item no: 10(b) · 2014. 12. 4. · public health grant and is inclusive of any related manager ......

ITEM NO: 10(b)

Report to: HEALTH AND WELLBEING BOARD

Date: 11 December 2014

Executive Member / Reporting Officer:

Councillor Lynn Travis – Executive Member (Health and

Neighborhoods)

Anna Hynes – Policy and Participation Manager, CVAT

Subject: VALUING OUR COMMUNITIES – AN ASSET BASED

APPROACH TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Report Summary: This report provides an update on the research findings from the desk based research by MMU on identifying evidence based approaches from recent years that are tackling the wider determinants of health at a community level

Recommendations: The Health and Wellbeing Board is asked to:

• receive the update paper;

• consider and comment on the headline themes identified;

• to note the next steps.

Links to Health and Wellbeing Strategy:

This programme contributes to the Asset Based Community Development principle in Tameside’s Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

Policy Implications: There are no immediate policy implications.

Financial Implications:

(Authorised by the Borough Treasurer)

The research programme (£15k) was financed via the Public Health Grant and is inclusive of any related manager training. There is no further expenditure expected with this programme at this stage.

Legal Implications:

(Authorised by the Borough Solicitor)

It is important that any decisions are based upon evidence based recommendations and this report sets out an approach to do that in relation to assets. It is important that we factor in any learning from the research and share with Health Scrutiny.

Risk Management : There are no risks at this stage

Access to Information : The background papers relating to this report can be inspected by contacting Anna Hynes – CVAT Policy & Participation Manager.

Telephone:0161 339 4985

e-mail: [email protected]

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Following on from the report submitted in September to the Health and Wellbeing Implementation Group, this report provides a summary of the research findings that Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) has completed for the Valuing our Communities Project. The report also provides an update on the other key aspects of the project.

2. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS

Summarising ‘asset based approach’ 2.1 Asset based approaches are not a prescriptive set of operations that can be easily ‘scaled

up’ or ‘rolled out’ but are forms of engagement and relationship building that enable strengths, capacities and abilities to be identified and developed for positive outcomes. They all share the key features of valuing the positive capacity, skills and knowledge and connections in a community. Methods for carrying out asset based working include:

Identifying assets - asset mapping, appreciative enquiry, participatory appraisal; and

Mobilising assets – asset based community development (ABCD), timebanking, co-production, social prescribing (or community referral), participatory budgeting.

Asset based alongside other approaches

2.2 Asset based approaches can have significant impact within communities. They should be used in conjunction with traditional and/or new services and other activities that are intended to reduce inequalities in life chances and life circumstances (e.g. economic), and which meet needs in the community.

2.3 Creating a Joint Strategic Assets Assessment to complement and/or integrate with an

area’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment supports assessing what approaches and services are appropriate.

2.4 Deprived/disadvantaged communities in particular have fewer assets (of all kinds) to draw

upon and frequently limited opportunity to participate. Care needs to be taken to ensure that asset based working does not increase health inequalities.

Local implementation

2.5 Specific local solutions that come out of asset based approaches may not be transferable without change. They rely on community knowledge, engagement and commitment which are rooted in very specific local circumstances.

2.6 Successful programmes use these factors and relationships to create ‘bottom up’ solutions.

2.7 Engaging local community and building shared action is easier if programmes can find

‘hooks’ relevant to local people’s interests. Programmes need to allow for linguistic, cultural, religious and other differences.

Build on existing local assets

2.8 Organisations that have become engaged in asset based local solutions include those from all sectors – public, voluntary and community and private. Projects also engage with local community members who may or may not be engaged in organisations.

2.9 Key roles can be played by local community organisations especially ‘community anchor

organisations’ (rooted in the community on a long term basis) and key individuals - either local activists or individuals within an organisation. What can be harnessed is their commitment, enthusiasm, knowledge and relationships. These local connections can create change in an unplanned, unforeseen way as a result of the ripple effect of asset based working.

2.10 Development of asset based approaches is likely to be possible more quickly in areas where locality based working is already in place, as some of the underpinning attitudes, relationships and understanding are in place.

Organisational change

2.11 Successful implementation of an asset based approach involves:

A vision, a permeating culture which values community assets, and coordination and building of mutual understanding at all levels of the system (including strategic, commissioning and ground level).

Strong committed new models of leadership in organisations to achieve cultural change - to drive and respond to the fundamental changes in power sharing and the renewed focus on flexible, client-centred frontline relationships.

