Nicole Sykes Profile picture
May 24 19 tweets 7 min read
I read the government’s evidence review of community initiatives so you don’t have to!
If community infrastructure and social capital is your thing, this is for you (and maybe see you at #Restitch later??)
If it's not your thing but could be, there are diagrams to help! 1/
Quick context. The Levelling Up WP set out the economic theory behind levelling up – that you need to leverage 6 kinds of capital to achieve your goals or risk communities falling into a viscous spiral of decline they can’t escape 2/ (read this for more) civilsocietycommission.org/essay/inclusiv…
But while innovation, infrastructure, skills & financial capital are very comfortable areas for policymakers (build a bridge, costs this much, here's your benefits), social capital is more of a “sorry what?” concept.
Hence the lit review. Gov's working out the answer to that q 3/
So what the hell is social capital? Basically, the strength of
🟢 communities
🟢 relationships
🟢 trust.
And the government’s embracing the definition that there are three forms of social capital (which matters because you improve different forms in different ways): 4/
Three other definitions that matter:
1⃣ Community infrastructure. Government has defined this as the physical infrastructure that supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships. Eg. sports facilities, libraries, parks, cafes, shops, pubs, clubs. 5/
2⃣ Social infrastructure. Which would include community infrastructure AND the people who utilise and organise in those places.
3⃣ Community initiatives. Which deliver community infrastructure (but also do other things) like coops, community land trusts, VCSEs.
Confused? Here 6/
I think it’s fair to say that some folks would argue with these definitions & warn against an over-focus on physical spaces if you want to unlock social capital (hi… the internet!). This is acknowledged but worth keeping an eye on as this develops 👀 7/
Now, the paper is pretty positive that community initiatives which deliver community infrastructure can have positive outcomes. Including
📈 economic outcomes
⚕️ health outcomes
🤝 social outcomes
🗳️ and civic outcomes 8/
Under the lid, strongest of all is the evidence of community initiatives’ impact on wellbeing and community resilience (hat tip to those who’ve been rigorous with their Covid response analysis).
And lots of positivity over the ability to reduce mortality & solve social issues 9/
The economic argument is mostly focused on community initiatives being a relatively low cost way to generate public spending savings (talking @ProBonoEcon’s language.)
But it was also clear that there’s work to do on evidence on employment outcomes 10/
The bit that worries me here is that I think the authors tried really hard to compile evidence that look at all the benefits of “the community initiatives which deliver community infrastructure which enhances social capital”. The whole highlighted chain. 11/
But sometimes they’re talking about just the benefits of social capital and sometimes just about the benefits of community initiatives which roughly fit in the bucket and sometimes about the benefits of social infrastructure. It's a bit muddled. 12/
The reason for this (and the bigger worry) is that they’re clearly less impressed with data on the common factors between community initiatives which can successfully build social capital. Evidence here is viewed as much more limited and less rigorous.
Which. Accurate 13/
HOWEVER, government’s happy that there is relatively decent evidence on the importance of:
-Volunteers
-Paid staff
-Charismatic leaders
-Accessibility and location
-Income generation
-Local government partnerships
-Strategy and planning
In all this 14/
(Which might be a decent hint as to what they could be tempted to invest in through the Strategy for Community Spaces and Relationships.) 15/
But they’re less impressed with the evidence that external funding, effective local community engagement, physical capacity, legal and regulatory frameworks and investment in physical infrastructure make a difference to those community initiatives 16/
We shouldn’t assume that those DON’T make a difference. But there’s not good enough evidence available to be sure, in government’s view 17/
The most important part for researchers, evaluators and practitioners working on social and community infrastructure is the VERY long section on evidence gaps they want to be filled.
If you want to influence policy on this, Gov's basically shouting this is how to do it 18/19
Ultimately DCMS are fleshing out the argument that social capital & community infrastructure are important to deliver thriving communities + level up.
I'd say they need some support from practioners to untangle some of this + evidence. But a fair first step post-white paper 19/19

