report on asset based community approaches · sitra would like to thank asset based consulting, c2...
TRANSCRIPT
0
Evaluation of Asset Based Community Approaches
in Staffordshire
May 2014 – July 2016
Staffordshire
1
Acknowledgements
Sitra would like to thank Asset Based Consulting, C2 and Nurture Development for sharing
their learning and including us in much communication and many meetings, providing
updates and honest opinion on progress. This has been a useful complement to our own
research, signposting us to where to look and who to ask, and positively supporting
Staffordshire County Council’s commitment to gather learning from these pilot sites to further
the evolution of ABCD in the UK.
We would also like to thank the people of Cannock, Fradley, Lichfield and Tamworth. Whilst
not all residents may have been aware that something interesting was happening in their
neighbourhoods, those that did engage were helpful, constructive and supportive. And we
had the privilege to meet a number of committed people determined to help people around
them and make their neighbourhoods more fulfilling places to live.
Lastly, Staffordshire has diverse voluntary agencies and statutory bodies working together to
improve communities. Without exception, all were welcoming and co-operative, providing
views on what is happening now and what should happen in the future to help their work.
Eddy McDowall, Pam Dixon and Burcu Borysik, August 2016
2
Contents
Section Page
1. Introduction 4
2. Executive Summary 6
3. Evaluation Methods
3.1 Methodology Framework
3.2 Attendance at meetings
3.3 Interviews – first round
3.4 Interviews with agencies
3.5 Interviews – second round
3.6 Observation
3.7 Sitra Survey
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
4. C2 in Cannock
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Description of approach
4.3 The Area
4.4 Why the area was chosen
4.5 Key partners
4.6 What happened?
4.7 Findings
11
11
11
12
14
14
14
19
5. Nurture Development in Lichfield
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Description of approach
5.3 The Areas
5.4 Why the areas were chosen
5.5 Key partners
5.6 What happened?
5.7 Additional outcomes
24
24
25
25
28
28
28
31
3
6. Asset Based Consulting in Tamworth
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Description of approach
6.3 The Areas
6.4 Why the areas were chosen
6.5 Key partners
6.6 What happened?
6.7 Additional outcomes
34
34
34
36
37
38
38
41
7. Overall Findings and Recommendations 42
8. Legacy 48
9. Conclusion
9.1 People
9.2 Places
9.3 Resources
50
50
51
52
Appendices
A. Sitra interviews and survey returns 55
B. Cannock and the Blake Programme (map) 56
C. Blake Programme background 57
D. Cannock, C2 timeline – Key Events 59
E. Lichfield, Nurture Development – Key Events 62
F. Lichfield – Key Agency Involvement 64
G. Generic Assets: Identified as part of the work on the Lichfield Asset Map 65
H. Tamworth, Asset Based Consulting – Key Events 66
I. The ‘Tamworth Ten’ 71
J. Sitra Interview Questions 73
K. Sitra Survey 75
L. Sitra Survey Analysis 81
4
Section 1
Introduction
Over the last year, Sitra has evaluated three projects in Cannock, Lichfield and Tamworth in
the county of Staffordshire. This work was commissioned by Staffordshire County Council
Public Health Team to observe the mechanisms and assess the impact of asset based
community approaches (we have used the acronym ABCA throughout for ease of reading).
The evaluation took place across 12 months, whilst the projects themselves took place
across an 18-month period. As indicated elsewhere in this report, this is not a long time in
terms of the development of a community.
This report is a summary of our observations, the views of the people we talked to and
provides pointers for further discussion and debate. It also includes three local area reports
with detail on the three separate approaches and the outcomes specific to each area. We
use informal language to reinforce the need to place ABCA firmly outside statutory agencies.
Whilst we recognise the importance of those services – local government, the NHS and
other government bodies – ABCA is about people power and must not alienate its core
audience. We have used common headings through the three Area Reports for consistency,
but we have also allowed for local learning to be drawn through where appropriate.
The Staffordshire Public Health team, initially established these sites as pilots, but as the
work evolved they adopted them as ‘learning sites’. This changes the evaluation approach –
shifting the focus from ‘effectiveness’ of each approach to a broader evaluation of the
opportunities and legacy that the County could build on rather than viewing the exercise
purely in terms of future commissioning. We saw this as a positive change in approach.
Our report demonstrates that ABCA works when elements of ‘the magic triangle of people,
places and funding’, come together (Scottish Development Council, 2008)1 echoed in
comments from community agencies during our research about the magic triangle of people,
places and resources.
Mainly, however, this report is about how, with the right support, local communities can
begin to express views that reflect community priorities, resolve local issues and create
strong neighbourhoods. Though obvious, it should be said that all communities are different.
There may be similarities and themes that weave through, but each community is made up
of individual assets2 and aspirations, which combine to bring people together. That is both
the opportunity and challenge for ABCA.
1 www.ABACDinstitute.org/docs/What%20isAssetBasedCommunityDevelopment(1).pdf
2 By assets we mean those skills, strengths and networks as well as the tangible physical assets that
individuals and groups bring to every community and which, when allowed to flourish, bring strength, create cohesion and build resilience.
5
For this reason, this evaluation does not advocate one particular approach to ABCA, or
specify how long it should take, as, to flourish and achieve its objective of stronger
communities, ABCA needs to develop organically and be shaped by the local community.
We do, however, provide insight into what works, for whom and under what conditions, and,
importantly, indicate the role public services have in facilitating rather than delivering. In
other words, we describe an emerging role for statutory agencies of supporting what people
and communities can do themselves and for themselves, where public services can ‘do with’
and not ‘do for’. This is a role that will require some change in the way public services think
and operate and how they evaluate themselves and others. There are also clear roles for
agencies already working in Staffordshire. During the period of this evaluation, Staffordshire
County Council has re-commissioned the voluntary sector infrastructure contract, and makes
specific reference to asset based community development. We very much recommend that
in the spirit of the sea change needed, this is fostered and supported and not ‘contract
monitored’.
The report also highlights the importance of ‘bumping places’ to create interaction. We noted
that progress in ABCA was mostly apparent when there were opportunities to bring people
together physically, although social media also played a key and complimentary role. This
finding was reinforced by the responses we had to the Sitra Survey [Appendices K & L],
which indicated that ‘helping out’ enhanced people’s own feeling of wellbeing. It is this
interaction that steered the direction of ABCA in all three focus areas, even if outcomes were
not always immediately apparent. Each of the three providers used a variation of bumping
places to create interaction.
Interestingly, we have seen the effective use of digital technologies, where social media is
used to link people together to create interest and momentum, in addition to the physical and
geographical spaces. Through all of these something ‘happened’, but it appears that that the
more informal the tool, the more likely something positive happened; when formality began
to take over, creativity stopped. It is not enough to just bring people together, or to make a
list of assets; the crucial ingredient is a common agenda or interest and that is when social
movement happens.
In some instances what happened took a roundabout route, apparently away from the initial
focus. This is one of the major challenges for ABCA and raises a number of questions for
statutory agencies. Does the statutory sector have the patience and vision to allow
communities to find their own solutions? How do statutory services satisfy themselves of
what is happening? And if they do have the patience, will communities find their way? At
what stage do public services step in to support or stimulate? There are no clear answers to
these questions, but the message is clear. As a prominent member of the Diocese of
Lichfield put it;
“It [ABCA] may take longer, but you will get a richer weave”.
Getting that balance right will be challenging and open to regular discussion.
6
Section 2
Executive Summary
In September 2014, Staffordshire County Council commissioned three providers of asset
based community approaches (ABCA) to pilot new ways of working in Cannock, Lichfield
and Tamworth. This report is the evaluation of their work bringing together themes and
learning, and providing pointers for further discussions and future commissioning. It includes
three local area reports with detail on the three separate approaches and individual
outcomes. The evaluation took place from June 2015 to June 2016, whilst the three pieces
of work took 18 months; neither timescale is long.
The overall context was how to engage more with the community and enable them to do
more for themselves, rely less on public services and as a result of this autonomy improve
their physical and mental health and wellbeing, in both personal terms and in community
resilience. ABCA aims to establish networks and cooperation amongst local residents and
through C2’s approach, build a parallel ‘community’ amongst front-line workers3; the
evaluation aimed to seek the views of all those involved. In addition, Staffordshire County
Council was interested in issues concerning ‘organisational change’, i.e.; how will
organisations, both statutory and voluntary, need to change to support the development of
ABCA. Questions were asked about the area, their current ‘connectivity’ within the local area
and their hopes for the future. Interviews were held with residents, organisations (voluntary
and statutory) and elected members.
A recent publication by Public Health England states that;
‘There is extensive evidence that connected and empowered communities are
healthy communities. Communities that are involved in decision-making about their
area and the services within it that are well networked and supportive and where
neighbours look out for each other, all have a positive impact on people’s health and
wellbeing.’
A guide to community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing,
Public Health England, February 2015
These are admirable aims, but during the evaluation a number of residents and agencies
expressed views that the recent focus on building community capacity is difficult to detach
from cuts in services and looks like a ‘patching up’ of the gaps in local provision. Despite
promoting choice and control and creating good health and wellbeing, community capacity
will not be a substitute for all public services. This report also raises questions of the role of
Councillors within ABCA; while they are often keen to support their communities, their direct
involvement can unintentionally inhibit communities from taking action for themselves.
Councillors have a key role to play, but it may be a new role, such as being the guardians of
ABCA.
3 C2 Connecting Communities: www.healthycities.org.uk/uploads/files/hazel_stuteley_webinar.pdf
7
We learnt early on that our approach to evaluation needed to adapt to the journey local
communities were making across the three learning sites. We used a mixed methodology of
surveys, discussion groups, interview and re-interview, and observation, coupled with a
Survey [Appendix K] to evaluate the work. We know that ABCA should encourage a number
of important community attributes essential for self-reliance and interdependence. Evidence
from previous work around England has shown that, given time, ABCA can improve the
social, economic, health and wellbeing outcomes of individuals. However, evidencing this
within the short timescales that these pieces of work took place is difficult. Therefore, we
also aimed to look for observable, or discernible, outcomes that pointed to changes,
however small, in the local community.
Interactions with the various communities were uneven, due both to the different approaches
the three providers took and the readiness of neighbourhoods. However, where possible we
aimed to corroborate evidence with follow up interviews and discussion. All those who were
engaged with the evaluation across the three learning sites were helpful and supportive;
their collated insight provided a useful overview and has shaped our findings and
recommendations insight; however, we agreed to anonymise the responses.
All three providers have substantial previous experience in supporting the delivery of ABCA
across England. Of the three, C2 in Cannock (Chadsmoor) used the most structured
approach, a 7-step process working with a defined community, whilst Nurture Development
in the Lichfield area (including Burntwood and Fradley) sits at the other end of the spectrum,
choosing to follow the local energy of people. Asset Based Consulting working in Tamworth
(Stoneydelph and Leyfields) used a mix of the two with both theme based and geographical
foci. There was a difference too, in the manner in which leadership was provided:
Asset Based Consulting: Three national leads worked with local communities and
agencies in Tamworth;
C2: two national leads led the programme in Cannock supported by a local
coordinator;
Nurture Development: One national coordinator mentored two local community
connectors in Lichfield with additional key allies.
All three approaches faced the challenge of demonstrating outcomes within a comparatively
short time. We live in the ‘now’ age with most of our needs satisfied quickly, but the impact of
changing behaviours and nurturing a community can take many years to be realised.
Likewise, commissioners increasingly require tangible ‘measurable’ outputs to justify their
investment. However, even within 12-18 months we saw definite outcomes. Alongside that,
we identified much learning and we have observed that the pilots leave a positive legacy
which must be built on.
Although there was a differing cast of agencies in each learning site we saw some patterns
in engagement. Voluntary sector groups were widely represented as was the Christian faith
community. The Fire and Rescue Service and Police also engaged, and schools in
Chadsmoor and Fradley contributed too when invited. Local government from all three tiers
was involved to a greater or lesser extent. However, there appeared to be two stand-out
factors that enabled success. These were the approach and style of engagement by the
provider and the strength of relationships formed on the ground.
8
With all three providers being ‘out of County’, a presence in the locality was vital to progress
actions and at times it was clear that when this was missing, movement stalled. In
Tamworth, Asset Based Consulting struggled to find their local partner, belatedly settling for
Communities Together CIC, though also courting Support Staffordshire. A number of local
projects lost key personnel or had a change of perspective. Nurture Development were ably
supported by Bromford Housing and worked through two local residents acting as paid
community connectors. C2 used their 7-step model to create local leadership through a local
Partnership Group, Community Spirit. In hindsight, it was the support of a key partner that
appeared to make a significant difference, enabling the local leadership to have a clear run
at community connecting.
Sharing progress, particularly in a new venture is important not just for participants, but also
to build momentum, gain new engagement and to guard against project decay. ‘Look how far
we’ve come’ is a powerful medicine to counteract ‘look how far we’ve got to go’. In Cannock,
C2’s regular steering group meetings started well, were held regularly and produced ideas
close to the hearts of those participating, but they became less creative over time. Nurture
Development used a regular community of practice approach (one for Burntwood, one for
Lichfield/ Fradley and one for an overall view of progress) to top up energy levels and focus
direction. Asset Based Consulting appeared not to use a consistent information sharing
method. For all three, social media was an option, with all key players (local agencies/
specific projects) in each locality having a presence on various platforms with Burntwood
making extensive use of it to their advantage; belatedly this happened in Cannock too, with
the establishment of a Facebook site.
One ever-present theme in all of the areas was the unsurprising spectre of public sector
cuts. However, there were signs that as the state is rolled back, small shoots of local
enterprise have begun to spring up. Equally however, there is no doubt that some deep
listening is required to fully understand what communities need and some of that will be
uncomfortable. Working in an asset based way rather than focusing on deficits and ‘fixing’
them, will require a change of mind-set, not just from communities themselves in recognising
that they do have positive attributes, but specifically from statutory agencies currently used
to working with what’s wrong and trying to fix it; a move to identifying what’s strong and
building on it may be counter-intuitive. This is likely to represent a culture change across
statutory agencies to support, facilitate and let go, but, equally, is likely to be very rewarding;
indeed across the course of the evaluation a key finding from Cannock is the positive
change in staff attitudes towards the neighbourhood.
Many people involved in the three learning sites have been prompted to think differently;
about themselves, their community and the roles that different agencies could, or should
take. Future success in building on this will take a longer and deeper leap of faith than the
one which initiated the commissioning of this work. But if there is one thing which should be
held up in evidence for this work being successful, it is the knowledge that in each locality
something happened and communities were stirred. This report demonstrates that people
can and do make a difference to their local communities and once you see this, you cannot
un-see it.
9
Section 3
Evaluation Methods
3.1 Methodology Framework
Our starting point for this evaluation was a proposition that ABCA develops social capital
among individuals and across localities, creating relationships, coordinating action and
extending and strengthening the social networks; and consequently, improve the social,
economic, health and wellbeing outcomes of individuals.
Community development promotes social values such as, trust, solidarity, altruism, civic
engagement and tolerance; these values are central to help individuals cooperate and find
solutions to the problems that matter to them the most. We aimed to find out whether:
i. The ABCA work enhanced the size, diversity and composition of connections
between individuals and communities;
ii. These bonds promoted values associated with social capital;
iii. They delivered better economic, social, health and wellbeing outcomes in pilot sites;
iv. The learning and experience from these pilot sites changed the way agencies (and
services) perceive the value of their communities, and was this likely to result in
sustainable behavioural changes.
We used predominantly qualitative methods to understand why people got involved, their
experience of it and what they perceived had changed as a result; methods that narrate
individual experiences of the process, perceived benefits and drawbacks. We also learnt that
our approach needed to be flexible to accept the diverse work in the three learning sites.
Our methodology also included:
Attendance and observation at structured meetings, and less formal discussions
Interviews with local residents and agencies
Surveys of localities
3.2 Attendance at meetings
We attended a range of meetings hosted by the three providers to gather knowledge on
approach and progress. This continued throughout the 12 month evaluation. These ranged
from steering group meetings to informal discussions with people and agencies. We also
attended some local community events where ABCA progress began to involve the wider
community.
3.3 Interviews – first round
To achieve an initial baseline of knowledge and understanding about local communities, we
interviewed a range of local individuals and agencies in the autumn of 2015. More details on
our interviews for each area can be found in the Appendices.
10
3.4 Interviews with Agencies
To gain further insight into the neighbourhoods and communities we conducted interviews
with agencies and key individuals to appraise their view of the locality they worked in. These
interviews were confidential insofar that, we agreed not to share attributed comments, but
rather we used these to gain an overview through many eyes. These interviews framed our
work and provided important insights into local relationships as well, crucially, as changes in
perception.
3.5 Interviews – second round
Deep into the work, where possible we followed through with further interviews to see if the
ABCA work had made a difference in the eyes of individuals.
3.6 Observation
We regularly attended meetings with local residents and steering groups and listened and
observed, speaking with residents and staff where appropriate. We also maintained regular
exchanges with providers about progress and challenges and were privy to reports from the
three ABCA providers to the Commissioner. This helped steer our direction of enquiry and
helped confirm, or dispel, hunches and assumptions. We also researched other work going
on in the localities for evidence of community action to see if there were connections or
ripples spreading out.