Staff of public services being valued as an asset and enabled through their training, development and day-to-day working to work in an asset based way.

People working for outside agencies should act as facilitators not drivers and should not try to second-guess what the assets could be; the focus should be on releasing capacity within the community.

Adaptable working structures.

Flexibility and creativity.

Time and a long term approach.

Social inclusion 2.12 Social inclusion is an important consideration in the application of asset based approaches,

and this has been a consistent thread in the previous findings. Power differentials and inequalities exist in a variety of ways between people in the community, between organisations and between individuals in organisations and the community. Addressing power imbalances and supporting appropriate engagement must be built into the planning of asset based approaches.

2.13 The balance to be struck between tackling socio-economic disadvantage, tackling risk

factors and developing resilience and wellbeing is an ongoing debate, which reinforces the need to ensure asset based approaches are not used alone but within the wider context for addressing inequalities.

Evaluation

2.14 There are inherent difficulties measuring assets and their relationship to wellbeing. Evaluating asset based approaches is therefore challenging, particularly when attempting to assess whether or not a given intervention has had a beneficial effect on the health of the individuals and communities it has involved. Much of the evidence available is case study based and a significant number of these may have been retrospectively labelled ‘asset based’.

NHS NW, 2010, Living Well across communities: prioritising wellbeing to reduce inequalities, Manchester, NHS NW

2.15 The Asset Approach to Living Well: the ten key ‘asks’ to creating a whole system approach. This is based on the experience of the North West Assets Alliance, bringing together public health practitioners from all sectors, and is what whole system asset working requires to be successful.

Carnegie UK Trust, 2011 Appreciating Assets, Tara O’Leary, Ingrid Burkett and Kate Braithwaite

2.16 This report draws on experiences from across the globe and defines 15 characteristics of the appreciating assets approach, highlighting the importance of making connections across assets and within the community and uncovering/unlocking people, places, local economies, local talents. Also describes the qualities of an ‘assets approach worker’.

The Wellbeing and Resilience Measure (WARM), Young Foundation 2.17 The WARM framework has been developed to make the most of existing data about

localities, combining familiar statistics on such things as jobs and health with new ways of thinking about how happy and resilient communities are. WARM focuses not just on community needs and vulnerabilities (such as crime or mental illness) but also on community assets (such as strong families and social supports). It is been designed to help areas compare themselves with other similar places, and as a tool to help communities struggling with difficult decisions about priorities for spending and cuts.

2.18 Case Studies

Wakefield Council: Developing a rich and vibrant JSNA, December 2011.

Cornwall: Tr14ers dance group (aimed at young people), started in October 2005 and used to support development of the ongoing Connecting Communities C2 programme.

Stoke: My Health Matters project, September 2012 – Aimed at reducing health inequalities related to physical activity and healthy eating.

Cumbria health and wellbeing hubs, July 2013 (aimed at older people.).

Joseph Rowntree Foundation, July 2014 - Neighbourhood approaches to loneliness programme working in 4 areas of Bradford and York.

3. LOCAL EXAMPLES OF ASSET BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

3.1 CVAT, in line with the research findings from MMU have begun mapping local examples of asset based community development in Tameside. These include local time banking schemes delivered by the Volunteer Centre in Tameside in partnership with New Charter Housing Trust; and participatory budgeting work. In Tameside, we have used participatory budgeting techniques in the You Choose Scheme, and also in the ‘I love Hyde’ Grants Scheme. Within the South Partnership area (the initial focus of the project), Hyde Community Action have good case studies and evaluation of the Bengali’s Women Programme (2011-2014) and the Young Voice of Hyde youth-led research project. Further information on these local case studies can be found on the CVAT website: www.cvat.org.uk/valuing-our-communities

3.2 We are also keen to hear from partners about other local examples of asset based

community development so these can be celebrated and easily accessed via the website.

4. STRENTHENING ASSET BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IN TAMESIDE

4.1 The Steering Group (made up of representatives from the Public Health Team, Neighbourhood Services, CVAT and MMU) has identified a number of key steps to further strengthen our work in supporting communities. These include:

Training of local residents to become community researchers to help create a framework for measuring the effectiveness of asset based community development in Tameside.

Building on the initial asset mapping exercise carried out by the Neighbourhood Teams to help inform Neighbourhood Plans, we are hoping to produce a Joint Strategic Assets Assessment (JSAA), initially for the South Partnership, to complement and/or integrate with the JSNA.

