plan is also a very good way of ensuring that your group has
thought of every aspect of your project and is clear about how things will progress. It
helps you to keep the project on track
No two business plans will ever be the same; indeed uniqueness is often an essential
component of a good business plan. There are a number of important elements however
that all business plans should contain; these have been listed in the template below.
A business plan does not have to be technical. Good business plans are simple, concise and
use plain English. The point is to try and convey all of the relevant information about your
project so that people will have a clear and complete view of what it is that you would like
to do.
Ideally the business plan should be drawn up collaboratively with all partners. This will
ensure that it is relevant and reflects everyone’s needs and hopes. It is also useful to think of
plans as drafts, because they will never be finalised. Plans are ongoing and there will always
be room and occasion for changes and improvements as the project moves through its
different stages. The ability to go back and revise aspects of a plan is not a sign of a poor
first plan, it is the sign of a responsive and reflective group.

The Business Plan Template

The Summary This provides a one page summary of the whole project; it is a summary of the
business plan. Although it is placed first, it is easier to write this last.
Your Organisation Describe your group, its history, its mission, vision and values, and who you are
working with.
The Project Here you need to describe the Project; what are the aims and objectives? Why
is now the time for this opportunity? Why is here the place? Who will benefit
from the project?
The Need Here you need to discuss the need which your project seeks to meet; describe
your intended beneficiaries, outline if there is any similar project being
undertaken in the area, talk about agencies that meet a similar need, identify
the potential for partnerships.
The Service Here you will need to talk about the service that you are providing through the
asset transfer; what services are on offer? How will they benefit the
community? How will it be delivered? Who will have access to it and when?
The Business Model A business model describes and explains how your venture will achieve its
objectives; importantly through the business model you will be expected to
explain how your venture works and how it will be sustainable (see below for
 more on sustaining your community asset).
Promotion Here you need to think about how you plan to spread the word, create
excitement and get people using the service that you are offering.
Management and A business plan should also talk about how the business is to be run on a day to
Operations day basis. Who makes decisions and how? Who will be responsible for what?
Who is ultimately accountable? Much of this information will be determined by
the legal organisational structure that you adopt.
The Financial Plan Here you will need to Describe your basic financial assumptions about funding,
staffing, and usage. What financial
Resources will you need? How will you raise the money?
Risk Assessment The purpose of this section is to demonstrate that all potential risks have been
identified, the level of likelihood that they will be an issue is recognised, and
that their potential impact on the plan has been acknowledged. You will then
need to detail how you would deal with these risks should they become an
issue.

Develop Organisational and Collective Capacity – Sooner or later you will need to think
about what organisational form your social venture will take. This involves important
questions of how the venture will be run, how decisions will be made, who will make them,
and how decision makers are held to account. There are a number of potential forms to
take, each with their benefits and drawbacks. What matters is choosing the model that best
suits your purpose; see below for some different models. Ensuring that you have the right
structures in place will help you sustain the social enterprise. The issue of sustainability is
especially important when a community group decide to set up a social enterprise; if this is
the case they will need to ensure that they have the collective capacity to continue their
work after staff begin to leave. If the enterprise is overly reliant on one or two key people
they are at risk of being unsustainable in the long run.

Community Interest Companies: Unincorporated Associations:

“Community Interest Companies (CICS) are limited
companies, with special additional features, created for
the use of people who want to conduct a business or other
activity for community benefit, and not purely for private
advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test"
and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established
for community purposes and the assets and profits are
dedicated to these purposes. Registration of a company
as a CIC has to be approved by the Regulator who also
has a continuing monitoring and enforcement role”.
Source: http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/
Industrial and Provident Societies: An
industrial and provident society is an organization
conducting an industry, business or trade, either as a co-
operative or for the benefit of the community. An IPS,
must meet a certain criteria. Either;
 Control of the society must be equal and based on the
„one person, one vote‟ priciple.
 Conduct of business must be to the mutual benefit of all
members
 The aim is to ensure a community of interest based on
something other than the amount of capital accrued.
Or:
The business is run in the interests of the public benefit,
and not that of its members. Profits are reinvested in the
business.
“This is the most common structure used by community
and voluntary organisations. It is usually suitable for
groups with low incomes, which are not employing staff or
acquiring property. The Charity Commission has
information on this structure in their publication “Choosing
and Preparing a Governing Document””.
Source:
http://www.lvsc.org.uk/Templates/information.asp?NodeID=9
0159
.
Companies Limited by Guarantee: these are
alternative forms of corporation, often used by NGOs,
membership organisations, clubs, students unions and
social enterprises. There are three main charechteristics
of these companies;
 They have a democratic structure; members
control the company and elect the board of
directors
 Members cannot benefit from any profits made
(not for profit)
 Management Committee member's liability is
limited to a nominal sum - usually not more than
£1 - which he or she pays if the company has
debts on winding up
*For more information about the most common legal structures used by social enterprises visit this
link: http://atu.org.uk/Document.ashx?ID=56

