Recovery, Renewal, Resilience

When we volunteered to collect international experiences of responding to COVID-19 in March 2020, we aimed to support local authorities in the UK during their response to the pandemic. We never expected that COVID-19 would evolve into an international crisis of this scale and duration. A few months after the start of the UK response, our systems and societies were stretched and various vulnerabilities were uncovered. The RRR team (and our engagement) grew in response and we identified new theoretical and practical insights on response, recovery, and renewal which were formed into The Manchester Briefing. Concurrently, our engagement with local authorities and international organisations flourished and the RRR project in its complex form was born.

Despite the overwhelming engagement with the response to the pandemic, the need for transformational change to rebuild more resilient systems remained in focus. Two lessons stood out as crucial for resilience and renewal. The first is the need for a holistic approach when building resilience. The pandemic showed the interinfluence and interdependency of all components of societies i.e. individuals, communities, businesses, organisations, and others. For example, we shared case studies from Asia which showed that small but ignored vulnerable areas in the society could cascade into a larger problem for the COVID-19 response, government, and society. The lesson learned was that sustainable and feasible renewal programmes should be inclusive, fair, and holistic. The second lesson was the need to think beyond the existing systemic limitations when designing and managing our resilient systems. From the traditional management and economical perspective, building resilient societies may be ambitious or unrealistic. However, alternative paradigms exist which can facilitate creating a shared and feasible vision of our resilient society, provide innovative solutions to manage the complex endeavour, and make it happen.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

Over the last 15 years or so, the resilience narrative has evolved in three ways:

1) ‘We’re here to save you’ – a heavy public reliance on assistance and support from official response agencies;

2) ‘We’re prepared are you?’ - the sharing/shifting/transfer of responsibility onto the public that created an expectation of them to enhance their own preparedness and build their own resilience;

3) ‘We’re here to support you’ - the recognition that individuals, groups, organisations and networks in our communities are resilient capabilities and those who can and want to, are capable of both helping themselves and helping others in need with support from official agencies (where requested/appropriate).

As we begin to think about how WoSR might be best designed and implemented, learning from COVID-19 demonstrated that strategic collaborations across societal systems will be central to developing a shared responsibility for WoSR strategy. Strategic collaborations are active and autonomous partnerships where targeted relationships are used to identify demand for support (e.g. vulnerable people, at-risk locations) and understand supply (e.g. with volunteers providing capacity, delivery partners, business partners). Central to these strategic collaborations are clarity and consensus on partner expectations, operational roles and responsibilities, inclusivity, and effective management and coordination e.g. communications.

For shared responsibility to develop within strategic collaborations of WoSR strategy, it is essential to have clear roles for government, emergency response agencies, the voluntary sector, volunteers, businesses and organisations, communities, community groups, and individuals. Shared responsibility should focus on building resilience capabilities through partnerships and networks. It should focus on enablement [i.e. increasing the agency and ability of societal actors to participate and activate] rather than a form of empowerment that might risk a transfer of power/responsibility without knowledge sharing, guidance or support.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

Across research that considers the socio-political circumstances that underpin global events, disasters are often described as revelatory. Their occurrence exposes structures that organise collective social life but have become so normalised as to be taken for granted. Over the last two and half years, there’s been different ways that COVID-19 has played this revelatory role. The initial spread and disastrous impact of the virus, particularly in those countries worst affected such as USA, Brazil and UK, reinforced how detrimental cutbacks in public spending and the cultivation of mistrust in expertise for political gain has been for disaster preparedness. No doubt owing in part to these factors that shaped it’s unfolding, the pandemic also showed the need for emergencies to be governed in a way that is sensitive to local needs and developed in dialogue with communities whilst also being supported by a strong central government response.

By default, this need concurrently means abandoning ‘models’, ‘disaster management cycles’ and ‘holistic systems’ for practice that promise general applicability but are abstracted from reality. This emphasises the importance of how disasters are labelled, how such labelling effects public conscience of disasters and what effects these levels of consciousness might have for the future of the disaster in question. Despite the decision to end restrictions in the UK and reduce such restrictions in other parts of the world, the pandemic still rages on causing death and illness to thousands every day. This tells us that disasters do not have clear ‘start’ and ‘end’ dates and so we need to plan to mitigate their ongoing effects and develop better anticipatory measures for their future occurrence.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

Working with the National Preparedness Commission and partners of NCSR+, we collected case study data on how fifteen community initiatives delivered value to their local communities during COVID-19. Each initiative was unique in design and uncovered rich insights as to how societal resilience was supported by the agility and innovation of local community groups. A distinct finding across the case studies is that intrapreneurial leadership (the leadership of entrepreneurial activity inside of an organisation), emerged as a key enabler of their COVID-19 work.

A particular benefit was that intrapreneurial leadership from within local government enhanced trust in partnership working across different societal systems. The need to build trust with partners to co-produce activities was prioritised – both giving trust to the partner, and receiving trust from the partner. Some examples of how intrapreneurial leadership was characterised in practice and the resulting benefits include:

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

One of the key learning points emerging from the pandemic concerns how it has forced a reappraisal of what recovery encompasses, who it is for, and how it can be effectively planned for and implemented. For example, considering recovery and business continuity planning it was clear from many of the early interviews with recovery experts that however well-prepared organizations felt they were, the scale, scope, uneven impacts, and prolonged duration of COVID-19 were not adequately anticipated. Enhancing preparedness and wider societal resiliency for the complex and "unruly" challenges ahead requires improved capabilities to assess the landscape of systemic risks, develop foresight, and scenario planning with communities.

Our work has further emphasized the multi-dimensional and long-term nature of recovery. Specifically, we recognize the importance of recovery frameworks and how they are the foundation for the kind of local inclusive development and transformative renewal initiatives that the pandemic has underlined the imperative for. Such frameworks act to inform impact assessments, prioritize actions, and guide the monitoring and evaluation of recovery activities. However, the past two years has shown the inadequate focus in the past on incorporating public health concerns, and more especially pandemics, within recovery thinking. For example, the social determinants of health - e.g., where people are live, learn, work etc. - have been so central to COVID-19 risk factors and health outcomes that tackling these inequities through renewal initiatives are critical to enhancing community wellbeing and reducing vulnerabilities to future disasters.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

For two-years we have been examining the way that Recovery and Renewal was managed by the resilience community – through a combination of experiences, including: participating and contributing strategic advice in local government recovery coordination groups (RCG); researching global lessons on COVID-19 which we shared through 51 issues of TMB; interviewing global resilience and risk professionals to uncover their changing impression of Recovery and Renewal (summer 2020, spring 2021, winter 2021; gaining feedback from >80 workshops and presentations we delivered on Recovery, Renewal, Resilience). Unique insights are currently being collected from interviews with RCG Chairs – the strategic leads who chaired RCGs and were typically local government Chief Executives.

