Common ground: Building cohesive communities

Social cohesion strategies developed by local authorities offer an opportunity to set out a clear vision for how people live, work and interact in place. While not a statutory requirement, a growing number of councils have proactively published their own strategies, recognising the importance of fostering inclusive and resilient communities.

Social cohesion objectives can also be incorporated into other council strategies and delivery frameworks. These might include the Corporate or Council plan or the Community Safety Strategy, both of which are statutory requirements. Embedding these objectives provides an opportunity for councils and partners to take stock of existing policies and frameworks and to create a coherent narrative about how these strategies align to deliver stronger communities for everyone in a place, and more effective outcomes for people.

This section provides guidance on the process of developing social cohesion strategies and delivery plans, whether as discrete documents or embedded into other strategies.

It sets out:

Strategy development and delivery – key principles

The objectives of such a meeting may include:

Governance models

Social cohesion policy is inherently cross-cutting, involving multiple partners, departments, and teams. This complexity requires thoughtful governance arrangements that support collaboration and accountability. Local authorities should put in place a governance structure that aligns with the ambitions of the social cohesion strategy.

Local authorities have a range of governance models to choose from, each offering different strengths depending on the scope and ambition of the strategy. Selecting the most appropriate governance structure should reflect not only the desired outcomes of the strategy but also the capacity for the structure to evolve over time, ensuring continued relevance and effectiveness during implementation. 

 

Case study: Walsall for All
 

Context 
 

Walsall is a West Midlands local authority which has faced a number of social cohesion challenges linked to economic and social change in early 2010s. Changes to the local labour market, with fewer mid-skill, stable jobs, has deepened inequalities. Pressures on the high street, and residential and demographic change presented limited opportunities for everyday social contact between different groups, leading to mistrust, resentment and rising tensions. 

In 2015, these issues were brought into focus when the English Defence League marched through the town centre. (A similar protest in 2012 led to violence). This prompted the leader of the council to set up a cross-party working group to examine social cohesion. This group actively sought the views of residents as well as local stakeholders, leading to strong recommendations for the Council to establish clearer social cohesion priorities and the publication of the first cohesion and integration strategy in 2017. 
 

Approach to governance

A strong civil society and faith sector, an award-winning college, community spaces used by all communities and a strong sense of shared history have brough people on this journey .The publication of the Walsall Council’s 2017- 2020 cohesion and integration strategy, alongside cross-party support for its commitments enabled Walsall Council to be recognised for its work on social integration and cohesion and secure funding from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Integrated Areas Action Programme. Walsall Council was one of only five local authorities selected to pilot work to promote social cohesion and integration. At the start, the local authority lead this work. Although other public and civil society organisations were commissioned to deliver activities, the local authority was ultimately accountable for this programme of work. 

As the programme matured, it became clear that social cohesion required a clear brand identity and shared ownership beyond the council. The Walsall for All partnership was born in 2019. The governance structure was expanded to include a Strategic Partnership Board reporting to the local authority, with representation from:
 

• local civil society organisations
• faith leaders
• education and youth services
• the police and public health services
• residents' representatives
• housing providers
• healthcare professionals.
   

This board shaped and monitored programmes of work, while working groups and networks delivered specific activities. 

Following the success of the pilot and the end of the initial funding, Walsall for All transitioned from a local authority-led programme to an independent Community Interest Company (CIC) and is one of the key drivers of social change in Walsall today. 
 

Learning
 

This change from a council-led programme to a community interest company reflected a deliberate move to embed social cohesion work within the community itself, ensuring independence, flexibility, and sustainability. Walsall for All CIC still receives an element of funding from the local authority and is accountable to it for this work. Walsall for All now operates as an independent partnership still closely linked with Walsall Council but able to develop its own priorities and attract wider funding. The new 10-year Community Cohesion Strategy (2025–2035) was co-designed launched jointly by Walsall for All and Walsall Council. 
 

Contact

[email protected] 
 

Further reading
 
Walsall Community Cohesion Strategy 2025–2035 

Data to inform strategy development 

Social cohesion strategies need to be based on a robust evidence base that also supports future monitoring and evaluation. 

Local authorities hold a wide range of existing data that reflects the story of their place, people, and partnerships. Before identifying data gaps, councils are encouraged to review existing quantitative and qualitative datasets to uncover key lines of enquiry and map current engagement with community organisations. 

Quantitative data to inform strategy development

Relevant existing datasets may include:

• Large national quantitative datasets with Accredited Official Statistics status, for example, the Census, the Annual Population Survey, the Indices of Multiple Deprivation or the Community Life Survey.
• National and local administrative data, including the quarterly Home Office immigration and asylum statistics, the National Pupil Database, Crime Statistics (including hate crime data), Indices on multiple deprivation, and information collected through tension monitoring
• Bespoke datasets from central government or local providers. MHCLG will be providing local authorities which have received Pride in Place funding data packs about local conditions which will be a source of data about social cohesion and the underlying conditions that influence it. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) used a standardised Local Survey Tool, based on the Community Life Survey, to evaluate local projects. Joint Strategic Needs Assessments undertaken by Health and Wellbeing Boards or Counter Terrorism Local Profiles (see case study). Public Health England have made available a large range of local health data through Fingertips.
• Local surveys, including local authority residents surveys or Police and Crime Commissioner surveys. Questions about social cohesion can be included in these surveys. For example, the Tower Hamlets 2024 Annual Resident Survey tracks social cohesion indicators over time. Ask Cardiff is an annual survey that gives people living and working in Cardiff and those visiting the city the chance to share their experiences of public services.​​​​ A bank of model questions that could be included in such surveys is included in the appendix of this guidance.
• ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Administrative data collected by local services providers, for example, data on those who use libraries or leisure centres, or data from volunteering.
• Findings from stakeholder and community engagement.
• Evaluations of local social cohesion initiatives.
• Research undertaken by universities, think tanks and other organisations.

Further reading 

Guidance UKSPF: Local Survey Tool (7 July 2025) The 15 key survey questions MHCLG suggest prioritising to measure community perceptions are set out in Appendix A.

Sources of qualitative data to inform social cohesion strategies 

The findings from qualitative data sources can also be useful in the development of social cohesion strategies. However, qualitative data has some limitations. It tends to draw from a smaller number of sources and can be subjective or subject to bias. It is advisable to look at whether findings from specific qualitative data are supported by other evidence. Relevant sources of evidence may include:

• Reports and research from partner organisations of relevance to social cohesion.
• Findings from residents’ focus groups or advisory panels. Some local authorities have set up residents’ panels who provide feedback about their concerns as well as their views on services and local authority policy. Commissioning needs assessments often involve data analysis and focus groups. They can help pinpoint areas of potential tensions such as challenges in accessing services or where service outcomes for vulnerable or at-risk groups are poorer or greater.
• Bespoke focus groups or interviews with residents with a specific focus on social cohesion. In developing social cohesion strategies, many local authorities have worked with external organisations to undertake bespoke qualitative research to inform the strategies.
• Interviews and observations from local authority staff and those employed by partner organisations.
• Lessons learnt from previous work including historic approaches to social cohesion and community development. This could include case studies of local work that could be scaled or learnt from or historic approaches to cross-council strategies and how they were structured.
• Social media analysis, sentiment of engagement with the council, about the place and what issues spark the most engagement from residents.
• Resident feedback and complaints.
• Reports from community tension monitoring (see section 5).
• Asset mapping activity (see below).
• Environmental visual audits reports (see below).
• Counter Terrorism Local Profiles (CTLP - see below). 

Asset mapping 

Local authorities and partners often draw on community or asset mapping exercises to inform service design and commissioning. Typically led by public health teams and co-produced with communities, asset mapping should function as a ‘living map’, highlighting the range of individual, community, and institutional resources that can be leveraged to strengthen social cohesion. 

Key categories of assets might include: 

• the capacity and capability of place-based local leadership outside the local authority
• institutional structures – the local organisations and partner agencies that can support social cohesion, such as schools, colleges, anchor organisations including large employers, and civil society, faith or voluntary sector groups
• community resources – physical spaces and facilities, such as community centres, libraries, sports clubs and places of worship
• innovation and ideas of local organisation in developing programmes of work on social cohesion
• social networks and connections – the strength of relationships and informal networks that link people together, including friendship groups, faith or hobby communities, and neighbourhood associations
• individual skills and talents – the abilities, expertise, and personal capacities that residents bring, such as language skills, mentoring experience, or creative talents. 

By mapping these assets, local authorities and partners can identify opportunities to connect people, strengthen networks, and deploy resources in ways that build lasting social cohesion. 

Further reading

• Preston City Council (2018): A guide to community asset mapping for community groups and local organisations
• LGA (2020) An asset approach to community wellbeing – a glass half full 10 years on review  

Environmental visual audits: An Environmental Visual Audit (EVA) is an important tool to bring together community members, police and other local services to take part in a neighbourhood walk-through to identify issues of local concern and importance.  Historic audits can provide a useful glimpse into environmental issues that affect residents’ day to day experiences of living in place.  Community safety leads and partnerships will likely have an overview of where this method has been used before and outstanding issues that need resolved for consideration in the social cohesion strategy.  

Further reading

Neighbourhood Watch resources: 

• Neighbourhood Watch EVA Guide
• Suffolk NWA EVA Report – Sample form for completing an EVA 

Case study: Counter terrorism local profiles (CTLPs) 

 

Context 

Since their introduction in 2012, Counter-terrorism local profiles (CTLPs) have identified and documented threats and vulnerabilities relating to terrorism and extremism in a local area. The CTLP is produced primarily by local counter-terrorism policing with input from the local authority and partners through an annual questionnaire.   