Unsurprisingly setting up a social enterprise will take time, considerable effort and
dedication. This is not a short term solution, when done well social enterprises can provide
sustainable and valued services which contribute greatly to addressing pressing social
challenges.

Efficacy: One of the main benefits of social enterprises is that, when they run well, they are
seen to be very responsive to the needs of their ‘clients’; this cannot always be said about
publicly provided services. They are also more adept in many circumstances at getting closer
to the root cause of social issues and have been shown to provide effective preventative
services.

Associated Approaches: community asset transfers, community dividends, pledge banks,

time banks

Useful Links: the social enterprise coalition is one of the largest umbrella bodies and has
some very useful information on its website - http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/; UnLtd
have a good track record of supporting small enterprises and budding entrepreneurs -
http://www.unltd.org.uk/; and Social Enterprise London is a good network for those in the
capital - http://www.sel.org.uk/
Community Asset Transfers: Taking ownership of Land and buildings
A marked feature of many communities is the presence of underused, derelict and unsightly
land. These pockets of space, often overgrown and heavily littered, are an eyesore, and can
drain people’s morale and negatively affect wellbeing. However, at the same time these
spaces represent a powerful latent resource waiting to be tapped. From a sight of decay,
communities can mobilise to create a new, clean and pleasant environment; a play area, a
skate park, even community allotments. Furthermore in doing this they not only transform
their local environment, they also create a focal resource for all of the community,
mobilising and engaging people in meaningful and sustained ways. The key to this is
ownership; ownership of the land, and therefore the power to change things. This is where
community asset transfers come in. Simply put a community asset transfer is the transfer of
underutilised public or private assets to communities on a temporary basis providing that it
is the interest of a greater public benefit. This typically involves the transfer of either land or
buildings, which are then transformed into vibrant hubs of community activity and energy.
Encouragingly since 2007 over 1000 public assets have been or are being transferred to
community groups.

Before and After – the transformation of Manhattan’s old, disused railway line in the city’s Meatpacking
district attests to the power of thinking creatively about run down space and the latent potential it holds for
public benefit. The once derelict site has now been transformed into New York City’s first elevated park, the
Highline.17

How have they been used? In 2003 a group of residents from Barrow-in-Furrow, unhappy
with a patch of underused and derelict land, came together to form the Marsh Street Arches
and Gardens CIC and take ownership of the derelict land from the Barrow Borough Council.
Since then they have transformed the area into “a green urban oasis for people of all
ages”18. Furthermore, as the Asset Transfer Unit comments: “the organisation are working
with Barrow Borough Council and serco, as part of the Advancing Assets for Communities

17
Murray, R, Caulier-Grice, J and Mulgan, G (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation (WWW)
(http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Social_Innovator_020310.pdf)
18
Marsh Street Arches and Garden CIC (n.d.) “About Us and Our Partners”,
(WWW)(http://www.marshstreetprojects.org.uk/about_marsh_street.php)
Programme, to negotiate the transfer of a derelict property bordering the garden and
several adjacent vacant railway arches. The transfer of these properties will allow the
organisation better access to the garden for the whole community, and enable them to
develop community and youth facilities in the empty archways”.

How else could they be used? Community Asset Transfers are also often used to transfer
the ownership of buildings to community groups, charities and social enterprises. These
buildings are then used for a variety of different purposes, such as community sports halls,
socially owned cafes and community libraries.

Complexity: Community Collective

capacity
asset transfers are not quick 4
fix solutions. They are long
3
term and sustainable ways
of ensuring clean, well 2
Risk Time
maintained and loved 1
environments or buildings. 0
They require a lot of
community capacity from a
dedicated core group of well
organised people, and they Resources Partners
can take a lot of time to
initiate – although results
can show quickly. They also require effective partnership working, often with multiple
partners at different levels, and multiple resources, although the extent will vary from
project to project. As a result these approaches can also involve a lot of financial, legal and
institutional risk and should be considered carefully.