3.7 Sitra Survey
We used surveys either side of Christmas 2015 to gather evidence of the wider ripples of the
ABCA work. 250 questionnaires were distributed to the three local neighbourhoods. Some of
these were via people and organisations involved in the work and some were delivered to
people’s houses and flats in the vicinity of the work being carried out. We have analysed the
responses [Appendix L] we received, though numbers of returns were low, particularly from
Tamworth.
11
Section 4
C2 in Cannock
4.1 Introduction
‘It’s my belief that many of us, as service providers, have lost sight of the role of our
communities to deliver sustainable change for themselves. All we have to do is to
create the enabling conditions. The key to this is to listen and deliver on their
aspirations and priorities. The people do care and they will make it work.’4
Hazel Stuteley OBE, C2 Connecting Communities
The ABCA approach commissioned for Cannock was delivered by ‘Connecting
Communities’ sometimes referred to as C2. They were commissioned to work in Cannock
for 18 months, January 2015 to June 2016. Their work however, began in the Area in
September 2014.
4.2 Description of approach
The C2 ABCA is a 7-step programme, developed over a 6 to 12-month period, and based on
learning originally from the Beacon Community Regeneration Project5 in Cornwall and
subsequent UK initiatives. There are currently 30 active C2 communities.
Key to the approach is the creation of a resident-led partnership which tackles issues
identified by residents with support from service providers as partners. It aims to connect
communities in different ways:
Within themselves, through networks and co-operation amongst local residents;
With local service providers, building a parallel ‘community’ amongst front-line
workers;
With other C2 communities, getting and giving inspiration from one place to
another.
The key features of the 7-step programme are:
A defined area of between 4,000 and 7,000 households;
A community-needs assessment with ‘front-liners’ actively listening to the community
(Steps1 & 2);
Linking to other C2 projects elsewhere to co-learn (Steps 3 & 4);
Creation of a community-led constituted partnership which meets monthly, with a
number of ‘dispersed’ projects with ‘dispersed leadership’ (Steps 5 & 6);
4 http://www.healthcomplexity.net/content.php?s=c2&c=c2_background
5www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-T27l8UKm4: The Story of the Beacon Community Regeneration
Partnership, C2 Connecting Communities
12
A number of community-led initiatives in progress (Step 7).
Two C2 National Leads led the programme in Cannock supported by a local coordinator.
The timeline of key events is in Appendix D, but the key elements were:
Steps 1 & 2
Initiation Phase September 2014 to June 2015. During the initial phase6, C2 engaged with
local decision makers to highlight the opportunities presented by their approach. This
included attendance at a Cannock Local Strategic Partnership meeting; a three-hour
‘connecting workshop’ for 40 service providers: e.g.; Councillors, Police, Fire, Council, co-
facilitated by Exeter University, introduced the C2 ‘7-Step’ approach and agreed the next
steps. They also conducted a series of walkabouts in the Area with service providers and
two ex-community champions. A further half-day ‘connecting workshop’ for service providers
and a few residents was held at Staffordshire University Academy, covering similar topics.
This first phase of activity built up to a Listening Event in June 2015, organised by C2 with
the help of a small steering group. Hundreds of invite postcards, based on a template used
by other C2 communities, but designed by residents, were delivered locally and a press
release issued. Approximately 50 people attended this high-energy event, which sought
views about local issues and priorities.
A week after the Listening Event, a summary report, prepared and presented by C2 was
accepted by the 30 attendees at a Feedback Event.
Steps 3 & 4
One resident and two statutory organisation staff attended a C2 Experiential Learning
Programme led by Exeter University, which included an opportunity to visit the Beacon
Community in Falmouth and meet residents and hear their stories and to meet participants
from other C2 initiatives.
Steps 5 & 6
At the Feedback Meeting on 4 July, C2 proposed and it was agreed that an Interim
Partnership7 would be established which would meet monthly. There were twelve such
meetings between July 2015 and June 2016.The aim was to progress the priorities and to
set up a formally constituted Partnership. In addition, there was activity between meetings
which is described more fully below.
4.3 The Area
The Area that C2 was commissioned to engage comprises 3,100 households in Cannock,
and straddles parts of the three commonly identified areas of Chadsmoor, Pye Green and
Hednesford. The Area sits within the wider Blake Programme Area [Appendix B], an area for
6 The evaluation did not commence until May 2015 so the first phase is based on reported activity
including information provided by C2 themselves and others. 7 This is the group that was established following the Listening and Feedback events with the aim of
establishing a more formal Partnership.
13
action, because of its lower than average quality of life indicators. The Programme is
currently led by a multi-agency Blake Programme Steering Group.
In interviews with local residents we found that people could not give the Area a specific
name, saying, either it didn’t have a name, or they would give a string of names; Chadsmoor
– West-Chadsmoor – Blake – Broomhill – Pye-Green – Hednesford, rather than any single
name. When people were asked to describe aspects of the Area, it was clear that people
were most often referring to Chadsmoor as a whole, but this is a much wider area. C2
encouraged participation by residents from this wider area.
C2 reported “there was a sense that it is ‘alright here’”8; that there was strong loyalty to the
Area with little migration in and out. They also identified that there was some ‘initiative-
fatigue’. However, they were unable to identify a unifying issue9.
Research by C2 and Sitra indicates a very strong sense of identity and belonging, and a
community connected with the name ‘Chadsmoor’; the terms ‘Chadsmoor people’ and
‘Chadsmoor village’ were often used. We heard a recurring theme that, ‘there’s a lot
happening [positive activities] in Chadsmoor, but people don’t know about it!’ Not
surprisingly, our survey identified that people who had lived longer in the area felt a stronger
sense of belonging [Appendix L].
The C2 walkabouts and interviews with local residents also identified that the local shops in
particular are well regarded. They contributed generously when asked to donate prizes.
However, they did not participate in meetings, and it was reported that this was due to the
timing of the meetings.
Initially, we asked interviewees to describe the area in three words or phrases. Senior staff in
statutory organisations tended to describe the area in definite and negative terms; while
front-line and voluntary staff tended to describe the area using more complex and
compassionate terms. By comparison, local residents (adults) were much more positive,
especially when referring to social aspects and green spaces, although they were less
enthusiastic about the physical urban environment. A group of 18 young people had mixed
views, but overall more were positive than those from statutory organisations.
Family bonds are very strong in the area. We heard frequent reference to multi-generational
extended families living in close proximity to each other, which translated into less reliance
on neighbourhood interactions. Our evaluation survey revealed that there was a greater
propensity to engage with friends outside the area, than with neighbours. In a discussion
group with mothers with young children, none had any regular contact with neighbours.
8 C2 report to Staffordshire County Council: Connecting Communities (C2) Walkabout Cannock
February/March 2015 9 C2 report to Staffordshire County Council: Connecting Communities (C2) Walkabout Cannock
February/March 2015
14
4.4 Why the area was chosen
The Area was chosen, because it was felt that the C2 approach may help to establish a
community-led partnership to replace the current Blake Programme Steering Group.
Evidence prepared and monitored for the Blake Programme demonstrates that Chadsmoor
has a long-standing history for anti-social behaviour, especially related to drug taking
Approximately 30 troubled families live there10
. Local agencies believe the area is ‘hard-to-
engage’, as a number of past engagement initiatives have reportedly ‘failed’.
4.5 Key Partners
The County and District Councils worked hard to ensure that all key Statutory Agencies were
involved from the start. In particular, the Police and the Fire Service were active and
supportive participants. Local voluntary sector groups, schools and churches were actively
encouraged to participate in the lead up and during the initiative.
4.6 What happened?
Participation
Twelve monthly Interim Partnership meetings were held. Attendance started strongly with 22
people in July 2015, but dropped to six by May 2016. In between, attendances ranged from
ten to fourteen people, a relatively good level of attendance for formal meetings at a
community level. As a result of dwindling attendance, the Interim Partnership met again on
21 July 2016 to consider whether to cease activity, join with another initiative, or carry on.
Across the course of the evaluation a total of seventeen residents participated in Interim
Partnership meetings, and represented just under half of all attendances in all meetings.
The initiative faced challenges identifying residents willing to take key positions of chair,
secretary and treasurer and the two who did put themselves forward, then experienced ill-
health and had to step aside. By June 2016, the third and current chair had been in place
since April and there is also now a vice-chair, but no secretary or treasurer had been
identified.
The Listening and Feedback Events were held on Saturday mornings. All other meetings,
except one, were held on weekday afternoons.
Older people predominated amongst participants. Of the nine residents who attended three
meetings or more, all but two were retired, one worked night shifts and another didn’t work.
Of the remaining eight resident participants, at least four were retired. The evaluation survey
10
We are aware that the term Building Resilient Families is preferred by the County, but everyone we spoke to still used ‘troubled families’..
15
suggests that, of people connected with the initiative, at least ten would be defined as
‘isolated’11
.
In all, ten voluntary organisations attended at least one meeting of the Interim Partnership.
Prior to the C2 initiative, all voluntary organisations had regular contact with each other and
had undertaken joint initiatives. At first, voluntary organisations did not significantly engage
in the Interim Partnership meetings. Participation gradually built, then declined as energy at
meetings dropped. By far the strongest attendee was a local family centre.
In contrast, attendance by the statutory organisations started strongly then dwindled. In
interviews, participating staff reported that, they were keen to help and anxious that the
initiative should succeed. Statutory organisations included the District Council, Fire and
Rescue Service, schools and police. In our interviews all cited examples of prior joint
working strategically and at local levels.
Six local councillors participated. They generally identified their status ‘not as councillors, but
as local residents’. The councillors who represent the Area have, in general, served over
many years and have good connections into the Area. District Council and local councillors
received many unsolicited plaudits from respondents. However, in meetings, it was observed
that there was often deference to their knowledge and experience. In particular, when an
issue was raised the question was often asked, ‘what is the Council doing about it’, forcing
the Councillors to make a ‘Council statement’. Their participation in meetings ranged from
domination of the discussion to quiet and active listening.
Local Issues Identified
Priorities identified at the Listening Event (with number of votes) were:
Good points: People, neighbours and community (18); shops (14); Cannock Chase,
wildlife (9);
Challenges: Drug problem and users hanging around shops and impact of trade/use
of shops (12); dog fouling (6); bad paving needing repair (4);
Issues: Anti-social behaviour (15); parking on pavements (15); funding for children’s
and young teenagers’ activities (15).
Priorities identified in the Feedback Report and agreed at the Feedback Event (July, 2015):
Anti-social behaviour: drug problem/ users hanging around shops and impacting on
trade, older people frightened to go shopping;
Environmental: dog fouling;
Highways: state of pavements (impacting on mobility and access to services).
Notably, the Feedback Report focused on the ‘problems’ within the list, even though positive
issues received more ‘votes’ and had also been strongly identified on walkabouts. Dog
11
‘A subjective sense of lacking desired affection, closeness and social interaction with others’, Office of National Statistics, Insights into Loneliness, Older People and Well-being, 2015
16
fouling was identified as a top priority in the report at the Feedback Event, although only
identified as the sixth priority at the Listening Event. Discussions at the first Interim
Partnership meeting suggested that residents thought dog fouling problem was reducing,
although it was raised again in later meetings. However, this issue was still actively
encouraged as a topic by C2.
As new participant residents got involved they brought new issues to the table and the
emphasis shifted to these later issues. Additional issues identified by residents and C2 were:
Communication;
Princess Street parking;
Graffiti Style Hoardings.
Later, C2 proposed a joint initiative with Alzheimer’s’ Society Dementia Friendly
Communities initiative and this was agreed.
There was no significant follow up on anti-social behaviour, although a Police representative
came to the group to talk about anti-social behaviour statistics. There was no significant
action for young people or the state of the pavements.
The assertion was frequently made12
that, funding would only be available when a formally
constituted body was in place. Whilst it is easier for a formally constituted body to access
funds, this approach resulted in an emphasis on process rather than community activity.
There is a local example where an emerging organisation is being ‘parented’ by an
established organisation, which is holding/ authorising grant funds until the new organisation
has a constitution in place.
Inter-meeting Activity
i. The Interim Partnership developed a draft constitution, a code of conduct, and a
communication strategy. Two sub-groups were set up to support this:
a Constitution sub-group of residents, voluntary organisations and the C2 co-
coordinator met twice to produce a code of conduct, which was agreed by the
Interim Partnership; and
a Communication sub-group – more detail below.
ii. One of the residents offered their conservatory to hold the sub-group meetings in.
iii. Parking: A parking issue in Princess Street generated most inter-meeting activity.
The then Interim Chair led a meeting between residents from Princess Street and the
local Health Centre, which agreed to put up a notice on their railings. This was
actioned (although a number of months later and of a very small size). One resident,
with the support of the Interim Partnership, wrote a number of letters to the County
Council. It should be noted, however, she had begun writing letters before being
involved with the initiative. The letters resulted in white ‘H’ advisory access lines
12
e.g.; at Interim Partnership meetings on 29 July 2015, 4 February 2016 and 19 May 2016
17
being painted on the road by the Council. However, this was only a partial resolution
of the issue.
iv. Hoardings: Concerns by one resident about graffiti designs on a developer’s
hoardings, which were felt inappropriate, resulted in a resident being encouraged to
contact the developer directly to try and resolve this. The resident reported back that
the hoardings had been made safe, but that the developer was unwilling to change
the graffiti design. The resident did not attend any further meetings of the Interim
Partnership.
v. Dog Fouling: C2 made contact with a local school, which held a successful dog
fouling poster competition. A selection of posters was put on Facebook for public
vote to identify winners; the winning designs being incorporated into an existing
Council banner design. However, the footwork for this appears to mostly have been
undertaken by C2 themselves or Council staff, rather than any residents, although
the Interim Chair took part in the prize-giving assembly
vi. Dementia Friendly Community: Residents met with the C2 Coordinator to progress a
proposal to hold a joint Dementia Friendly Community event. This work was largely
organised by the C2 Coordinator. However, on the day, only one resident, (the Chair
of the Interim Partnership), and no statutory organisations, participated.
Communications
The Communications Sub-Group consisted of three residents, one Councillor, and a C2
Coordinator. The Group met twice, but the second meeting was overly dominated by a
discussion about the Area – around which parts should, or should not be included.
The group adopted the name “Community Spirit” proposed by a Councillor (14/9/2015) and a
service provider arranged for their design team to propose some logos. The group then
decided on a preferred design and C2 designed new posters using the new Community
Spirit logo. Agencies were also asked to print and distribute these posters; however, we did
not come across these posters displayed in public places during our fieldwork.
Initially, communications were appealing and easy to read. Over time communication
became more traditional and bureaucratic. Agendas and minutes were the main written
communication and were produced by the local C2 coordinator, who offered to help until an
interim secretary was in place. Minutes were often many pages long and at least twice, were
almost immediately re-issued with amendments. Written communication to participants was
predominantly by email with an open mailing list. A number of residents requested and
received documents by post.
The interim chair and C2 attended a local church networking event to increase awareness of
the initiative.13
The sub-group recommended developing a Facebook site and writing an article for the
Support Staffordshire quarterly magazine, which were progressed by the C2 coordinator and
a council staff member. Council staff also supported the sub-group by arranging sample
13
October 2015 at Chadsmoor Methodist Church
18
logos to be designed by the Council’s Communications Team, developing a communication
planner, developing and administering a Facebook site and supporting the poster
competition.
In February 2016, restyled meeting posters and the development of a Facebook site helped
to reverse the more bureaucratic and traditional type of communication.
Postcard invite Meeting Poster Facebook Site
Recently, a resident has offered to take responsibility for the Facebook site, indicating
positive signs that responsibility within the Partnership is being taken over from statutory
organisations by community members.
At an ABCA event hosted by the Diocese of
Lichfield in June 2016, three Partnership
participants designed this poster illustrating the
communication strategy they thought would work
best – namely talking face-to-face. They stated
that this was the first time they had talked to each
other about who they were as individuals.
Challenges for C2
The defining of the Area became a divisive factor, resulting in strenuous debates in two
meetings, which disrupted the momentum and marked a turning point, between earlier
meetings which ‘had heart’ and were ‘on target’ to ones that had lost impetus.
Local reaction: Although C2 felt welcomed there was some frustration that money was being
spent on this initiative when cuts were faced elsewhere.
‘Initiative-fatigue’: Organisations were cynical about whether people would engage, because
there had many unsuccessful past attempts. Some local residents didn’t engage, because
they saw this as yet another council initiative, ‘which would probably disappear in a short
while’.
The contract performance indicators for the initiative were delivery of outputs by certain
dates, although the sponsors were made aware, and agreed that, there needed to be
flexibility as the pace of the pilot needed to be set by the residents and supporters. While C2
themselves offered these indicators, ‘hard’ outputs can lead to pressure to be output-
focused.
19
4.7 Findings
Identifying Communities and Concerns
A geographical area is not necessarily an identifiable community. Shared concerns may not
exist, or there may be a range of concerns dependent upon the community of interest.