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Nicole Sykes

Nicole Sykes Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @NicoleSykes_

Nov 21, 2021
Was honestly infuriating to work on this review of the costs the Home Office creates for itself and other government departments by making so many wrong initial decisions on asylum applications, and taking such a long time to do so (1/) 🧵
Of the 14,600 initial asylum applications the Home Office rejects each year, 11,500 lodge appeals and around 3,700 of those appeals are successful. So mistakes have been made in the initial process.
Now if I made 3,700 mistakes each year, I’d be fired but... (2/)
So 🎯Key Point A : those mistakes cost £££.
Direct costs to Home Office admin of ~£4m a year

Many times to that to HM Courts and Tribunals Service

Legal aid (though this is complex and v limited) (3/)
Read 10 tweets
Dec 26, 2020
✅UK has taken back control
✅EU has protected the integrity of the (now smaller) single market
🤷‍♀️But business has been the awkward teen caught in the divorce.
So bring the leftovers and let’s figure out what this deal means for an A-Z of some of our leading sectors shall we? 1/
✈️Aerospace
So this industry obvs v. worried about reality of customs, but also departure from the EU agency EASA.
This is the first annex I read in full. And it feels like the negotiating teams have pulled off a pretty impressive job here, forging a process to allow 2/
recognition of certificates issued by each other’s agencies. Way beyond anything in CETA. Starts with airworthiness, with the potential to be expanded to include things like pilots training. So going backwards to build up again. But certainly beat my expectation. Points.
Read 4 tweets
Dec 7, 2020
As we twiddle our thumbs waiting for white smoke from Brussels, this prompted me to reflect on how badly business lost this game. Deal or not, whatever emerges, whenever it emerges, will be a million miles from what business hoped for. How did it go so badly wrong? 🧵(1/)
I’ve lost track of how many times I’ve been told over the last 5yrs that it’s because business wasn’t loud enough. 1st during the referendum (though post-🗳️ analysis tends to agree the economic argument was won, it just wasn’t important enough). 2nd during the negotiations (2/)
I’ve said a lot about this in the past, ultimately - yes biz could have been louder. But there are many reasons why they weren’t.
And volume really isn't everything. Any lobbyist knows that you’re only loud when you’re already losing. It’s a symptom, not a cause, of loss (3/)
Read 15 tweets
Nov 23, 2020
I know, I know. A lot of news today. But gimme like… 70% of your attention for 2mins.

We know that charities have seen a buttload of additional demand this year. 55% tell @probonoecon they may not be able to service it all. But where’s it coming from? This gives us a clue (1/)
Charities like @DeafBlindUK make up some of the 19% seeing more demand from their existing clients as they help them literally navigate the pandemic.
For them, it's mostly the first kind of demand we've identified - direct Covid consequences such as loneliness, isolation etc (2/)
Then, sure, there are crisis spillover effects. Foodbanks are definitely making up some of the 39% with existing service users needing more help AND new people coming to them.

But (SPOILERS) there are 3 other kinds of demand charities are facing we should pay attention to (3/)
Read 11 tweets
Nov 17, 2020
Now 4 months into working in the charity sector and… boy. Those 5 years I spent sarcastically muttering at the void about government needing better partnership with and support for business… I didn’t know how good the private sector had it. THREAD (1/10)
At every corner during the Covid crisis, financial support schemes have been designed for the private sector and (with the noteable exception of the £750m fund) charities have to make do with it. But it’s like charities have been handed their big brother’s oversized jumper (2/10)
Furlough works if you run a brewery chain. Send staff home and claim back their salaries when pubs close and orders dry up. But it doesn’t work it you run a charity providing support to families of alcoholics, seeing rising need and unable to bench your teams to save costs (3/10)
Read 10 tweets
Aug 13, 2020
Yesterday’s GDP numbers showed a wee uptick in June, but we’re all still expecting jobs to keep bouncing down the rocky hill for a long while yet. Some of the reasons are obvious -end of furlough, second wave- but, in case of interest, some of the other less obvious ones: (1/6)
1. JRS/loans were designed for firms facing immediate loss of demand. But a bunch will experience a lag eg. The visual effects artists still able to work on film shot over Winter over Spring. But once processed, there’s nothing new to work on & help is less useful/withdrawn (2/6)
On a larger scale is fashion. There’s a debate raging about the wasted stock that was never sold this Spring. Reselling in Spring 2021 would strip work from fashion designers and manufacturers. One solution to drag it out rather than create new gap (3/6) drapersonline.com/news/is-covid-…
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(