Capacity building, community leadership and the success of local areas

There is currently limited research specifically looking at the impact of building capacity in local communities and in letting communities take the lead. We, therefore, broadened our search and looked to the wider evidence that lay outside of the community-specific literature in two key areas:

1. Firstly, how programmes that build ‘soft skills’ – that is, skills and traits such as communication, teamwork and creativity – influence people’s outcomes. We focused on the skills that a future capacity-building programme might target, based on the lessons from Big Local.
2. Second, how delegating decision-making impacts organisational performance. That is, the impact of empowering individuals at all levels of an organisation to make decisions rather than this being directed from the top.

The research we reviewed was generally of high quality and included well-regarded journals, outputs by academics and organisations such as the European Commission. We placed greater weight on seminal or widely cited academic papers, particularly those using well-regarded robust statistical techniques to estimate impacts.

Drawing on the lessons from the Big Local programme and a wider review of the literature, we identified the soft skills most relevant to community programmes: communication, teamwork, leadership, confidence, creativity and adaptability.

Other soft skills which could also be important are: project management, community engagement, planning and strategic thinking, fundraising, and budgeting.

Our review suggests that building soft skills in local areas can benefit the participants in these schemes and also lead to improved delivery of local projects that they manage. We found that through programmes and training, adults can successfully develop their soft skills and have a positive effect on themselves and the community.

The evidence shows that, on average, adults with improved soft skills earn more and are more likely to take on leadership roles. In addition, individuals with lower scores on standardised tests (which assess ‘hard’ skills) can compensate for this with stronger soft skills. This provides cause for optimism, although further research is needed in this area.

What makes for a successful soft skills development programme?

Successful soft skill development programmes tend to include participants in the programme development process and implementation, involve the community and run for an extended period.

In the most disadvantaged environments – ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods – the evidence suggests that programmes should combine these elements with effective mentoring, guidance and information. High-quality staff is another crucial element for smooth soft skills programme execution.

It was also found that benefits to soft skills development are higher in workplaces which encourage individuals to get involved in decision-making processes. This could imply that the benefits are also higher in local communities with delegated decision-making processes.

Intuitively, involving those closest to the issues at hand should produce better outcomes. To understand the impact of community leadership – in other words, delegating decision-making to local people rather than having this directed from central or local government for example – and the conditions under which it is most successful, we reviewed evidence covering a wide range of contexts.

While no studies perfectly mirror resident-driven leadership, useful insights emerge from similar settings in government and the workplace.

Does the evidence back the importance of delegated decision-making in local communities?

Yes, delegated decision-making has the potential to lead to better policy outcomes within communities, to build social bonds between residents and to lead to more efficiently delivered projects. So, how might it do this?

Empowering community members to steer plans provides local people with the opportunity to improve their skills to understand, effectively develop and target policy and engage with government.

In other words, local eyes are better able to spot urgent needs others may miss. Local decision-makers who work closely with communities to understand their needs are also less likely to implement unpopular policies, be able to implement policies at a lower cost and see increased participation from otherwise marginalised groups.

In a workplace setting, delegated decision-making has also been shown to lead to higher productivity. Why? The improved organisational communication and knowledge diffusion from this approach offered workers, who are most familiar with the issues, the opportunity to share this information with management and peers who could then make a productivity-enhancing change.

While this has not been tested extensively in the community context, it’s likely similar benefits could be seen here too.

However, delegating decision-making poses potential risks. The evidence highlights that involving communities could result in delays and inefficiencies.

It is also possible that certain sub-groups may conceivably dominate community groups pushing their own interests, particularly if barriers to participation exist (e.g. if volunteers are unpaid). Safeguards should be put in place to minimise the chances of these risks materialising in practice.

When is delegated decision-making most effective?

Taken together, the evidence suggests that delegated decision-making is most effective when applied in the following situations:

1. In smaller communities within a small geographic area
2. When a group of motivated volunteers exists or can be developed
3. When less technical topics are being decided
4. Where leaders are rooted in the local community and have or can build credibility
5. In communities which have a history of previously failed policies or with a lack of established trust in central or local government

The evidence also emphasised the importance of forming strong connections and collaborative relationships with existing centres of power, such as local authorities, and building links to existing community organisations, which have the skills and knowledge to enact change.

The evidence to date suggests a CWF model that includes a programme of capacity building could yield significant benefits in ‘left behind’ areas through better-managed projects and have wider benefits for the individuals participating in terms of higher wages, greater employment chances and improved mental health.

So, when designing a CWF, what makes an effective capacity-building programme? The evidence from successful soft skills programmes suggests they share the following traits:

• Provide support in the form of mentoring, guidance and information over the longer term
• Involve participants and the local community in their development and implementation
• Are executed well with activities structured to achieve clear goals
• Utilise competent, qualified, committed staff

It is also clear there could be further benefits if a well-designed and executed capacity-building programme was combined with a delivery model where small, local communities in ‘left behind’ areas are empowered to make decisions themselves.

Such benefits include better policy decisions, more efficiently delivered projects, increased civic participation and the building of bonds between residents.

To maximise the benefits of a delegated decision model though, the evidence suggests a CWF should:

• Provide a support system for local areas, in particular in relation to more technical projects
• Encourage all socio-economic groups to participate
• Provide support so that personal circumstances do not prevent certain groups from getting involved
• Include safeguards to ensure funding is spent for the benefit of the whole community
• Encourage local communities and community leaders to develop strong relationships with local authorities and organisations, and vice versa.

A CWF that empowers disadvantaged local communities and builds their capacity over the long term has the potential to be a highly effective vehicle for change. It also presents a valuable opportunity to test and learn what works and what does not so that communities receive the best support possible.

Ultimately, providing ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods with the essential tools to successfully invest in their local areas and to help rebuild their social institutions is the overarching aim of a CWF. Taken together with the learning from the Big Local programme, the evidence to date suggests this two-pronged approach could go some way to achieving just that.