A focus by C2 on finding a ‘problem to solve’ as the key to building a shared identity and
enabling mobilisation may have constrained opportunities as this meant that the ‘good
points’ were ignored yet, they may have had the potential to achieve mobilisation through a
different type of unifying factor.
In Cannock, there was a mix of participating residents, some who knew each other already
and some who did not. Of the four that remained at the end of the evaluation, three already
had strong social connections with each other. However, there were new and strong
connections built between residents and voluntary and statutory sector front-line staff.
The C2 approach identified existing pockets rather than generated new social capital, but
also missed opportunities to build further.
Building on assets
Whilst the Partnership took advantage of a resident’s conservatory to hold sub-group
meetings, other resident ‘assets’ were not called upon including experience of; committee
work, extensive experience working with young people; using Facebook; driving cars;
photography; lived experience of disability and mental health issues; technical design and
planning.
The lack of progress on ‘activities for young people’ is perhaps most surprising. At least five
participating residents had extensive experience working with young people. This was also a
strong skill set amongst statutory and voluntary sector participants. The wish to connect with
young people was frequently raised by residents at Interim Partnership meetings, but never
built on.
C2 brought experience from their work developed elsewhere. These examples were used to
provide positive examples and inspiration. Bringing in people from other successful C2
initiatives does help improve the expectation of success; bringing knowledge of what has
worked elsewhere can increase awareness and optimism of what is possible and the initial
‘postcard’ template was effective and a ‘quick win’. However, in interviews, respondents
indicated frustration, because ‘good examples’ came from elsewhere and local positive
examples were not cited, known about, or built upon. An over-reliance on feeding in what
worked elsewhere led to, for example, dog-fouling issues being pursued, while an offer by a
resident to lead a group and supply tools to cut back vegetation in the local ginnels was not
taken up.14
14
20 July 2015 Interim Partnership meeting
20
Participants who attended the training course in Exeter seemed more motivated to engage
people, support local action and work towards improving the local area. However, a number
of people were unable to attend due to the length of the course and the distance involved.
Partnership with local people
C2 succeeded in connecting to a small group of people who are keen to see improvements
in the area (organisations and residents) and have between them, an extensive knowledge
of what is already happening.
The emphasis on formally constituting the Partnership body to access funding more easily,
resulted in an emphasis on process, rather than following on the energy of those
participating for other initiatives and priorities. The focus on constitutional issues gave rise to
some perceiving that, ‘nothing was happening’ (i.e.; not seeing any change on the ground).
The difficulty in finding sufficient residents who felt able to take on the role of chair, treasurer
and secretary and with the C2 coordinator and other staff progressing initiatives themselves,
suggests that resident skills and confidence did not match those needed for identified
activities.
The Listening and Feedback Events were held on Saturday mornings. All other meetings,
except one, were held on weekday afternoons. The decision to hold meetings on weekday
afternoons impacted on who could participate, encouraging:
Older people who are retired, including several who met the Office for National
Statistics descriptor of being isolated15’;
Statutory agencies and voluntary organisations that could schedule the partnership
events as a business meeting.
Whilst making participation difficult for:
People who are at work, or those with childcare responsibilities. For example, a
resident who offered to carry out a survey of shops had to leave the Partnership due
to the timing of the meetings. Some residents could not attend events, because they
had day-time caring responsibilities for grandchildren.
Local businesses, even though they were highly regarded by residents and they
expressed interest in becoming involved.
Over the period of evaluation there were three different local coordinators and two national
leads. C2 have identified that in other areas, employing a local resident, who has a
15 The Office of National Statistics take the view that people who do not meet, or receive a visit at least
once a week are ‘lonely’ and those who do not have regular interactions (either face to face or by
phone) are ‘isolated’.
21
longstanding commitment to the local area, has worked well in terms of building continuity
and trust.
Partnership with voluntary organisations
By the end of the evaluation there was some evidence from meetings and interviews of
some early connections being made:
A local family centre ‘connected’ with a local foodbank and was subsequently
authorised to issue foodbank vouchers.
The foodbank made a donation of second-hand uniforms to pass on to the family
centre users.
Participating voluntary organisations also offered significant support despite having
limited capacity. For example,
o support to sub-group meetings;
o support to set up and administer a Facebook site;
o offering facilities;
o helping to develop a constitution.
One organisation, which hired a church hall for a community café, was able to
arrange for the Interim Partnership to meet at that venue for no extra charge.
Through participating, voluntary organisations gained increased recognition of their work by
statutory organisations and residents.
Partnership with statutory organisations
In the initial interviews, staff in statutory organisations originally expressed a view that
Chadsmoor was a ‘challenging area’. However, the follow up interviews with them clearly
demonstrates that over the 12-month period their views had changed and they expressed:
More positive attitude towards the area and the recognition of its complexity;
Increased recognition of the value of the work of voluntary organisations and a better
understanding of the contribution of the voluntary sector;
Willingness to work across departmental organisations to support with local people
and try new approaches;
Recognition that there was a ‘lot going on in Chadsmoor’; indicating that the name
chosen by the initiative was having a positive impact.
There has also been a change in their behaviours, for example:
A statutory organisation has offered to discuss whether their staff could provide
volunteers for a local youth club;
Staff worked ‘across silos’ to support the communications needs of the Partnership.
At least one statutory organisation allows staff to volunteer at least one day a month, but
staff stated that pressure of work means they do not take this opportunity.
22
The timing of activities may affect participation by staff. Although staff initially did attend the
Listening and Feedback events there is some indication that outside ‘9-5’, it is more
challenging for them to be involved.
One of the most significant findings from the Cannock, was there was some early evidence
that organisations were beginning to change both in terms of attitudes towards and
understanding of the local area and the lives of people who live there. There was also
evidence that, relationships within the larger statutory sector organisations were and
between the statutory and voluntary sector organisations.
The role of Councillors
Throughout the programme, Councillors have offered their knowledge, experience and
connections to support the programme. In informal discussions, they have expressed they
would like to contribute both as a ‘resident’ and as a ‘representative of the area’. However,
reconciling these identities was demonstrably difficult. For example, when an issue was
raised the question was often asked, ‘what is the Council doing about it’ forcing Councillors
to make a ‘Council statement’.
Communications
The Listening Event was high energy and fun, in contrast to later meetings. The emerging
formality of the Interim Partnership meetings gave advantage to those who were used to
attending formal meetings.
Written communication to participants were predominantly formal and consisted of agendas
and minutes from the meetings, which ran to many pages and were reissued with
amendments.
In contrast to the predominantly written communication style:
In an event hosted by the Diocese of Lichfield (July 2016), residents thought that
‘face to face’ communication would be the most successful – and designed a poster
expressing this.
The survey of participants identified that the internet communication was particularly
important for people who were relatively new to area and in turn this was the group
that expressed that it was most likely to volunteer.
Achievements and legacy
Skills and knowledge introduced by C2 had some positive impact:
A small group of local residents and staff willing to work towards improving the area;
Bringing in people from other successful C2 initiatives did help improve the
expectation of success;
Bringing knowledge of what has worked elsewhere can increase awareness and
optimism of what is possible and a resource to connect with;
23
Staff and residents who attended the training course in Exeter seemed more
motivated to engage people, support local action and work towards improving the
local area;
Individual staff have an increased understanding and commitment to the area;
Second interviews indicated an increased understanding of the value of the voluntary
sector;
The initial ‘postcard’ template was effective and a ‘quick win’, and the name
‘Community Spirit’ has the potential to change perceptions of the area;
There is a draft constitution and code of conduct available. Local third sector support
agencies could be encouraged to develop governance arrangements so that local
sustainable relationships develop.
We believe the initiative has also ‘stirred’ the community and organisations. Our wider
fieldwork suggests the initiative is responsible for planting of a ‘seed of an idea’ that,
Chadsmoor does need a focus to harness local energy, and that the lead could come from
within the neighbourhood itself. We have a sense that ‘something’ will happen, but not
necessarily the formation of a formal partnership.
24
Section 5
Nurture Development in Lichfield
5.1 Introduction
Pilot work began in December 2014. Bromford Housing, a key ally throughout, took a lead
role in identifying an initial cast of people for three days of awareness raising and discussion
led by Nurture Development using Bromford’s local connections. This included a local
resident, Gemma Davis, who works within her home community of Burntwood applying
ABCA methodology to build upon her already flourishing community involvement roles. Kate
Gomez, the initiator of Lichfield Discovered, a local history group, with a huge knowledge of
Lichfield district and an ability to include local residents (her neighbours) in generating
interest in the history and knowledge of their communities, was connected to the ABCA work
shortly afterwards. Gemma and Kate led the local work and crucially understood the
difference between supporting citizen-led processes and doing ‘to’; ‘for’ or ‘with’ people. Both
Gemma and Kate took up paid roles during the ABCA project using some of the funding
allocated to Nurture Development. Through this training, Nurture Development set out (what
they hoped was) a clear understanding of ABCA for participants:
‘a strategy for sustainable community- driven development…[whereby] communities
can drive the development process themselves by identifying and mobilizing existing,
but often unrecognized assets, and thereby responding to and creating local
economic opportunity.’
What is Asset Based Community Development? ABCD Institute, 2008
In discussion with Bromford, Nurture Development identified four potential focus areas:
i. Clegg Road, Burntwood, where there had been concerns about youth anti-social
behaviour;
ii. David Garrick Gardens, Lichfield, with an aim to encourage a group of residents
living in sheltered housing greater involvement in the community;
iii. Fradley village, to explore greater connection across a community that, on the
surface, appear fragmented due to history and geography;
iv. A thematic group around faith or alcohol/ substance abuse. This area did not receive
further attention during the timescale for this evaluation and is not covered further in
this report.
Nurture Development were clear from the start that, each focus they were working on was to
be a starting point and the route to a solution using an ABCA approach, was not necessarily
a straight one, a logical one, or even a route that meets priority needs as identified by
statutory services. In the words of Chris Shaw, lead consultant for Nurture Development for
this piece of work:
‘There is no point in targeting/ naming an area – you have to locate the human
energies first and then build from there’.
25
In this way, the solutions are also typically bespoke, community-driven and arrive at a pace
which fits with local ‘energies’ and available personal assets.
Progress in the three focus areas in Lichfield was driven by people with an interest in what
was happening; where there was little or no interest, it is fair to say, connection was slow or
non-existent. Where there was interest and engagement, activity grew and pulled in wider
connections creating an increasingly complex, though not complicated, web of opportunity.
Whilst we cover challenges in more detail below, a key issue is direction. Without clear
outcomes and a regular re-visiting of initial aims, an ABCA approach has the potential of
heading down the most welcoming path without addressing its initial aim. This could mean
the community is faced with crucial decisions about where to best utilise its resources, whilst
ignoring the raison d’être.
5.2 Description of approach
Nurture Development used a simple open-arms process (all welcome) following key
principles:
i. Embedding ABCA principles via an initial three-day workshop run by them;
ii. Drawing on significant support from a key ally (Bromford Housing) to provide
background and operational support where needed;
iii. Freedom of movement permission for the local coordinator (Chris Shaw, Nurture
Development) and commissioners to make local decisions as to which areas and
human energies to work with enabling a ‘go with the flow’ rather than a structured
process;
iv. A study of local demographics and economic history to determine key themes to
decide which areas to start working in;
v. Identification of locally connected Community Builders, but importantly people
unconnected to existing agencies;
vi. Front loading of resources to build relationships;
vii. Following local ‘energies’ and not ‘wasting time’ with people or organisations not
ready to engage;
viii. Holding regular communities of practice to share developments and receive
comments, as well as invite in new people and agencies;
ix. Gradual reeling in of agencies to become involved;
x. Spinning plates and moving on. Keeping a watchful eye. And returning if more
connecting was needed.
5.3 The Areas
Clegg Road, Burntwood
Clegg Road is a cul-de-sac of 20 houses on the edge of the St Matthew’s Estate in
Burntwood, west Lichfield. Once the site of a long-stay Victorian mental hospital (asylum),
once common across England, there are now;
‘Just under 400 dwellings built on the grounds…ranging from big 5/6 bedroomed
private properties to housing association 1 bed properties and anywhere in between.’
26
St Matthew’s Estate and Surrounds, Gemma Davis 2015
(See also www.countyasylums.co.uk/st-matthews-burntwood/)
Clegg Road is adjacent to a patch of protected green space, once the entrance to the old
hospital and the initial ABCA focus began here, with reports from local residents of anti-
social behaviour from young people. Although Staffordshire Police stated that few if any
reports of such behaviour had been reported to them, Bromford Housing, as first in the chain
of complaint reporting, did receive concerns. The typical complaint was of young people
hanging around, making noise and causing a nuisance in the eyes of the complainant.
The immediate area does not look like a typical area of anti-social behaviour. There is little
litter and no graffiti and borders a pleasant public green space. However, as so often with
issues like these, the problems are in the context of relationships; in this case between
possibly vulnerable, or elderly people, and ‘youth’.
A notice in Clegg Road, Burntwood:
‘No ball games’ – a typical response
to anti-social behaviour?
The Police view on anti-social behaviour is unequivocal; it could and should be sorted out by
local people16
. In that sense ABCA is completely in tune with diminishing Police resources
and existing Good Neighbour and Neighbourhood Watch Schemes; a local solution created
by and for local people. Recent legislation recognises specific responsibilities – under the
Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, other agencies such as Registered Social Landlords have
responsibilities for people living in their housing and parents have responsibilities under the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998. However, both would require police intervention.
David Garrick Gardens, Lichfield
David Garrick Gardens is a sheltered housing complex for disabled people, or people aged
over 50. Housed in two 8-storey tower blocks and connected by a ground floor communal
area, its physical environment does not lend itself to engaging with neighbours in
surrounding housing. David Garrick Gardens has its own private car-park and a secure
entrance, so casual connection is unlikely to be made, even in the process of getting in or
out of a car.
16
interview with Staffordshire Police, 29 January 2016
27
The aim was to enable/ encourage/ facilitate residents to be better connected with their local
community. The challenge of this is evident from the description of people eligible for
residence; 30% of people living in the blocks are unable to go out without personal support,
whilst a sizeable minority are still working and presumably have limited need for further
social contact from within the scheme.
Fradley village
Fradley is now a large community compared to its recent history. Prior to World War II the
village comprised of a church, a primary school, a number of farms and smallholdings and a
scattering of private dwellings. The catalyst for its growth began in 1939 with the
construction of RAF Station Lichfield on Fradley Common. The RAF left in 1958 and the site
was sold in 1962; thirty six years later, a major redevelopment started with the construction
of factories, warehouses and housing. Located off the A38, a busy route that links Burton on
Trent to the M6 Toll and A5, Fradley is classed as commuter belt for Birmingham, in a way
that is both Fradley’s making and undoing, for people settling here pre-1998 were escaping
an expanding city and those who have settled since, are looking for a more rural
environment to commute from; Fradley is categorised as a 'key rural settlement' and is ear-
marked for further housing17
. Modern Fradley consists of distinct parts – old Fradley,
including the church and remaining farms, with in-fill modern housing, Fradley south, where
the majority of housing was built on RAF Lichfield and includes a major shopping outlet, and
Fradley Junction, where the Trent & Mersey and Coventry Canals merge.
17
www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/Council/ Planning/The-local-plan-and-planning-policy/Resource-centre/Evidence-base/Rural-settlements/Downlaods/Fradley-spatial-strategy-report/Fradley-spatial-strategy-report.pdf
28
5.4 Why the areas were chosen
Nurture Development and Staffordshire commissioners gave Chris Shaw freedom to make
local decisions as to where to work and who to work with. This involved assessing ‘human
energy’ locally and ‘looking at local demographics and economic history’ to determine key
themes. The focus areas were chosen to provide a variety of demographic and geographical
challenges:
i. Clegg Road in Burntwood provided an opportunity to engage with young people
apparently providing negative interactions with local people living in Bromford
housing in an area of old de-industrialised township contrasting with neighbouring
prosperous Lichfield;
ii. David Garrick Gardens in The Dimbles, north Lichfield, provided an opportunity to
facilitate connection between the local community and people aged 50 and over
living in the complex, with a wider eye on the social/ economic separate identity;
iii. Geographically split owing to historical housing development, the intention in Fradley
village was to grow commonality and strengthen bonds between the fragmented
parts of the village.
5.5 Key partners
Bromford Housing was the initial major partner in identifying two of the three areas. In
addition to bringing together key local players; they also provided rooms for regular
community of practice meetings and ensured that their operational staff were available and
informed about the work. Staffordshire Fire Service was also very obliging with free room
availability for community of practice meetings.
The Diocese of Lichfield provided some strategic support and brought in experience from
other areas about growing grassroots movements, notably Places of Welcome.
Two community connectors carried out the work in Lichfield. Neither Gemma Davis, nor Kate
Gomez worked for any of the agencies involved, but both were connected to their local areas
through a personal interest in the history of their local community.
However, experience demonstrated that it was agencies [Appendix F] coming to these
pieces of work later on that provided key connections and opportunities.