These RCG chair interviews are providing rich insight which, when combined with our participant observations over the two years of RCGs, has taught us a great deal, including:

• challenges of coordinating Recovery and Renewal at the national, sub-national and local levels – such as different impacts, prioritisations, and potential solutions
• the local ambitions for recovery, including the transactional activities that were implemented to address the impacts and disruptions of COVID-19
• the local appetite for renewal, including the transformational initiatives to exploit the enthusiasm for changing societies in the aftermath of COVID-19
• learning about the politics of COVID-19 (e.g. governance, scrutiny, accountability), the maturity of resilience arrangements and partnership working at all levels, the value of analysing the impacts of the pandemic

We have learned of the impact of specific constraints from the prolonged crisis, including;

• the challenges of repetitive waves of infections, reintroduction of control measures, parallel response coordination, information and data supply, emerging and acute impacts and needs, work/crisis/empathy fatigue
• preparedness of resilience arrangements (e.g. guidance, knowledge, reality checks) to deal with pandemics beyond the initial responses
• the limitations of current partnerships for integrated emergency management, such as what is the role of local resilience partnerships in a health-led crisis
• what the R in LRF actually means – questioning whether it reflects ‘Resilience’ as a strategic priority in its widest sense, or better characterises ‘Response’ to an event
• the need for new forms of active learning, support and research – including the role of government, centres of excellence and academics in supporting resilience partnerships

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

It was in May 2020 that we called this project Recovery, Renewal, Resilience (RRR) – never thinking that those three words would be repeated so often across the UK and overseas (TMB Issue 4) - establishing a new international narrative for the aftermath of crises. Those three words have transformed how many places think about the aftermath of Covid-19. In that order, those words have been used by the ESRC as the title of a major funding call and have led to numerous local governments (those we have worked with and ones we have not) using them to frame their own thinking about their aftermath of the pandemic and develop recovery and renewal strategies. To mention five:

1. Essex County Council established a Recovery Coordination Group and a Renewal Mobilisation Group which worked extensively together on their county’s recovery and renewal
2. Bath and North East Somerset (BNES) established a Strategic Recovery Group which developed their Recovery, Renewal and Resurgence Strategy
3. Our work with BNES informed the South Somerset District Council’s Recovery and Renewal Strategy
4. Devon County Council published their Recovery and Renewal Strategic Plan
5. Cardiff City published their City Recovery and Renewal Strategy

Also, the UK’s Local Government Association used Recovery and Renewal to title their pandemic support to local governments.

Through this project we have established a new international narrative that short-term recovery is insufficient for an experience such as a pandemic. The devastating impacts have called for a new ambition – to renew the foundations of our society because the pandemic has exposed their fragilities, for example, COVID-19 exploiting inequalities and vulnerabilities. This renewal needs to build a nation that is more resilient in every way.

Through working closely with many excellent staff in local government, we have come to appreciate what Recovery, Renewal, Resilience really means. Recovery is the short-term activities done by organisations to undo the negative impacts of the crisis and get the system back to being prepared for the next emergency. Renewal is the more ambitious work programme that seeks to coordinate multi-agency initiatives to resolve the broken foundations of society on which to create a new resilience. We also developed a process to support local government in planning Recovery and Renewal for Resilience.

We were asked to document that process in a fast-tracked International Standard ISO/TS 22393 Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal. This is now available worldwide through national standards making bodies. We have just returned from a visit to our long-term partner, Ramallah Municipal Government, as we are working with them to implement ISO/TS 22393 and design Recovery, Renewal, Resilience. Our team (Jenny Moreno) is continuing to work in Chile to support the Government of Talcahuano to develop their Recovery, Renewal, Resilience strategy. Overseas we have enjoyed working in Vancouver City and with the Resilient Cities Network and The International Emergency Management Society. We have greatly appreciated working with the numerous UK bodies that have supported the dissemination of Recovery, Renewal, Resilience – such as UK Cabinet Office, The Emergency Planning Society, and Voluntary and Community Sector Emergencies Partnership, which have provided constant support.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

One shining light in the darkness of COVID-19 was the community spirit that was volunteered by many who supported vulnerable people as they shielded in their homes. This continued into volunteering to support the NHS, staffing vaccine centres, donating essential items, self-organising communities to support those in need, among countless other activities. This has stimulated a new realization that, across the country, society will get involved to help others for prolonged periods. A recent exhibition of this has been the outpouring of welcoming via the Homes for Ukraine scheme.

The UK Government communicated its national ambition for harnessing this goodwill for resilience in various publications (see Community Resilience Development Framework (July 2019); National Resilience Standards (August 2020), but it was the Integrated Review of Security and Defence (March 2021) which established a new aspiration, whole-of-society resilience.

Through this ESRC-funded project, we have brought together local resilience partnerships and their sector partners by establishing (with Thames Valley LRF) the National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+] (NCSR+). NCSR+ aims to establish national consistency 'to enhance the UK[+] whole-of-society approach to resilience, so that individuals, community groups, businesses, and organisations can all play a meaningful part in building the resilience of our society' (see www.ambs.ac.uk/ncsr). 63 organisations (including 50 of the 53 resilience partnerships in UK and its Crown Dependencies) are now collaborating through NCSR+ on developing practical approaches for how to enhance societal resilience.

The learning we have realized from the project is that there is a significant will in NCSR+ partners to tackle this intractable challenge together to co-produce a local strategy for societal resilience. We will conduct research through NCSR+ to identify those foundations, develop the strategy, and produce these into a toolkit for how to create nationally-consistent, locally-translatable foundations on which to build good practices. This toolkit will be made freely available to support those who want to pursue improvement in societal resilience in a strategic manner. There will be further opportunities for NCSR+ to support the implementation of whole-of-society resilience by working closely with partnerships and learning how the strategy can make a difference to societal resilience in UK+.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

COVID-19, like other emergencies, challenged the surge capabilities of official response systems. Community response to COVID-19 demonstrated a collective will and ability of societal actors to play an active role in preparedness, response and recovery. For this to be galvanised, coordinated, and managed strategically through a ‘whole-of-society’ approach, clarity and consensus is needed on: who we mean by ‘whole-of’; what resilience means in this respect; and, who holds responsibility for its development. The term ‘whole-of-society resilience’ (WoSR) conveys a philosophy, is ambitious, and an aspiration of policy. But, as a concept of operations, questions remain on how it can be understood, communicated, developed, and operationalised locally.

Reflecting this, we conducted a literature review, a number of workshops with resilience professionals, and gathered feedback from partners in NCSR+ to develop a working definition of WoSR. This definition aims to guide the pursuit of WoSR and draws on our ongoing work with NCSR+ and wider partners. We define WoSR (TMB Issue 47) as:

capability created by local systems that help people and

places to adapt and advance in a changing environment

There is important detail within the words (italicised) used in this definition and we define these as:

This definition, by design, aims to capture the widest landscape that is of relevance for local resilience partnerships and sector partners in the NCSR+. But, a single definition will not satisfy all societal actors because different parties will want to accentuate the aspects that they prioritise and attenuate those that sit elsewhere. Also, the user/audience for the definition will change, meaning we need to change the language in the definition and the concepts to align to the context. For example, local community groups may not warm to the NCSR+ working definition because it does not speak in their language to their priorities. Recognising this, The University of Manchester created an intuitive, community-focused definition of WoSR which can be used when communicating with community groups and amplifies those aspects that community groups may have an interest in:

capabilities created before, during, and after a disruption that

involves everyone who wishes to support those who are in need

Two key aspects underpin this definition:

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

COVID-19 saw a voluntary response on a scale and diversity previously unimagined – volunteers who have proved to be an invaluable national and local resilience capability. Despite contextual and narrative differences for Recovery and Renewal, the opportunity to utilise the wave of volunteerism and solidarity emerged as a common theme globally. Individual volunteers, mutual aid groups and community action groups formed the backbone of community resilience resources during COVID-19. A large part of this volunteer community arose spontaneously, individuals and groups unaffiliated with organised voluntary organisations or official response agencies that can bolster capacity and capabilities during emergencies.

Despite the many benefits of Spontaneous Volunteers (SVs), challenges around safety, training, communications, and coordination had (before COVID-19) created a reluctance to engage with SVs during emergencies. Our case study research showed how COVID-19 changed that as community resilience initiatives implemented new activities that ensured the safety of volunteers and beneficiaries (e.g. risk assessments/personal protective equipment). Resilience partnerships and other agencies pivoted to using online systems and social media to rapidly attract, recruit, and train new volunteers by engaging with mutual aid groups and SVs. These online systems provided continuous dialogue and co-ordination with all partners, including volunteers, statutory services and local business partners.

