Staffordshire

Evaluation of Asset Based Community Approaches in Staffordshire

May 2014 – July 2016

0 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

1 Contents

Section Page 1. Introduction 4

2. Executive Summary 6

3. Evaluation Methods 9 3.1 Methodology Framework 9 3.2 Attendance at meetings 9 3.3 Interviews – first round 9 3.4 Interviews with agencies 10 3.5 Interviews – second round 10 3.6 Observation 10 3.7 Sitra Survey 10

4. C2 in Cannock 11 4.1 Introduction 11 4.2 Description of approach 11 4.3 The Area 12 4.4 Why the area was chosen 14 4.5 Key partners 14 4.6 What happened? 14 4.7 Findings 19

5. Nurture Development in Lichfield 24 5.1 Introduction 24 5.2 Description of approach 25 5.3 The Areas 25 5.4 Why the areas were chosen 28 5.5 Key partners 28 5.6 What happened? 28 5.7 Additional outcomes 31

2 6. Asset Based Consulting in Tamworth 34 6.1 Introduction 34 6.2 Description of approach 34 6.3 The Areas 36 6.4 Why the areas were chosen 37 6.5 Key partners 38 6.6 What happened? 38 6.7 Additional outcomes 41 7. Overall Findings and Recommendations 42

8. Legacy 48

9. Conclusion 50 9.1 People 50 9.2 Places 51 9.3 Resources 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

3 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.

4 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.

5 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

6 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.

7 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.

8 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.

9 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.

10 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

11  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.

12 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

13 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’..

14 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

15 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

16 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

17 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.

18 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

19 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’.

20 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.

21 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;

22  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.

23 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’.

24 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.’

25 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

26 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

27 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-

28 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.

29 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/

30

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/

31  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

32 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

33 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

34 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)

35 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

36 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

37 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;

38 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/

39

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)

40 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/

41 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).

42 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.

43 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.

44 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/

45 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

46 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.

47 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

48 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/

49 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

50 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.

51 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;

52  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

53 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.

54 Appendix A: Sitra Interviews and survey returns

Cannock Initially End of End of evaluation evaluation – repeat – 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 5 0 0 (discussion group) Total 36 15 19

Lichfield Initially End of End of (including Burntwood and Fradley) evaluation evaluation – repeat – 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 End of evaluation evaluation – repeat – 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

55 Appendix B: Cannock and the Blake Programme

56 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

57 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.

58 Appendix D: Cannock, C2 Timeline – Key Events

Date Activity Who September 2014 C2 Activity Commences: Attendance at a range C2 and Service of meetings with service providers including a Providers Local Strategic Partnership meeting 5 December Connecting Workshop: Attended by C2 and 40 Service 2014 Councillors, Police, Fire, Council and Schools Providers 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 February/ March Walkabouts in West Chadsmoor identified C2, service providers 2015 important issue is family and children and and two ex-community Drugs and the effect of drugs. champions 17 April 2015 Meeting with Local Councillors. C2 included Cllr Councillors, Sponsor, Grenville Chappell, Resident Leader from the C2 Beacon Community Regeneration Partnership April/ May 2015 Further Walkabouts C2 with local voluntary and statutory organisations 21 May 2015 ‘Connecting Workshop’ to form local Councillors, Sponsor, partnership steering/planning local residents and providers From 2 – 27 June Planning for ‘Listening Event’: Weekly meetings Stakeholders and 2015 to plan event and take actions forward residents

18 June to 26 Publicity for Listening Event: Postcard invitation Steering Group June 2015 distributed across the area with support of service providers 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’ Councillors, Sponsor, resident led partnership Approximately 30 local residents and attendees. Approximately 50/50 split of providers, C2 residents and service providers supported by resident leader(s) from established community

59 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 8 Residents meeting 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 C2 Experiential Learning programme in Exeter 1 Resident 2015 2 Statutory orgs reps 14 September Fourth Meeting of resident-led Interim 7 Residents Partnership 2 Voluntary orgs. reps 4 Statutory orgs reps 3 Councillors 12 October 2015 Fifth Meeting of resident-led Interim Partnership 7 Residents now known as Community Spirit 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 Sixth Meeting of resident-led Interim 6 Residents 2015 Partnership now known as Community Spirit 5 Voluntary orgs reps 3 Statutory orgs reps 0 Councillors 7 December Seventh Meeting of resident-led Interim 7 Residents 2015 Partnership now known as Community Spirit 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 4 Residents Partnership now known as Community Spirit 4 Voluntary orgs reps 4 Statutory orgs reps 2 Councillors 25 February Working Better Together to Improve Outcomes C2 present to approx. 2016 for Families 40 people working towards improving family outcomes 3 March 2016 Ninth Meeting of resident-led Interim 5 Residents Partnership now known as Community Spirit 4 Voluntary orgs reps 3 Statutory orgs reps 2 Councillors

60 Date Activity Who 14 April 2016 Tenth Meeting of resident-led Interim 5 Residents Partnership now known as Community Spirit 4 Voluntary orgs reps 2 Statutory orgs reps 1 Councillor 19 May 2016 Eleventh Meeting of resident-led Interim 4 Residents Partnership now known as Community Spirit 1 Voluntary org rep 1 Statutory org rep 0 Councillors 9 June 2016 Twelfth Meeting of resident-led Interim 4 Residents Partnership now known as Community Spirit 2 Voluntary org reps 2 Statutory org reps 2 Councillors

61 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 8NN  WS13 8RU  WS13 7NY  WS13 8NP  WS13 8RX  WS13 7NZ  WS13 8NZ  WS13 8TT  WS13 7NZ  WS13 8PF  WS13 8UA  WS13 8NJ  WS13 8PG  WS13 8UD

62 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

63 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

64 Appendix G: Generic Assets

Identified as part of work on the Lichfield Asset Map, but applicable to all areas.

