The more powerful a community, the more wellbeing it feels. But this should precede “interventions” from outside, which often cause resentment and tension
Photo by John Cameron on Unsplash
It’s of interest to us to occasionally read the productions of New Local - a think-tank that stands “on the bridge” between a near-social-anarchist vision of “community power” (as they term it), and the long-standing crisis of elected and statutory local government.
This new report - on how more community agency and control helps well-being - struggles with the reality that, apparently, “interventions” from authorities above or outwith the community don’t increase outcomes of wellbeing.
If you read the extract below with the eyes of the approach taken on this website, you can see that many failures come from “interveners” not attending to the inner strength of the community, That investments from outside reveal tensions within communities, or meet an underdeveloped capacity to assess resources,
Our findings indicate that community wellbeing outcomes can be improved through place-based interventions using collective action.
Most studies reported multiple community wellbeing outcomes. The graph below shows how often these outcomes appeared across the studies. Improvements in social relations, connectivity and community control were the most frequently cited
What can help community power increase wellbeing?
We identified three mechanisms leading to greater collective agency and control and three barriers to change.
Neighbourhood connections – Involving communities as equal partners in the design of place-based interventions creates opportunities for residents to come together. These opportunities increase social connectedness, resulting in improved pride and sense of place. Opportunities for social connection help to create sense of place, collective control, improved mental health and intergenerational relationships.
Decision making influence – Communities who collectively shape a vision, identify priorities, and act alongside local stakeholders have greater connectivity, increased trust and sense of place. Enabling communities to be equal partners in identifying and prioritising issues increases feelings of trust and builds community cohesion.
Community capabilities – Increasing the knowledge, skills, confidence, and connections particularly by adopting strength-based approaches within communities develops community power. Where agency is exercised through the design and delivery of place-based interventions, resident confidence, skills, and knowledge increase - leading to a greater sense of control.
What can stand in the way of wellbeing?
In 14 of the 27 studies, some neutral or negative impacts on wellbeing were observed.
How can we explain this? We identified three barriers to change that could stand in the way of community power achieving its potential to increase wellbeing.
Failure to address early challenges or losses – Community action may lead to the development or surfacing of tensions within the community. These tensions lead to reduced feelings of connectivity and neighbourhood belonging. Often, residents and stakeholders have conflicting priorities and so conflict is normal and expected. Stakeholders and residents who work together to resolve issues can avoid long-lasting barriers to community agency and control.
Power Imbalance – Where communities are invited to, but are unable to act as decision makers, collective agency and control is inhibited. In most cases, a power imbalance results from decision making about use of funding for communities. This imbalance creates lasting damage within communities.
Structural Issues – Community agency requires consistency, dedication and commitment. To sustain this, communities benefit from further skill enhancement to enable sustained change post intervention.
More here. The report goes on to talk about “maturity mattering… steady foundations for community agency must be laid”. But we wonder whether the very act of bringing resources in from accountable or statutory bodies produces, automatically, some degree of infantilisation or resentment/dependency.
How can resources be put in, or ideally self-generated (see the work of Mike Riddell’s Counter-Coin schemes), in a way that makes community members directly and primarily responsible for their own development? And what are the social, convivial and technological structures that could make community power determine its own progress?