We also found that maintaining the flow of local intelligence and maintaining the motivation of volunteers worked effectively through ‘informal situational trust’. In these community resilience initiatives, informal situational trust was characterised by the use of soft management skills, demonstrating sensitive awareness to the valuable contributions of volunteers, and treating them as equals. For example:

Innovation and agility in volunteer management during COVID-19 has resulted in:

Multiple organisations increasing their use of online means such as social media to recruit, maintain engagement and increase retention of volunteers.

This lesson is part of a collection of team reflections from the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience team, shared in the final Manchester Briefing under their ESRC-funded project. The collection of 10 reflections can be found in Issue 51 of The Manchester Briefing, accessible via the link below:

As part of our ESRC funded project on Recovery, Renewal, Resilience (RRR) we committed to designing a self-evaluation methodology that enables reflection on recovery and renewal practices. This methodology is informed by lessons we gathered from working across the world – spending thousands of hours working on recovery/renewal and with multi-agency groups that coordinate recovery in the aftermath of COVID-19 (in the UK these are called Recovery Coordination Groups - RCGs). This selfevaluation methodology supports local government and other organisations (e.g. voluntary sector) to self-assess their recovery plans and renewal strategies. This self-assessment complements the international standard we wrote ISO/TS 22393 ‘Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal’ and its operational version ‘Operationalising ISO/TS 22393: Seven steps to plan recovery and renewal’.

This briefing outlines the self-reflection methodology and can be used in conjunction with ISO/TS 22393. The self-reflection is portioned into seven areas each with a set of questions to pose. Annex 1 provides a template for how those questions might be assessed using a Likert scale – and it is important to record the justification for assessments. The questions focus more on the principles of developing Recovery and Renewal activities – not the intricacies of the activities themselves.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full:

This month’s TMB details ‘Operationalising ISO 22393: Seven steps to plan recovery and renewal’, a new iteration of our project’s international standard - ‘ISO 22393 – Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal’ (see TMB Issue 39). This briefing simplifies ISO 22393 into an easy-to-use process to support the implementation of recovery activities and renewal initiatives.

To read the briefing in full, follow the source link below.

Co-production is a popular approach to service design and delivery and has been found to exist in all sectors of public services including education, agriculture, health, local governance, and information technology among others (Khine et al., 2021). At its simplest, it involves working with others to design and deliver strategies with the aim of achieving a collective outcome, in our case, to build societal resilience. Some examples of co-production activities include:

Last month’s TMB 47 outlined an initial definition for whole-of-society resilience and noted how societal resilience should be co-produced as a collaboration across resilience partnerships, sector partners and communities. This article explains co-production for resilience and explores how it can support the design and delivery of resilient society. This article builds on TMB 33 when we explored the difficulty of co-production during the response phase of a crisis.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below:

This month's TMB discusses 'whole-of-society resilience’ and presents a definition of it from the National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+]. We write how there may not be one single definition of whole-of-society resilience because different definitions will be needed to amplify the priorities of different audiences within society. The definition we provide is from the perspective of local resilience partnerships and sector partners. We link to Issue 44 where we wrote about ‘Understanding ‘whole-of-society’ resilience’.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full:

The Manchester Briefing Issue 45 presents Part 2 of the important topics for recovery and renewal that have been covered over the last 18 months. Part 1 appeared in last month’s TMB Issue 44. This month the Briefing, which is put together by Alliance Manchester Business School and the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, collates and summarises the remainder of the articles it has explored across a range of themes including governance, communities, health and economics, as well as providing links to those articles which cut across numerous themes.

Follow the link below to read in full.

The pandemic has highlighted the multitude of ways that community action has supported resilience (see TMB Issue 30). The British Psychological Society (BPS) recognises that although this is very much the case, it is critical that we don’t overlook those communities who have “long faced and struggled to overcome adversity”. As with many other impacts of the pandemic, the psychological impacts vary significantly in “scale and social distribution”. Those who have limited local/neighbourhood connections have been found to be more socially, economically and clinically vulnerable to psychological strain and distress. The BPS have provided guidance on the potential benefits and possibilities of appointing a Neighbourhood Community Psychologist which may be of use to local government teams, civil society organisations/other community workers. Consider embedding psychologists in local authorities to:

• Improve community engagement and prevent distress by co-creating with local communities, and to research and provide the evidence base for preventative interventions to improve community health
• Bring distinct knowledge, skills, and capabilities, such as:
  • Extensive theoretical and evidence-based knowledge and understanding with regards to behaviour and experiences in various contexts e.g. social, cultural, policy and politics
  • Understanding of important forms of capital (social, economic, cultural) and factors of place that affect people’s lives
  • Experience of directly working with individuals, groups and across organisational boundaries, with abilities to work with and balance power, conflict and diversity
  • Co-designing research that tackles complex societal challenges and places reflection and learning at the heart of practice

The guidance helpfully offers a job description which could be used in full to create a new post within a local authority or could be used in part to align with another role.

Case study example from the pandemic:

• MAC-UK, a group of community psychologists, have been working in communities with vulnerable young people during COVID-19. Some of their activities include:
  • Investigating the ‘underground economy’ where many excluded young people work to identify ways in which they can be supported in the event of income loss due to the economic impacts of the pandemic
  • Developing strategies on ‘what next’ in the aftermath of COVID by exploring the potential role of community psychologists in creating social change in communities

Understanding 'whole-of-society' resilience

There is a new term being used in the emergency planning community – ‘whole of society resilience’. This term was integral to government’s Integrated Review (IR)[1] (see TMB 32) and featured heavily in the call for evidence for the National Resilience Strategy (NRS)[2]. This new term points to an ambitious endeavour for societal resilience and forms a call-to-action that is broader than community resilience. But … What does whole-of-society resilience mean? What might be its implications for emergency planning? Below we share some initial thoughts on answers to these questions.

What does whole-of-society resilience mean?

Building a collective understanding on the meaning of ‘whole-of-society’ resilience is a critical first step to ensure that ambitious endeavour is aligned. To aid this process, we share an early definition which could inform debates and future definitions. Whole-of-society resilience is the:

capability created by local systems that help people and places to adapt and advance in a changing
environment[3]

In this definition,

What are the implications of whole-of-society resilience for emergency planning?

The use of the term whole-of-society resilience has ignited change in the resilience narrative across the UK. It suggests that whole-of-society resilience embeds the need to depart from historically government centred approaches to building resilience, towards an integrated approach with whole-of-society. This is characterised by a combination of top-down and bottom-up collaboration, and the co-production of local resilience capabilities with whole-of-society resilience actors.

Whole-of-society resilience reinforces that the world is interconnected so you cannot be resilient on your own.

Therefore, responding to this call on whole-of-society resilience requires thought on how resilience partnerships and society can work together to understand and reduce risk, pinpoint vulnerabilities, enhance our preparedness and leverage the agency of our communities. Building the resilience of our society should be a strategic endeavour, with national policy being influenced by knowledge and work at the local level and then interpreted and implemented locally, through collaboration between resilience partnerships (government sector), sector partners (voluntary sector and business), and communities (individuals, groups, networks, businesses and organisations). Such a partnership is demonstrated through the newly established National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+] (NCSR+)[4].

The NCSR+ recognises that resilience must be rooted inside communities. This includes building on existing community structures and partnerships and establishing new ones, and creating an inclusive, supportive, and enabling environment for the co-production of whole-of-society local resilience capabilities. Over the coming months, the members of NCSR+ aim to tackle this challenge together. An early activity for NCSR+ will be to develop a shared understanding of whole-of-society resilience, identify the principles that should underpin a whole-of-society approach, and gather and promulgate good practice examples of community resilience strategies.