 

Practice approach 

CTLPs are refreshed annually and are crucial tools for specified authorities to meet their statutory obligations under the Prevent Duty. They are used by local Prevent partnership boards to underpin local activity and individual specified authorities in assessing sector specific risk and action plans. 

CTLPs include information on; referrals to Prevent, related crimes, threats from extremism and terrorism, community tensions and international events that are affecting local communities.   

 

It is best practice for CTLP findings to be shared with all partners in a place, including briefings to Local Authorities and external partners.  For example, Kent County Council coordinated schools briefings on Kent and Medway’s CTLP in May 2025 for education leaders and designated safeguarding leads.  Schools are also able to request an Official version of the CTLP to inform their own Prevent Risk Assessments (an Ofsted requirement). Over recent years, CTLPs have noted an increase in the proportion of Prevent referrals which relate to mixed or unclear ideologies recognised as “Conflicted” individuals.   

  

Impacts
 

CTLPs are instrumental in enabling coordinated, place-based responses to violent extremism and radicalisation. They help partners align on local priorities and ensure that Prevent efforts are informed by real-time intelligence. 

 

Importantly, CTLPs often reveal risks that go beyond counter-terrorism, offering valuable insights for social cohesion strategies. The types of referrals into Prevent and Channel can tell cohesion actors a great deal about the types of tensions, prejudice and malign actors that may operate in a place, many of which do not pose an exclusive counter terrorism or counter extremism risk but have wider societal impacts.    

 

Social cohesion strategies can use CTLP data to: 
 

• understand underlying tensions and prejudices
• identify malign actors influencing communities
• address broader societal impacts that are not limited to terrorism or extremism
• establish clear governance that underlines the need for joint working and information sharing.

 

Learning 
 

To maximise the value of CTLPs, social cohesion strategies should: 

 

• integrate insights from counter-terrorism local profiles (CTLPs) into broader community engagement efforts
• avoid the over-securitisation of social cohesion, which can increase mistrust and hinder progress
• clarify roles and boundaries between Prevent and social cohesion agendas, recognising that residents do not always distinguish between these policies
• promote information sharing between counter-terrorism police and cohesion stakeholders
• build strong tensions monitoring processes that complement CTLPs and avoid duplication.

 

Further information 

Counter-terrorism local profiles (CTLPs) - GOV.UK

Stakeholder and resident engagement in strategy development  

The development and delivery of social cohesion strategies requires input from local stakeholders and residents. To make sure that their views are heard, local authorities will need to design a mixed-method stakeholder and community engagement plan that reaches all communities, fills data gaps, and informs policy and practice. 

Stakeholder and residents mapping is a useful starting point to inform an engagement plan. Many councils have experienced reductions in dedicated community engagement teams leading to fragmented engagement with civil society and faith organisations or resident forums, and other associations. Often relationships with these groups may be scattered across different parts of the local authority with no single lead responsible officer. Councillors will also have relationships with local stakeholders.  

Engagement plans need to help unravel what relationships are held where. Taking stock on who holds what relationships across the council, for what purpose and how those relationships take place is an important starting point. This should include identifying the following: 

• existing voluntary, community and faith organisations engagement and role (e.g. commissioned service provider, community development organisation)
• anchor institutions defined as large, locally rooted organisations—like councils, NHS trusts, and universities—that are tied to a place through their mission, assets, and relationships, and play a major role in the local economy and community life.  

Using local demographic data and service usage patterns established in the data gathering phase can help uncover gaps and blind spots in engagement, especially with underrepresented or marginalised groups. 

Community engagement methods  

To ensure a strategy is rooted in inclusive participation from across all communities, and to address any distance between councils and the communities they serve, councils are encouraged to conduct a mixed-method community engagement strategy. This work seeks to provide space for open dialogue with residents, reach community members from all backgrounds and test key lines of enquiry you have learnt from gathering existing qualitative and quantitative data. Done well, it can help to improve resident trust, satisfaction and resilience to mis/dis/malinformation.   

Key lines of enquiry which you may have drawn from your desk-review may include some of the following:  

• community responses to recent shocks or trigger events
• demographic, economic or political changes within the locality
• local narratives of place, belonging, heritage and identity
• experiences of racism, prejudice, discrimination and social division, and perceptions of fairness, trust and representation in local government
• civic participation trends, including voter turnout and democratic engagement.

A robust engagement strategy should prioritise approaches that foster trust and demonstrate responsiveness, helping to close gaps that risk undermining democratic participation. It should combine qualitative and quantitative methods to reach diverse communities and fill gaps and test hypothesis.  Council’s may wish to favour methods that can be easily repeated (e.g. annually) allowing for the data to be used as baseline measurements for evaluating success over time. 

It is important to avoid confirmation bias and provide as much free space to communities to speak about matters of interest to them as well as exploration of your key lines of enquiry.  As social cohesion is a cross-council policy area, the findings from community consultations will have relevance to all activities and services a council delivers. For example, if a disconnect between authorities and communities is identified, this may signal risks to trust and democratic norms, making it important to consider strategies that strengthen civic confidence. 

Many local authorities commission partners to help ensure this work can be led objectively and can be statistically relevant or use external partners to train and capacity build existing staff to lead such work.  Recommended methods to use in community engagement include: 

• Individual conversations: Hold one-on-one discussions with community connectors, stakeholders and service providers to gather personal insights into local experiences and resident priorities.
• Focus groups: Explore shared experiences and perspectives in small, themed group discussions, often led in partnership with the voluntary and community sector (VCS) and anchor institutions.
• Community dialogue events: Facilitate open, inclusive forums for residents to discuss local issues and solutions. It can be useful to involve elected members in these discussions and organise them at a ward level. These forums can help challenge misinformation and promote shared understanding.
• Pop-up democracy: Create informal, accessible opportunities for public input in everyday community spaces by leveraging council assets such as leisure centres, libraries, adult education colleges, and public events.
• Participatory democracy and deliberation: Enable informed decision-making through structured, inclusive processes like citizens’ assemblies. For example, Demos’ WAVES digital democracy trial enables inclusive, large-scale public deliberation.
• Resident surveys: Collect broad, quantitative data on community views and priorities through accessible survey formats, either by improving existing surveys or conducting one-off studies.
• Stakeholder engagement: Collaborate with key organisations and groups to shape strategy and ensure shared ownership.
• Public polling: Capture representative and repeatable snapshots of public opinion on key issues to inform decision-making.
• Asset mapping and environmental visual audits: (See the detailed guidance in the section above).
• Environmental Visual audits: (see above).

Engaging ‘hard-to-reach’ groups 

‘Hard-to-reach’ communities and groups is a term frequently used but it is often the case that the right method for engagement has not been applied. Throughout consultations that informed this guidance, local authorities have mentioned several groups that they struggle to engage, for example new and emerging communities and low-income white communities.  In both cases, these groups often lack voluntary, social and faith infrastructures that act as a gateway to engagement either through lack of resourcing or self-organising.  These groups, and others that typically are not represented locally, require dedicated understanding and ultimately increased resourcing to build contacts, trust and opportunity for dialogue.   

Additional methods to engage and promote consultation opportunities to ‘hard to reach’ groups may include: 

• Identifying and working with local intermediaries beyond faith leaders and community organisers this could include community organisations, housing officers, health and family settings, sport clubs and food bank volunteers. These individuals can act as bridges to communities that may mistrust formal institutions. However, relying on gatekeepers can introduce bias and reinforce existing power dynamics within communities.
• Conducting unstructured consultations through door knocks, pub visits, sport clubs, football games, schools and on the street encounters
• Speaking with local businesses and employers.
• Engaging local media influencers including press and radio and social media (e.g. Facebook groups and their administrators).
• Promoting the ways in which groups can self-organise and the support available from the council in doing so.
• Reviewing established ways of working by the councils and its partners.

Meeting communities where they are will maximise meaningful engagement in the consultation and beyond.

Whatever approach(es) a council chooses to enact should place equal weighting on the design of good methods alongside the promotion of opportunities for engagement.

Principles for effective engagement

To ensure strong community involvement and prevent perceptions of being ‘done-to’ or left out of shaping decisions, the following principles are essential:

• Clearly articulated goals and timelines for the consultation process and process thereafter.
• Commitments to playing back what you hear – and outlining when those conversations will happen.
• The use of plain-English and avoiding jargon.
• The need for translation.
• Branding and marketing resources and budget to use in targeted advertising. This could include in the press, radio, social media, public transport, door to door leaflets or letters, events and pop-up opportunities. Marketing approaches and materials may need to differ in tone and style to cater to audience’s needs, for example, in material aimed at young people.   

Case Study: Hartlepool Council - The Big Conversation

 

Context
 

Designed to collect residents' views to shape the Council Plan, Local Plan, Health and Wellbeing Strategy, Community Safety, Medium-Term Financial Strategy, and future funding bids.  

Practice Approach
 

The Big Conversation was a 12-week public engagement initiative undertaken between November 2023 to February 2024 aimed at understanding residents’ views on Hartlepool’s future and guiding the development of the council’s next five-year plan. 

Methods of participation:
 

• online survey (20–30 mins) and postcard feedback 

• paper surveys available in Civic Centre, community hubs, libraries, sports centres, and via Council packs (paper copies of survey, information sheets, postcards for shorter feedback options) 

• stakeholder workshops and face-to-face sessions in community settings.  