5.6 What happened?
Clegg Road, Burntwood
The approach in this piece of work was led by Gemma Davis, whose family has multiple
connections with this community, with her grandfather having been a nurse at the original
hospital. Gemma identified local assets through discussions and knowledge of the area and
began a discussion about how to address the core issue. A stark difference from a statutory
agency approach is the sideways angle that ABCA takes. A traditional response to anti-
29
social behaviour might be a visit, a warning and potential further action18
. ABCA looks at the
assets in the community and attempts to build an alliance (of engaged organisations and
individuals) and an alternative route for (in this case, misdirected) energy.
In Clegg Road’s case, this has been sought through the local cricket club and the local
church community. It is worth noting here that, even if an organisation has a strategic
intention, the success, or otherwise, depends on local engagement. Due to lack of local
resources, or a misperception of what was being asked of them prompting a standard
response with associated barriers19
, the church community was unable to provide an initial
route for a solution, but success was found through sport.
Burntwood is the site of the World’s Shortest Fun Run, held in 2013 in the UK’s smallest
park, Princes Park, and completed in less than seven seconds.
(www.kpevents.net/tag/burntwood)
A second ‘world record’ attempt was organised for March 2016
bringing together local people under an umbrella of charity fund-
raising. Primarily though, this event enabled community bumping,
a key aspect of building local engagement through sharing and
breaking down barriers. Similarly, a fun day was organised on 2
April by Burntwood Cricket Club, after discussion about how the
club could reach out into the community more. Gemma saw the
opportunity for linking ‘bored’ young people with a local asset.
Intended as an opportunity to get ready for the coming cricket
season, the event reached out to the community by offering
refreshments and a free t-shirt in exchange for manual labour.
18
www.staffordshire.gov.uk/community/communitysafety/Anti-Social-Behaviour/Anti-Social-Behaviour.aspx 19
Many youth groups are run successfully through churches. In this case, it appeared that the barrier to a solution took a physical form of chairs, and the challenge of having to move them in the church hall to accommodate youth opportunities.
30
This had the dual effect of opening the club doors and creating a bumping place for people
who may have never gone to the club.
Through engagement with the cricket club, Gemma Davis was able to form a connection
between local young people and the club. This has resulted in new goal-posts being installed
on the edge of the cricket pitch drawing young people away from areas, where their
behaviour was perceived as anti-social, to another place, where youthful energy can be used
more positively. Additionally, this paves the way for longer-term connections increasing the
reach of the club and hence its sustainability.
David Garrick Gardens
The initial approach was a series of meetings with residents to derive potential focus areas
for engagement led by Kate Gomez, a Lichfield resident and historian.
Assets were identified by Kate; across Curborough Park on the east side of the tower blocks
is Curborough Community Centre and a little further north from The Dimbles is Christian
Fields, a newly-appointed nature park. As work continued, assets appeared in the form of
local people, notably a local historian. At the David Garrick Gardens meetings, it was clear
that some residents were also assets, providing knowledge of other people and the
resources within the building itself. The challenge was how to harness them for the benefit of
all.
Kate Gomez facilitated residents meetings, which began to drive opportunities for residents
to engage with each other and then with the nearby wider community. Kate connected David
Garrick Gardens with Curborough Community Centre across the adjacent park and brought
in Groundwork West Midlands to provide mentoring on planting and greening of their block.
Residents began to drive their own engagement and held a first Christmas party in
December 2015 with one of the residents playing the organ, day trips were organised and
residents made significant choices about how resource rooms within the blocks, previously
empty and unused, could be utilised better.
Using her wider skillset, Kate started looking at developing a Speak Street Language Café to
be held at Curborough Community Centre. This has the potential of becoming a Place of
Welcome20
to be promoted to Bromford customers in the neighbourhood.
Fradley Village
In partnership with St Stephen’s Church, Fradley, Kate Gomez organised an event to
promote people’s views of their village. ‘Love Fradley’, held close to 14 February 2015, was
intended to draw together the diverse communities in describing their community. There was
excellent and wide-ranging engagement from children from the local primary school with an
insight on their surroundings that cut through adult reservation, but low attendance by adults
on the evening, perhaps due to very heavy rain.
20
www.placesofwelcome.org/
31
Despite the low numbers, the event provided an opportunity for local Neighbourhood Plan
leaders to reflect on different ways to engage the community successfully, as well as
demonstrating the creative, wide-ranging and diverse views of young people about their
village.
5.7 Additional outcomes
We observed other outcomes, which clearly demonstrated the wide sweep that an ABCA
approach can take, as well as apparent cul-de-sacs. However, because ABCA has a deep
weave to its solutions, what appear to be dead ends may in time become new opportunities
opening up new connections.
Although resources remain tight, Bromford Housing has recognised how to use its
operational staff better in enabling residents to engage better with external
communities.
Bromford Housing state that, they have seen a renewed role for its ‘small sparks’-
type funding, YouCan21
. This funding was used by Burntwood Cricket Club22
to
organise their fun day that led directly to resolving the anti-social behaviour issues at
Clegg Road.
21
www.thisisyoucan.org/apply-now/ 22
www.thisisyoucan.org/cricket-club-hoping-to-be-bowled-over-by-community-fun-day/
32
A new connection was made between Burntwood Cricket Club and the listed building
housing St Matthews Estate flats, opening the way for better relations between the
Cricket club and 80+ residents in the flats. Discussions have started between
Groundwork West Midlands and the Flats Association about how to use the unused
space around the Cricket Club. The Flats Association have changed their
Freeholder’s contract to invest in a local gardener.
Planning permission has been submitted by the Cricket Club to modernise and
expand a building known locally as Sheila’s Cottage, with the hope that it might
become a community centre.
Cross-community connections made in Lichfield were diverse and multiple.
Connection between David Garrick Gardens and Curborough Community Centre
following an ice-breaker event, organised by Kate, on 30th January 2016, which
notably resulted in:
i. A young man with a disability following a recent accident making a connection to
Lichfield Re:Cycle to pursue an interest in basic cycle maintenance and taking
part in rides.
ii. Two residents from David Garrick Gardens being inspired with ideas to take back
to David Garrick Gardens to try out as new activities after talking to Shoebox
Theatre CIC23
.
iii. Potential intergenerational activities (e.g.; children running a coffee morning and
the residents from David Garrick Gardens attending as customers) in a
development between the Bromford sheltered housing complex and the Fun Club
which runs at Curborough Community Centre.
iv. A newly arrived couple to Lichfield with an interest in short mat bowls were
looking to use equipment at Curborough Community Centre and start a group on
a trial basis.
v. Groundwork West Midlands24
connected with the community-run Jigsaw Shop in
Dimbles Lane about using planters for growing vegetables outside the shop.
vi. Ongoing meetings once every one or two months to build on connections made
and develop new ideas and ways of working together
An interest group for Sandfields Pumping Station is being supported and encouraged
with its ideas to create a local education and history centre.
Litter picks have been organised at the newly designated Christian Fields Nature
Reserve25
to create further bumping places for the community to meet and get to
know each other. Time will tell where these connections lead.
A young wildlife enthusiast held a peregrine watch morning in Cathedral Close to
introduce local people to a pair of peregrines nesting on Lichfield Cathedral. Funding
was obtained from The Sound Approach for two telescopes and with encouragement
23
https://sites.google.com/site/shoeboxtheatrecicnew/ 24
www.groundwork.org.uk/sites/westmidlands 25
www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/Residents/Leisure-and-culture/Parks-and-open-spaces/Parks-in-Lichfield/Christian-Fields.Aspx
33
from Kate Gomez, the young person did all of the organisation herself. About 150
people came along.26
An asset map [Appendix G] has been started initially covering Lichfield city wards.
This map could be used by community connectors to link people and agencies
looking to build community social capital.
Initial meetings have been held with the Targeted Families Services about level two
work they do with children with additional needs for which funding is no longer
available. Discussions centred on how ABCA and the local community could play a
role in helping to support families and young people. Further discussions are planned
for how SparkBurntwood and the community could come together to take over
responsibility for the children’s centres at Springhill and Boney Hay.
26
https://georgiaswildlifewatch.com/2016/05/03/triple-figures-for-magic-pair/ and https://twitter.com/GeorgiaLocock/status/727424482500026369
34
Section 6
Asset Based Consulting in Tamworth
6.1 Introduction
‘Working in [an ABCA] way is community-led, long-term, and open-ended. A mobilised
and empowered community will not necessarily choose to act on the same issues that
health services or councils see as the priorities. The timescales are longer than many of
the current publicly-funded projects.’27
Work commenced in December 2015 and took place over about 18 months. In discussion
with colleagues at Tamworth Borough Council, Asset Based Consulting elected to work in
two geographical areas:
i. Stonydelph,
ii. Leyfields,
and, on one theme-based piece of work,
iii. Tamworth Faith sector.
Through local conversations (broadly described in Appendix H), Asset Based Consulting
looked to engage communities and decide on specific areas of focus. Initial conversations
were wide-ranging and Asset Based Consulting returned to this approach late in the
programme to attempt to re-stimulate activity in Stonydelph with the Tamworth Cancer and
Wellbeing Centre. Asset Based Consulting took on a high-level facilitative role to bring
together existing work and identify local leaders. Seed funding was offered to mentored
organisations to help cut through bureaucracy.
6.2 Description of approach
Asset Based Consulting aimed to map the actual and potential assets of individuals and
organisations and used an Appreciative Inquiry approach to connect and mobilise these
assets. They organised and facilitated a number of meetings across their three themes to
bring together issues and themes. Through these meetings Asset Based Consulting aimed
to identify Community Champions and peer-led approaches to deliver ABCA.
The aim of the approach was to identify and celebrate previous successes, build on these to
move ABCA forward by training and supporting natural leaders and activists to be
‘Community Champions’ and ‘Peer Mentors’ to support and sustain improved levels of
physical and social activity:
27
A glass half-full, how an asset approach can improve community health and well-being;
Improvement and Development Agency Healthy Communities Team, March 2010
35
No formal reporting schedule was agreed, however, six reports were submitted on request to
the Healthy Tamworth Steering Group, and Asset Based Consulting also attended two
meetings across the timescale of their work.
Asset Based Consulting proposed supporting 10 projects with a minimum of 10 people
involved in each project across two geographical areas and one theme as described earlier.
Work in Leyfields was proposed as:
i. Work on and in Leyfields Community Centre involving local people, businesses and
Elected Members;
ii. A focus on child and maternal health through breastfeeding peer support and work
with young mums and young people in local schools:
a. Lottie’s Tots28
, a parent and toddler group that began as voluntary action to fill a
gap following closure of children’s centres29
;
b. Milk Fairies CIC30
, set up at about the same time as Lottie’s Tots after withdrawal
of funding for breast feeding promotion;
iii. Development of community ‘bumping places’ to improve the local environment.
In Stonydelph a number of activities were proposed to promote:
iv. physically active young people through BMX, skateboarding and team sports;
v. socially active local people through residents’ activities/groups;
vi. active older people.
Work with Tamworth Churches was proposed as:
vii. Holiday activities for over 5s through St Francis Church with provision of free
activities that, included a basic lunch targeted at children who receive free school
meals. This initiative stems from Holiday Hunger31
, a movement based on findings by
child poverty action groups that lack of regular food is a real problem for families who
normally receive free school meals in term time; there is evidence that food banks
experience a peak in demand during school holidays. Summer food schemes have
run in the USA since 1975, but it is only relatively recently that this issue has been
deemed a need in the UK. Breakfast clubs run at all local schools, but out of term
time, no school means no regular breakfast and no hot food for some children.
Engagement is deemed difficult in Tamworth as local people are not using the
remaining children’s centres.
viii. Co-ordination and development of lay members and volunteers to build additional
capacity;
ix. Promotion of positive mental wellbeing through training for volunteers in counselling
skills.
28
http://lottiestots.co.uk/ 29
www.tamworthherald.co.uk/closure-sure-start-children-s-centres-sparks/story-25973051-detail/story.html 30
www.facebook.com/Milk-Fairies-CIC-581118511900233/ 31
Interview with Holiday Hunger (15 June 2016)
36
And lastly;
x. A Tamworth-wide initiative aimed to encourage local people to be more physically
and socially active linking with the Tamworth Local Sustainable Transport Project.
6.3 The Areas
Leyfields
Located in the County Council division of Perrycrofts and the Borough Council ward of
Mercian, Leyfields is a mixed area of housing, much of it now owner-occupied.
In the 1960s the area saw major development as the first large-scale development was built
to house the overspill for Birmingham. This development eventually quadrupled the size of
Tamworth from a small market town to the second largest conurbation in Staffordshire.
The estate has a number of physical assets, St Andrew's Methodist Church, a community
centre, shops and Wigginton Park, the home to Tamworth Rugby Union Football Club.
Stonydelph
Stoneydelph has a strong sense of community
amongst its residents, despite its apparent
challenges. From surveys it is clear that many
people like living in the area and comment on the
open spaces and friendly neighbours.
This was reinforced by Sitra local surveys32
and
interviews during the course of this evaluation in
which residents across the town commented on
Tamworth being a ‘nice town’, ‘a green place’, and
‘a good place to live’.
Since 2010 Tamworth Council has run Participatory Budgeting initiatives33
in Stonydelph,
Amington and Glascote, where local residents vote for local projects with a view to awarding
up to £20,000. The process has been deemed a success with a fun day and events to attract
local people and almost as many public votes being cast, around 300, as those that elect
local councillors. Projects put forward include work aimed at anti-social behaviour, working
with young people through agencies such as scouts, and well woman clinics.
32
Sitra local survey, Flourishing Communities, November – December 2015 33
www.tamworth.gov.uk/community-budgeting
37
However:
i. Stonydelph ward is in the top 30% of wards nationally for teenage pregnancy (with
Tamworth itself in the top three England & Wales areas in 2013 and 201434
.
ii. Nearly ¾ of the 1,725 children aged 0-15 children in the Stonydelph ward in 2010
were living in low income families.35
Tamworth Churches / faith community
The Parish of Tamworth consists of four churches (the Parish Church of St Editha’s, in the
town centre; St Andrew’s, Kettlebrook; St Chad’s, Hopwas and Riverside; and, St Francis,
Leyfields and Coton Green), with regular congregations totalling around 20036
.
Tamworth churches are already highly active in organising and delivering Tamworth Street
Angels, part of the international Christian Nightlife Initiatives network. Tamworth Churches
are active on Facebook as Tamworth Covenanting Churches37
and on Twitter as Tamworth
Praise38
.
6.4 Why the areas were chosen
We understand that the decisions on areas and themes were made in liaison with the
Healthy Tamworth Steering Group and then built on through conversations with residents
and agencies working in the three areas. The final shape evolved into the ‘Tamworth Ten’
comprising of ten new projects led by ten individuals, with each aiming to involve a minimum
of ten people and supported over ten months [Appendix I]. It was envisaged that each of
these projects would continue beyond the period of direct support by Asset Based
Consulting to evidence that asset-based approaches to community development can be both
effective and sustainable.
Overall the work aimed to promote increased levels of physical and social activity, working in
and with a ‘whole’ locality through physical activity:
i. Supporting social walking and cycling groups, cycling skills and bike maintenance
sessions;
ii. Linking people with existing social and recreational opportunities including
community cafes;
iii. Working with U3A to develop social and creative activity sessions for older people;
iv. Appreciative ‘community conversations’ with younger people in schools and youth
groups to identify their aspirations and activities they would like to be involved with;
v. Promoting positive family health to include promoting positive health and wellbeing
for vulnerable families, working with local schools and youth groups to encourage
34
Conceptions in England and Wales: 2014, Office for National Statistics 35
Stonydelph Locality Profile, Tamworth Borough Council, 2012 36
Diocese of Lichfield, August 2014 37
www.facebook.com/Tamworth-Covenanting-Churches-1385269231733288/ 38
https://twitter.com/tamworthpraise2
38
safer sexual behaviour, community-based. Peer-led approaches to promoting
maternal health and breastfeeding;
vi. Supporting Tamworth’s churches to work with people to promote positive mental
health and wellbeing. Identify clergy and church members who already provide
counselling and support;
vii. Engage South Staffordshire College to provide accredited training in counselling,
peer mentoring and support; work with the CCG and local community mental health
service providers to explore opportunities for referral.
6.5 Key partners
Whilst Asset Based Consulting worked with a number of agencies over the period of this
evaluation, key partnerships appeared to evolve rather than be seen as integral from the
beginning. This may have been due to a lack of understanding about what the work involved,
or because of differing local priorities for each agency.
Asset Based Consulting reported that both VAST and Support Staffordshire were
approached in the early phases of this work, but neither wanted to be directly involved, or
that they proposed to charge for their participation. Later Asset Based Consulting was able
to connect with Support Staffordshire to mobilise support for Milk Fairies CIC with
discussions of how the CIC could become involved as the wider project developed. Asset
Based Consulting responded to this by delivering a training day on asset based approaches
on 14 April 2016 for Support Staffordshire in Stafford. This training had previously been
planned for September 2015 in Tamworth, but was delayed due to lack of take up by local
agencies.