This blogs aims to support the first step of developing a shared understanding of WoS resilience, agreeing on “what it is and how we make it relatable to the person on the street”[5]. To achieve this the members of NCSR+ are already listening to their local communities to gain information on their own local risk and priorities for resilience. However, with the backdrop of communities’ responses to COVID-19 and the whole-of-society resilience that was built, we have to move quickly. COVID-19 has “helped to galvanise every single aspect of society into realising that there is a place for everybody to have some responsibility”[6] when it comes to building resilience and we should try to firmly embed this rather than lose it.

In summary, you cannot be resilient on your own. Shared understanding and joint working is needed, which requires an adjustment of relationships on resilience between whole-of-society and resilience partnerships. The aspiration is to work towards collective resilience of whole-of-society, a collaboration across local resilience partners, sector partners, and whole-of-society. Government is organising itself to respond to this call-for-action and the NCSR+ is positioning its work to support local government to collaborate with whole-of-society on resilience.

References:

[1] HM Government (2021) Global Britain in a Competitive Age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. Cabinet Office, March 2021

[2] HM Government (2021) National Resilience Strategy: Call for Evidence. Cabinet Office, July 2021

[3] Shaw and Jordan (2021), Understanding ‘whole-of-society’ resilience. The Manchester Briefing on COVID-19: International lessons for local and national government recovery and renewal. Issue 44, October 29th 2021, p.16-17. The University of Manchester. Available at: https://www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk/research/recovery-renewal-resilience-from-covid-19/briefings/

[4] The National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+]

[5] Joan McCaffrey, Local Government Civil Contingencies, Northern Ireland, speaking at the launch of the National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+]

[6] Kevin Murphy, The Office of the Committee for Home Affairs, States of Guernsey, speaking at the launch of the National Consortium for Societal Resilience [UK+]

Digital technology proved invaluable for much of society and the economy to adapt and cope with the effects of the pandemic. However, the pace of digital transformation has exposed much of the inequalities in accessing and benefiting from the digital economy. For example, during the pandemic, most SMEs adopted basic digital technologies, however, many lack the resources and infrastructure (compared to larger firms) to employ complex digital strategies that could increase growth and productivity. An uneven distribution of digital productivity advantages may accelerate a “K-shaped recovery”, which risks leaving people and places behind. Consider:

• Increase access to digital technology e.g. improve access to broadband and digital devices to provide the technical means for productivity to develop/advance. Where connectivity is “slow, expensive or non-existent”, local governments can address the digital divide and increase access by creating or investing in publicly or privately run local networks, e.g. libraries/public buildings. For example, Toronto city council, Canada:
  • launched the ConnectTo 2021 programme which increases access to affordable, high-speed internet across the city, targeted at underserved communities in the city and;
  • in partnership with a private sector partner will establish a municipal broadband network; expand access to free public Wi-Fi and design a ‘Digital Equity Policy’ to tackle the growing digital divide and support the most vulnerable and marginalized communities in the city.
• Create means by which people can increase their digital skills – training, skills development workshops etc. in collaboration with local partners (local schools, colleges, businesses, voluntary organisations). Creating an eco-system of support to tackle digital inequalities can drive inclusive productivity growth and benefit the whole community
• Implement new strategies for inclusive productivity that consider the advantages of digital technology on the local economy, productivity and community wellbeing. New strategies should be informed by evidence, taking multiple dimensions into consideration e.g. education, business innovation, housing, and infrastructure

COVID-19 has had a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable in our society as evidenced by impact and needs assessments. As a result, some local government recovery plans have sought to build fairness and equality into recovery and renewal. This case study explores some of the unequal impacts shared through the Health Foundation’s COVID-19 impact inquiry report ‘Unequal pandemic, fairer recovery: The COVID-19 impact inquiry report’ (July 2021)[1], and considers how equality can be placed at the centre of recovery and renewal efforts.

The report examines the impacts of the pandemic on our health and the implications of this for recovery. A comprehensive review of the unequal distribution of impacts on different population groups and places across the UK is offered. In addition, the report shows how strategies to respond to the pandemic have exacerbated and created new impacts, with immediate and long-term consequences for health and wellbeing. This case study presents the key findings from the report, and suggests key issues for consideration, based on the webinar: ‘A healthy recovery – Acting on findings from the COVID-19 impact inquiry’.

In just one month of the pandemic the UK saw “128,000 deaths, a 10% drop in GDP and 2 million children were facing food insecurity”. The report demonstrates how “health and wealth are inextricably connected…the poorest families are relying on savings and debt…the wealthiest are saving”. It goes on to highlight the opportunity to drive a sustainable recovery, one that creates a healthier, more inclusive, fairer and prosperous society; one that reduces the stark inequalities exposed by the pandemic. The findings of this inquiry and key issues for consideration include:

• The pandemic has exposed distinct differences in the health of the working age population – for example, people under 65 in the most deprived areas in England were “3.7 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those in the wealthiest areas”. Recovery and renewal requires:
  • A comprehensive understanding of the wider determinants of health, taking systemic inequalities (poverty, education, employment) into account. Identifying differential outcomes of the pandemic is key to building resilience to future shocks
  • Recognition of the inherent link between socioeconomic factors and underlying health conditions, e.g. people living in deprived areas have fewer opportunities for good health, as they predominantly work in sectors (e.g. industrial jobs) that place them at risk during crises such as COVID-19, and have poorer access to welfare protections such as sick pay
  • Targeted strategies that create opportunities for good health and wellbeing in historically underserved areas
• The groups that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic and the consequences of containment measures (mental health, education gaps, lost employment and financial insecurity) include: young people, persons with disabilities, ethnic minority communities, care home residents, prisoners, homeless people and those experiencing sexual exploitation. Recovery and renewal requires policies and initiatives that:
  • Address issues exacerbating the impacts of health emergencies such as COVID-19. For example, “education, employment and income are the longer-term risks to health” and strategies need to mitigate the greater loss among disadvantaged groups
  • Prioritise access to and the quality of jobs, as certain areas across the UK are still suffering striking unemployment rates. Equal distribution of work and opportunity is key to prevent leaving people and places behind
• Type and quality of work, housing conditions, and access to financial support have all affected exposure to the virus. Recovery should:
  • Identify and address the root causes of poor health and invest in communities – employment opportunities, housing, education, and community resilience

These issues of fairness and equality in recovery and renewal are not well served by the ‘Build Back Better’ vision which has been much criticised for often reproducing past inequalities and challenges. Instead, given the diversity and deep-rooted impacts of the pandemic, a more appropriate vision for recovery and renewal would be to ‘Build Forward Fairer’. This puts the much-needed priority of equality at the heart of renewal and transformation in the aftermath of crises.

[1] Suleman M, Sonthalia S, Webb C, Tinson A, Kane M, Bunbury S, Finch D, Bibby J. Unequal pandemic, fairer recovery: The COVID-19 impact inquiry report. The Health Foundation; 2021 (https://doi.org/10.37829/HF-2021-HL12)

TMB Issue 36 mentioned the need to identify and address the impacts of ‘Long COVID’ on people who receive and provide care and support in local communities (e.g. social care services/unpaid carers). The most recent Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures (July 2021) report that just under one million people in the UK have self-reported symptoms of Long COVID. The symptoms associated with ‘Long COVID’ (e.g. fatigue, shortness of breath, joint pain, cognitive dysfunction) have the potential to impact people’s ability to work, and their physical and mental health. The impacts of Long COVID have the potential to increase long-term demand on local health and social care services. Consider:

• How a rise in demand will impact current capacities and resources in local health and social care services
• Where re-deployment (e.g. of volunteers) may be possible to alleviate pressure on health and social care workers and meet the needs of people who might require continuous support e.g. with transport/shopping
• What training and safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure any additional support provided by volunteers is done safely
• The impacts of Long COVID on other services such as housing, transport, welfare and employment
• Conduct a review to:
  • assess current resources and surge capacities
  • understand who in the community does and might need additional support and estimate the length of time this might be for (using information such as people who have underlying health conditions)
  • estimate what funding might be required to meet a rise in demand and how this potential rise can be forecasted, budgeted, and planned for

This briefing details our Recovery and Renewal Framework, we explore updates to the framework, its development since April 2020, and how the framework might be applied in practice. The Recovery and Renewal Framework underpins ISO/TS 22393, The Manchester Briefing, and our new database of international lessons. 