• annual business survey 

• a toolkit to empower residents and partners to host their own “Big Conversations”.  

• targeted VCSE sector session at the Centre for Independent Living.

Responses:
 
Over 1,600 total responses: more than 650 from residents, around 50 businesses, plus contributions from council staff and community organisations. 

Impact
 

Findings from the consultation had extensive influence across the Council and its partners including: 
 

• the local authority Finance and Policy Committee updated the Council Plan and priorities to better align with resident priorities

• residents identified strong demand for "action not words" and greater transparency which prompted the creation of a performance framework with a one-year action plan and monitoring indicators

• reports and insights were shared with partners to influence the Health and Wellbeing Strategy and Community Safety Plan  

• targeted improvements were made in responding to environmental concerns such as litter, weeds, dog mess, and fly-tipping concerns

• regeneration projects (Wesley Chapel, Innovation Quarter, and Grand Hotel restoration) received wide public support and praise providing increasing commitments for their continued investment as local assets

• strong positive sentiment towards the local voluntary sector and charities provided a boost to the sector reinforcing their status as core assets promoting the importance of future collaboration and support initiatives.

Learning
 

• Diverse engagement channels matter: A mix of online, paper, face-to-face, and toolkits maximised reach across sectors and demographics. 

• Empowering communities: Community-led conversations increased ownership and richness of local insights. 

• Clear feedback loops boost trust: Sharing findings with staff, councillors, and partners—and aligning actions with public priorities—reinforced credibility and accountability. 

• Transparency demands delivery: Without visible action, strategic objectives risk being seen as empty promises. Embedding a measurable performance framework ensures movement from insight to impact. 

• Partnership and transparency with the press: Through practice collaboration with local press, the Big Conversation achieved strong awareness, transparent dialogue, and consistent public updates sustaining momentum throughout its execution. 

Further information 

To access the full findings report, methodology, thematic breakdowns and data tables please consult the Hartlepool “Big Conversation” hub.

Contact 

Email: [email protected].  
 

Further reading 

Barnet Council: This toolkit offers a clear, step-by-step guide with ten key phases for planning and executing effective consultations, with embedded tools and advice tailored to various stages of engagement.   
CLES – What is an Anchor Institution? 
GOV.UK Community Engagement Principles – Launched March 2024, this guidance outlines rigorous standards – such as inclusivity, proportionality, transparency, and collaboration – ensuring councils engage a diverse range of voices effectively. 
Involve is a UK charity specialising in public participation, offering toolkits, methods, and case studies to support inclusive and effective community engagement.  
LGA Community Engagement Hub – A comprehensive collection of case studies, frameworks, and methods, including citizen assemblies, community champions, and VCSE partnerships. It offers insights into place-based work, digital engagement, asset transfer, and peer navigator programmes.
West Lothian Council Community Engagement Toolkit (3rd Edition Sept 2024) A practical toolkit offering step-by-step guidance on planning, designing, and delivering inclusive community engagement, covering engagement levels, digital methods, participatory budgeting, and the National Standards, with real case studies and further reading.

Co-production of strategies with local partners 

Successful cohesion strategies are co-produced with local partners and residents who hold unique insights, relationships, and responsibilities across place. Co-production is the natural follow up to community engagement, allowing for the playing back of findings and sharing in the process of design, decision-making, and delivery that ensures strategies are rooted in lived experience, institutional knowledge, and collective ambition. Local authorities should seek to involve a diverse range of partners in the co-production process. 

Partners organisations who might be involved in co-production include: 

• Combined authorities – to align regional priorities and avoid duplication
• Social landlords and housing associations – who can act as intermediaries to tenants can offer insight into community dynamics and tensions
• Universities and research institutions – to support evidence-based approaches and evaluation
• Other anchor institutions – such as NHS trusts, colleges, and large employers, whose place-based missions can support cohesion aims. Businesses groups can be involved in co-production through membership bodies such as Chambers of Commerce.
• Civil society and faith organisations – often acting as trusted intermediaries and convenors of community dialogue – play a crucial role in extending the reach of strategy development and in deepening connections between residents and local partners. 

Further information about partner organisations is given in Section Three of this guidance. 

Whether councils conduct co-production methods in participatory workshops, resident forums, online or via a third party, they should seek to: 

1. Test community engagement and data findings – validating insights gathered through earlier engagement phases with residents' views and experiences and with local knowledge.
2. Build consensus on what challenges to prioritise – collaboratively identifying which issues require immediate attention and which may need longer-term strategies.
3. Co-design interventions and actions – working together to define what practical responses, skills and collaborations to enact.
4. Share ownership of delivery and accountability – ensuring that implementation is not solely the responsibility of the council, but a collective effort based on mutual commitment and shared resources.
5. Agree mechanisms for ongoing feedback and involvement – embedding ways to work together to refine strategies as they evolve, ensuring responsiveness to changing needs and contexts. 

By embedding co-production throughout the policy cycle, local authorities can build cohesion strategies that reflect the full potential of place and that are rooted in trust and shared accountability.  

The co-production process should be underpinned by a shared theory of change, which articulates the desired outcomes, key principles, and mechanisms for change. Partners should agree on foundational aims—such as promoting belonging, reducing prejudice, and strengthening civic trust—and commit to collaborative working practices that reflect public sector values of fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. 

Embedding social cohesion across the local authority 

Local authorities should look to embed social cohesion as a core principle in council strategies and across all services areas and related areas of work. 

Social cohesion is not a standalone agenda; it is a cross-cutting priority relevant to the full breadth of council activity. For example, enforcement of parking rules can become a source of friction if residents believe certain communities or streets are treated differently. It impacts on other strategic priorities and operational areas, and how it can be both mainstreamed and targeted in approach. Further detail on how social cohesion impacts of different council service areas is given in Section Four.  

Mainstreamed vs targeted work 

Mainstreaming refers to embedding cohesion principles into the core functions and services of the council ensuring that all departments consider how their work contributes to belonging, trust, and inclusion. Targeted work, by contrast, focuses on specific interventions or programmes designed to address identified cohesion challenges or opportunities, often in response to local data or community feedback.  Mainstreaming approaches can be more proactive and long-term whereas targeted work can more reactive and focused on acute challenges.   

Beyond securing the most fitting strategic alignment, cohesion should be embedded into the day-to-day work of council departments and services. 

This includes: 

• adult and community education – promoting lifelong learning and civic participation
• housing and homelessness services – ensuring inclusive access and addressing spatial inequalities
• public health – including social prescribing and mental wellbeing initiatives that foster connection
• democratic services – such as citizenship ceremonies and civic engagement programmes that promote belonging. 

While this section does not explore each area in detail, Section Four will provide further guidance on how cohesion can be embedded into these domains. Councils may wish to use a mapping template to identify where cohesion is currently considered, where gaps exist, and where opportunities for integration lie.   

Case Study: Mainstreaming Cohesion at Manchester City Council 

 

Context
 

Manchester is renowned for its diversity, resilience, and community spirit, yet recent challenges including the pandemic, cost-of-living crisis, and refugee resettlements have highlighted the need for deeper community cohesion. Manchester City Council launched the Building Stronger Communities Together (BSCT) Strategy 2023–26, aimed at enhancing social connections, participation, and belonging across the city.  

 

Practice

As part of developing the BSCT strategy: 
 

• hosted an Our Manchester-themed cohesion workshop, bringing together city leaders from across the public sector to embed cohesion priorities into existing delivery plans  

• consolidated and aligned all existing policies – on public health, community safety, police and crime, neighbourhood services –within a coherent, cohesion-focused framework.  

 

Approach

Manchester’s approach is characterised by:
 

• Whole-system alignment: Cohesion is integrated across public health, policing, crime prevention, tackling inequalities, and neighbourhood services. 

• Collaborative governance: Cross-sector leadership embeds cohesion across council departments and external partners. 

• Co-produced implementation: Extensive consultation and engagement with residents and community actors ensures lived experience is central to delivery. 

 

Impact

Early signs of positive outcomes include:
 

• improved coordination across sectors and delivery plans

• enhanced community trust and participation, especially among under-represented communities, although formal evaluation is ongoing 

• improved responsiveness to emerging local tensions and cohesion risks, supported by neighbourhood-level facilitation. 

 

Learning

Key lessons emerging from Manchester’s experience:
 

• co-produced strategy development, such as the Our Manchester workshop, enables practical embedding of cohesion across service areas

• one overarching strategy (BSCT) provides clarity, avoids fragmentation, and aligns multiple agendas toward shared goals

• strong leadership through dedicated roles and cross-functional ownership is essential for mainstreaming cohesion. 

 

Further information 
 

• Building Stronger Communities Together – Our Strategy 2023–26  

Strategic alignment 

Programmes of work to increase social cohesion may be delivered through related local authority policy areas, set out below. 

Community development  

Local authorities may wish to deliver activities to boost social cohesion through community development initiatives. These aim to increase the social and economic assets possessed by communities, enabling them to thrive, support their members, address disparities and increase people’s overall quality of life. Bonding, bridging and linking social capital are drivers of community development and social cohesion. Some civil society and faith organisations also deliver community organising programmes which brings people together to decide on solutions to common problems and to take collective action for change. 