Establishing a network for practitioners working directly with local people and groups to help build stronger and more resilient communities in Tameside. The network will provide the opportunity for workers to meet one another, exchange ideas and tackle common issues, access learning, and identify new ways of working and resources to

http://www.cvat.org.uk/valuing-our-communities

help facilitate asset based community development. The first meeting is being held on the 21 November 2014.

Training for Managers (9 December 2014) and front line staff (January – March 2015) on asset based approaches. Frontline staff will undertake small scale appreciative inquiries themselves within their local localities as part of the learning. These may be linked to the development of a new participatory budgeting process to help distribute funding provided by the PCC, and matched by the Valuing our Communities programme. The funding will support local community initiatives that improve health and wellbeing help and reducing crime and disorder.

We are hoping to soon report to, and engage with the new Strategic Neighbourhood Partnership in the programme.

Valuing Our Communities: Developing Community Resilience Through Asset Based Approaches

Research Review | Full Report 1

Valuing our Communities

Research Review

Full Report

October 2014

Developing Community

Resilience Through Asset Based

Approaches

Dr Carol Packham

Sarah Forster



Valuing Our Communities:

Developing Community Resilience Through

Asset Based Approaches

page

7

. I trodu io

. Resear h S ope

. Fi di gs

. Useful Guides for I ple e i g Asset Based Approa hes

. Case Studies

Refere es

Bi liography

Co te ts



Valuing Our Communities:

Developing Community Resilience Through

Asset Based Approaches

Research Review

1 Introduction

The research was carried out during July and August 2014 for the partnership project of Community and Voluntary Action Tameside (CVAT) and Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (TMBC) Public Health Team programme to develop community resilience in the borough. This report summarises the findings from the research. Also available to support the findings are case studies identified through the research to illustrate practice in the field; website links are given to the case studies and they are also separately available.

2 Research scope

Desk based research has been done on identifying evidence based approaches from recent years that are tackling the wider determinants of health at a community level. The research has mainly focussed on asset based approaches and their implementation since 2010. It is a small scale piece of research and whilst a systematic approach has been taken to the research, it is possible that other evidence will be available that was not uncovered. Generalised database, as well as academic database searches, have been used as appropriate.

Nationally, research has focussed on key agencies in the field – Joseph Rowntree Foundation, King’s Fund, Young Foundation, Public Health England, Local Government Association and Social Care Institute for Excellence. Regionally, research has focussed on the North West and Greater Manchester. Locally, research has focussed on towns identified by TMBC to have a similar demographic to Tameside – Bury, Bolton, Halton, Oldham, Rochdale, St Helens, Stoke-on-Trent and Wigan.



3 Findings

3.1 Defining ‘assets’

The language used around asset based approaches can be confusing as people may have different definitions of ‘assets’ and other ideas depending on their perspective. The following definition of assets taken from Foot and Hopkins (2010)1 is offered for clarity of understanding this paper:

• the practical skills, capacity and knowledge of local residents • the passions and interests of local people that give the energy to change • the networks and connections in a community • the effectiveness of local community and voluntary associations • the resources of public, private and third sector organisations that are available to support a community • the physical and economic resources of a place that enhance wellbeing.

3.2 Summary appraisals of asset based approaches

Asset based approaches build on many years of community development practice, as well positive psychology studies and health activism.

Overall assessments of asset based approaches have been found including:

The influential publication cited by many people using asset based approaches by Foot and Hopkins (2010) “A glass half-full: how an asset approach can improve community health and well-being”. This has been followed up by the publication Foot (2012) ‘What makes us healthy? The asset approach in practice: evidence, action, evaluation’.

A series of papers from the Glasgow Centre for Population Health (2011, 2012, 2014) who have been supporting wide use of asset based approaches in Scotland

A publication by the International Association for Community Development (IACD) and the Carnegie Trust by O’Leary, Burkett and Braithwaite (2011) which is aimed primarily at UK and Irish contexts and draws on experiences from across the globe.

A paper from North West Assets Alliance by Stansfield (2011) developing asset based working in the North West of England

In addition to these papers, appraisals are available from individual areas across the UK of particular projects using asset based approaches and these add to the summary knowledge and understanding of asset based approaches.