To read the briefing in full, follow the source link below (p.3-6).

TMB 39 noted how “tackling loneliness” was a key priority for community wellbeing in the next year, particularly in rural areas with high numbers of elderly residents. For example, ‘TED Ageing Better’ in East Lindsey is working to foster sustainable resilience in older people by strengthening social capital in the community and providing specific support services. Consider, from TED in East Lindsey’s recent report:

• When establishing community well-being initiatives, focus on “flexible and person-centred” activities. For example:
  • Magna Vitae's Community Health Activity Project employs a range of outreach mechanisms (online, telephone, one to one and group meetings) to ensure their service is inclusive. This has led to higher levels of engagement, enabling the development of innovative activities to meet diverse needs of the community
• Co-produce recovery initiatives (see TMB 38) and underpin these initiatives with a common goal e.g. to increase social capital and thus resilience amongst older people in the community
• Strengthen “peer-to-peer relationships” which can develop ties amongst residents and increase their sense of belonging. Such initiatives benefited from the delivery of “activity packs” that keep residents engaged and connected to people in their community during periods of isolation and social distancing
• Build on the relationships developed through well-being initiatives and co-production activities to support digital inclusion and build digital skills e.g. through community donation programmes (computers/laptops) and skill-building workshops facilitated by local volunteers
• Examples of strategies to tackle loneliness in Northern Ireland (NI) include:
  • The Department for Communities works with Libraries NI and National Museums NI to deliver projects that address loneliness, e.g. “Supporting People”, a programme which aims to improve levels of digital connectivity and digital inclusion
  • The Village Catalyst Pilot Project, which aims to tackle social isolation and rural poverty. The project will repair vacated buildings and repurpose them to improve local access to critical services and facilities, and provide increased space for community-led projects and social activities

This briefing presents examples of how FinTech and Digital Government have been used in countries as a policy delivery tool to help individuals and companies cope with the disruption created by the pandemic. We present some examples of how governments can include FinTech and Digital Government in their recovery and renewal strategies. Read this briefing in full by following the source link below to The Manchester Briefing Issue 41 (p.3-5)

This case study, written by Eduardo Robles Chavez and the Manchester Briefing team, presents examples of effective vulnerability mapping during COVID-19 in New Zealand and Wales, contrasting these with Mexico and Chile where mapping focused only on infection rates. Read this case study by following the source link below (p.13-16)

COVID-19’s prolonged nature, and the intensity of measures taken to respond to it, have brought major disruptions with lasting consequences. Our relationship to mortality and death has been redefined, not least by disruption to traditional rituals that enable societies to cope with and overcome major trauma. A recent webinar, organised as part of the Manchester Webinar Series, considered how we might collectively remember the COVID-19 pandemic. Our speakers reviewed lessons from the past on building resilience through coproduced commemoration and discussed key considerations for policy makers and communities in planning to recognise and remember the huge losses caused by COVID-19. Consider the key lessons offered by our speakers:

• There is no one way to remember. Unlike most disasters, each individual’s experience of COVID-19 is a personal one and commemoration activities will require careful consideration around ways to bring people together to collectively to remember while also recognising the uniqueness of everyone’s experience
• The co-production of activities can provide a way to ensure commemoration is inclusive of all of those who would like to be involved, to create a collaborative and bottom-up as well as top-down delivery of remembrance, and enable communities to take ownership of their remembrance
• Consideration for who will lead and be involved in these conversation will be really important, to mediate, and to support communities to find ways to compromise on differing views and perspectives on commemoration
• The timing of commemoration is a challenge, considering that COVID-19 is now a long-term chronic problem and we are not at the end of the disaster. The pandemic has seen commemoration since the beginning, demonstrating how communities can begin to create spaces of remembrance even while the crisis persists. Some examples of these commemoration activities can be found in TMB Issue 34 and Issue 29
• Memorials can be political, and grand gestures such as monuments can fade, or be contested. This reinforces the need for co-produced commemoration, enabling the voices of those who will benefit most from commemoration activities to be heard and actively participate
• Education is a good form of remembering, through storytellers or creating spaces (online or in local newspapers) where people can share their individual experiences of the pandemic. Recording those memories now will enable authentic materials to support education in years to come
• Think about how those who have lower agency in communities will remember (e.g. children who have lost grandparents). Commemoration could be done by creating spaces in schools/community youth groups for teachers/youth volunteers to support children

Use of public transport can “reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality and public health”. The Local Government Association (LGA) UK note that COVID-19 has exacerbated pre-existing challenges in the decline of the bus industry and recommend that recovery should employ “council’s and central government’s funding, infrastructure and traffic powers to work in partnership with public transport providers”. A study by the LGA aimed to understand local authority (LA) recovery priorities for local transport provision, what can accelerate these priorities, what challenges have prevented these priorities from being successfully implemented previously and what reforms are required for recovery and renewal. Consider the themes for recovery identified by local councils in this study:

‘Deliver Local Authority responsibilities effectively’

• Increase the capabilities of LAs to provide school transport, “socially necessary bus services” and to account for the needs of communities e.g. elderly populations:
  • Increase LAs agency on how local funds are spent to improve their ability to address their responsibilities and context specific challenges posed by some operating environments (e.g. rural areas)

‘Make bus services more accessible for commuters’

• Affordable, practical and convenient services are viewed as a new way to “connect new communities, reduce car dependency and congestions, lower carbon emission and fight climate change, improve air quality and health, and tackle social inequalities”. Examples of best practice include:
  • More efficient services which reduce travel times and operating costs, renewed branding and increased marketing
  • Integrate service networks with other networks such as rail/tram/cycle lanes, and integrate tickets and payment to improve ease of travel across various networks

‘New Approaches to Transport Delivery’

• New challenges caused by the pandemic, pre-existing problems and specific contextual issues (E.g. rural area networks) require innovative solutions, for example:
  • “Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)” can support improvements to connect rural and isolated networks and communities, create “flexibility for school transport and be used as model for community led transport schemes” (See Rural and Demand-Led Transport)
  • “Total Transport and Mobility as a Service (MaaS)” can support integration of transport network modes, tickets and payments and sectoral transport (e.g. health, education, tourism)

‘Link Public Transport and Development’

• Co-ordinate “land use planning and local public transport planning to build demand, reduce car reliance and ensure people have equitable access to jobs, healthcare and other services”, by:
  • Designing “liveable neighbourhoods” that reduce people’s need for non-local travel (increasing local services e.g. through hubs)

‘Contribute to tackling climate change’

• Address negative impacts of transport on the environment by improving bus fleets - replacing older vehicles with low and zero emission vehicles e.g. Coventry All Electric Bus

These themes in this report relate to six case study areas in the UK, with feedback sessions with wider local authorities suggesting that these themes are shared, but their scale and implementation may vary depending on the local context.