Communities Together CIC appeared to be the obvious local connection and Asset Based
Consulting ensured regular communication to keep them informed and included them in
local work, as they were identified as a key local partner. This small organisation already
connects significantly with its community in Glascote, Stonydelph and Wilnecote.
The Diocese of Lichfield was a key partner across all three of the ABCA learning sites, and,
through the Parish of Tamworth, were key partners for the faith-based piece of work.
Tamworth Covenanting Churches were helpful in disseminating information.
6.6 What happened?
Several of the initiatives relied heavily on local ownership and drive. Key personnel identified
as responsible for driving forward local connections changed their own priorities over the
year meaning half the projects failed to start, or suffered delays during the period of this
evaluation so there is, as yet, little evidence on which to draw conclusions. At time of writing
this report, the Tamworth Ten, had become the Tamworth Five:
i. Lottie’s Tots;
ii. Milk Fairies CIC;
iii. Holiday Hunger;
39
iv. Tamworth Cancer and Wellbeing Centre in Stoneydelph39
;
v. Tamworth Churches.
Lottie’s Tots and Milk Fairies CIC were already running when Asset Based Consulting were
commissioned by Staffordshire County Council.
Lottie’s Tots became an established social enterprise, albeit with limited resource,
supporting 150 young children across 10 sessions a week. Entrepreneurial ideas developed
by Lottie’s Tots have led to income-raising through the selling of branded bags and hoodies.
The project began separately from the ABCA work, and whilst they received ‘no-strings’
funding from Asset Based Consulting to help resolve barriers to DBS checks for volunteers
and other set-up costs, most of their development support has come from VAST40
. At time of
writing, one session, at Larkhall Primary School, had stopped due to lack of numbers.
Possibly this has been due to school visitors having to leave their mobile phones at
Reception on arrival. At other Lottie’s Tots sessions many parents used their smart phones
frequently; perhaps the school rule proved to be a barrier.
Milk Fairies CIC has not been able to establish itself in the same way. Now meeting twice a
week, this service for new Mums, previously led by statutory agency, has yet to establish a
sustainable business model41
. There may be a simple reason for this; local people see
breast feeding support as a much-needed public health service that is run by volunteers,
whereas Lottie’s Tots is establishing itself in the competitive childcare market. It is also clear
that Milk Fairies CIC has not found, or sought, key support from local agencies.
One barrier to Holiday Hunger take-up appears to be that parents need to attend too, as the
sessions do not offer childcare. Run through a kids club twice a week, where children cook
themselves a meal, success has tailed off after initial interest. There was little take up for
taster sessions during Easter 2016 run through the local church, but a plan for the summer
holidays offers a morning film with lunch and activities in the afternoon.
A meeting with local residents with Tamworth Cancer and Wellbeing Centre42
in
Stoneydelph on 3 December 2015 identified a long list of assets and needs, but these did
not appear to progress during the lifetime of this evaluation. Asset Based Consulting has
continued to meet with the Centre, but in the timescale for this evaluation, we have not
discovered outcomes or results of that interaction.
39
www.tamworth-wellbeing-cancer-support.com/ 40
Interviews with Lottie’s Tots (8 February 2016) and VAST (28 April 2016) 41
Interviews with Milk Fairies CIC (27 November 2015) 42
www.tamworth-wellbeing-cancer-support.com/
40
Tamworth Cancer and Wellbeing Centre – a local focus for community building?
A cross-Staffordshire event organised by Asset Based Consulting was held on 15 June
2016, to celebrate ABCA work across Staffordshire with local residents and people in the
communities where work has been taking place (Lichfield, Tamworth and Cannock Chase).
Intended as showcase and planning event, the event was led by the Diocese of Lichfield and
well attended with representatives from all three areas, though many were representing
agencies rather than just residents.
An opportunity to deliver further training and understanding into Tamworth was missed when
Support Staffordshire requested Asset Based Consulting’s planned training be held in
Stafford not Tamworth. It would have been pertinent to insist that the workshop happened in
partnership locally, perhaps at the Tamworth Cancer and Wellbeing Centre.
The work in Tamworth does not appear to have fully captured the imagination of agencies
already active in the area43
.
Tamworth already hosts three key infrastructure agencies in VAST, Support Staffordshire
and Communities Together CIC, along with an active faith community, together providing a
wide array of supports and projects; the South Staffordshire Partnership also delivers
ABCA44
. It’s possible that the addition of another opportunity for engaging local people was
seen as needed by statutory agencies, but not by local people, or local agencies already
working in the area.
Asset Based Consulting’s aims were very ambitious for the short time-frame. With limited
resources they covered two geographical areas and one themed area, and aimed to kick-
start 10 projects. During the 12 months, they faced a number of challenges:
i. Illness of key people identified in the community projects they worked with;
ii. Changes in priorities of key people;
iii. A lack of support from partner agencies / lack of a key ally.
43
Interviews with Age Concern (27 October 2015), VAST (28 April 2016) and church lay members (22 October 2015) 44
Interview with South Staffordshire Partnership (10 June 2016)
41
In support of their aims, ambition is the key to success. Tamworth has been described as
village minded with the railway and river providing geographical divides, through roads also
divide estates. With hindsight, Asset Based Consulting may feel they spread resources too
thinly – resources might have been better focused on a smaller number of initiatives, or
perhaps on one area or theme and then allow that to flourish and grow, or change focus as
the community drove it forward.
The many meetings organised and facilitated by Asset Based
Consulting brought together useful oversight of some of the
key issues, particularly where these related to very local
issues. However, there doesn’t seem to have been any
connections made between these local issues and existing
activity, such as litter picking in their local streets involving
some members of Lottie’s Tots for example45
. Whilst there is
evidence of Asset Based Consulting-led meetings being
advertised, posters were not particularly prominent.
Considerable work was done to hand-drop leaflets in
Stoneydelph, but again this had a very limited effect on
attendance. The opportunities provided by social media were
missed.
Sharing good practice and enthusing local activists is a good way of building momentum, or
understanding the challenges. In Tamworth, Asset Based Consulting did not appear to
establish a set way of sharing learning, through either a community of practice model or a
regular share and learn newsletter. In essence, there were no bumping places.
6.7 Additional outcomes
A Place of Welcome, a place to go for a friendly face, a cup of tea and a conversation if and
when local people need it, launched at St Francis' Church (Monday & Thursday mornings)
and from June 2016, at the Community Together CIC46
Centre (Tuesdays, Wednesdays &
Thursdays, 10am to 2pm). This is part of the wider national initiative that began in the Black
Country and does not appear to be directly linked to the work of Asset Based Consulting. It
is however, an indication that assets are being created by local people.
45
Sitra follow up survey with Lottie’s Tots, May 2016 46
www.communitytogethercic.org.uk/
42
Section 7
Overall Findings and Recommendations
7.1 Finding: If an area cannot be named or recognised as an area, as in the Chadsmoor
project (Cannock), it will be harder to identify a sense of community. A unifying issue for
a neighbourhood may not exist, or there may be many communities; do not assume a
unifying issue has to be a negative. Communities can pull together around areas of
strength and shared identity. Infrastructure of housing estates, roads, canals and rail can
divide and unite.
Recommendation: Talking to a range of groups about an area (and possibly issues and
challenges) will give a different perspective from which to commission/ commence
ABCA. It will also identify issues of which the Commissioner/ statutory agencies are
unaware. An ABCA area should not be based on statistics, as the community needs to
self-define itself.
7.2 Finding: It is important to come to a new area with a fresh mind and a willingness to
listen, and take the time needed to develop relationships, respect and trust.
Recommendation: ABCA is not a linear process. Be prepared to follow the journey as
directed by local residents, even if it doesn’t initially take the direction you hoped for or it
does not immediately yield the results expected. Maintain a commitment to the area.
7.3 Finding: The vision at the top for wholesale community change may not match with
resources or readiness on the ground, or crucially might not match the priorities of
residents and communities.
Recommendation: Be pragmatic and adjust the vision to match. Put in lead-in time and
prepare communities through sharing and story-telling. Ensure commissioning can flex to
changing circumstances.
7.4 Finding: A community may not be ‘ready’ to self-develop. Equally, there may never be a
perfect time ‘to get started’. Tamworth may have responded better in the past, or may
engage better in the future.
Recommendation: Seek to share what’s happened across communities to stimulate
thinking and local action. Some communities may need an initial seed-sowing and then a
later return to re-stimulate. ABCA needs time and patience.
7.5 Finding: A base ingredient for ABCA is un-burdened, unconnected and active community
builders who have licence to roam well beyond normal agency boundaries. These
conditions allow and enable ABCA to flourish. This worked well in Lichfield (and
Burntwood).
43
Recommendation: Ensure community builders are connected to their community;
regardless of how they are funded, they should take their lead from their community
rather than following the priorities of an organisation.
7.6 Finding: Training offered by C2 required a lot of time and personal commitment, limiting
who could attend. However, it stimulated high levels of motivation. Additionally, there
was a missed opportunity in Tamworth where short training by Asset Based Consulting
took place in Stafford, not the local town. In contrast awareness training from Nurture
Development took place in Lichfield.
Recommendation: Short course training / awareness days were effective. They can
stimulate interest, but must be local and accessible to the community. Travelling further
afield might be beneficial at a later stage, once an initial commitment has been
established. Training should include how to deal with negative behaviours and
safeguarding. Training for decision-makers may be useful too. And to encourage local
empowerment, perhaps a train the trainer model could be used rather than always
bringing ‘experts’ in.
7.7 Finding: There needs to be opportunities for staff at all levels in all organisations to work
on an equal basis with residents with a focus on building trusting relationships across
and between sectors and residents rather than a focus on processes or techniques.
There needs to be an understanding that everyone has expertise in something, but some
lack confidence to show this.
Recommendation: Staff at all levels may benefit from training and support to understand
how they can build the confidence of individuals, so that those ‘personal assets’ can be
unlocked. Low level activities could be used with residents to build confidence and
release assets; training should include mentoring and peer support. Reflective practice is
an excellent model for continuous (professional) development.
7.8 Finding: Style and approach is a key factor in engaging and keeping people engaged
and needs to be balanced with a determination to follow the energy of local people and
assets. In Tamworth and Chadsmoor, people did not always respond to structured
meetings or processes, and structured meetings detracted from action. Personality is key
to motivating, connecting and negotiating change; not everyone is a good connector –
even with training. But we noted that most key connectors were women; this might be
significant.
Recommendation: Provide a space for people to lead – to take the initiative and
responsibility and become accountable to each other and develop their own governance.
Energy needs more energy to keep developments rolling and building.
7.9 Finding: Enable opportunities for community builders to meet and share regularly. In
Lichfield/ Burntwood these were called Communities of Practice. Regular Communities
of Practice provided essential connection between local people and agencies and an
opportunity for a time-out. Occasionally the meetings provided an opportunity for
checking direction and altering course. In Cannock, while the initial listening event was
high-energy and fun, this did not follow through to later meetings.
44
Recommendation: Encourage community builders to meet regularly in a creative and
supportive environment; and, if needed, facilitate free meeting space. Cross community
learning opportunities are important.
7.10 Finding: Harnessing the right range of communication methods is a key element of
any community development and needs to be kept under review; this will vary depending
on your initiative and your audience. Social media and websites are valid for establishing
a window into a community and platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter are ‘places’ in
themselves. C2 were slow to take up the offer of Facebook management in Chadsmoor.
Research showed that all key and potential partners in the three areas (the church and
other specific groups) were active on social media. In Tamworth, Asset Based
Consulting as an organisation did not see this as a priority to make a better connection
with local residents and agencies in this way. Lichfield/ Fradley and Burntwood used
social media to make connections, maintain the flow of ideas and keep energies high.
However, we observed that the key to success is background ‘leg-work’ coupled with
persistent, informal discussions. Success happened where both parties obtained
outcomes; in the case of Burntwood, the cricket club raised its profile, and got a new
generation of potential members. Young people got a new focus for their energies.
Recommendation: Work with what people use. Let local people develop their own
method of communication and encourage this to be reviewed periodically, but support
and use social media where there is interest.
7.11 Finding: In order to build community capacity, people need to get together. This can
only happen in shared spaces; some ABCA practitioners call these bumping places.
These can be parks, libraries, community halls, cafes, etc.; meeting opportunities get
community energy circulating. Asset Based Consulting worked to create bumping places
in Tamworth for local residents; they could have created similar opportunities for local
leaders, thus adding opportunities for wider momentum. Timing of events is also
important and thought should be given as to whether the event is an all-population
approach or for key community builders.
Recommendation: Allow time and space for community connections to be made;
facilitate people getting together so they can explore possibilities of shared outcomes.
Do not assume that people only meet in formal places; explore the informal. Use existing
physical assets like local shops, cafes and community centres, occasional open events
like fun days, or targeted opportunities like sports days.
And make sure people have access to those bumping places – venues, accessibility and
funding. Even in times of financial constraint, continue to support areas such as parks,
libraries or sheltered scheme communal lounges. The rewards – the ripple effects – are
likely to be greater than simply the number of people who use them each day. Staff too
can be assets. Release staff from ‘service’ tasks to reactive support working alongside
local people to help support and connect communities.
7.12 Finding: Throughout the work in Tamworth, community organisations faced barriers
that, on the face of it seem easily surmountable, for example room hire or building rental.
Lack of availability of council rooms was explained by apparent council income targets.
45
Whilst the sums might be small, for micro-organisations they make or break emerging
business plans. By contrast in Burntwood and Cannock, the Fire Service offered meeting
rooms for free, providing a neutral central venue that enabled community builders to
focus on their work and not the back-office logistics and gave some of the first signs of
communities pulling together. Both Staffordshire Police and Fire Service appeared
adaptable and responded to communities.
Recommendation: Councils and others with physical resources, such as buildings,
should look closely at how they use these assets, and how they can help or hinder
communities looking to build local connections and activity. This is an example of
agencies flexing – responding with a can-do attitude and would apply equally to other
assets, including time, equipment or expertise.
7.13 Finding: The opportunity provided by small funding, through Asset Based Consulting
in Tamworth and through YouCan from Bromford Housing, is a model that was creative
and useful, enabling small organisations to cut through bureaucracy and perhaps get
small initiatives to get going. The Police Commissioner’s People Power Fund has
created opportunities in Cannock with grants between £100 and £3,000.47
Recommendation: Staffordshire County Council should consider how they can enable,
support and scale up a low bureaucracy, small-sparks funding scheme to initiate ideas
with minimal outcomes expected. Funding could be held by key anchor organisations. A
scheme should not be restricted by ward, division or other statutory barrier, and should
be simple to apply for, with minimal criteria.
7.14 Finding: A true asset-based approach should start from the assets the community
has, rather than expecting them to have a particular set of skills (e.g. designing codes of
conduct or constitutions). In essence it is about not dictating shape and direction of
ABCA, but letting communities flow towards a solution. True ABCA is a non-predictive
activity in terms of output, while it can be predictive in terms of outcomes.
Recommendation: Enable and facilitate communities to identify their own assets;
physical, financial, historical, cultural and personal. Be prepared to signpost to skill
development if needed.
7.15 Finding: Staffordshire County Council has already begun including future ABCA work
in infrastructure contracts. Time will tell whether this enables further growth. However,
work should be done to ensure that existing infrastructure agencies such as VAST,
SCVYS, Support Staffordshire and Age Concern Staffordshire (and others) have
incentive and understanding to enable asset based community approaches.
Recommendation: It is essential that smaller organisations such as Communities
Together CIC in Tamworth and the emerging family centre in Cannock are supported to
build on the existing networks and relationships, because they already reach right into
communities. It is likely that they will have more influence on stimulating local activity and
47
www.staffordshire-pcc.gov.uk/people-power-fund/
46
can work closely with local residents. Existing community based organisations are well
placed to provide this support and should begin to work in asset based ways.
7.16 Finding: It is difficult to know what the impact of ABCA is and match it to statutory
priorities. Change via ABCA can be happening and not happening at the same time. Not
knowing the impact of policy is a major challenge for decision makers. There is certainly
a case for ‘cross-silo’ commissioning – a challenge in itself – as community issues
obviously cross department and organisational borders.
Recommendation: Ensure monitoring and evaluation processes reflect this approach by
allowing communities to tell their stories and allow time for them to find their way to
resolving issues and evidencing the outcomes/ achievements. Commissioners need to
understand that they may not find out what has been ‘caused’ by ABCA. And they may
want to consider what it is they need to know. Contract monitoring can be overly formal,
but there are questions of transparency and accountability especially where public
funding is involved.
7.17 Finding: The role of Councillors in ABCA is not straightforward and there needs to be
a clear understanding on how they can support the community to take action for
themselves.
Recommendation: Councillors need to find a way of supporting at a distance, and can
have a key role in unlocking processes and policies that are preventing communities
from becoming taking actions for themselves.
7.18 Finding: The empowerment of communities through commissioning of ABCA is an
oxymoron; it is only the conditions that can be set by commissioners for personal or
community action. The actions themselves need to be taken by the people.