3.3 Summarising what is an asset based approach

There is much commonality across the appraisals as to what can be constituted as asset based working. The defining themes of asset-based ways of working are that they are place-based, relationship-based, citizen-led and they promote social justice and equality. They all share the key features of valuing the positive capacity, skills and knowledge and connections in a community.

Alongside this is the key understanding that asset based approaches are not a prescriptive universal set of operations that can be easily ‘scaled up’ or ‘rolled out’ without further local analysis. The approaches



include a range of methodologies that are forms of engagement and relationship building that enable strengths, capacities and abilities to be identified and developed for positive outcomes in a community.

Methods for carrying out asset based working include:

Identifying assets - asset mapping, appreciative enquiry, participatory appraisal

Mobilising assets – asset based community development (ABCD), timebanking, co-production, social prescribing (or community referral), participatory budgeting

Many of these methods are being used in communities or established without them necessarily being referred to as ‘asset based’.

The literature available is helpful in understanding how best to apply these methods and the case studies illustrate this too.

3.4 Asset based approaches work best alongside other approaches

There is a worry in the literature that asset based approaches alone risk being seen as the best way forward in the current economic climate. Reviews are quite clear that whilst asset based approaches can have significant impact within communities, they should not be used exclusively. Critics of asset based approaches such as Friedli (2012) argue that the approaches do not sufficiently address health and economic inequalities.

Deprived/disadvantaged communities in particular have fewer assets (of all kinds) to draw upon and frequently limited opportunity to participate. Those on low incomes are more occupied with meeting their basic needs. In understanding this, it is important that care is taken to ensure that asset based working does not increase health inequalities.

Asset based approaches should therefore be used in conjunction with established traditional and/or new services and other activities that are intended to reduce inequalities in life chances and life circumstances and which meet needs in the community.

Creating a Joint Strategic Assets Assessment to complement and/or integrate with an area’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment supports assessing what approaches and services are appropriate and these assessments have been used successfully in areas of the North West and in the Wakefield case study. (Wakefield also has a similar demographic to Tameside.)

3.5 Local implementation

Because there is not one universally applicable asset based approach, and because local assets and needs must be understood, it is important to apply an asset based approach specifically to the area in mind. Local solutions that have come out of asset based approaches elsewhere may not be transferable without change. Solutions rely on community knowledge, engagement and commitment which are rooted in very specific local circumstances.

There are examples available in the case studies (for example Cornwall) of how successful programmes use these factors and relationships to create ‘bottom up’ solutions.

Engaging local community and building shared action is easier if programmes can find ‘hooks’ relevant to local people’s interests. Examples exist in the literature involving environmental/sustainability interests and people growing their own food. Programmes also need to allow for linguistic, cultural, religious and other differences in order to engage diverse communities.



3.5 Local implementation

Because there is not one universally applicable asset based approach, and because local assets and needs must be understood, it is important to apply an asset based approach specifically to the area in mind. Local solutions that have come out of asset based approaches elsewhere may not be transferable without change. Solutions rely on community knowledge, engagement and commitment which are rooted in very specific local circumstances.

There are examples available in the case studies (for example Cornwall) of how successful programmes use these factors and relationships to create ‘bottom up’ solutions.

Engaging local community and building shared action is easier if programmes can find ‘hooks’ relevant to local people’s interests. Examples exist in the literature involving environmental/sustainability interests and people growing their own food. Programmes also need to allow for linguistic, cultural, religious and other differences in order to engage diverse communities.

3.6 Build on existing local assets

Organisations that have become engaged in asset based local solutions are wide ranging and include health and social care public sector organisations, local government, local voluntary and community organisations, schools, universities, businesses, and the police. In addition to this, projects engage with local community members who may or may not be engaged in organisations.

Local community organisations can have a key part to play, especially where they are recognised (especially within the local community) as being ‘community anchor organisations’ – rooted in the community on a long term basis, providing services and meeting places for the whole community. These organisations can act in a multitude of roles including a base, a voice, a service provider and a facilitator.

There may also be key individuals in a local area who can be used to support an asset based approach. These may be local activists or individuals within an organisation. What can be harnessed is their commitment, enthusiasm, knowledge and relationships. It is also evident from the case studies that these local connections can create change in an unplanned, unforeseen way as a result of the ripple effect of asset based working.

The evidence suggests that the development of asset based approaches is likely to be possible more quickly in areas where locality based working and/or high levels of community activity are already in place, as some of the underpinning attitudes, relationships and understanding are in place. The Wakefield (2011) case study gives an example of this in practice.