The Mobilising Volunteers Effectively (MoVE) project, led by Universities of Sheffield, Hull and Leeds, aims to understand the ways in which communities have mobilised in response to COVID. The project has released a number of reports which set out the findings from the first phase of the project. The ‘Resilience of the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) across Yorkshire and the Humber’ (May 2021) report highlights the challenges created for VCS organisations due to a “rise in demand, diminished donations and restricted opportunities to trade and raise funds”. The emergence of multi-agency partnership working (e.g. between local governments, VCS organisations, mutual aid/ informal community groups and businesses) has supported local response capabilities throughout the pandemic, highlighting a need for a more strategic approach to strengthen the partnerships, relationships and capabilities of communities to collectively prepare for future shocks and build resilience. The findings are informed by 407 VCS organisations responses to a ‘Resilience Survey’. Consider the key recommendations set out in this report:

• Ensure volunteers and those involved in VCS organisations are included in community mental health and wellbeing support in the aftermath of the pandemic
• Support small local VCS organisations, who may lack sufficient infrastructure to secure grant funding, with guidance on grant application. This could also be supported by simplifying the grant application process
• The provision of practical support (e.g. fundraising support) and increasing volunteer recruitment, retention and training support, e.g. through partnerships, for example:
  • Sandwell council partner with local VCS organisations to provide free e-learning to volunteers covering topics such as “child protection, fire safety, information sharing” and more
  • A community-run Red Cross Cardiac First Response volunteer group in Ireland, partner with the local fire brigade and other local authority organisations to provide emergency response training to volunteers and support activities to raise vital funds for ambulances and medical equipment
• Targeted financial support through government subsidy for VCS organisations who are providing services for “children and younger people” as they were found to be “least financially viable over time”. The report recommends that the “art, culture and heritage and community development” VCS organisations should then be prioritised and targeted for financial support

TMB Issue 8 describes how recovery and renewal requires broader strategic partnership working nationally, regionally and locally. The relationships that have been developed through the pandemic can underpin recovery and renewal initiatives, enabling national and local action through multi-departmental and cross-organisational working. Key to these partnerships is recognising that partners have power and place-based relationships that will be crucial to the success of recovery and renewal activities.

This week’s briefing launches our searchable database of international lessons on Recovery and Renewal, and we also take the opportunity to share some brief details our activities and progress so far in the Recovery, Renewal, Resilience (RRR) project.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 40.

Featuring a recent blog written by Abbie Winton, Alliance Manchester Business School

A recent TMB (Issue 33) discussed the gendered economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and presented the recommendations set out in the report produce by the Women and Equalities Committee entitled ‘Unequal impact? Coronavirus and the gendered economic impact’. This previous lesson explored how recovery strategies can address impacts, mitigate the reinforcement of inequalities and how renewal initiatives can transform the position of women in the labour market.

The ability to rapidly transition between jobs can support an individual or household to recover from an economic shock, such as the shock delivered by the pandemic. Occupational segregation refers to the unequal distribution of people across and within certain occupations, based on characteristics such as gender or ethnic background[1]. The pandemic has had disproportionate impacts on women’s experience of work, particularly BAME women, as they are more likely to work in low-paying and informal segregated roles, making them more vulnerable to the economic impacts of the pandemic. Therefore, gender, racial and ethnic inequalities are at risk of being reinforced, exacerbated or created[2].

This week we spotlight a recent think piece written by Abbie Winton, Alliance Manchester Business School[3], which focuses on gender and food retailing. Recognising how gender segregation is embedded in food retail roles, Abbie looks at how this can change e.g. through improving transport links to enable women to access jobs that are currently located in “hard-to-reach” areas:

Gender and food retailing[4]

Supermarket shopping of old has, perhaps, changed forever with demand for online food retailing soaring during the pandemic, growing 25.5% in 2020 compared to the 8.5% previously anticipated[5]. For most food retailers, trading online has long lacked appeal due to the low margins which it offers[6]. However, the pandemic restrictions prompted retailers to expand their dotcom (online) offering almost overnight to both meet demand and stay competitive during a time when customers were restricted in their ability to do their shopping in-store.

To meet the excess demand all of the major retailers took on additional workers, and today new roles are being created in large numbers in distribution and logistics against a backdrop of slowly dwindling numbers of workers serving on the shop floor. However, also characterising these changes are the historical patterns of gender segregation that persist within the sector, despite men moving into retail roles in recent years. Therefore, we need to be asking not just what the food retail sector is likely to look like post-pandemic, but who is likely to remain working in it.

Segregation of food retail work

The move online and growing use of self-checkouts in-store have in part helped facilitate a reduction in the need for checkout staff. These jobs have long been disproportionately filled by women who needed the ‘flexibility’ to manage work alongside caring responsibilities[7].

In contrast, there has already been an expansion of new roles in warehousing, logistics and fulfilment which have traditionally been filled by men and demand hours less likely to suit the needs of the household. For example, an analysis of recent ONS (2021) data shows that 67% of employees working on supermarket shop floors are women, a large proportion of whom are over the age of 45. This figure increases to 70% if you look at checkout and cashier roles specifically.

Female employees from Black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds (as defined by the ONS) are five times more likely than white male employees to be working in checkout roles. In contrast to this, the gendering of employees working in the wholesale of food production (including the supply of these goods to supermarkets) is vastly male-dominated (men continue to hold 78% of these roles). These figures show the embeddedness of gender, and racial, segregation in these roles.

Considerations for the future

Although there have been some reductions in the occupational segmentation of retail roles in recent years, changing demands mean the future of work in food retail is likely to reflect the pre-existing patterns of segregation within the sector.

To avoid exacerbating these inequalities, measures are needed to ensure women and minority groups are equipped to enter into new roles in logistics and distribution. To avoid exacerbating these gender inequalities, measures are needed to ensure women are equipped to enter into logistics and distribution; for example, employee-led flexible working arrangements. To approve accessibility to these roles, policy changes will be required, in order to prevent women and minority groups being disproportionately impacted by job loss and remove current barriers (e.g. the burden of caring responsibilities) that prevent women and minority groups from transitioning into new roles.

Research has also shown that women are more likely to rely on public transport to get to work[8] and thus tend to take jobs that are closer to home and schools. However, distribution centres tend to be located in harder-to-reach areas, making these jobs less accessible to women. Therefore, provisions would have to be made to improve transportation routes to these areas both in terms of accessibility and safety.

Secondly, the ‘pick rates’ (the rate of items ‘picked’ by an employee/hours of work[9]) which dictate dotcom work can often be challenging for disabled and older workers to sustain. Reasonable adjustments will be required where necessary to accommodate these groups. Thirdly, employee-led flexible working arrangements and parental leave could allow for an easier transition into this type of work. Therefore, policymakers and businesses should ensure that the jobs which remain do not reinforce the existing inequalities which are endemic to service work and which have been further exacerbated by the current crisis.

This blog is a short extract from an article within ‘On Digital Inequalities’, produced by Policy@Manchester[10].

Wider points for gender-equal recovery and renewal

We conclude this case study by considering the wider points for gender equality in economic recovery. Three key policy areas have been identified in a recent statement from the London School of Economics and Political Science, the International Monetary Fund, EU Central Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the United Nations and the EU Commission, to ensure that “economic recovery prioritises women and girls, underpins an inclusive future, and ensures the world is prepared to withstand the next crisis”[11]. Consider:

• How recovery stimulus, employment, and social protection programmes will “get directly into the hands of women”
• How to develop more effective public policy, e.g. approaches to close the gender data gaps as a priority and new mechanisms to “improve monitoring, evaluation and data systems”
• How to reduce the “burden of unpaid care work and support better childcare to strengthen women’s labour force participation”[12]

[1] https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100244561

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205621/

[3] https://www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/abbie.winton.html

[4] https://www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk/original-thinking-applied/original-thinkers/gender-and-food-retailing/

[5] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/may/05/uk-online-grocery-sales-lockdown-internet-coronavirus

[6] https://www.ft.com/content/b985249c-1ca1-41a8-96b5-0adcc889d57d

[7] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/a3299

[8] https://wbg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/TRANSPORT-2019-1.pdf

[9] https://www.hcrlaw.com/blog/warehouse-pick-rates-and-disability/

[10] https://www.policy.manchester.ac.uk/publications/on-digital-inequalities/

[11] https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/News-Assets/PDFs/2021/Statement-on-Gender-Equality-2021.pdf

[12] Ibid.