People Places Resources

 Bands (and their  Allotments  Accessibility music)  Canals  Businesses  Board gamers  Community cafés  Charities  Dance groups  Cycle paths  Culture  Faith groups  Dens and tree houses  Drive  Local dialect  Farms  Enthusiasm speakers  Festivals  Equipment  Local leaders  Health centres  Events  Movers and shakers  Libraries  Free WiFi  Politicians and  Lunch clubs  Goodwill Councillors  Markets  Grants and funding  Pop-up groups  Monuments pots  Rambling groups  Museums  Heritage trusts  Role models  Natural world  Heritage  Tour guides  Open spaces  History  Uniformed services  Other green spaces  Inspiration  Uniformed youth  Parks and gardens  Intellectual assets groups  Places of worship  Knowledge  Volunteers  Pubs and clubs  Networks  Roads  Passion projects  Schools  Public transport  Sports clubs  Skills  Surgeries  Social media  Theatres  Studios  Volunteer centres  Vehicles  Wild life

Work on mapping these assets this can be viewed at: https://kumu.io/LichCommDev/lichfield-abcd-asset-map

65 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.

66  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.

67 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

68  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 4HH  B79 8QL  B77 2EH  B79 8QD  B79 8QP  B77 2EY  B79 8QD  B79 8QR  B77 4HG  B79 8QE 

69 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

70 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)

71 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.

72 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?

73  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

74 Appendix K: Sitra Survey

75

76

77

78

79

80 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.

81 How often do you stop and talk to neighbours? 10 9 9 8 8 8 8 7 6 5 4 Total 3 2 2 1 0 At least once a Daily Less frequently More than once a Once a month week week Results are comparable with Lichfield

How often do you meet or visit 16 15 14 13 12 11 11 10 10 8 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 0 0 Neighbours Friends living outside your Family neighbourhood

Several times a day Daily More than once a week (3)– At least once a week (4)– Once a month (5)– Less Frequently (6)–

82 Keep in touch by internet, phone, post 20 19 18 16 14 12 12 11 10 9 9 8 7 7 7 6 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 Neighbours Friends, living outside your Family neighbourhood

Several times a day Daily More than once a week At least once a week Once a month Less frequently

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.

In the past 12 months have you been involved in any of the activities

Joined (or remained) as a member of an organisation for 20 sports (i.e. football club), culture/leisure (i.e. choir) or… 15 Joined (or remained) as a member of a political party or 31 a trade union 4 21 Involved in a project to improve your local area 14

16 Volunteered/or took unpaid work 19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

No Yes

Results are comparable with Lichfield

83 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

Count of ‘desire to volunteer in a project to improve my Number of civic activity 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

84 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.

Number of people who offered help in the last 12 months

Loaned an amount of money or goods to a friend or… 5

Given emotional support to a friend/neighbour when… 31

Helped a friend/neighbour applying for jobs 7

Given advice to a young person not living with you 14

Helped a friend/neighbour with daily household duties… 14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

85 Ask for help From whom would you ask for help

If you needed to urgently raise £50 of money to meet an 25 4 1 5 urgent expense If you were feeling a bit low and wanted someone to talk 19 12 5 0 to

If you needed help when looking for a job 5 7 0 20

If you needed advice about a serious personal or family 18 14 1 3 matter If you needed help around the house with daily 22 4 4 6 household duties

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Family Friends Neighbours Professional

‘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

86 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.

Social values/beliefs, Cannock

I feel I can change things in my local area 2 9 11 13 1 My local area is a place where people from different… 2 24 7 3 0 I feel I belong to my local area 3 25 5 01 I feel safe to walk alone in my local area after dark 3 15 7 10 1 I am willing to help my neighbours 12 22 01 0 Most people in my neighbourhood can be trusted 5 20 10 10 Most people can be trusted 5 21 5 4 1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

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)

(blank) 0 Strongly agree 2 5 4 1 1 2 Disagree 1 3 Agree 1 6 9 4 1 4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

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.

87 General vs local trust 25

20 1 1 3 15

10 0 13 2 2 5 0 2 6 3 2 0 0 0 01 0 Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Local Trust

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree

 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 Local trust vs involvement

3 types of activity 3 5 1

2 types of activity 1 5 1

1 type of activity 1 7 3

No activity 3 4 1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree

Being involved in at least one activity correlates (but not necessarily causes/ or is caused by) local trust.

88 Local Trust compared with Safety Feel safe  Strongly Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Local trust agree 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

 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.

89 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.

90