Recommendation: Commissioners should ensure that cross-agency policies are joined
up and ensure that power is given to communities not held back. Working together
doesn’t just mean pooling budgets, but pooling resources and allowing them to flow
outward again. As above, Councillors should hold officers to account to ensure this is
happening. This is a powerful and positive way to support and represent their
developing communities.
7.19 Finding: There was an absence of hard to reach communities from the ABCA work.
Recommendation: As stated previously, a community may be one or many communities.
Be clear about what you are trying to do and be flexible about the outcomes you are
trying to achieve. Ideally, let the objectives be designed by the community within their
timescale. Don’t assume, nothing, or something, is happening. Amongst communities
there will be people from many faiths, cultures and backgrounds. ABCA must be
accessible to all communities and the challenge is to ensure this is enabled.
7.20 Finding: We noted that due to the limited scope and timescale of the learning sites,
knowledge of what was happening was restricted to those directly involved – namely that
we did not observe any particular ‘ripple’ effect. However, we did note that those involved
47
were enthusiastic and supportive. And there are things happening outside of this recent
ABCA work as well as the existence of many assets.
Recommendation: Find a way of harnessing the current enthusiasm and legacy, it will
stimulate more energy elsewhere. Develop learning further by checking back to these
learning sites from time-to-time.
48
Section 8
Legacy
8.1 Much work has happened over the last 12-18 months. Chaos Theory48 describes how
complex systems, whose behaviour is highly sensitive to slight changes in conditions,
can be affected by small alterations to give rise to strikingly great, but unpredictable
consequences. Popularly this is known as the butterfly effect. Staffordshire must build on
the recent beating of these fragile wings if it is to move forward and create a future model
for community interdependence.
8.2 If the initiative in Cannock does not continue this will reinforce views across agencies
that the area is ‘hard to engage’ and will add to the sense within the community of even
greater initiative fatigue. Commissioners, with local residents, should consider how to
invigorate the many existing local assets further, in a way that enables local residents to
take it forward themselves.
8.3 By working with local residents on a regular basis the attitudes of staff in statutory
organisations have come to have a more empathetic understanding of the area. The
initiative has exposed a cohort of staff both in the both the statutory and voluntary sector
that are passionate that the area should grow and develop
8.4 In Fradley, neighbourhood planners have seen their local community through children’s
eyes. That may change the view of whether the village is one or many communities and
encourage community leaders to work with the flow rather than against it. Young people
have thought hard about where they live, what they value, and clearly identified the
things that they consider assets. Adults need to focus on these and not think about local
deficits or linger so much in the past. There is a definite sense of looking forward, not
backwards and young people’s eyes may be best set to achieve this.
8.5 In Lichfield, a complex web of connections has been made and begun to be woven into
an exciting asset map. This is simply connecting people with opportunities, but has been
done skilfully. Local people have more awareness of what’s around them and the
potential of those assets and seem keen to develop them.
8.6 ABCA has made a significant difference for some people living at David Garrick
Gardens. Bromford Housing has recognised the importance of looking outwards despite
increasing pressure on budgets; and that the wellbeing of residents in its accommodation
is not the sole responsibility of a Registered Social Landlord. Just as it takes a
community to raise a child, all people are inter-connected to what’s around them.
Conversely, a social landlord’s responsibility does not rest solely with managing the
accommodation; they have a role to play with the communities who live in their homes.
Registered Social Landlords may want to consider how best to use assets, such as their
communal spaces; using them for facilitation of ABCA may be an excellent starting point.
8.7 A small group of bored young people in Burntwood have been connected to positive
outlets for energy. A sports club has contact with a new generation of young people and
residents have seen how perceived problems can be very successfully resolved within
and by the local community themselves without recourse to ‘authority’. This provides a
spring-board for addressing wider challenges and a potential model for other commuter
48
www.slideshare.net/anthaceorote/chaos-theory-an-introduction
49
estates. Additionally, local people have an opportunity to learn about the history of their
environment and connect with that history.
8.8 The conversations and growth of community networks have been paramount to the
development of ABCA on the St Matthews’ Estate and in Lichfield, bringing additional
outcomes to the local community. There has been wider engagement with organisations,
such as Green Doorsteps49 and the Safer Community Partnership led by Lichfield District
Council, plus better connections with and knowledge of other local event organisers like
KP Events50. Burntwood Cricket Club in particular, has received support, funds and
much information and networking from local meetings. The community network in
Burntwood has also supported the local council and other organisations by bringing them
together and enabling new relationships and conversations that can only benefit the
community. A similar group has been set up in Lichfield (Lichfield Community Network)
and again this has connected several organisations (e.g.; the City Council with Lichfield
District Council Green Doorsteps, which has led to the installation of raised beds for use
by David Garrick Gardens residents in the communal area outside Curborough
Community Centre). As with the Burntwood work it has also provided a forum for mutual
support & opportunities for working together.
8.9 The faith community has many strengths, not least physical assets and personal
commitment. Individual faith communities have found new allies in their work and new
connections. They have much to offer, but the challenges of modern society are not their
responsibility solely, despite excellent initiatives such as Street Angels organised by the
Christian Nightlife Initiative network.
8.10 Another Places of Welcome initiative is shortly due to get up and running in Lichfield
(with three churches involved, including Fradley, with others interested in getting on-
board). The role of ABCA in this has been acknowledged by those involved.
8.11 Those leading ABCA over the past months need support and there is an opportunity
as the three learning sites reflect on their work, to provide additional impetus and
encouragement. This support needs to be ongoing. The worst thing would be to say,
‘we’ve tried that’ and move on. Staffordshire needs to develop a way of irrigating their
communities to nurture and grow existing work.
49
http://www.groundwork.org.uk/Sites/westmidlands/news/green-doorsteps 50
http://www.kpevents.net/
50
Section 9
Conclusion
Returning to our theme of People, Places and Resources, we have drawn some broad
conclusions using these three headings.
9.1 People
Whilst there may be structures and agencies that can help (or hinder), people, individually or
collectively as communities, are the main assets that ABCA works through. The learning
from this evaluation is that ABCA is successful when there is a lead person, a mischief
maker or change maker, looking for things of interest, or community assets. Successful
organisations of any type ‘shape-shift’ and adapt to changing circumstances around them. A
key part of that adaptation is leaders being able to look ahead – to horizon scan – but also
seeing what’s under their nose.
In the three learning sites, we saw success where there was someone taking responsibility
for finding a different way through. The most obvious example was in Burntwood where
perceived anti-social behaviour had not been resolved by council signage, neighbourhood
policing, or agency involvement. The initiative behind resolving the issue was led by one
person, detached from agency restriction. We noted that individuals in the role as community
connectors had permission to be that ‘mischief maker’ by crossing agency and geographical
(council) boundaries and potentially to ‘challenge’ the status quo. It should also be noted that
people involved with ABCA will change and therefore developments will stop and start.
ABCA is not a predictive science. Starting here, may lead to working over there with a
crossing and re-crossing of organisational and system boundaries. You never know what will
happen, but something undoubtedly will. There will be unexpected/ unintentional
consequences, which are part of the journey and may be catalysts for other pieces of work.
This is a natural part of the weave. Ongoing support for people supporting and progressing
ABCA is essential. This community will necessarily change, drift, stall and re-focus as people
leave and join.
ABCA impacts on the role of senior leaders. A Councillor role includes participation and
representation; ABCA pulls senior leaders more towards involvement, not representation.
Current thinking around Devolution encourages Westminster de-centralisation. However, this
often re-forms as local centralisation. ABCA is about devolution (with a small ‘d’) and this
means devolving to communities. A challenge is for Councillors to be kept fully informed,
responsive and supportive, whilst standing back to allow ABCA to grow without their lead.
They will have new roles, which will not be ‘doing for’, but will be a challenging role
nevertheless – to ensure the Council is supporting their communities appropriately on their
ABCA journey.
ABCA changes the type and character of leadership. Leadership is about leading, not about
leaders – in ABCA anyone can lead, set priorities, take action, deliver and revise. In
51
essence, ABCA devolves power and leadership from leaders to communities, where
everyone leads.
‘Leadership is an action that everyone can take, not a position that few hold; it is
about taking personal and social responsibility to work with others on common goals;
and it is the practice of values that engage diverse individuals and groups to work
together effectively. Not everyone can lead in every context, but everyone does have
the capacity to step up, take responsibility, and work with others to make progress on
the issues they care about.’
Everyone Leads: Building Leadership from the Community Up, Paul Schmitz, 2011
A key challenge for ABCA is community readiness to lead; communities will have different
timescales, and different tolerances in terms of withdrawal, or lack, of services. Many
communities have people who are willing to take responsibilities and work with others, but
this may not conform to a structure that commissioners expect, such as forming a committee
or group. A further challenge posed by ABCA for statutory agencies is the ability to let go –
to let communities lead.
9.2 Places
By places we mean neighbourhoods, where people live, work or socialise, which are multi-
faceted and many layered. Moving across these ‘places’, people carry their assets, skills and
interests and make new links. This is how the energy of ABCA flows. The focus on place
chimes with current thinking about place-based healthcare, where the question about
provision of health services may be phrased differently:
‘If we ask a person “what health services do you want?” the answer might well be
clinical and focussed on a more efficient experience. But if we ask that same person,
“what would help you to enjoy life more?” the answer would be different: perhaps
[including] their lived experience at home, in the community and at work, and their
hopes for the future.’
Get Well Soon: Reimagining Place-Based Health, NLGN, 2016
Get Well Soon describes how health and care institutions currently hold the power and
determine the direction of service delivery, often at a distance from people as assets and the
resources of places. This needs to change. Agencies have a tendency to start, stop, re-
envision and start again. ABCA says work with what you have got, and resist micro-fixing.
What makes places, is people; communities are diverse. For ABCA, small is beautiful and
change will happen street by street, theme by theme. Some ABCA initiatives may overlap
and intertwine. Not everything that’s happening locally has come from ABCA providers over
the last 12-18 months. Not everything that happens in the future will be due to ABCA.
Our observations and evaluation conclude that scaling up is not the way to go; by definition
you can’t scale up ABCA, because it’s local. Each locality issue should have a community-
led solution and therefore each will be bespoke.
52
9.3 Resources
By resources we mean all the other assets in the community besides people and places.
These may be cultural, historical or financial. Time may also be an asset where change is
not immediately needed.
One way forward to enable a better ABCA-supporting infrastructure is to identify anchors
within a community. This will probably be existing agencies, but they may be small,
potentially unincorporated ‘groups’; equally they could be businesses with a community
focus. This is a naturally uneven and disparate structure. Incorporated bodies could act as
guarantors, mortgage-style, thus allowing community groups and individuals to be active, the
risk resting with incorporated bodies. This could be a key role of the anchors.
Staffordshire’s organisations, including health and local government, have many assets in
the form of front-line staff. Allowing them to ‘be a bit ABCA’ raises organisational challenges
and individual professional boundaries, but is one way through which to achieve system
change.
ABCA has implications for the role of Commissioning; potentially a whole system change, or
a pooling of budgets and even well beyond health and social care (a true health and
wellbeing board vision focusing on Place); potentially a clear challenge for senior leaders.
There is also a danger in sudden de-commissioning that may endanger existing assets,
which if left in place may enable communities to self-develop.
The size of the starting point for ABCA may indicate ambition, but beware imposition of
large-scale projects. The public must be parties to commissioning, but may not want to be or
be ready to be. An ABCA future needs to be grown not planted. ABCA counters
transformation in that it is small and grows from the ground up, not large and planted from
above. But equally, don’t lose sight of the bigger picture of interdependent communities
being more resilient and self-motivating.
Financial resources need not be large, just enough to stimulate new ideas – the small-scale
funding as demonstrated by Asset Based Consulting in Tamworth and YouCan used by
Bromford Housing – or to provide training or bring in external expertise to nudge, or remind
Staffordshire of where it’s going.
Organisations and agencies need to reflect how they can support rather control
communities. This might mean a ‘culture’ change. For example this could include:
working with local communities to commission locally;
small changes to policies and processes to share resources (like buildings/
rooms) and agency assets (staff/ equipment);
flexing budgets to deliver outcomes not outputs;
focusing on outcomes rather than service specifications;
looking at the whole picture rather than services and departmental / contractual
silos;
job descriptions that focus on outcomes rather than tasks;
rewarding staff behaviours that empower rather than control;
53
providing opportunities for reflective practice and support amongst staff.
A message about ambition of vision: a strategy conceived at the top may not be do-able at
the bottom, owing to a lack of resources/ a lack of ‘foot-soldiers’. Therefore, be pragmatic
and adapt the vision accordingly. For example, some faith groups may have limited
attendance, which may curtail their ability to use their assets effectively – this may also be
pertinent to wider organisations. Each organisation needs to find the way that works for
them.
Listen to people and communicate well to set the context and communicate regularly to keep
people informed. Encourage people to tell their stories in their own way and keep
remembering what the aim is – stronger, resilient communities learning the skills to be
interdependent facilitated by an empowering Council.
Fundamental to the legacy is recognising that both residents and staff from all agencies can
combine experiences and expertise and by working together they can achieve positive
impacts.
Businesses and social enterprises of all sizes have an important role, but may have a
different perception of reasons for, and levels of, involvement in ABCA. They will also have
differing views of what they want out of their involvement. It is for the community to decide
on what is needed and how those additional assets are managed.
To progress, ABCA needs to build on existing assets for longer than this pilot, and develop
sustainable longer-term relationships. This may include training local staff and residents in
asset-building techniques. This would need to be ongoing and cyclical as people move on –
a key aspect of any healthy organisation is that a group does not remain static as lives
change – often as a result of the activity itself.
And returning to our four initial aims of this evaluation:
We found that the ABCA work did enhance the size, diversity and composition of
connections between individuals and communities, but the extent varied depending upon the
method used. There was some evidence that bringing people together enabled resolution of,
or progress in resolving, local challenges, but that this may take time and repeated attempts.
It seemed to work well where local ‘energies’ were connected, including existing activities
within the voluntary sector.
In our limited timescale we found that these embryonic bonds created during the ABCA work
promoted values associated with social capital; those tangible assets that count for most in
the daily lives of people – namely goodwill, fellowship, sympathy, and social connection
between individuals who make up a community.
ABCA does have the potential to deliver better economic, social, health and wellbeing
outcomes beyond the pilot sites, but it is too early to judge this.
Our report also demonstrates that ABCA works when elements of ‘the magic triangle of
people, places and funding’ come together (Scottish Development Council, 2008) echoed by
54
comments from community agencies during our research about the magic triangle of people,
places and resources.
Within our timescale, it was not possible to prove that the learning and experience from
these pilot sites changed the way agencies (and services) perceive the value of their
communities, and how likely this was to result in sustainable behavioural changes. However,
through the coming together of diverse agencies for reasons slightly outside of specific
agency remit, we see potential for behaviour change. Connections have been made.
55
Appendix A: Sitra Interviews and survey returns
Cannock Initially End of
evaluation
– repeat
End of
evaluation
– new
Interviews with
Local Residents participating 4 051
4
Staff of local voluntary organisations 9 4 0
Frontline staff of statutory organisations 6 4 2
Senior/strategic staff of statutory organisations 6 2 0
Young people – not participating (discussion group) 6 5 13
Parents of young children – not participating
(discussion group)
5 0 0
Total 36 15 19
Lichfield
(including Burntwood and Fradley)
Initially End of evaluation
– repeat
End of evaluation
– new
Provider, or local coordinator leading work 3 1 1
Local Residents 0 0 15
Staff of local organisations 6 0 1
Community leaders 7 2 2
Total 16 3 19
Tamworth Initially End of evaluation
– repeat
End of evaluation
– new
Interviews with
Provider, or local coordinator leading work 2 1 0
Local Residents 8 2 14
Community leaders 2 2 2
Staff of local organisations 3 0 0
Total 15 5 16
51
As all the original four interviewed were no longer involved, none were available for interview
56
Appendix B: Cannock and the Blake Programme
57
Appendix C: Blake Programme Background
“The Blake Community Programme” is a partnership project aiming to achieve long term (20
year) sustainability of improved outcomes within the Community. It has been, to date,
delivered by numerous Cannock based public, private and voluntary sector organisations
working together. It is a Total Place initiative
A county-wide Local Area Agreement had a range of priorities that did not match a number
of key issues at a local level within the Blake area. The County Strategic Partnership,
therefore, established a Blake Public Service Board to oversee the delivery of innovative
Partnership solutions to address the key issues within this community.
In July 2011 the Blake PSB agreed to pass responsibility for the Blake programme to Chase
LSP alongside a full-time Blake Project Manager. The LSP Executive Board adopted the role
of Programme Board for the Blake work and the Blake projects were included the District-
wide Delivery Plan early in 2012.
The projects included in the Blake programme are:
1. Intensive family support through the Enabling Families pilot,
2. Multiagency extension of Families First,
3. Staffordshire University Academy: Developing community use needs,
4. Shaping multiagency adult and community learning,
5. Alcohol and substance misuse,
6. Healthy lifestyle and activities,
7. Multiagency community asset management and physical regeneration,
8. Encouraging economic regeneration,
9. Community engagement,
10. Community volunteering.
Against this level and mix of intervention it is hard to a judge what is having impact.