As part of our ESRC funded project on Recovery, Renewal, Resilience we committed to writing the international standard on Recovery and Renewal. We took another step to accomplishing this goal last week when an international ballot voted to accept and publish our international standard ‘ISO/TS 22393 - Guidelines for planning Recovery and Renewal’. ISO/TS 22393 provides a framework for how to assess the impacts of COVID-19 on communities, and address these by planning transactional recovery activities and transformational renewal initiatives. This briefing describes the background to our international standard and gives an insight to the content of this guideline.

An ISO standard aims to “give world-class specifications for products, services and systems, to ensure quality, safety and efficiency”[1]. To so this, it collates the latest research findings, expert knowledge, recent experience from experts, and reaches consensus to provide a detailed, informative document that can be applied in different contexts because all the important aspects are considered. An ISO standard often describes best practice and how that can be achieved.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 39 to read this briefing in full (p.3-6).

[1] https://www.iso.org/about-us.html

The National Lottery Community Fund ‘Community Research Project’ investigated how people’s attitude toward their communities has changed during the pandemic, and identified the priorities for their communities as they emerge from COVID-19. This report demonstrates the opportunity to foster the community resilience realised during COVID as a Local Resilience Capability (LRC). Additionally, the report echoes that although not everyone will want to contribute to building community resilience, there are people who do and they are looking for ways to do so. Consider that:

• “Tackling loneliness and supporting economic growth” are reported as the most important factors for community wellbeing in the next year. Most respondents felt that the crisis brought out the best in people. This was particularly felt by older generations, with a third of respondents reporting that they now feel more connected to (and supported by) their local community
• “Safe and accessible green spaces” are key priorities for communities going forward, with 40% of respondents reporting to have used local green spaces more than they usually would
• 30% of respondents plan to be more involved in their communities, with the most significant benefits being people’s ability to offer support to others in their community, and having people willing to help close by if needed

Social innovations in health and care are “inclusive solutions that meet the needs of end users through a multi-stakeholder, community-engaged process to address the healthcare delivery gap”. They concentrate on local community needs and priorities, strive to establish “low-cost solutions” and build upon the pre-existing strengths in a community. This paper produced by the LSHTM demonstrates how social innovation during COVID-19 has mobilised local communities, adapted existing health services at rapid pace and developed partnerships between local government and civil society. Consider the following international examples of social innovations in health during the pandemic:

• Peru mobilised communities by adapting their ‘Mamás Del Río’ programme which “selects and trains local people as community health workers”. This project adapted during COVID to both ensure the “continuity of maternal and neonatal health services” while also educating and training local people on COVID-19 prevention
• Malawi’s existing free hotline created by local people to provide health advice was scaled up nationally during the pandemic. The government then capitalised on the capabilities of this local service to “triage people with COVID-19 symptoms, identify and refer people at risk of domestic violence, provide health information to the public and gain a greater understanding of local needs”
• The Philippine’s multi-sectoral partnership brings together the “strengths and resources from the private sector, academia, local government and communities”. COVID-19 response was strengthened by these partnerships which enabled rapid deployment of a “hunger management campaign, the establishment of a call centre to manage returning resident’s and a role out of local testing teams”

Social innovation initiatives have proven a “powerful means of mobilising communities to respond to emergencies that can complement and extend government and private sector responses, and in turn build more resilient communities”.

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM)

The British Red Cross recently shared a report ‘Communities of Humanitarian Thought: The Case for Change in a Time of Crisis’. The report considers the next steps on the following prominent humanitarian issues: Displacement & Migration; Health Inequalities, and Disasters & Emergencies. The report highlights the need for real change for people experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, crisis across various priorities:

• ‘Eliminate the gaps in health and social care’, by employing a person-centred approach to reduce access barriers and prevent people from “falling through the gaps between services”. The inequalities in health and social care exacerbated by COVID-19 require a more integrated approach, along with investment in care and support at the community level
• ‘Ensure humanitarian needs are met in emergencies’, by clearly defining the statutory responsibilities of national government and emergency response organisations, to ensure that they “fully meet the humanitarian needs of their communities”
• Review social protection infrastructure to learn lessons from the pandemic and best practice across the world, e.g. ‘Cash-based assistance in emergencies’, which has shown to deliver a more “dignified response” and enables people to rapidly access the resources they need during crisis
• ‘Provide safe and legal routes for people seeking asylum’, by reviewing domestic policy to ensure that the “end-to-end experience of a person in the asylum system is efficient, fair and humane”. The Sovereign Borders Bill presents an opportunity to evaluate and take action to improve the entire system
• ‘Uphold international law and principled humanitarian action’, by committing to humanitarian action and support for the most vulnerable communities across the world
• Recognise how young people and civil society drive climate action, e.g. the Youth Advisory Group on Climate Change, which strives to amplify youth voices and engage young people in an open and transparent dialogue on climate action

We discussed co-production in TMB Issue 33 and detailed three barriers to co-production during COVID: Pace, Distance and Complexity. The Centre for Loneliness Studies recently developed a toolkit for co-production organised around a cycle of: "Co-commissioning; Co-design; Co-delivery and Co-evaluation/co-governance". This toolkit supports those who want to begin a journey of co-production. It is based on research on co-production with older people who experienced isolation and loneliness. The principles are transferable and useful to anyone thinking about how to do co-production. Consider:

• That co-production can apply to a broad range of contexts (e.g. co-producing service delivery for a city/region/on a national level or co-producing care delivery for an individual). Depending on the context, those involved should agree on what co-production means based on their context. This can be done by:
  • Define what co-production means e.g. to your organisation/to the group of people delivering a service/to those using a service
  • Agree a statement about what co-production means, to manage expectations and provide clarity on the direction of co-production activities
• Understand individual and group co-production values. This can help to direct work and activities and influence decision-making
• Empower each person involved by working "with people rather than for them"
• Promote equality, e.g. use the term 'stakeholders' to describe all of those involved in co-production to position all participants on an equal footing
• Seek to understand and make use of the skills, knowledge and experience of all stakeholders
• Ensure a diverse group of stakeholders are involved in co-production by considering:
  • Which stakeholders should be involved? (including those who represent current and potential future users of services)
  • What skills, experience, knowledge and resources are required to support co-production? (e.g. conduct an asset mapping exercise to understand needs)
  • How best to ensure a wide variety of stakeholders are included?
  • What resources might stakeholders require to keep them engaged?
• How to fairly share power and influence for co-production, e.g. hold regular deliberation meetings so that all stakeholders are heard, use voting systems, and feedback questionnaires
• Following each phase of the cycle:
  • Reflect on the experiences of each stakeholder and achievements of the group
  • Explore what worked well, the challenges that presented and how learning can be applied in future cycles of co-production
  • Identify any skills, knowledge, experience or strengths the group and co-production process could gain from and how to bring those into the process in the future

This case study extracts some key points from the UK's National Audit Office report 'Initial learning from the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic'. Read this case study in full (p.13-14) in TMB Issue 38 by following the source link below.

The focus of this week's Manchester Briefing (Issue 38) is the role of the individual in relation to crises and the benefits of public involvement in emergency planning. We discuss how recovery reinstates preparedness, while renewal enhances resilience and consider how Local Resilience Capability can be understood, sustained and enhanced by local government.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full (p.3-6).

We demonstrate that in order to establish community resilience as a permanent local resilience capability, we are required to sustain what has already been created by communities, local government, small business, neighbours, individuals, social enterprises, the voluntary sector, and so many more hidden networks.