Community development programmes formed part of the New Deal for Communities programme, which ran from 1998-2011. Community development was also a key outcome set out the Government’s 2022 Levelling Up White Paper.  The ten-year Pride in Place programme has both community development and social cohesion as explicit aims. This will mean that community development and social cohesion outcomes can be delivered through the same Pride in Place programme of work.

Community ownership is another component of community development. which gives people control over local assets such as buildings, land or services so they can manage them in ways that meet community needs. Community ownership has been boosted by the Governments’ Community Right to Buy policy, the Government’s £150 million Community Ownership Fund and the funder Power to Change. 

Community engagement 

Programmes of work to promote social cohesion may fall within the remit of local authority community engagement activities. Community engagement is the process of involving people in decisions, activities, and initiatives that impact on their lives. It strengthens community cohesion by building trust, increasing social capital and civic participation. Local authorities engage with communities through:

• formal consultations
• neighbourhood forums
• neighbourhood working groups
• partnership working with local civil society and faith organisations

Local authorities may also promote community engagement through community asset transfer and ownership or programmes of work to promote volunteering.

Community safety

Social cohesion objectives will be delivered by local authorities through their involvement in Community Safety Partnerships and responding to hate crime, with further detail set out in Section Four.

Counter-extremism  

Extremism has far-reaching impacts on community cohesion, dividing communities and reducing inter-personal trust and people’s sense of security. While the Prevent Duty is primarily focused on stopping terrorism and preventing radicalisation, it does not explicitly deliver activities aimed at promoting social cohesion objectives such as bonding, bridging, and linking. However, preventing extremism contributes to stronger and more cohesive communities, so making this connection is appropriate. Further detail on the Prevent Duty is provided in Section Four.   

Democratic services  

Democratic resilience is a component of social cohesion. It is the ability of democratic society to withstand and respond to threats while protecting the integrity of democratic institutions. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities to safeguard democracy through their legal duties to administer elections and support councillors to fulfil their duties. Local authorities can also encourage democratic resilience by increasing civic participation, addressing misinformation and disinformation working with schools to support citizenship education (see Sections Three and Four).  

Equality, diversity and inclusion 

In some local authorities the lead responsibility for social cohesion lies within Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) teams. Local authorities can therefore address some of the underlying barriers to social cohesion through their EDI programmes of work.  

Migrant integration  

Integration as a process ensures that all groups in society live well together.  It takes place across economic, social and civic domains. Integration is a driver of social cohesion and integration projects often form components of broader social cohesion programmes. Data from Census 2021 and the Annual Population Survey highlight integration challenges such as not being able to speak in English well or at all.  

Resilience and civil contingencies 

Civic resilience and social cohesion are closely linked, as strong social bonds and trust within a community enable people to work together effectively in times of stress or change.  

The UK Government Resilience Action Plan (2025) highlights social cohesion as essential for national resilience, emphasizing strong community networks, trust, and inclusive engagement to prevent division and support recovery during crises. 

Social cohesion—built through shared values, participation, and mutual support—creates the foundation for civic resilience, helping communities adapt, recover, and thrive after challenges. Social cohesion will need to be an aim of Local Resilience Forums.  

Local authorities should consider how cohesion principles can be embedded into existing strategies and delivery plans across these areas. This includes aligning governance structures, data collection, and community engagement practices to ensure cohesion is not siloed but systemically integrated into place-making in all its forms.  

Further reading 

• Casey, Dame Louise (2016) The Casey Review: A review into opportunity and integration, London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
• Lloyd, J and Reynolds, E. (2020) Asset-Based Community Development for Local Authorities, London:
• NESTA.
• Mayor of London (2018) All of Us: The Mayor of London’s Strategy for Social Integration, London: Greater London Authority.
• Oakley, D. (2024) Building resilient communities: The case for social cohesion, London: Protection Approaches. 

Implementation and delivery plans 

Following the identification of strategic priorities and the drafting of a social cohesion strategy, local authorities should produce a delivery framework or implementation plan. This should set out the activities needed to fulfil the aims of the social cohesion strategy and allocate responsibilities. The delivery plan should also inform a theory of change.   

A delivery framework provides an operational foundation and should outline actions, governance arrangements delivery roles and responsibilities, processes and timelines, and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms. It answers the question: “How will we make this happen in practice?”     

For ‘mainstreamed’ social cohesion strategies – it is important for named operational leads to be established in each corresponding department to ensure oversight and responsibility for their respective departments’ actions.   

A theory of change provides a strategic foundation for what a council chose to do. It sets out the long-term goals of the programme and the activities: “Why are we doing this, and how do we expect it to work?” 

Launching the programme 

Public and stakeholder-facing launches to social cohesion strategies should form part of delivery plans. A launch should be more than a procedural start – it’s an opportunity to build momentum and community ownership.  

In addition to following the scrutiny processes within the council, key components include: 

• Narrative development: Craft a compelling story that communicates the programme’s purpose, benefits, and long-term vision to stakeholders and members of the public.
• Communication plan: That aligns messaging with groups and engages local media influencers and anchor institutions.  The linear order of who is contacted first may need to be considered.
• Public events and briefings: Use launch events to re-engage stakeholders, showcase leadership commitment, and invite feedback.
• Community engagement: Involve residents, community groups, and local champions early to foster trust and co-design opportunities. 

It is especially important that launch events invite all those that have participated in the community and stakeholder consultation and enables a further opportunity to playback findings.  

Civil Society and faith sector involvement 

These play a critical role in delivery of social cohesion activities, alongside being frequently commissioned or grant funded to support strategy implementation. Local authorities should ensure:  

• Early market engagement to ensure any potential opportunities for collaboration have as much advance notice as possible and that there are opportunities for innovation.
• Support for bid writing to include bid writing, monitoring and evaluation support, opportunities for digital and spoken submissions and wider capacity building to help professionalise the sector.
• Establish lean contract management protocols that clarify expectations, provide templates and promote transparency.
• Use service level agreements (SLAs) to formalise roles, responsibilities, and funding arrangements.
• Clear commissioning priorities that reflect local need and encourage collaboration between civil society, faith, local government and other partners.  Focus on legacy and shared outcomes.  

For guidance on training and capacity-building within civil society and faith organisations, refer to Section Six.

Skills and capacity to deliver 

Local authorities may find that they lack dedicated expertise to deliver key components of cohesion strategies.  This could include the need for technical assistance in commissioning or setting up community tensions monitoring, or operational support in responding to mis/dis/malinformation or managing difficult conversations. 

Identifying skills gaps both within the council and across its implementation partners will create space for collaborative training opportunities and peer to peer support.  

Furthermore, training and the associated skills gained may be key programme outcomes a council wants to achieve from the social cohesion strategy with resources attached to bring in outside support.  

This could include investment in the following: 

• Training programmes tailored to different roles, including councillors, senior officers, managers, frontline staff and community partners.
• Scenario planning exercises to define roles, test responses, and build confidence in delivery teams.
• Ongoing support and peer learning to sustain momentum and adapt to emerging challenges. 

Monitoring and evaluation  

Local authorities should build monitoring and evaluation processes into the delivery plans that accompany their social cohesion strategies.  

Councils will know that ‘What gets measured gets done’.  While monitoring and evaluation can feel like an optional add-on and a nice to have, it helps foster a culture of progress and achievement.   

Ideally, MEL is grounded in a strategy’s theory of change which sets out the strategic rationale for the programme.   Figure 2.1 below sets out a draft theory of change in the form a narrative house. It can be used by local government as a light touch template to test out assumptions, logic and document the pathways of change e.g. how activities lead to outputs, outcomes and impact. 

This approach uses the following theoretical principles of social cohesion descried in Section One, but it can be adjusted to accommodate local contexts:

• bonding social capital – Strengthening ties within similar groups
• bridging social capital – Connecting different groups
• linking social capital – Connecting communities to institutions and decision-making structures
• social contact theory – Promoting direct, indirect, and contextual contact to reduce prejudice
• shared identity theory – Encouraging inclusive and connecting identities to strengthen shared identities and reduce “us vs. them” divides.  

Figure 2.1 

 

Outcome:

 

Strengthened Internal Community Ties (Bonding Social Capital)

• Increased trust, safety and solidarity within cultural, faith and neighbourhood groups
• Greater participation in local group activities and mutual support networks
• Enhanced resilience through stronger informal safety nets and shared identity within groups

Enhanced Cross-Community Collaboration (Bridging Social Capital)

• Increased interaction and cooperation between diverse groups
• Reduction in stereotypes and social distance
• Improved partnership responses to community tensions

Improved Civic Access and Influence (Linking Social Capital)

• Greater community influence on local decision-making
• Frontline staff safer and better equipped to hold difficult conversations
• Improved access to public services and institutional support
• Empowerment of underrepresented groups through formal roles and representation

Increased Empathy and Reduced Prejudice (Social Contact Theory)

• More meaningful social contact across difference, leading to reduced prejudice
• Greater empathy and understanding about migration and diversity
• Safer, more respectful public discourse
• Improved cultural competency across local authority teams and communities

Development of Inclusive and Shared Identities (Shared Identity Theory)

• Stronger sense of belonging to a shared civic or local identity
• Weaker exclusive in-group identities and reduced “us vs. them” divides
• Increased pride in heritage and collective narratives
• More robust responses to hate crime and its drivers

Long term impact:  

• Resilient and Inclusive Places: Places foster belonging, safety, and opportunity through inclusive public spaces and community-led resilience.
• Trusted and Responsive Local Authorities: Councils are seen as fair and inclusive, with transparent decision-making, strong community relationships and proactive partnership responses.
• Reduced Inequalities in Access and Influence: All communities have equitable access to services and civic platforms, with barriers to participation actively addressed.
• Sustained Civic Participation and Leadership: Diverse residents lead and shape civic life through supported networks, voluntary sector partnerships, and inclusive infrastructure.
• Better Conversations and Social Cohesion Across Places: Public discourse is respectful, informed, and inclusive, promoting empathy and pride in shared local and national identity. 