3.7 Organisational change

There is much written about the implications of asset based approaches for ways of working in the organisations involved. The new approach requires shifts in power bases whereby professional staff and councillors have to be willing to share power; instead of doing things for people. This needs to be underpinned by changes in policy and practice, new communication routes and long term commitment.

Successful implementation of an asset based approach involves:

A vision, a permeating culture which values community assets, and coordination and building of mutual understanding at all levels of the system (including strategic, commissioning and ground level).

Strong committed new models of leadership in organisations to achieve cultural change - to drive and respond to the fundamental changes in power sharing and the renewed focus on flexible, client-centred frontline relationships.

Staff of public services being valued as an asset and enabled through their training, development and day-to-day working to work in an asset based way.

-People working for outside agencies should act as facilitators not drivers and should not try to second-guess what the assets could be; the focus should be on releasing capacity within the community.

Adaptable working structures Flexibility and creativity Time and a long term approach.

The case studies illustrate new ways of working, and in section 4 there are three summaries from the literature to give further guidance about how to achieve the changes required in a structured way.

3.8 Social inclusion

The evidence coming from the wide literature available is that social inclusion is an important consideration in the application of asset based approaches, and this has been a consistent thread in the previous findings. Power differentials and inequalities exist in a variety of ways between people in the community, between organisations and between individuals in organisations and the community. The learning from the Wakefield (2011:10)2 case study clearly describes how using an asset based approach in two different areas – one ‘marginally deprived’ with quite high levels of community activity and one with much higher levels of deprivation and fewer assets – led to different levels of engagement with the approach. Addressing power imbalances and supporting appropriate engagement must be built into the planning of asset based approaches.

Foot (2012)3 includes a full appraisal of what we know about health assets and asset based approaches and concludes that ‘There is a debate about the balance to be struck between tackling socio-economic disadvantage, tackling risk factors and developing resilience and wellbeing.’ This reinforces the need to ensure asset based approaches are not used alone but within the wider context for addressing inequalities.



3.8 Evaluation

It is early in the application of asset based approaches to health to have full data and methods to evaluate them. Much of the evidence available is case study based and a significant number of these may have been retrospectively labelled ‘asset based’. In addition, the systems involved in asset based approaches are often complex, leading to inherent difficulties in measuring assets and their relationship to well being. For example, community networks and relationships may exist across the boundaries of neighbourhood data collected by a local authority. Added to this is that existing health data tends to be to do with ill health rather than positive health. Evaluating asset based approaches is therefore challenging, particularly when attempting to assess whether or not a given intervention has had a beneficial effect on the health of the individuals and communities it has involved. Work in this area is ongoing at national and local levels.

4 Useful Guides for Implementing Asset Based Approaches

4.1 Asset Approach to Living Well: Ten Key Asks

The Asset Approach to Living Well4 is based on the experience of the North West Assets Alliance (NWAA), bringing together public health practitioners from all sectors, and is what whole system asset working requires to be successful. It lists ten key asks as:

1. Leadership and Organisational Vision: Understanding health as wellness, not illness. Providing clarity on the things that promote and protect good health and well-being, rather than only describing health as disease and the risk factors for ill-health.

2. Joint Strategic Asset Assessment: Describing the population through the assessment of assets as well as needs e.g. the presence of good health and well-being and indicators on what creates and influences good health, rather than needs assessment that only includes information on disease, death and risk factors for illness.

3. Map community assets: Mapping what the community themselves say are the valuable resources and assets that improve their lives; the strengths, knowledge and skills of people and the value of places and facilities.

4. Asset Based Community Development infrastructure: Sustaining community assets through continually empowering citizens and communities and increasing participation in decision making.

5. Individual strengths based working: Services that assess individual strengths (not just problems) and provide interventions that build on people’s strengths and their personal and community resources e.g. social prescribing/ community referral, personalisation.

6. Neighbourhood Budgets and Commissioning: based on the JSAA that seek to build on assets and what’s working well rather than a sole focus on problems and deficits within communities and families.

7. Appreciative Inquiry to Organisational Development: Managing organisational change and service improvement by recognising and building on what’s already working well rather than trying to fix what doesn’t; involving people in the process of change.



8. Organisational asset and skills audit: Mapping the assets of staff and organisations in order to have a greater understanding of the potential skills, strengths and resources that could be utilised more efficiently within and across organisations; and built upon as part of personal and organisational development and social value.