Efficacy: if well conceived of, supported and managed a community asset transfer has the
potential to transform a localised area. Importantly, because there is now clear ownership
which rests with the community it is likely that the area will remain well maintained. As long
as the area remains a centre for local people to come and enjoy themselves the benefits can
be sustained. This solution however is space bounded. It will only have an effect in the
immediate area, and cannot therefore be seen as an approach to a borough wide
environmental issue.

Associated Approaches: This approach could be used, and enhanced, alongside Time Banks,
Community Dividends, and Community Clean Ups.

Key Skills: In order to ensure that this approach is successful attention must be paid to
forming associations, community mobilisation, fundraising/financing and campaigning.
Useful Links: The Asset Transfer Unit provides some of the most useful guides and toolkits
for people interested in community asset transfers; a list of these can be found here -
http://atu.org.uk/Support/toolkits
Community Dividends
About the Approach: Community Dividends are a means of rewarding people and
communities financially for addressing local issues and/or taking on local services thought
up by the Young Foundation, a think and do tank based in East London. In their own words;

‘Community Dividends are a new reward, intended to bolster existing

volunteerism and incentivise new local action, by financially rewarding
communities that take action themselves to tackle chronic issues in their local
area. For example, if an estate cuts the prescription drugs bill by half, or
reduce graffiti tags on street furniture by 75 per cent, then we argue they
should be rewarded with half of the saving to the state.’19

In practice community dividends can work by rewarding individuals and/or communities for
delivering services and positive outcomes that also save public money. The ultimate aim is
more responsive and ‘radically efficient’ services and responses that are also ultimately
more sustainable over time. A major benefit is that a saving accrued in one area can be
reinvested in another, potentially unrelated, area of concern. For example, a community
response to anti-social behaviour might lead to a significant saving on previous service
responses. As a reward, a % of that saving is reinvested back into the community – through
participative budgeting – and could feasibly be used to redecorate a local community
centre, or transform derelict land into an allotment etc.

As a step by step process community dividends could look like this;

19
Young Foundation (2010) “Public Services and Civil Society Working Together”, (WWW)
http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/reports/public-services-and-civil-society-working-together-
march-2010
How has it been used? Although there are few examples of formal community dividends in
practice, the idea behind them has been put into practice in a number of places. The
recycling charity WyeCycle is a good example. WyeCycle is a not-for-profit community
business recycling organisation based in Wye, Kent. From its beginnings in 1989 WyeCycle is
now involved in a range of community initiatives promoting recycling and re-usage;
organising a monthly ‘swap shop’, collecting green and kitchen waste to compost,
distributing organic vegetable waste etc.

In doing this WyeCycle has managed to change the local consumption and waste
management patterns, reducing kerbside waste from 1000 kilos to 250 kilos per household
per year in Wye and Brook. As a result the local council has been able to reduce refuse
collection and generate associated savings. These savings are then pumped back into
WyeCycle. This is therefore a form of community dividend.20

How else could it be used? There are a range of potential areas where community dividends
could be used to save public money and put much needed money into third sector
organisations. The Young Foundation provides another interesting one in their report based
on Fire Service savings.

The Issue: The Fire Service has identified a neighbourhood with a high incidence of
accidental fires. They have estimated that each fire costs on average £25,000 to
tackle.

The Agreement: The Fire Service has asked the members of the Neighbourhood
Watch to help them tackle the problem by providing advice and guidance to local
people on how to prevent fires. The Neighbourhood Watch group agree and the Fire
Service train five local people to provide fire safety advice and equipment to every
household in the neighbourhood. They agree that success would be a reduction in
the number of accidental fires in the next year, for which the Neighbourhood Watch
would receive £12,500 per fire (50 per cent of the overall saving), which they would
distribute through a participatory budgeting exercise.

Local Action: The five trained volunteers spend the year providing fire safety advice
with support from the Fire Service and other local agencies.

Community Dividend: At the end of the year the Fire Service calculate a 28 per cent
reduction in accidental fires, which results in £100,000 savings overall to the Fire
Service whose services are no longer required. As per the Agreement, the
Neighbourhood Watch group receive £50,000 (50 per cent of the saving) which they
20
Young Foundation (2006) “The potential for neighbourhood involvement in the design and delivery of public
services” (WWW) http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/NeighbourhoodDelv_july2006.pdf
 decide to distribute through a participatory budgeting exercise focused on young
people.