However, mapping progress against these outcomes presents challenges, particularly within local government, where data systems may be fragmented, under-resourced, or not designed to capture cohesion-related indicators.   

Connecting existing data sources to specific outcomes is a useful way to avoid cumbersome and unrealistic MEL commitments.   As mentioned earlier in this section, local authorities can draw on a mix of quantitative and qualitative datasets and local intelligence to establish baselines and track change.  Local authorities who have resident surveys or who conduct baseline polling as part of their community engagement are well positioned to repeat such activates to measure progress on key measures.  

Authorities may need to adapt existing tools, for example, adding questions on belonging, trust, or intergroup contact to annual surveys to build the baseline as an output of the strategy.  

Key performance indicators (KPIs) 

Monitoring should combine quantitative and qualitative methods to capture both measurable change and lived experience. 

Suggested KPIs could include: 

• the percentage of residents reporting a sense of belonging to their local area
• the percentage of residents participating in cross-community events
• the extent to which community group leadership reflects the demographic characteristics of the local population (for example, gender, ethnicity, age or disability)
• the number of community-led initiatives supported
• the percentage of residents who feel local services treat people fairly.

Qualitative methods (e.g. interviews, focus groups, participatory evaluation) are essential to understand how cohesion is experienced and perceived.    

Process evaluation 

Process evaluations assess how a programme is delivered, identifying what works, for whom, and under what conditions. Key elements that are examined include: 

• adherence to the planned delivery framework
• the quality of community engagement
• the effectiveness of partnerships
• barriers and enablers to implementation.

This helps refine delivery and ensure activities align with the Theory of Change.  This is particularly important for longer term strategies and can help ensure the operational elements of delivery are working to meet your end goals.  

Impact evaluations 

Impact evaluations explore whether and how the programme has contributed to changes in social cohesion, such as: 

• increased trust between different groups
• reduced prejudice and social isolation
• greater civic participation and influence
• stronger shared identities.

These evaluations may use longitudinal data, comparative analysis, or contribution analysis to assess change over time. Local authorities may find their local priorities can be measured well through long-term measures and will need to ensure that their theory of change reflects proxy measures that they can see in a shorter time frame to avoid complacency in between measurement points.

Social cohesion: key partner organisations for local authorities 

Local authorities will need to consider which organisations to involve as partners in their social cohesion strategies, and how to involve them. As part of strategy development, local authorities may wish to undertake asset mapping of potential partner organisations.    

Partner organisations may include small local charities and anchor organisations which are large, locally rooted institutions that have a long-term presence in an area. Anchor organisations may have a significant local economic and social impact as employers and as community engagement partners. Where they are effective in connecting to and involving people at local level, civil society and faith organisations can significantly ‘extend the reach’ of positive initiatives by the council and its partners, providing a route to engaging those who feel a distance from statutory organisations and the democratic process. They also play a vital role in underpinning social cohesion by strengthening social networks. Anchor organisations include colleges, universities, hospitals and large private sector employers as well as local authorities themselves. 

Organisations that are likely to be involved as partners in developing and delivering social cohesion strategies include: 

Combined authorities and the Mayor of London 

The Government’s devolution agenda grants combined authorities powers over transport, housing and planning, skills and economic development. The powers granted to those authorities depends on the devolution deal that has been signed with the Government, for example Greater Manchester has more powers over employment support and health and social care policy, giving it more scope to act in these areas. Furthermore, not every combined authority is led by an elected mayor. Notwithstanding these local differences, combined authorities are important partners in work to promote social cohesion through: 

The elected mayors in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and London have police and crime commissioners which cover community safety, hate crime and extremism. Many combined authorities are also supporting the work of faith and civil society organisations that relate to social cohesion.  

Some combined authorities have cabinet members for communities, community safety or for equalities who lead the authority’s work on social cohesion. Their work may be supported by officers that have a specific remit for social cohesion.  

Parish, community and town councils: These elected bodies sit below unitary or district councils and they are elected. Their remit is of relevance to social cohesion as these councils may oversee community centres, allotments, playing fields, parks and community events. Some town and community councils offer small grants to local charities. Parish, community and town councils have the statutory powers to issue fixed penalty fines for offences such as littering and graffiti which can damage people’s pride in the place they live.  

Police: They police play a key role in maintaining community safety and tackling the crimes that can undermine community cohesion such as anti-social behaviour. Neighbourhood policing teams are often involved in tension monitoring. Counter-terrorism police may input into the development of Prevent programmes to reduce divisive hatred and violent extremism.  

Police and Crime Commissioners: They set local policing priorities and commission community safety initiatives and victim services. Working with them ensures that social cohesion strategies align with wider efforts to prevent crime, build trust in policing, and support victims. 

Schools and nurseries: As set out in Section Four, schools and nurseries are key partner organisations. Here children learn about the shared democratic values that underpin society and learn the life skills they need for the future. When consulting with local residents to develop social cohesion strategies, local authorities can reach parents by involving schools and nurseries.  

Colleges and other further education providers: In the academic year ending July 2024, there were 2.7 million further education students in England, of which 1.1 million were adults over the age of 18. Colleges deliver a wide variety of academic, vocational, basic skills and leisure courses to students from a cross section of society. Literacy, numeracy, ESOL, digital inclusion and employability courses underpin social cohesion. They are important places where people meet and mix with each other. Through teaching and student activities colleges model inclusivity and shared values. 

Jobcentre Plus: Being in work underpins social cohesion and local jobcentres can be valuable partner organisations in the design and delivery of social cohesion strategies. Jobcentre Plus district and partnership managers may have useful insights about the barriers to employment faced by different communities.  

Universities: Universities can strengthen local social cohesion by sharing research and expertise, supporting community initiatives, and encouraging volunteering and civic engagement among students and staff. However, challenges exist in managing housing demand and prices that often exacerbate pressure on local communities. 

NHS services: Health providers have strong community networks and work with people facing inequality or social isolation. Many GP practices are involved in social prescribing programmes. Some large hospitals organise integration programmes for staff that they have recruited from overseas. 

Social landlords:  Some 17 per cent of households in England live in social housing provided by housing associations, councils and arms-length management organisations. Social landlords are important partners in developing and delivering social cohesion strategies. They can be used to reach and engage tenants. Many social landlords own community space that can be used to bring residents together. Social landlords can also empower residents through their involvement in tenants’ associations, community-led initiatives such as community events.  Some social landlords are also involved in tension monitoring and initiatives to address anti-social behaviour and hate crime. Although research is still limited, a few social landlords have considered how the design of the built environment can increase social cohesion, building on the expertise of organisations such as Create Streets.  

Faith organisations: It is important that faith organisations are involved in the development and delivery of social cohesion strategies. Like civil society organisations, faith groups can help reach and engage residents, including people that can be difficult to reach. They also play a role in addressing socio-economic needs in deprived neighbourhoods by providing essential services like food banks, youth clubs,  Warm Welcome Hubs and befriending projects. Many, although not all faith organisations, are involved in inter-faith initiatives which help build bridging social capital and provide spaces for dialogue. However, local authorities will need to be sensitive to differences within faith groups. Within the same broad religious tradition – Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and Hindu – there are numerous denominations, with different beliefs, practices, or priorities. Partnerships could unintentionally reinforce social divisions if certain groups are overrepresented or other groups feel excluded. It is important that the diversity of opinion within faith groups is reflected in those who are consulted when developing cohesion strategies.  

Civil society organisations: These organisations - sometimes termed voluntary and community sector organisations - play an important role in the development and delivery of social cohesion strategies. With over 170,000 registered charities in England and Wales, these organisations are very varied in relation to their size and remit. They include large national or regional civil society organisations with local offices or programmes, large federated organisations such as Citizens’ Advice or Age UK where local branches are legally independent and smaller local organisations. In some sectors – sports and heritage – local civil society organisations are largely run by volunteers.  

Like faith organisations civil society organisations can: 

A real-life example of embedding social cohesion in community safety is the development of youth violence prevention strategies. CSPs might identify that mistrust between young people and police, or between different community groups, is contributing to violence. Addressing these issues requires more than a policing response—it demands building relationships, understanding cultural dynamics, and creating shared spaces for dialogue. 

CSPs might manage these risks by: 

Local Criminal Justice Boards  

Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) are multi-agency partnerships that coordinate the delivery of criminal justice services at the local level. Local Criminal Justice Boards are not statutory bodies, but they operate under national guidance to fulfil statutory collaboration duties set out in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. There are proposals to place them on a statutory footing in future. They typically include representatives from the police, Crown Prosecution Service, courts, probation services, prisons, youth justice, victim support organisations and rehabilitation partners.  Many LCJBs have local authority membership but not all. LCJBs aim to improve the efficiency, and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and their work intersects with social cohesion in several important ways. 

Social cohesion contributes to public confidence in the justice system. When communities perceive the system as fair, transparent, and responsive to their needs, they are more likely to engage with it—whether as victims, witnesses, or participants in restorative justice. Conversely, where there is mistrust or perceived bias, social fragmentation can deepen, undermining justice outcomes and community resilience. 