9. Time-banking and asset transfer: Sharing and exchanging assets between public, private and community bodies to improve efficient use of resources and give power to communities.

10. Asset based indicators: Research and monitoring that incorporates the evaluation and development of asset based outcomes, indicators and measures.

A further report is available from the NWAA work for the Joint Strategic Asset Assessment aspect, see Bibliography Nelson et al (2011).

4.2 Appreciating Assets: Characteristics of the ‘Appreciating Assets’ approach

Appreciating Assets by the Carnegie Trust draws on experiences from across the globe and defines the characteristics of the appreciating assets approach, in no particular order as:

Focus on a local area: A place-based approach focuses on the assets of an identified geographic area; a place that people describe as ‘home’.

Focus on Community Assets: The process starts from an appreciation of existing community capacity and assets, ‘building on what we have’ both intangible and tangible assets.

Appreciation and celebration of past successes: This strengthens people's confidence in their own capacities and inspires them to take action

Connect outward and focus on the future: There is a skill involved in being able to recognise the contributions of successes and failures toward the ultimate goals of the community. Focusing on the future allows us to see asset -based approaches as a process and to recognise that uncertainty and even chaos are a part of this process.

Recognition of the importance of relationships and the importance of ‘social capital’: This includes a focus on the power of relationships and informal linkages within the community and the relationships built over time between community groups and external institutions.

Recognition of the importance of working together: Essentially, the whole is greater than the sum of the individual parts.

Local Leadership: The community leads its own development and community leaders are themselves capable of opening doors to the wider population. Local leaders are therefore defined by the relationships they have within the community; by their social, rather than political or financial capital.

Valuing People and Working Well in Groups: Valuing people requires the skills of being able to function well in groups and of active listening and really hearing what others are saying. These facilitative skills are integral to relationship building and reaching out to others to make new connections and unlikely alliances. An ability to make linkages between the local and global, as well as the ability to work with a diversity of people with different viewpoints and opinions is essential. When we value people we are able to uncover and encourage previously hidden skills and talents and are able to see the potential in people and situations instead of only seeing impediments.



Participatory approaches to development, which are based on principles of empowerment and ownership of the development process.

Efforts to strengthen civil society: Efforts focus on how to engage people as citizens (rather than clients) and how to make local governance more effective and responsive.

Addressing Power Issues: Asset-based approaches to community development are not about communities doing it all without outside support. On the contrary, these approaches are about finding the balance between programmes run by non-profit organisations and governmental agencies and citizen groups and associations. In some cases, community members may need to ‘step -up’ and become stronger and more organised and professionals may need to ‘step-

back’ to become better servants of community members. A skill involved in utilising asset -based approaches is an understanding of and support for people to either ‘step -up’ or ‘step-

back’ and creating the spaces conducive to exploring and building on assets.

Learns from experience: Work with a community is never straightforward and along the way there will be a series of ups and downs. Each experience, even those that are disappointing (such as when the planning application fails or the funding is pulled) provide valuable learning.

Transparency and Accountability: This framework encourages and requires government and any other outside involvement in community development to be transparent, accountable, and participatory. In turn, communities hold each other to the same values of transparency and accountability, expecting no less of each other than of external agencies.

Equality and Social Inclusion: All community members, regardless of gender, age, ability, race, culture, language, sexual orientation or social and economic status have equal opportunity to become engaged in the community development process and are able to access its social and economic benefits.

Balance: The community takes a balanced approach that addresses and integrates economic, social, environmental and cultural considerations.

The report also has a useful analysis of the qualities of an ‘assets approach worker’.

4.3 The Wellbeing and Resilience Measure (WARM)

The Wellbeing and Resilience Measure (WARM)6 has been developed from the Young Foundation’s work. The WARM framework has been developed to make the most of existing data about localities, combining familiar statistics on such things as jobs and health with new ways of thinking about how happy and resilient communities are. Developed in partnership with a wide range of local authorities, community groups and national organisations, WARM focuses not just on community needs and vulnerabilities (such as crime or mental illness) but also on community assets (such as strong families and social supports). It’s been designed to help areas compare themselves with other similar places, and as a tool to help communities struggling with difficult decisions about priorities for spending and cuts.

• Structure and systems: the strength of the local economy, availability of local services, infrastructure and environment which support people to achieve their aspirations and live a good life.



