Whether in the business, social, third or public sectors, few organisations are protected from the cold economic winds which have being blowing for the last five years and which are set to continue for years to come. And much the same scenario applies to most communities and neighbourhoods across the country, though, of course, there are places and people who are actually seeing their living standards and wealth increase as others experience the very opposite. This creates a greater sense of marginalisation of social division.
The current economic conditions and many contemporary public policies are combining to make life very bleak for too many communities and too many families and households. Local authorities face unprecedented cuts to their budgets and consequently public services at the very time when communities and individuals need their support the most. Oddly, some local authorities are making decisions that actually cause more harm to their communities than their budgets demand. In contrast, some are deliberately taking action to protect the most vulnerable and to find new ways to support communities and such people.
I hear much talk about building community capacity and resilience, and there are examples of this happening but truthfully, they are not as numerous or ubiquitous as they need to be.
At the community and neighbourhood level, there is a real need to harness all available capacity and assets to strengthen civil society and stimulate economic activity. Now whilst it is true that some actions and interventions can only be made at a national level (or indeed, at the European or even global level), many can be made at the local authority level. And it is also possible for communities to respond themselves.
Neighbourhood community budgets can make a real difference if and when local authorities and their public sector partners are prepared to cede power, resources and experimentation to communities and neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood community budgets require some local level governance and control over resources, but get this right and together one can bring the resources of the public sector and community sectors, local businesses and faith groups to stunning and above all, ‘coherent’ effect.
Communities and neighbourhoods may not be able, of themselves, to make major investment in social housing or infrastructure but they can both press others to do so as well as create the conditions that will attract such investment. They can use the neighbourhood planning process introduced by the current government as part of its localism agenda to identify needs, sites and opportunities as well as the accompanying conditions for such investment. Of course, this is all dependent on government being prepared to increase capital investment in housing and infrastructure and to do so by working with communities and not imposing nationally determined decisions. So, that is what we must all argue and lobby for.
Within most communities and neighbourhoods there are formal and informal voluntary and community groups; faith organisations; public sector assets and services; local businesses (often micro and SME companies); and above all, residents/citizens/people. Surely it is time to recognise that at the local level, and in a ‘place’, the sum of these components represents significant physical and human capital. Equally, surely it is blindingly obvious that there is a mutual dependency between the various elements that make up a neighbourhood. Local people spend in local retailers and so on.
Effective collaboration between locally-based employers, public services, community and voluntary groups, faith organisations and residents adds value. For example, local youth unemployment can be addressed by local employers, a local college and training providers, specialist and generalist voluntary and community groups all working together coherently. I am in absolutely no doubt that local community solutions can easily outplay national programmes such as the work programme. Similarly, local solutions must surely be available for addressing other environmental, economic and social challenges.
Collective purchasing of energy; community management of shops, pubs and public services such as libraries in partnership with the public sector; addressing anti-social behaviour; setting up credit unions – all these and much more can be addressed through formal and informal collaboration at the community and neighbourhood level.
I know it is all too easy for me to list such opportunities and more difficult to realise them – but with the guidance of well-intentioned leaders focusing on the end outcome rather than process, institutions and status – it is possible, and it is possible in ‘all’ communities and neighbourhoods. Some kind of local governance may be required but months (even years) of jostling for position and wasting time fighting is no excuse for avoiding taking action now or for kindred spirits not joining together and ‘getting on with it’. Over-bureaucratic and complex systems that are barriers to participation and action are inexcusable when local communities and citizens are suffering.
If localism is going to have any significant meaning and bring benefits to local neighbourhoods, and if communities are going to become resilient and contribute to economic growth, then there is an urgent and immediate need for an enhanced focus on communities. Whether at the local or national level, political, managerial and professional leaders must accept this very different paradigm.
Local and central governments have to adopt the spirit and practice of ‘double devolution’. Central government has to be ready and willing to fund communities and prevent harmful cuts to services and benefits; and to enable transition from the current to new arrangements. However, money will be tight and there could be further cuts so local communities must be properly empowered, encouraged, resourced and liberated to ‘do it’ for themselves.