Complexity: for two main reasons

Collective
community dividends are likely to
capacity
be complicated in practice, if not 4
in theory. Firstly, they require buy 3
in from the relevant local
2
authority or agency – who are a Risk Time
1
key partner since they will be the
ones making the savings and 0
passing a cut of these on to the
community. Secondly, this
requires that the local authority
or agency can evidence a clear Resources Partners
financial saving. This will not
always be easy where services are
financed through multiple channels – with multiple partners potentially involved. If savings
can be evidenced then the idea should be appealing to local authorities, especially in the
current climate of local government austerity and cuts, because there will be little risk
involved where a community can prove it has the necessary capacity (which will vary
depending on the issue). This is because community dividends are not intended to see
communities take over services, but rather help streamline them and make them more
responsive and efficient. If a local authority or agency can see clear savings in the long run
they may also be willing to put some initial investment to boost community capacity and
resources.

Efficacy: as the WyeCycle case shows community dividends can successfully invest in and
encourage approaches that get to the heart of solutions. This is important as many services
and responses have in the past failed to affect much deeper than the surface of issues. If
well thought out, and in appropriate contexts, community dividends could help bring about
the necessary behavioural change needed to sustainable address local issues. Furthermore,
they will provide further funds that can be channelled into the local area as the community
sees fit. This will give communities financial autonomy and should help people to feel that
they have greater influence over shaping the places in which they live.

Associated Approaches: This approach may be well suited to sit behind and support the
following approaches; Restorative Justice, Conflict Diffusion and rewards/incentives. It could
also be linked to Time Banks and Pledge Banks

Useful Links: this paper, by the Young Foundation, provides more detail
http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/reports/public-services-and-civil-society-
working-together-march-2010
References

CitizensUK (2010) “History”, (WWW) http://www.citizensuk.org/about/history/

Duffy, B and Lee Chan, D (2009) “People, Perceptions and Place”, Ipsos Mori: Social
Research Institute, (WWW) (http://www.ipsos-mori.com/DownloadPublication/1270_sri-
localgov-peopleperceptionsandplace-revisedsept.pdf)
Gillinson, G, Horne, M, and Baeck, P (2010) “Radical Efficiency: Different, better, lower
cost public services”, Innovation Unit (WWW)
http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/radical-efficiency180610.pdf

Heifetz, R, Grashow, A and Linsky, M (2009) The Practice of Adaptive Leadership, Harvard
Business Press: Boston, MA.

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007) Rewarding Young People for Pro-Social Behaviour,
JRF (WWW) http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/rewarding-young-people-pro-social-
behaviour

Krebs, V and Holley, J (2006) “Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving”,
(WWW) (http://www.orgnet.com/BuildingNetworks.pdf)

Marsh Street Arches and Garden CIC (n.d.) “About Us and Our Partners”,
(WWW)(http://www.marshstreetprojects.org.uk/about_marsh_street.php)

Murray, R, Caulier-Grice, J and Mulgan, G (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation
(WWW) (http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Social_Innovator_020310.pdf)

new economics foundation (2001) Time Banks: a radical manifesto for the UK, nef (WWW)
http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/time-banks

New economics foundation (2008) “The New Wealth of Time: how timebanking helps
people build better public services”, nef (WWW)
(http://www.neweconomics.org/publications/new-wealth-time)

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2003) “Incentives and Beyond?”, ODPM (WWW)
(http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/323444.pdf)

Parker, S, Spires, P, Farook, F and Mean, M (2008) “State of Trust: How to build better
relationships between councils and the public”, Demos (WWW)
(http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Trust_web_ALL%20_032.pdf?1240939425)

Rogers, B (2010) “The Woolwich Model: can citizens tackle anti-social behaviour”, RSA:
Pamphlets, (WWW) (http://www.thersa.org/about-us/rsa-pamphlets/the-woolwich-
model)
Routrey, S (2008) “pioneering Library Sparks Volunteerism” , Indiatogether.org (WWW)
http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/jan/edu-bakul.htm

Rowson, J, Broome, S and Jones, A (2010) Connected Communities: How social networks
power and sustain the Big Society, RSA Projects: Connected Communities

Working Rite (n.d.) “Our Aims”, (WWW) http://www.workingrite.co.uk/aims.htm

Young Foundation (2006) “The potential for neighbourhood involvement in the design and
delivery of public services” (WWW)
http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/NeighbourhoodDelv_july2006.pdf

Young Foundation (2010) Joining the Conversation: a guide to neighbourhood media, the
Young Foundation (WWW)
http://www.youngfoundation.org/files/images/Joining_the_Conversation.pdf