The five stages of WARM

1. The first stage is to measure wellbeing. To do this look at three domains:

Self: the way people feel about their own lives, personal wellbeing and resilience, as well as other attributes such as income or health

Support: the quality of social supports and networks within the community, which includes emotional support as well as broader personal support

Structure and systems: the strength of the local economy, availability of local services, infrastructure and environment which support people to achieve their aspirations and live a good life.

These domains are dynamic and interact with each other.

2. The second stage measures resilience, by creating a map of assets and vulnerabilities in the community. Accurately identifying the assets, for example social capital, and the vulnerabilities, for example social isolation, helps estimate the capacity of a community to withstand shock and pinpoint where support should be targeted.

3. The third stage is a benchmarking process. Use national and council-wide data to draw out local trends in life satisfaction.

4. The fourth stage is about planning. Use the data provided from stages one to three to inform communities, commissioners and local partnerships about what is working well, and where further interventions are needed. This stage can also involve the public, political leaders, community organisations and business.

5. The fifth stage is about action – creating or redesigning local services to ensure they respond effectively to local needs and wishes.

The five stages of WARM is an iterative process. The process should be repeated over time to help identify the extent to which interventions have led to tangible improvements.

WARM builds in evaluation measures in its iterative stages.



5 Case Studies A number of case studies have been identified through the research which describe the application of asset based approaches. These are listed below. There are other case studies available within the references and bibliography and brief case studies are being reported at local levels (for example in newsletters) on an ongoing basis.

1. Wakefield JSNA, 2011

Summary report, ‘Developing a rich and vibrant JSNA: Capturing community asset growth within the JSNA – key learning from a trial project’2, available online at:

http://www.local.gov.uk/health/-/journal_content/56/10180/3510458/ARTICLE

This document gives an overview of the work that took place as part of the Asset Based Pilot Process within the Wakefield District.

The lessons from the pilot break down under three main headings:

• Issues and lessons about the Asset based approach itself • Lessons around the need for culture change and how this might be achieved, including the refocusing of resources • The smarter use of rich picture data, leading to the development of a more usable JSNA

2. Tr14ers dance group, Cornwall, 2005 onwards

Case study of the project available online at

http://www.healthcomplexity.net/content.php?s=c2&c=c2_case_dance

This dance group formed in 2005 due to emerging relationships and understanding between young people and police as a result of the Beacon Project near Falmouth, West Cornwall. It has been analysed along with other work in the area and developed into a specific experiential learning programme based on ABCD and complexity science - Connecting Communities (C2). See the health complexity website above and Bibliography Durie and Wyatt (2013).

3. Stoke My Health Matters project, 2012

Briefing Report: My Health Matters7 available online at

http://www.healthycity-stoke.co.uk/upload/docs/MHMBriefingReportv6.pdf

The project aimed to develop and evaluate a community-led intervention to reduce health inequalities by increasing physical activity and promoting healthier eating as defined by community members themselves.

http://www.local.gov.uk/health/-/journal_content/56/10180/3510458/ARTICLE

http://www.healthcomplexity.net/content.php?s=c2&c=c2_case_dance

http://www.healthycity-stoke.co.uk/upload/docs/MHMBriefingReportv6.pdf



4. Cumbria Health and Wellbeing Hubs, 2013

Case study report ‘Asset based community development supports wellbeing in Cumbria’8 available online at

www.foundationtrustnetwork.org/.../case-study-cumbria-hwb-hubs.pdf

The project aimed to integrate and mobilise the expertise, support and resources within both the third sector and the wider community using an asset based community development approach to map and leverage community based resources at a local level to help older people to sustain their independence and to live fulfilling lives.

5. Neighbourhood approaches to loneliness in Bradford and York, 2014

Summary report ‘Can a neighbourhood approach to loneliness contribute to people's well-being?’9

available online at

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/Neighbourhood-loneliness-summary.pdf

Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) and Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust worked with community researchers in four neighbourhoods – Bradford Moor and Denholme in Bradford, and the Carr Estate and New Earswick in York – to explore what causes loneliness, how community activities could play a central role, and how involvement in these could enhance community well-being.