Social cohesion can be embedded in criminal justice through community-based restorative justice programmes in areas with high reoffending rates and low trust in formal justice institutions. These programmes rely on strong relationships between communities and justice agencies, and they can help repair harm, reduce reoffending, and rebuild trust. 

For example, the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cleveland used its commissioned service Restorative Cleveland to engage with offenders involved in the summer 2024 violent disorder, running ‘shuttle-mediation’ and facilitating meetings between those in custody and victims including police officers. This helped offenders understand the consequences of their behaviour, rebuild trust by bringing together community and faith groups, and enable victim-centred dialogue. LCJBs might support social cohesion by: 

SMPs have representation at the LGA’s Asylum and Resettlement, Council Senior Engagement Group (ARCSEG) meeting, the main forum for engagement at a senior local government and central government officer level,  and at the LGA’s Asylum, Refugee and Migration Task Group, the political forum that sits above the ARCSEG. Through these groups SMPs have escalated key issues and challenges and worked with local government attendees to produce resources that support councils to welcome, settle and integrate asylum seekers, Afghans, Ukrainians, Hong Kong British (Overseas) nationals and other resettlement cohorts. 

Non-statutory partnerships 

In most local authorities there are a range of ad-hoc or non-statutory partnerships with remits that cover specific issues.  These include: 

 Principles under-pinning partnership working 

Local authorities will need to make sure that partnership working to promote social cohesion is effective, accountable and sustainable. The following principles will help local authorities achieve this aim.  

1.Shared vision and values 

Partner organisations should agree on common goals, such as fostering trust and belonging across diverse communities. 

2.Clear mutual understandings of remits and responsibilities  

Each organisation should know the roles and remits of other members of the partnership to avoid duplication or gaps in services.  

Effective commissioning involves: 

Procurement processes  

Procurement is more than compliance, it presents a strategic opportunity to support local ecosystems, encourage collaboration, and reduce barriers for smaller providers. The LGA’s National Procurement Strategy and Social Value Portal provide guidance on embedding social value and cohesion in procurement. 

Procurement is a key stage in the commissioning cycle. Councils could: 

Legal duties  

Councils must comply with legal duties including:

• Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012: requiring councils to consider how procurement can improve social, economic, and environmental wellbeing.
• Procurement Act 2023: elevates this requirement—councils must “have regard to maximising public benefit,” a higher threshold than simply “considering” social value. The Act introduces several expectations on local councils:
  • Demonstrate alignment with the new National Procurement Policy Statement (NPPS)
  • “Have regard to maximising public benefit”: Councils now have a statutory duty to actively seek broader public benefits—including social, economic, and environmental outcomes—rather than merely considering them.
  • Mission-driven, place-based procurement aligned with local priorities and national missions.
  • Use of the “Most Advantageous Tender” (MAT) over previous price-focused criteria, allowing procurement decisions to formally weigh social value (e.g. job creation, civil socieiy participation) alongside cost into award decisions.
  • New duties to support SMEs and VCSEs, including setting participation targets and reducing barriers through streamlined processes and fair payment practices.
  • Embed social value across the entire procurement lifecycle from early planning to contract management and delivery.
  • Monitor and report on public benefit delivery
• Equality Act 2010: includes the Public Sector Equality Duty which requires public authorities to “foster good relations” between people who share and do not share a protected characteristic under the Act. This means addressing prejudice and supporting understanding, and in the context of procurements it means avoiding discrimination when making procurement decisions. Many of the other duties set out above, as well as commitments to local procurement, can help local authorities foster good community relations. Best Value Duty 1999: requires councils to secure continuous improvement how their functions are exercised, with regard to economy, efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery.

These obligations support inclusive commissioning and reinforce councils’ role in promoting fairness and cohesion.

The LGA’s LG Inform tool can support data analysis and benchmarking. 

Commitment to institutional learning 

Commissioning is also a learning process. Councils should ideally: 

The LGA’s Commissioning Academy for Elected Members supports councillors in their commissioning role. 

Applying inclusive commissioning 

Inclusive commissioning ensures that smaller civil society organisations, including grassroots and community-led groups, are not excluded by overly complex or bureaucratic processes. Councils could: 

Councils can also use the General Power of Competence to support innovative public–commons partnerships and co-operative governance models. Inclusive commissioning strengthens local ecosystems, supports innovation, and ensures that services reflect the diversity of communities. 

The Cooperative Councils’ Innovation Network (CCIN) is a cross-party network of over 140 councils, opposition groups and organisations, including the London Borough of Hackney.  The CCIN highlighted Hackney Council’s work to embed anti-racist principles into its commissioning and decision-making as a leading example of how councils can enhance social value through inclusive and community-led approaches.   Hackney’s approach centres on five key principles: building trusted relationships, trusting community groups to identify needs, designing flexible and transparent processes, supporting small organisations with core funding, and using trauma-informed methods. The council is actively identifying where systemic racism appears in the commissioning cycle—such as barriers to funding, exclusion from networks, and risk delegation—and is working to redesign processes to be more inclusive. The team is engaging minority ethnic led organisations to co-develop a new grants programme and is committed to building trust through relationship-focused, rather than process-driven, commissioning. You can read more detail about Hackney’s experience here https://www.councils.coop/resources/toolkits/socialvalue/case-studies/  as part of the CCIN Social Value Toolkit for Councils. 

Contact: Joanne Blackwood 
Strategic Delivery Manager 
Hackney Council 

Driving social value 

It is widely recognised as best practice for councils to publish a Social Value Statement that sets out how procurement and commissioning will deliver broader benefits for communities—such as job creation, support for local businesses, improved wellbeing, and environmental sustainability. While not a legal requirement, a clear statement helps councils meet their duties under the Procurement Act 2023 and the Social Value Act by aligning procurement with public benefit. It also supports the principles of the Civil Society Covenant, which promotes collaborative working between government and the voluntary sector. A well-crafted statement enhances transparency, accountability, and strategic focus across all contracts and services. 

A Social Value Statement provides an opportunity to drive forward the response to social cohesion priorities into a shared framework for staff, suppliers, and partners, aligning procurement with strategic priorities such as fairness, inclusion, sustainability, and community wellbeing. By making these values explicit, councils demonstrate leadership, set expectations for delivery, and embed social value consistently across contracts and services.  

This approach helps ensure that commissioning and procurement are not just tools for service delivery, but also for placemaking from supporting local jobs to driving environmental improvements.   

Hammersmith and Fulham Council led the way by publishing a comprehensive Social Value Statement and embedding social value in all contracts over £100,000, with a mandatory minimum weighting of 10 per cent. They appointed a Social Value Officer and set up a delivery group to ensure that social value was woven through their Corporate Plan, Industrial Strategy, and Climate Emergency agenda. As a result, procurement activity now contributes to carbon reduction goals, local job creation, business growth, and environmental benefits—demonstrating how councils can use procurement to drive sustained, cross-cutting community gains.  You can read more detail about the Hammersmith and Fulham experience on the LGA’s website here. 

Supporting civil society  

Councils are encouraged to capacity build local VCSE organisations to ensure they can understand and meet their own obligations under social value as they deliver services and respond to grants and tenders. This could include: 

Cohesion is a strategic and cross-cutting issue that requires input and support from the whole local authority. Councillors set policy and strategy and provide oversight. While social cohesion may be led by one team or policy function within the local authority, all service areas have a role to play in supporting it. Social cohesion considerations need to be embedded across the council as a whole to have impact. This section provides guidance on the role of councillors and different local authority service areas with regard to social cohesion. 

The role of councillors

Councillors may not describe their day-to-day work in responding and representing the needs of residents as ‘social cohesion’, but every elected member will be playing an active role in impacting social cohesion within their wards.  Every elected member has the opportunity to set the tone for constructive dialogue and positive relationships across communities and their political differences.  They are more regularly relied upon to provide visible leadership during periods of tension. 

Councillors are elected representatives responsible for setting the strategy and policy direction of the council and ensuring the local authority fulfils its legal duties. Councillors are also place leaders and are there to represent the interests of their constituents. Legislation set out in Section One describes their powers and duties in respect to social cohesion, while the Nolan Principles of Public Life (selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership) and local codes of conduct should guide councillors’ behaviour. Fulfilling these standards strengthens democracy and therefore helps to build cohesive communities.   

In relation to social cohesion, councillors’ roles include: 

Policy leadership and strategic oversight 

Councillors shape and approve local strategies that foster social cohesion and related areas of work, through over-arching strategies or specific community strategies. Councillors also set budgets and approve programmes of work on social cohesion.  

Some plans and strategies relevant to social cohesion are legal requirements, with local authorities obliged to submit them to the Government for approval. The development of these plans and strategies is an opportunity to involve or consult with local residents, giving them a voice in developing policies that impact on them.  

Plans and strategies most relevant to social cohesion include: 

Service areas: community safety  

Community safety is a cornerstone of social cohesion approaches and is increasingly embedded within broader place-based strategies, including housing, public health, and economic development. When residents feel safe in their homes, public spaces, and neighbourhoods, they are more likely to engage with others, participate in civic life, and develop a sense of belonging. Council-led community safety initiatives—ranging from anti-social behaviour (ASB) interventions to hate crime prevention and modern slavery disruption—play a vital role in fostering environments where trust, mutual respect, and shared values can flourish. (For information on Community Safety Partnerships – see Section Three.) 