The outcomes currently targeted by the Blake Community Programme are:
a safer community,
a reduction in health inequalities,
raised aspirations,
a positive sense of community,
improved skill levels,
improved physical environment, and
increased access to economic opportunities.
In May 2014, an internal report identified that the project has made considerable progress
over the last three years in making a safer community (reduction in Anti-Social Behaviour,
reduction in serious acquisitive crime, reduction in deliberate fires and grass fires), in
developing a positive sense of community (increase in volunteering, community engagement
activities), in improving skill levels (educational attainment at GCSE, increased numbers in
58
Adult & Community Learning) and improving the physical environment (regeneration of
housing, local small initiatives).
However, Blake Community Programme members recognised that the next stages required
greater opportunities for the community to be more involved to help shape the ongoing
development of the project and to shape their own community.
Commissioning arrangements for an organisation to deliver an ABCA approach within part of
the Blake Programme area began later in 2014.
59
Appendix D: Cannock, C2 Timeline – Key Events
Date Activity Who
September 2014 C2 Activity Commences: Attendance at a range
of meetings with service providers including a
Local Strategic Partnership meeting
C2 and Service
Providers
5 December
2014
Connecting Workshop: Attended by
Councillors, Police, Fire, Council and Schools
etc. invited by the District and County Councils.
It was co-facilitated by Exeter University and
aimed to introduce service providers to the C2
‘7-step’ approach and agree the next steps in
Cannock
C2 and 40 Service
Providers
February/ March
2015
Walkabouts in West Chadsmoor identified
important issue is family and children and
Drugs and the effect of drugs.
C2, service providers
and two ex-community
champions
17 April 2015 Meeting with Local Councillors. C2 included Cllr
Grenville Chappell, Resident Leader from the
Beacon Community Regeneration Partnership
Councillors, Sponsor,
C2
April/ May 2015 Further Walkabouts C2 with local voluntary
and statutory
organisations
21 May 2015
‘Connecting Workshop’ to form local
partnership steering/planning
Councillors, Sponsor,
local residents and
providers
From 2 – 27 June
2015
Planning for ‘Listening Event’: Weekly meetings
to plan event and take actions forward
Stakeholders and
residents
18 June to 26
June 2015
Publicity for Listening Event: Postcard invitation
distributed across the area with support of
service providers
Steering Group
27 June 2015
Listening Event: Approximately 50 attendees Councillors, Sponsor,
local residents and
providers, C2
supported by resident
leader from established
C2 community
By 4 July 2016 Feedback report produced. C2 and a nominated
service provider
supported by resident
4 July 2015
‘Feedback Event’ and establish ‘interim’
resident led partnership Approximately 30
attendees. Approximately 50/50 split of
residents and service providers
Councillors, Sponsor,
local residents and
providers, C2
supported by resident
leader(s) from
established community
60
Date Activity Who
20 July 2015 First resident-led Interim Partnership meeting 6 Residents
0 Voluntary org. reps
5 Statutory org. reps
0 Councillors
29 July 2015 Second resident-led Interim Partnership
meeting
8 Residents
5 Voluntary org rep
6 Statutory org reps
3 Councillors
19 August 2015,
Third resident-led Interim Partnership Meeting 4 Residents
0 Voluntary orgs reps
5 Statutory orgs reps
2 Councillors
7-10 September
2015
C2 Experiential Learning programme in Exeter 1 Resident
2 Statutory orgs reps
14 September
Fourth Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership
7 Residents
2 Voluntary orgs. reps
4 Statutory orgs reps
3 Councillors
12 October 2015
Fifth Meeting of resident-led Interim Partnership
now known as Community Spirit
7 Residents
2 Vol. Orgs reps
3 Statutory orgs reps
0 Councillors
31 October 2015 Attendance at Methodist Church Open day C2 Coordinator and
Interim Chair
9 November
2015
Sixth Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
6 Residents
5 Voluntary orgs reps
3 Statutory orgs reps
0 Councillors
7 December
2015
Seventh Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
7 Residents
3 Voluntary orgs reps
2 Statutory orgs reps
0 Councillors
18 January 2016
Cancelled Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
4 February 2016
Eighth Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
4 Residents
4 Voluntary orgs reps
4 Statutory orgs reps
2 Councillors
25 February
2016
Working Better Together to Improve Outcomes
for Families
C2 present to approx.
40 people working
towards improving
family outcomes
3 March 2016 Ninth Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
5 Residents
4 Voluntary orgs reps
3 Statutory orgs reps
2 Councillors
61
Date Activity Who
14 April 2016
Tenth Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
5 Residents
4 Voluntary orgs reps
2 Statutory orgs reps
1 Councillor
19 May 2016 Eleventh Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
4 Residents
1 Voluntary org rep
1 Statutory org rep
0 Councillors
9 June 2016
Twelfth Meeting of resident-led Interim
Partnership now known as Community Spirit
4 Residents
2 Voluntary org reps
2 Statutory org reps
2 Councillors
62
Appendix E: Lichfield, Nurture Development – Key Events
January 2015
3 initial ABCA awareness raising events (delivered prior to Sitra’s involvement)
June
23 June: Sitra interview with Chris Shaw, Nurture Development
23 June: Sitra interview with Richard Haynes, Bromford Housing
July
13 July: site visit by Nurture Development to Clegg Road, Burntwood
August
24 August: Community of Practice meeting, Bromford Housing, Lichfield
September
16 September: Sitra interview with Gemma Davis and Kate Gomez
17 September: Sitra interview with Will Lilley, Bromford Housing
24 September: Community of Practice meeting, Bromford Housing, Lichfield
October
5 October: Interview with Jane Reynolds, SCYVS
16 October: Sitra discussion with Rev’d John Allan, St Stephen’s Church
23 October: Community of Practice, Chasetown Fire Station, Burntwood
30 October: Interview with Nina Pearce, Bromford Housing
November
26 November: Community of Practice, Chasetown Fire Station, Burntwood
26 November: Sitra discussion with Ian Wells, Cherry Orchard Gardening Service
27 November: Community of Practice meeting: Bromford Housing, Lichfield
November-January
250 Sitra Surveys distributed across:
WS13 7JL
WS13 7NY
WS13 7NZ
WS13 7NZ
WS13 8NJ
WS13 8NN
WS13 8NP
WS13 8NZ
WS13 8PF
WS13 8PG
WS13 8RU
WS13 8RX
WS13 8TT
WS13 8UA
WS13 8UD
63
January
21 January: Community of Practice meeting: Bromford Housing, Lichfield
29 January: Community of Practice, Chasetown Fire Station, Burntwood
29 January: Sitra interview with local community leader [1]
30 January: Curborough Community Ice-breaker, Curborough Community Centre
30 January: Sitra interview with Marisha Place, Staffordshire Police
February
12 February: Ideas session with residents, David Garrick Gardens, Lichfield
17 February: Love Fradley, St Stephen’s Church, Fradley
21 February: Christian Fields litter pick, north Lichfield
26 February: Update for residents meeting, David Garrick Gardens, Lichfield
26 February: Sitra discussion with Sophie Briggs, Bromford Housing
26 February: Sitra discussion with Pundeep Kaur, Groundworks West Midlands
March
2 March: Sandfields Pumping station visit, Chesterfield Road, Lichfield
31 March: Sandfields Pumping station meeting, held at George IV pub, Bore Street,
Lichfield
April
1 April: Bring and share lunch, St Stephen’s Church, Fradley
2 April: Burntwood Cricket Club grounds day (funded by Bromford Housing You Can
funding)
12 April: Lichfield Community Network meeting (Ideas sharing), Curborough Community
Centre
17 April: Discover Fradley walk, Fradley (planned but did not take place)
19 April: Asset mapping, Open House, Cherry Close, Burntwood
19 April: Sitra discussion with local community leader [2]
End of April 2016: Christian Fields second litter pick, north Lichfield
May
19 May: Community of Practice meeting: Bromford Housing, Lichfield
May: Meeting between representatives of Burntwood Cricket Club and St Matthews
Estate Flats Association to discuss community initiatives
64
Appendix F: Lichfield – Key Agency Involvement
Beacon Community Church
Bromford Housing
Burntwood Cricket Club
Cherry Orchard Gardening Services
Christ Church, Burntwood
Curborough Community Centre
Diocese of Lichfield
Groundwork West Midlands (Green Doorsteps Project)
Jigsaw Community Shop
Lichfield Changes
Lichfield District Council
Life Church Lichfield
North Lichfield Initiative
South East Staffordshire Citizens Advice Bureau
Staffordshire Council of Voluntary Youth Services
Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service
Staffordshire Police
St Matthews Estate Flats Association
St Stephen’s Church, Fradley
St Stephen’s C of E Primary School, Fradley
65
Appendix G: Generic Assets
Identified as part of work on the Lichfield Asset Map, but applicable to all areas.
People
Bands (and their
music)
Board gamers
Dance groups
Faith groups
Local dialect
speakers
Local leaders
Movers and shakers
Politicians and
Councillors
Pop-up groups
Rambling groups
Role models
Tour guides
Uniformed services
Uniformed youth
groups
Volunteers
Places
Allotments
Canals
Community cafés
Cycle paths
Dens and tree houses
Farms
Festivals
Health centres
Libraries
Lunch clubs
Markets
Monuments
Museums
Natural world
Open spaces
Other green spaces
Parks and gardens
Places of worship
Pubs and clubs
Roads
Schools
Sports clubs
Surgeries
Theatres
Volunteer centres
Resources
Accessibility
Businesses
Charities
Culture
Drive
Enthusiasm
Equipment
Events
Free WiFi
Goodwill
Grants and funding
pots
Heritage trusts
Heritage
History
Inspiration
Intellectual assets
Knowledge
Networks
Passion projects
Public transport
Skills
Social media
Studios
Vehicles
Wild life
Work on mapping these assets this can be viewed at:
https://kumu.io/LichCommDev/lichfield-abcd-asset-map
66
Appendix H: Tamworth, Asset Based Consulting – Key
Events
2014 December
Asset Based Consulting attend meeting of the Healthy Tamworth Steering Group to outline
their approach.
2015 January – June: ‘Reframing towards assets’ / ‘Recognising the assets’
12 –-13 January: Tamworth visits by Asset Based Consulting with one to one meetings,
focus groups and interviews. 46 staff, volunteers and service users interviewed across
17 organisations. Meeting with four elected members from Tamworth Borough Council.
24 - 26 February: Community development and information sessions held with people
already active in community and voluntary roles. From this Asset Based Consulting
aimed to identify ‘Champions’ to be trained and supported in asset-based approaches for
health and wellbeing, including ABCA. Three broad themes identified in Leyfields,
Stonydelph and Tamworth Faith Sector.
February
2 February: Sitra discussion with Asset Based Consulting
March
23 - 25 March: Asset Based Consulting local meetings
April
Meetings planned with 6-8 people from the SES CCG, Town Centre & Tourism
Development and the Community Safety Partnership.
15 April: Healthy Tamworth Steering Group
20 - 21 April: One-to-one meetings, focus groups and interviews.
June – 3-day visit focused activity in the three ‘communities’ identified for development
10 June: Sitra interview with South Staffordshire Partnership
July – December: ‘Mobilising the assets’
July
Series of ‘Community Conversations’ (eighteen ‘appreciative interviews’ and 10 ‘street
conversations’ held before agreement on firm actions/ activities, to include details of ongoing
support that Tamworth BC, Staffordshire CC and any other partners could provide to ensure
the continued success of this ABCA pilot.
67
Leyfields community conversation on 22 July - 3.00pm - 6.00pm at The Family Hub.
Stonydelph community conversation on 23 July - 3.00pm - 6.00pm at St Martin’s
Centre.
Tamworth Churches community conversation on 24 July - 12.30pm – 4.00pm at
Tamworth Baptist Church, Derwent, Belgrave.
Elected Members’ Briefing on 23 July.
Comments gathered covering broad themes:
Local neighbourhood involvement, aspiration and pride;
Understanding about public facilities / changes and transition from previous focus to new
aims;
Opportunities to meet both in existing physical places and at events;
Activities for young people;
Current provision and support by existing agencies;
Diminishing resources in the form of grants and donations;
Transport issues, such as public transport, parking, speeding traffic;
Environmental issues, such litter and broken glass.
Health promotion issues, such as active lives, healthy eating and substance
dependency.
September
Leyfields
Holiday activities and meals for young people in Leyfields aged 6 and over in the
summer of 2016 with pilot sessions/come and try-it days being run in the Easter break.
A programme of activities and peer support to promote child and maternal health to be
run in local community venues, schools and groups. Areas to be explored will include a
healthy pregnancy, child health and breast-feeding, sexual health and positive parenting
A community consultation on the feasibility of a locally-led bid to revitalise and re-
energise the Leyfields Community Centre with a mix of revenue generating and
community-led activities.
Stonydelph
Meetings with three community members who have volunteered to take ideas from the
‘Community Conversations’ forward.
Tamworth Churches;
On-going communication and discussion with a number of the churches and related
projects in Tamworth
Two half-day’s training on ‘asset-based approaches to community development to be
delivered on 14, 15, 16 September - unclear who this was delivered to.
68
An ‘action learning’ network (community of interest) so projects can share and learn from
each other – start date unclear
Appoint a local and experienced mentor (named as Lee Bates, Communities Together
CIC in December)
24 September: Sitra visit to Stonydelph.
October
13 October: Asset Based Consulting presented detailed proposal on ‘Tamworth Ten’ to
comprise ten ‘new’ projects led by ten individuals, each involving a minimum of ten people
and supported over ten months:
Leyfields
1. Work on and in Leyfields Community Centre – activities involving local people,
businesses and Elected Members
2. Child and maternal health – breastfeeding peer support, work with young mums and
young people in local schools
3. Community ‘Bumping Places’ – improving the local environment
Stonydelph
4. Physically active young people – BMX, Skateboarding, team sports
5. Socially active local people – residents’ activities/groups
6. Active older people / supported housing for young people
Tamworth Churches
7. Holiday activities for over 5s
8. Promoting positive mental wellbeing – training for volunteers in counselling skills
9. Co-ordinating and developing lay members and volunteers – building additional
capacity
Tamworth wide
10. Encouraging local people to be more physically and socially active
Asset Based Consulting to provide a small amount of ‘seed’ funding and each project will be
supported to attract ‘matched’ support, either financial or ‘in kind’ from partner organisations
or through sponsorship.
Asset Based Consulting has recruited, a local, experienced community worker to ‘mentor’
and support the ten projects, especially in community development approaches, local
‘intelligence’ and fund raising
69
w/c 26 October: activity days planned with meetings, church development sessions and
community conversations
27 October: Sitra interview with Age Concern Staffordshire
27 October: Sitra interview with Diocese of Lichfield
November 2015
Stonydelph
1 November –Community Fun Day
3 November – Follow on community conversation in Ellerbeck, Wilnecote
Leyfields
2 & 3 November – planning meeting for three activities identified in September
Tamworth Churches
Further discussion required to work on details of:
Developing better networks and opportunities to work across churches in the Lichfield
diocese, which includes the majority of Tamworth. This project is being developed with
the help of the Development Manager for Lichfield Anglican Diocese and Transforming
Communities Together (A Church Urban Fund project)
Supporting Tamworth Covenanting Churches (TCC) and its lay structure to develop a
more co-ordinated and strategic approach. This has started to encourage conversations
between the Methodist and Anglican churches, involving clergy and lay members. It is
complimentary to ‘Mission Shaped Ministry’ already active at St Francis’s Church, finding
ways for the church to respond to its local community.
A further potential project has emerged from conversations with the Methodist Churches
in Tamworth. This is to identify ways of supporting people to move on from ‘crisis’
services run by or though churches.
27 November: Sitra interview with Milk Fairies CIC
27 November: Sitra discussion with parents x 6
November-January
250 Sitra Surveys distributed across:
B77 2EA
B77 2EH
B77 2EY
B77 4HG
B77 4HH
B79 8QD
B79 8QD
B79 8QE
B79 8QL
B79 8QP
B79 8QR
70
December 2015
Stonydelph
3 December; Soup conversation at Tamworth Cancer and Wellbeing Centre. Despite
significant leafleting, event poorly attended.
Leyfields and Stoneydelph
Sitra Surveys – 250 surveys distributed
January – June 2016: Co-production
January – March
Tamworth Ten reduced to Tamworth Five due to local challenges or change in priorities
of local leaders.
26 January: Sitra interview with Community Together CIC
February
8 February: Sitra interviews with parents x 5 at Lottie’s Tots
8 February: Sitra interview with grandparent at Lottie’s Tots
8 February: Sitra discussion with Lottie’s Tots
April
14 April; Workshop on Asset-Based Approaches to developing community health,
wellbeing and resilience delivered to Support Staffordshire in Stafford
Easter: proposed holiday activities and meals for young people in Leyfields aged 6 and
over
25 April: Sitra interview with Staffordshire County Council
28 April: Sitra interview with VAST
May
Follow up Sitra surveys with Lottie’s Tots
June
14 June: Event to share learning across three pilot ABCA areas in Staffordshire.
14 June: Sitra interview with local faith leader
71
Appendix I: The ‘Tamworth Ten’
Asset Based Consulting developed an original approach to take forward a range of asset-
based, community-led activities in the three areas of Leyfields, Stonydelph and a cross-area
theme of the faith sector.