6 Tameside Case Studies

There are examples of asset based approaches which have been developed in the Tameside area, such as for timebanking and participatory budgeting. Case studies for Tameside projects can be found on the CVAT website at


http://www.foundationtrustnetwork.org/.../case-study-cumbria-hwb-hubs.pdf

http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/Neighbourhood-loneliness-summary.pdf/staffhome/staff_home0/46017697/Documents/07.%20Newsletter%20\(Formatted%20Draft\).pub




Refere es

1. Foot J. and Hopkins T. (2010) A glass half-full: how an asset approach can improve community health and well-being, Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA)

2. Wakefield Council (2011) Developing a rich and vibrant JSNA: Capturing community asset growth within the JSNA – key learning from a trial project, Wakefield: Author

3. Foot J. (2012) What makes us healthy? The asset approach in practice: evidence, action, evaluation, Author

4. Stansfield J. (2011) The Asset Approach to Living Well, National Mental Health Development Unit

5. O’Leary T,, Burkett I. and Braithwaite K (2011) Appreciating Assets, Carnegie UK Trust

6. Bacon N. and Mguni N. (2010) Taking the temperature of local communities: The Wellbeing and Resilience Measure (WARM), The Young Foundation

7. Hurst G., Smith G. and Prof. Davey R. (2012) Briefing Report: My Health Matters, Staffordshire University

8. Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (2013) Asset based community development supports wellbeing in Cumbria, Foundation Trust Network

9. Collins A. and Wrigley J (2014) Can a neighbourhood approach to loneliness contribute to people's well-being?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)

Bi liography

Brooks F. and Kendall S. (2013) Making sense of assets: what can an assets based approach offer public health?, Critical Public Health, Vol 23, No 2, p127-130

Centre for Local Economic Strategies (2009) The Importance of Community Anchor Organisations to Empowerment Issues in the North West, North West Together We Can

Collins A. and Wrigley J (2014) Can a neighbourhood approach to loneliness contribute to people's well-being?, Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF)

Crawford F. (2004) Doing it differently - an asset based approach to well-being, NHS Scotland

Dr Allen M, Clement S. and Prendergast Y. (2014) A ‘can do’ approach to community action: what role for risk, trust and confidence?, JRF

Dr Needham C. and Carr S. (2009) SCIE Research briefing 31: Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation, Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE)

Durie R. and Wyatt K. (2013) Connecting communities and complexity: a case study in creating the conditions for transformational change, Critical Public Health, Vol 23, No 2, p174-187

Ferragina E., Tomlinson M. and Walker R. (2013) Poverty, participation and choice, JRF

Friedli L. (2012) What we’ve tried, hasn’t worked’: the politics of assets based public health, Critical Public Health, Vol 23, No 2, p131-145

Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH) (2011) Concepts Series 9 - Asset based approaches for health improvement, Glasgow: Author

GCPH (2012) Concepts Series 10 - Putting asset based approaches into practice: identification, mobilisation and measurement of assets, Glasgow: Author



GCPH (2014) Concepts Series 13 - Towards asset-based health and care services, Glasgow: Author

Local Government Association and Public Health England (2014) Public health transformation nine months on: bedding in and reaching out, London: LGA Publications

Low J. (2011) The riots: what are the lessons from the JRF's work in communities?, JRF

McCabe A et al. (2013) Making the links: poverty, ethnicity and social networks, JRF

McCabe A. and, Davis A. (2012) Community development as mental health promotion: principles, practice and outcomes, Community Development Journal, 47(4), October 2012, pp.506-521

McInroy N., et al. (2013) Addressing poverty through local governance, JRF

McLean J. and McNeice V. (2012) Assets in Action: Illustrating Asset Based Approaches for Health Improvement, Glasgow Centre for Population Health (GCPH)

Nelson B., Campbell J. and Emanuel J. (2011) Development of a Method for Asset Based Working, NHS North West

Richardson L. (2012) Working in neighbourhoods, active citizenship and localism, JRF

Russell C. and Boleman V. (2013) Together We Can: Exploring asset-based approaches and complex needs service transformation, The Young Foundation and Spice

Cinderby S. et al, (2014) Practical action to build community resilience, JRF

Wakefield Council (2011) Growing Communities from the Inside Out: Piloting an asset based approach to JSNAs within the Wakefield District: Methods and Findings, Wakefield: Author

Community Voluntary Action Tameside

131 Katherine Street

Ashton-under –Lyne

OL6 7AW

www.cvat.org.uk

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

Wellington Road

Ashton-under-Lyne

OL6 6DL

www.tameside.gov.uk

Community Audit and Evaluation

Centre

Faculty of Education

Manchester Metropolitan University

www.mmu.ac.uk/caec