Councils increasingly recognise the intersection between community safety and cohesion. Community safety teams are often the first responders to local tensions, nuisance behaviours, and incidents that threaten cohesion. Their work helps uphold community norms, reduce fear, and build confidence in local institutions.  

Crucially, these teams operate at the nexus between council-led priorities and those that fall within the police or wider security agenda. This positioning creates a unique space where councils and policing partners can achieve the greatest impact—making creative, preventative decisions and designing interventions that stop issues from escalating. Because of this, their interaction with wider partners is not simply operational; it is strategic. Effective collaboration ensures that community safety is not perceived solely as a policing function but as an integrated, council-led approach that reflects local priorities and values. 

In areas experiencing rapid demographic change, community safety teams also act as mediators and educators, helping new and existing residents understand local expectations and cultural norms. Multi-agency task forces have become essential in tackling complex social issues such as exploitation and extremism, while community-led intelligence and digital tools support early tension monitoring. Trauma-informed approaches are increasingly used to respond to hate crime and extremism, ensuring that interventions are sensitive and effective. Disrupting modern slavery and exploitation further strengthens cohesion by removing harmful practices that undermine dignity, fairness, and trust—allowing communities to thrive in safety and solidarity.   

Relevant legislation and policy 

Key legislation and policy frameworks underpinning council-led community safety include: 

Approaches to social cohesion 

Councils have developed a range of practical approaches to embed community cohesion within community safety work: 

What is tensions monitoring? 

Tensions monitoring is underpinned by a number of principles. 

Tensions can be short-term in response to real events or misinformation, or they can be long-term and more systemic.   

Tensions monitoring data can be provided by different organisations and services, including:

Further reading 

• Cantle, T.  (2010) “Community Tension Monitoring Guidance’ in (ed) Cantle, T. Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity, New York: Springer.
• Addressing Community Tensions: Developing Shared Ground

Public Health and Social Cohesion 

Public health plays a vital role in fostering social cohesion by addressing the social determinants of health and promoting inclusive, community-centred approaches. Health outcomes are deeply intertwined with social inclusion, economic opportunity, and civic participation—all of which are foundational to cohesive communities. 

Public health services contribute to cohesion by: 

Social prescribing is intrinsically tied to social cohesion through connecting individuals to non-clinical services such as community groups, cultural, leisure and physical activity that support wellbeing and social connection. Front-line-officers, typically within health and social care refer an individual to a social prescribing link worker embedded into Primary Care Networks. Some civil society organisations also employ social prescribing staff.  

Social prescribing is particularly effective in: 

The success of social prescribing depends heavily on strong civil society infrastructure, and this is where local authorities lead the way.  Councils can embed social prescribing into their public health and social cohesion strategies by working with primary care networks, voluntary organisations, and community connectors. 

Councils play a vital enabling role in social prescribing, even though delivery is primarily led by the NHS. Their responsibilities span across infrastructure, integration, and leadership to ensure social prescribing is effective and sustainable. 

Expand and maintain a diverse referral network 

Councils should actively support and promote a wide range of community and commissioned services that link workers can refer into. This includes green spaces (e.g. parks and sport fields), public facilities (e.g. leisure centres, libraries, galleries, and museums), digital and cultural activities accessible online and adult and community education services. 

Actions:  

Integrate social prescribing into local systems 

Councils, as commissioners of place, should embed social prescribing pathways into broader local strategies and services. 

Actions:  

Build community capacity 

Councils should invest in and support Community Infrastructure Organisations and VCSE alliances to help smaller groups become sustainable and “referral ready.” 

Actions: 

Lead through public health 

Councils should use their public health leadership to embed social prescribing into population health and prevention strategies. 

Actions

Every neighbourhood is unique and faces a different range of economic and social challenges to cohesion. Inter-group conflict lies at the root of many of the current challenges and barriers to social cohesion and problems such as racism, community tensions and the pernicious influence of religious and political extremism can be worsened by poverty, social isolation or amplified in an increasingly online world. This section sets out these challenges and how local authorities can address them.   

While many of these challenges to social cohesion are widespread and not limited to specific locations, some are rooted in local contexts.  Across different local authorities, the factors that negatively impact social cohesion may vary in their prevalence, salience and impact. Local authorities, with their detailed understanding of local pressures and neighbourhood dynamics are best placed to identify and respond to these challenges. This section of the guidance outlines social cohesion challenges faced by local authorities across the UK and sets out how current policy can be used to address them. Over the last five years, greater numbers of local authorities have been negatively impacted by challenges such as online misinformation and disinformation. This section examines in detail how challenges can be addressed.   

Addressing poverty and inequality 

The 2016 Louise Casey Review into opportunity and integration stressed that both poverty and income inequality have far-reaching impacts on social cohesion. Financial hardship can prevent people from going out and taking part in the activities that bring people of different backgrounds together. The State of Us, a report from Belong and British Future to the Independent Commission on Community and Cohesion argues that poverty and inequality can also increase resentment of different social groups who are perceived as receiving preferential access to housing and public services. Income deprivation can also increase people’s views that society is unfair, damaging their trust in democratic institutions. The 2024 Khan Review (2024) stated “There is a risk that where our poorest feel left behind, some become increasingly disillusioned with a democratic system which they feel is not supporting them”.  

Workplaces are one of the most important places where adults mix and meet with people from different backgrounds to themselves.  Work remains the best route out of poverty and reducing unemployment and economic inactivity are Government priorities. Local authorities have a role in this, through economic policy, their provision of skills-focussed adult and community education and employment support (See Section Four).  

Local authorities also have a role to play in alleviating poverty. Here interventions can include: 

Approaches to social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods 

Programmes of work to increase social cohesion in deprived neighbourhoods need to address the root causes of deprivation and also take action to manage the social cohesion impacts. The Pride in Place programme is an opportunity to do this for the areas that are receiving this funding.  

Place-based neighbourhood management strategies can be used to address challenges. Local authorities might wish to consider: 

Where there are large numbers of students living in deprived neighbourhoods, local authorities should work with universities to address issues such as population churn and neighbourhood decline. As well as increasing student housing, universities can encourage responsible off-campus living. This might include codes of conduct for students or encouraging them to volunteer in their local communities. Where international students make up a significant proportion of the local population, this work is especially important and might include countering mis and disinformation to support social cohesion.  

Communities can be divided by faith or ethnicity, but there are also substantial wealth and age divides in society. Schools serving high proportions of children from low-income households often face concentrations of disadvantage.  New research from the Sutton Trust using free school meal uptake as a proxy measure of social class showed that the secondary school attainment is lower in areas of high segregation by social class. 

The 2019 Integrated Communities Action Plan sets out actions to reduce social segregation, as have a number of local authority community cohesion strategies. Approaches for local authorities to consider include:  

Collate evidence: It is important that local authority strategies in this area are informed by data and an understanding of why certain groups cluster together. Social segregation does not apply solely to ethnic or faith groups. There is marked clustering of people by income and wealth in the UK. It is therefore important to consider different forms of social segregation, which may also include clustering by age and income, and of groups as students, refugees and asylum seekers, LGBTQ+. The Index of Dissimilarity is a measure of residential segregation that shows the percentage of a particular group that would need to change location for that group to be evenly distributed across a local authority area. A lower score indicates a more integrated environment, while a score of 1 (100 per cent) signifies full segregation. Local authorities and their partners may wish to analyse the National Pupil Database to see if children in early years’ settings and schools reflect the background of their catchment areas.  

Reduce the drivers of residential segregation. Bradford Council, as part of the delivery of its 2018-2013 Stronger Communities Together Strategy commissioned research to understand the drivers of residential segregation in the local authority. The availability of affordable housing impacts on where new migrant have settled. But populations that tend cluster together tend to be those that depend on each other for work or social support Experiences of discrimination and racism can impact on where different groups of people choose to live. Making sure people feel safe and increasing their independence and integration can help to reduce residential segregation. 

Consider the impact of nursery and school admission policies. Nurseries, schools and further and higher education are important sites for bridging social contact, between children and their wider families. It is important that new schools, or changes to the admissions policies of existing schools do not undermine social cohesion,  

Work with partner organisations to increase the opportunities for social contact between people of different backgrounds.  These can be delivered through:  

School twinning may involve linking classes in schools with where the intake is different – an approach used by the Linking Network (see case study below). Alternatively, twinned schools might share some of their facilities such as playing fields or performing arts spaces, or by sharing teaching. Other options might include bringing pupils from different schools together to take part in a joint project.  

Sporting, cultural or community events can also bring people from different backgrounds together. Research and evaluation studies have highlighted the design features of events that are most effective in doing this. The most successful events that bring people together are those that are: 

Volunteering can bring people of different backgrounds together, particularly if it:   

Further reading

Cornwall also uses licensing enforcement to disrupt exploitative businesses and has developed training for frontline staff to spot signs of trafficking and forced labour. Their Safer Cornwall Partnership coordinates intelligence sharing and victim support, ensuring that safeguarding and criminal justice responses are aligned. This proactive, place-based model enables early intervention and disruption of exploitation networks. 

Addressing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation 

False or malicious claims—whether online or offline—can fuel hostility, deepen divisions, and damage confidence in public services. Whether they seek to inflame tensions around international conflicts or misrepresent council operations, misleading statements demand proactive strategies to protect communities and maintain trust.  Every local authority faces these risks—having a clear plan is essential. 