The ‘Tamworth Ten’ comprised ten new projects (each led by one individual) with each
project involving a minimum of ten people and supported over ten months. It was envisaged
that each of these projects would continue beyond the period of direct support by Asset
Based Consulting to evidence that asset-based approaches to community development can
be both effective and sustainable with a target of at least 100 local people to be involved in
these activities.
Asset Based Consulting made available a small amount of ‘seed’ funding and each project
was to be supported to attract ‘matched’ support, either financial or ‘in kind’ from partner
organisations or through sponsorship.
Asset Based Consulting is also negotiating a series of activities to support both the
development and successful delivery of the ten new projects:
Two half-day’s training in September on ‘asset-based’ approaches to community
development
An ‘action learning’ network so projects can share and learn from their challenges and
achievements
A local and experienced ‘mentor’ to support the ten projects, especially with community
development approaches, local ‘intelligence’ and fund raising
A number of motivated individuals and ideas for these projects were identified during the
‘Community Conversations’ as well as several Elected Members keen to support them.
Leyfields
1. Work on and in Leyfields Community Centre – activities involving local people,
businesses and Elected Members.
2. Child and maternal health – breastfeeding peer support, work with young mums and
young people in local schools – Milk Fairies CIC, Lottie’s Tots, Community Hub, Elected
Members.
3. Community ‘Bumping Places’ – improving the local environment
Stonydelph
4. Physically active young people – BMX, Skateboarding, team sports.
5. Socially active local people – residents’ activities/groups
6. Active older people – Age Concern / supported housing for young people (Bromford
Housing)
72
Tamworth Churches
7. Holiday activities for over 5s – St Francis Church
8. Promoting positive mental wellbeing – training for volunteers in counselling skills –
Diocese of Lichfield, Care for the Family
9. Co-ordinating and developing lay members and volunteers – building additional capacity
Tamworth Wide (all)
10. Encouraging local people to be more physically and socially active, linking with the
Tamworth Local Sustainable Transport Project (Staffordshire CC, SUSTRANS)
Local support/ coordination and ‘Action Learning’ for the Tamworth Ten to be provided
through Community Together CIC.
73
Appendix J: Sitra Interview Questions
Flourishing Neighbourhoods
If met at an event:
What did you think of the event?
How did you hear about this event/ gathering/ party?
Why did you decide to get involved?
Did you bring / invite / enrol any friends/ neighbours/ family?
If it is the event organiser
What did you think of the event today?
How did you come up with the idea?
How did you encourage others to attend the event?
Could you tell me a little bit about Cannock / Lichfield / Tamworth? What is it like to live
here?
What is good about it?
What would you like to change in your local area, if anything?
And if you had to choose just one of the things you would like to change, which one
would you pick? And why?
4a. Has there been a time when you and your neighbours came together to change how
things are in the local area?
YES / NO
4b. If yes, could you tell me a little bit about what it was, who was involved, what you did,
and what changed as a result of it?
5 a. Do you know any other individuals who have done things to change how things are run
in the local area?
YES / NO
5b. If yes, could you tell me a little bit about when it was, who was involved, what you did,
and what changed as a result of it?
5c. Do you think you might be able to put me in touch with them?
YES / NO
[Record details given]
6a. To what extent do you feel you have control over things in your local area?
6b. Why do you feel that way? (Look out for structural blockages, institutionalisation,
inequalities, or trust issues)
6c. You said earlier, if you could change one thing in your area, it would be [paraphrase]. Do
you feel you have any resources to make that change happen?
YES / NO
6d. If yes, what are those resources available to you? (Check if formal or informal networks
are discussed)
6e. Do you think events like these might help you identify any resources to make that
change happen?
74
YES / NO
6f. Why or why not? Could you tell me a little bit more?
7a. How optimistic do you feel about the future of your community?
1 (very pessimistic) 2 3 4 5 (very optimistic)
7b. Could you tell me why you feel that way?
7c. What are the challenges?
7d. Finally, what is next for you and your community?
That brings me to the end of the questions that I wanted to ask you.
Do you have any questions for me?
Thank you very much for your time and patience.
You have been very helpful.
end
75
Appendix K: Sitra Survey
76
77
78
79
80
81
Appendix L: Sitra Survey analysis
Sitra distributed 250 surveys in Appendix K across each of the three localities, as part of the
information gathering, Some were delivered to randomly selected post-codes close to where
work was taking place and some handed out at events and meetings. We also left surveys in
community centres and faith centres.
Responses
Cannock
40 responses were received of which three contained little information, so were
discarded leaving 37 to analyse.
o 23 Women replied (average age 47, 3 x 25-32, and 4 x 40-41 years old)
o 10 Men replied (average age 63; one is 25 years old)
o 7 people declined to give their age, three of whom self-described as retired
o 4 people declined to give their gender
Lichfield
36 responses were received
36 responses were received from people aged 23 to 76, with an average age of 52.
22 women and 13 men replied. 1 declined to give their gender.
Tamworth
15 responses were received
o 2 are women aged 35 – 45
o 13 are men aged 60+
Analysis
The following analysis centres on Cannock with additional comments relating to Lichfield
(including Burntwood/ Fradley). As we received few responses from Tamworth we have not
provided analysis in detail, but added some comments at the end of this Appendix.
Living in the Area
Average length of time living in Cannock is 26 years.
16 people lived less than 25 years.
Finding
The length of time living in Cannock is an important indicator of how much people stop
and talk, visit and call their neighbours. Longer term residents tend to have regular face
to face interactions with their neighbours, and the relatively newcomers tend not to.
Newcomers tend to stay in touch with friends and neighbours by phone or internet.
Longer term residents tend to rely on family support, whereas the newcomers tend to
ask for help from a mix of family and friends.
82
Results are comparable with Lichfield
8 8 8
9
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
At least once aweek
Daily Less frequently More than once aweek
Once a month
How often do you stop and talk to neighbours?
Total
3
0 1
4 3 3
2
4 4
10
4 5 5
13
5
11 11
15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Neighbours Friends living outside yourneighbourhood
Family
How often do you meet or visit
Several times a day Daily More than once a week (3)–
At least once a week (4)– Once a month (5)– Less Frequently (6)–
83
Results are comparable with Lichfield
In both Cannock and Lichfield, internet/ phone are seen as valuable ‘bumping places’ –
perhaps an underutilised resource for Cannock.
The Office of National Statistics take the view that people who do not meet or visit at least
once a week are ‘lonely’ and those who do not have regular interactions (either face to face
or by phone) are ‘isolated’.
Based on this definition, there were at least 10 people who were “isolated – two are men,
one of whom is 25 years old and the other of unknown age; the remaining people are
women (aged 25, 29, 32, 40, 69 and 75). Interestingly 8 of them have either volunteered/
taken part of in a project to improve local area or participated in a social group in the past 12
months.
Results are comparable with Lichfield
1 2
1
3 4
7
3
11
9
7
9
12
2
7
4
19
2 2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Neighbours Friends, living outside yourneighbourhood
Family
Keep in touch by internet, phone, post
Several times a day Daily More than once a week
At least once a week Once a month Less frequently
19
14
4
15
16
21
31
20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Volunteered/or took unpaid work
Involved in a project to improve your local area
Joined (or remained) as a member of a political party ora trade union
Joined (or remained) as a member of an organisation forsports (i.e. football club), culture/leisure (i.e. choir) or…
In the past 12 months have you been involved in any of the activities
No Yes
84
Satisfaction with time spent in neighbourhood
Respondents in Cannock have 14 catch ups with their neighbours a month (roughly
every other day).
People who have less than 10 catch ups with their neighbours a month would like to
spend more time in their neighbourhood; in contrast to 2 people with regular contacts
with neighbours wanting to spend more time with their neighbours.
Of the remaining 22 who are happy with the amount of time spent with their neighbours
15 have less than 10 contacts with their neighbours a month.
Satisfaction with time spent with family
Respondents in Cannock contact their family 17 times a month (more frequently than
every other day).
2 people said they would like to spend less time with family, one of them has daily
contact, and the other less than once a month.
18 people said they would like to spend more time with their family, 7 of them have
regular contact, they identify their family as their first point of contact to ask for help.
11 people have less than 10 occasions for catch up in person or by phone/internet.
14 people said they are happy with the time spent with their family; 3 see or talk to their
family members several times a week.
11 see and talk to them less than 10 times – but these 10 have contact with friends and
neighbours on a more regular basis.
Satisfaction with time spent with friends outside of neighbourhood
Respondents in Cannock contact their friends outside the neighbourhood 15 times a month (every other day).
14 people would like to spend more time with their friends; 9 of whom are spending less than average; 5 of them are mostly keeping in touch with their friends by phone/internet.
18 people suggested they are happy with the amount of time they are spending with their friends, 15 of whom spend less than 10 contacts a month; but they do speak and see their neighbours and family.
Social media/ phone is seen as a good substitute for contacts with friends outside neighbourhood. People who responded to CS are more likely to want to spend time with friends outside neighbourhood, than they do with neighbours.
Satisfaction with time spent on civic activity
Number of civic activity Count of ‘desire to volunteer in a project to improve my local area’
0 19
1 10
2 4
Grand Total 33 The majority of respondents 33 out of 36 would like to spend more time in a project to
improve their local area, but only 14 of those have been involved in one in the last year.
Satisfaction with time spent on hobbies and social activities
Member of social clubs Count of ‘desire for hobbies or interest’
0 17
1 15
85
Grand Total 32
The majority of respondents 32 out of 36 would lie to spend more time on their hobbies and
interests, but only half of them are currently involved in a social club
Satisfaction of time spent volunteering and work related activity
More or less work related activity Sum of ‘volunteered/or took unpaid work’
-1 2
0 11
1 6
Grand Total 19
While not conclusive, there are some interesting suggestions:
3 people who would like to spend less time in a work related activity are women
2 have already taken unpaid work or volunteered in the past 12 months and describe
their finances as a heavy burden.
7 respondents said they would like to spend more time in a work related activity and
their ages vary between 25-67, all of whom see and talk to their family and friends
outside the neighbourhood less than once a month.
6 have taken up some volunteering or unpaid work in the last 12 months.
14
14
7
31
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Helped a friend/neighbour with daily household duties…
Given advice to a young person not living with you
Helped a friend/neighbour applying for jobs
Given emotional support to a friend/neighbour when…
Loaned an amount of money or goods to a friend or…
Number of people who offered help in the last 12 months
86
Ask for help
‘Offer to help’ compared with ‘ask for help’
Employment: Respondents in Cannock are most likely to seek professional help when the
matter is concerned with employment.
28 people did not help a friend who applied for jobs in the past year, 17 of whom
would seek professional help if they needed to look for a job, and 7 would seek help
from their social networks (4 from their family, and 3 from their friends).
people who helped a friend who applied for jobs in the past year; 2 of whom would
seek professional help if they needed to look for a job; 1 from their family and 4from
their friends)
Emotional Support
Respondents in Cannock give and receive emotional support to their friends and family on a
regular basis.
31 of them said they had offered emotional support in the past year; 16 of whom
would ask for help from their families, and 15 from their neighbours and friends.
1 responded said he did not offer emotional support to anyone in the past 12
months, but would ask for help from friends if he needed it.
Financial Support
The majority of respondents in Cannock did not loan any goods or money in the past 12
months, but they are likely to turn to their social networks, if they needed to raise £50
urgently, rather than going to payday loans, or banks.
Only 5 respondents said they would seek professional help.
25 would ask their family for financial support, and 4 of them have offered similar
sorts of help in the past year.
5 would ask their friends and neighbours for financial support, even though they did
not loan any goods or money in the past year.
Offer with daily tasks: One third of respondents in Cannock have offered some help to their
neighbours and friends with day to day tasks (such as cooking, cleaning, and looking after
22
18
5
19
25
4
14
7
12
4
4
1
0
5
1
6
3
20
0
5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
If you needed help around the house with dailyhousehold duties
If you needed advice about a serious personal or familymatter
If you needed help when looking for a job
If you were feeling a bit low and wanted someone to talkto
If you needed to urgently raise £50 of money to meet anurgent expense
From whom would you ask for help
Family Friends Neighbours Professional
87
children) and 4 out 5 would approach to their social networks, if they needed help
themselves.
Only 6 respondents said they would seek professional help, half of whom offered
help themselves in a similar scenario in the past year.
22 people would ask help from family, and 8 of those have offered similar help in the
past year.
Willingness to help
Table showing distribution of respondents who said they are willing to help neighbours
versus those who offered help in the last 12 months (colour key as above)
Number of activities versus willingness to help
33 respondents suggested they agree (or strongly agree) that they are willing to help
their neighbours. 2 of these respondents have offered help in at least four different
scenarios in the past year, 8 in three scenarios, 14 in two scenarios, and 8 in one.
General versus Local Trust
Comparison of people who believe ‘most people can be trusted’ versus those who
believe ‘most people in my neighbourhood’ can be trusted.
5
5
12
3
3
2
2
21
20
22
15
25
24
9
5
10
0
7
5
7
11
4
1
1
10
0
3
13
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Most people can be trusted
Most people in my neighbourhood can be trusted
I am willing to help my neighbours
I feel safe to walk alone in my local area after dark
I feel I belong to my local area
My local area is a place where people from different…
I feel I can change things in my local area
Social values/beliefs, Cannock
Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree
1 6
1
2
9
5
4
4
1
1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Agree
Disagree
Strongly agree
(blank)0
1
2
3
4
88
25 respondents said they would trust people in their neighbourhood; of these 20 would
agree that most people can be trusted.
It is interesting to note that 3 people who are undecided about the trust worthiness of the
general population, along with 2 others who do not trust people generally, gave the
benefit of doubt to their local community.
6 people were undecided about whether they can trust or distrust their local community –
4 of whom said they wouldn’t trust most people. All of those who are undecided have
spent less than 25 years (average length of time spent in Cannock among respondents).
Whilst the sample is small, Cannock residents are likely to put trust in their communities
more than in ‘outsiders’.
Local trust vs involvement
Being involved in at least one activity correlates (but not necessarily causes/ or is caused by)
local trust.
3 2 0 0 0
2
13
6
0 0
0
3
2
0 0
0
1
2
1 0
0
1
0
0 0 0
5
10
15
20
25
Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree
Local Trust
General vs local trust
Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree
1
1
3
3
7
5
5
4
3
1
1
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
No activity
1 type of activity
2 types of activity
3 types of activity
Local trust vs involvement
Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree
89
Local Trust compared with Safety
Longer term residents tend to trust the local community, but feel unsafe. The
majority are women.
Newcomers are mostly unsure about the local community. Those who do not feel
safe are all female.
This appears positive; people tend to trust their local community and they feel safe,
or at least give each other benefit of the doubt.
Length of time in Cannock versus Belonging
Those who have stayed in the area longer than average tend to feel as ‘belonging’,
however they are less likely to volunteer and stay active in their new areas.
Newcomers tend to get involved in more volunteering.
Longer settled residents also speak to each other on the street, but they are not
significantly different than the rest of the population in terms of visits.
Newcomers tend to stay in touch via phone/ internet – a massively underestimated
resource for community development in this ABCA project.
Empowerment/ ability to change things
Number of different activity types
Ability to change things 0 1 2 3 4
Strongly agree 0 0 1 0 1
Agree 0 2 4 3 0
Undecided 0 3 4 4 0
Disagree 1 4 6 1 1
Strongly disagree 1 0 0 0 0
23 respondents have offered help in at least 1 type of activity, but they don't
feel "empowered" enough to think they have made a difference in someone's
life
Happiness
2 out of 3 respondents in Cannock are broadly happy; their happiness correlates with both
time in contact with friends, family and neighbours, and how many activities they take part in
equally.
Wellbeing
Respondents who spend less time with friends and family, and who take part in fewer
activities have lower wellbeing scores.
Feel safe
Local trust Strongly
agree Agree Undecided Disagree
Strongly disagree
Strongly agree 1 4 0 0 0
Agree 2 6 4 8 0
Undecided 0 5 2 2 1
Disagree 0 0 1 0 0
Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0 0
90
Tamworth
15 surveys were returned. The sample size was too small to run a detailed analysis.
Of the returns, interestingly, both women respondents have helped a neighbour or a friend
with daily tasks, such as cleaning/ cooking/ looking after children in the past 12 months –
and the remaining respondents did not help out in any other scenario.
Both women, and two men would ask their family to loan them £50 in a matter of urgency,
and apart from these, all remaining, and in all other scenarios would seek professional help.
All respondents identify as Church of England – we do not know if they attend church on a
regular basis – but perhaps this is a reflection on some surveys being available at faith
centres. However, this is not conclusive, as in Cannock and Lichfield, the majority of
respondents have identified as Church of England too.