Definitions 

Even without harmful intent, misinformation can cause serious consequences, such as reducing vaccine uptake. Stakeholders also note that terms like “mis/dis/malinformation” may alienate audiences by implying gullibility. Alternatives such as “harmful content” or “digital hate” can shift the focus to impact rather than user behaviour. 

Impacts on social cohesion 

The Khan Review (2024), the BBC Director-Generals speech (2025) and research by Kings College London collectively demonstrate that disinformation is not only degrading public trust in institutions but also fuelling polarisation, weakening civic bonds, and posing a sustained threat to the stability of democratic society. 

False and harmful narratives undermine trust in public institutions, fuel polarisation, and can escalate tensions. They often target marginalised groups, amplifying hate and discrimination both on-and-off-line. Consequences include reduced confidence in democratic processes, increased hostility toward specific communities, and fragmentation of local networks and partnerships. Research from King’s College London shows vulnerability is linked to low digital literacy, social isolation, and distrust in institutions. Older adults digitally excluded individuals, and those in economically deprived areas are disproportionately at risk—especially during crises when information voids occur. 

Legislation and policy 

The Online Safety Act (2023) places duties on platforms to reduce harmful content and empowers Ofcom as regulator. Ofcom oversees compliance, transparency reporting, and enforcement. While councils are not directly regulated, they are expected to: 

Approaches for local authorities 

The primary objective in countering mis/dis/malinformation is to give the public confidence in information so they are equipped to make their own decisions. Public authorities act as trusted leaders during crises. Silence creates space for harmful narratives. Clear, timely, and empathetic communication can mitigate harm and promote social cohesion.  

However, low confidence, skills, and awareness often hinder councils’ ability to respond effectively. Structural challenges—such as slow decision-making and complex communications processes—can leave information voids that allow harmful narratives to spread both online and offline. Local authorities should look beyond these barriers to develop proportionate, realistic approaches. Councils have long managed rumours through community engagement and reassurance campaigns. 

While social media accelerates the spread of misinformation, councils can mitigate harm through a combination of reactive and proactive measures: 

Reactive measures: Rapid myth-busting and counter-narratives using clear, authoritative messaging aligned to target audiences and amplified by credible messengers.  

Councils should identify and engage trusted voices early—this includes voluntary, community, and faith sector partners, as well as local influencers such as Facebook group administrators or community connectors. These community voices often hold the greatest trust but may lack capacity; councils should consider providing funding, training, and communications support.  However, support should not be rushed or offered without a clear understanding of these actors’ values, reach, and reliability. Building sustainable community engagement requires investing time in relationship-building and due diligence to ensure partnerships are effective and resilient. 

Proactive measures: Digital and media literacy campaigns, influencer engagement, and resilience-building with community partners.  

Councils should establish early-warning systems using social listening tools and community intelligence networks to detect emerging rumours. Regular factual updates—not one-off rebuttals—are essential to position councils as reliable sources of truth. Messaging should be truthful, grounded in civic pride and empathy, and delivered through engaging formats such as short videos and infographics on platforms where misinformation thrives (TikTok, Instagram, WhatsApp). 

People sometimes share inaccurate information for many different reasons, including social influences and misunderstandings. Addressing this effectively means focusing on open, respectful conversations that help rebuild trust and support shared understanding. When dealing with complex or sensitive issues, councils and partner organisations can benefit from specialist advice to make sure their responses are well-informed and balanced. 

Understanding the role of the council 

Mis/dis/malinformation will affect almost every household, information source and institution. Councils should recognise that harmful narratives exist on a spectrum—what one authority tolerates may differ from another. It is essential to set clear thresholds for intervention based on local values, resources, and socio-political context. Doing nothing is not always an option: unchecked rumours can cause real-world harm - but councils should be aware of the potential Streisand effect—where efforts to counter false information inadvertently amplify it—underscoring the need for proportionate and strategic responses. While some misinformation falls outside a council’s remit (e.g., celebrity gossip), others directly impact local governance and community safety. Councils should facilitate internal discussions to define when and how to act, ensuring responses are proportionate and realistic. 

Lessons learned from case studies  

Councils with frontline experience tackling mis/dis/malinformation have identified key principles and practical lessons worth applying: 

Publishing a social cohesion strategy is an important milestone — but it is only the beginning. This section sets out how local authorities can sustain programmes of work on social cohesion.  

Include sustainability in delivery plans 

Sustainability needs to be built into delivery plans. 

For a strategy to make a real difference, councils need to invest in the people, partnerships and systems that will sustain its aims over time. This means lead partners need to: 

Local authorities should see the implementation of their social cohesion strategies as a process of continual learning — one that evolves as circumstances change and as the organisation builds its understanding of what works to bring people together. Balancing this mainstreaming approach with intentional, specific and funded work will help maintain focus during times of financial pressure or shifting policy priorities. 

Responding to new cohesion challenges 

Councils need to monitor factors that may impact on social cohesion and refresh their strategies to address new challenges and changing contexts.  

Local authority strategies typically cover a three or five-year period.  During this time, the local context may change, or new challenges may emerge. The 2024 Khan review on social cohesion and democratic resilience stressed importance of being responsive to new challenges, foremost being the impact of artificial intelligence. There are already concerning examples, with extremists hacking Meta’s AI to create a chatbot designed to radicalise individuals and foreign interference in elections. Looking further into the future, artificial intelligence may impact on local labour markets which, in turn, may displace jobs and negatively impact social cohesion. Other future threats to social cohesion might include: 

When refreshing strategies, it is may be desirable to undertake further stakeholder and community engagement. It is also important that elected members are involved in the updating of strategies.  

Institutional learning 

Local authorities need to consider how learning from programmes of work are captured.  

Structures to embed institutional learning from programmes enable sustained impact and establish a culture of reflective practice.  

This requires: 

Learning should be continuous, shaping future strategy, policy, and delivery - not confined to isolated incidents. As place-makers, local authorities engage residents across multiple touchpoints, and social cohesion runs through them all. Regularly assessing how these interactions build belonging, connection, and trust offers vital insights for embedding community-building into everyday practice. 

Workforce support and development 

Learning and development (L&D) within a local authority is a foundational service area for embedding social cohesion. It shapes the culture, values, and behaviours of the workforce, equipping staff with the skills and confidence to engage meaningfully with diverse communities. L&D is not just about formal training—it is about cultivating an organisational ethos that prioritises empathy, inclusion, and resilience in the face of complex social challenges.  

Relevant legislation and policy 

Key legislative and policy frameworks that inform L&D in relation to community cohesion include: 

Approaches to workforce support and development 

Learning and development (L&D) is a vital mechanism for embedding social cohesion across local authorities.  Councils can do this by: 

Embedding positive values 

Councils should promote values such as empathy, openness, and respect throughout the organisation. Staff should be encouraged to take personal responsibility for building trust and cohesion in their interactions with colleagues and communities. Leadership should consistently model these behaviours to reinforce their importance. 

Developing targeted training programmes 

Training programmes should focus on frontline staff who are increasingly called upon to manage sensitive conversations.  Training could include having healthy conversations, understanding the legal requirements of the Equality Act, developing cultural competence, and applying trauma-informed approaches. These should be delivered through a mix of workshops, digital learning, peer support, and community-led sessions to ensure accessibility and relevance. 

Supporting frontline staff 

Frontline staff often face complex challenges that require both technical knowledge and emotional intelligence. Councils should support them throughout ensuring they are aware of the communities they serve and their needs and provide scenario-based learning that simulates real-world situations.  Best practice can include offering coaching and mentoring to build these skills within staff. Facilitating collaboration across services can help staff share best practices and strengthen their capacity to respond effectively to community needs. 

Prioritising staff welfare 

Staff wellbeing is important to sustaining long-term engagement with communities. In consultation for this guidance, senior officers note their concerns that staff are increasingly exposed to challenging hostile situations. Councils should promote existing mental health support and provide reflective spaces for staff to process their experiences. Trauma-informed supervision should be available for those in emotionally demanding roles, and flexible working arrangements should be promoted to prevent burnout and support work-life balance. 

Understanding local communities  

Staff should be trained to use data and lived experience to understand the demographics, social background and dynamics of their local communities, including differences within communities. Councils should encourage staff to engage with representative community leaders and networks to build trust and foster meaningful relationships. Reflecting their duties under the Equalities Act (2010), staff should exercise appropriate cultural awareness in service delivery. A key principle is to help staff see themselves as part of the community, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and belonging .A key principle is to help staff see themselves as part of the community, fostering a sense of shared responsibility and belonging. 

Equipping staff for civic leadership 

Councils should prepare staff and elected members to lead inclusive conversations and challenge discriminatory practices. Training should support councillors in facilitation, conflict resolution, and community leadership, as recommended in the LGA’s councillor workbooks and leadership essentials courses. 

Local authorities should consider how to develop capacity and sustainability in local partner organisations. 

For social cohesion strategies to succeed, local authorities need to invest not only in their own capacity but also in that of local partner organisations that deliver much of the work on the ground. Civil society and faith organisation often have strong community networks, but may lack the resources, skills, or structures to sustain programmes of work over long periods of time. Capacity building can enable programme of work to be more sustainable, with such activities including: 

Local civil society (VCS) infrastructure organisations are usually involved in capacity building. However, not all areas are covered by such organisations which are themselves often small. Local authorities should be encouraged to audit the capacity building needs of local partners and consider how best to meet these needs.  

Further reading 

Vince, R. and Broussine, M. (2025) ‘Rethinking organisational learning in local government’ in Local Government Studies 26 (1): 15-30.