Read this case study in full by following the source link to TMB Issue 37 (p.13-14).

Risk communications as part of the Local Resilience Capability is our focus in this briefing. We explore the communication of risk before and during emergencies, and identify how two-way communications are central to local resilience capabilities. Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 37 (p.3-6).

Public health has taken centre stage throughout the pandemic. Pre-existing fragilities have been exposed, but opportunities for reform and renewal have also presented. The White Paper ‘Integration and innovation: working together to improve health and social care for all’, recently presented legislative proposals for a health and care Bill in the UK. A recent briefing by the NHS recognises an opportunity for change, which lies in reform of “how population health is prioritised and resourced in the future”, to not only recover from the pandemic, but to renew systems so that they prepare for (and protect against) future public health risks by building resilience.

The White Paper is a complex and intricate document which is hard to summarise. Discussions of it with a health professional may help to illuminate its main implications for civil resilience. We identify a few lessons from it, but there are others that you may find. We focus on the challenges that lie ahead as part of a restructure of public health functions. Some challenges include:

• How to retain existing expertise:
  • Taking into consideration that responsibilities will change hands, such as those for health improvement functions, those which Public Health England are currently responsible
  • Continuing to fulfil local and national leadership responsibilities
  • Investment to “make up significant shortfalls over recent years”
  • Ensure effectiveness in health improvement functions moving forward
• The sustainability of public health services given budgetary pressures:
  • “Robust and long-term investments in public health services”
  • Acknowledging the critical role they play in building resilience to crises is crucial
• The potentially reduced agency and disempowerment of local government and local partners:
  • By considering that they are positioned most effectively to tailor services and communications to the needs and priorities of the communities they serve
  • Strategic partnership working between NHS organisations, local government and the voluntary sector is essential to promote empowered and flexible working at the local level
• Ensuring that local authorities are involved in resource discussions to locally distribute health improvement responsibilities
• Improving the commissioning arrangements for public health services to address the vulnerabilities exposed by funding cuts and resource shortages

This week (1-7th June 2021) marks Volunteers Week in the UK, an opportunity to celebrate and thank volunteers and recognise their significant contributions to communities. Volunteers make an immense difference to their communities and have played a key role throughout the pandemic. There are many ways to celebrate and show appreciation for the work of volunteers, consider:

• Say thank you by recognising their impact in local communities, by:
  • A thank you email or through social media (you can use the hashtag #VolunteersWeek to join the online community celebrating volunteers this week)
  • Community funded gift baskets which could include vouchers or discounts from local businesses
• Collect stories from volunteers and those that they supported during the pandemic and share them through local newspapers, local radio, social media etc.
• Setting up virtual online gathering of local volunteers and:
  • Distribute awards to volunteers to recognise their efforts
  • Create a space for volunteers to share their experiences of volunteering during the pandemic. This type of event can also introduce local volunteers to each other and create an greater sense of being part of a local volunteer communit
• Create public displays of recognition (e.g. a park bench dedicated to local volunteers)
• Encourage community involvement e.g. “The Big Lunch” which is being held on Sunday 6th June
• Allocate a day to celebrate volunteers annually e.g. "Power of Youth Day" which celebrates the contributions of young people to communities

The health and social care system is complex, spanning a broad range of services delivered by both statutory and third sector organisations. COVID-19 has had a significant impact on society and on health and social care services. A recent impact assessment ‘Health and Social Care in Wales COVID-19: Looking Froward’ presents “high level expectations” for NHS and social care recovery. It also identifies the challenges and constraints ahead, and priorities for each part of the system. Social care services are one of the key priorities, recognising the critical role that social care workers (including unpaid carers) have played in frontline responses to COVID. Consider:

• Learn lessons from the pandemic. Assess and identify the “hidden harms” caused by COVID-19 and implement services that can mitigate the longer term impacts of COVID on communities and individuals
• Facilitate opportunities for families to “identify and own solutions to challenges brought about or exacerbated by COVID”, to support families to remain together
• Identify and address the impacts of ‘Long COVID’, work to understand the effect of this on people who receive care and support, including unpaid carers and the social care workforce
• Introduce strategies that tackle the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on unpaid carers, focusing particularly on challenges related to “respite and support for carers”
• Recognise that the Local Authority Hardship Fund has been central to the continuity of many critical social care organisations during the pandemic. “Ensure that commissioners of care and support services, in local authorities and health boards, use this financial support in ways that enable them to match the provision of services to changing population need” as the full impacts of the pandemic play out
• Introduce the ‘Real Living Wage’ across the social care sector, to support wellbeing and mental health
• “Build on and improve the collaborative working that has been evident across the health and social care sector throughout the pandemic”

The Rural Lives project examined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns on individuals experiencing financial hardship and vulnerability in rural areas, and the responses to address those impacts. It investigated the contributions of "societal processes, individual circumstances, and various support sources (e.g. markets, state, voluntary/community organisations, and family and friends)". The study finds that lockdowns delivered an acute shock to rural economies and societies, many of which rely heavily on tourism and hospitality, and that the pandemic amplified the impacts of digital exclusion. Pre-COVID, a substantial proportion of rural residents were found to be financially vulnerable. This study suggests that many more will be at risk of financial hardship in the coming months and years as "the full impacts of the pandemic play out and sources of support become more constrained". The study suggests future actions to support people living in rural communities:

• Diversify rural economies and support "good work" to offer people a fair and secure income, e.g. by providing targeted funding and support to help people to establish small businesses that increase the strength of other sectors (outside of those currently relied upon) and provide rural residents with "less precarious employment opportunities"
• Establish business support networks/signpost people to business advisory services to mitigate the negative effects of necessity entrepreneurship (e.g. people may lack confidence and/or knowledge about what is involved in setting up a viable business)
• Define and support the role of rural Voluntary and Community Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector, who have the potential to be a key actor when tackling the rise in rural youth unemployment
• Reinstate and support the expansion of mobile and outreach face-to-face services for the most vulnerable, especially those who may be more isolated due to physical distance from services, lack digital literacy or face mental health challenges
• "Continue partnership working and flexible funding" between service providers and VCSEs so that they can continue to play a joined-up signposting role, connecting rural communities to information, advice and services
• Integrate VCSEs into strategic planning to create effective partnership structures
• Explore the "rural potential for social care provision" review the experience of social care and carers during the pandemic to learn lessons. E.g. "deliver a more personalised and joined-up approach via informal cooperation between health and care workers, learning from more flexible work practices adopted during the pandemic"
• Enable communities to take a more active role in commissioning social care, and enable community groups to deliver care in their communities
• Co-produce service design with communities, pilot integrated ways of working with VCSEs and the community, and take locally-based approaches to service delivery that prioritise local community outcomes and individual needs/priorities
• Consider a combination of "person-based and place-based" social protection and welfare measures at national policy level

The pandemic has accelerated the change to shopping habits, triggered economic downturn and changed how people live their lives (e.g. working from home). Evidence provided by "what works centre for local economic growth" prompts thinking as to what types of investment and interventions are likely to be most beneficial when designing recovery plans. The report considers that:

• "Supply side" investments (e.g. shop front renovations) should be supported by investments and policies that target increasing consumer demand
• Education and training to improve the skills profile of local communities can positively impact residents average wages, which will increase spending power and demand for local goods and services
• There is little evidence to support thinking that large department stores/supermarkets ("anchor stores") are of more value that other shops, meaning that balanced and equal support should be provided to protect business continuity of all shops
• Increased levels of working from home is unlikely to instigate large population shifts away from towns and cities and "proposals that are based on the assumption that housing supply and population density will change significantly should provide robust evidence to underpin those assumptions"
• Recovery and renewal proposals/plans which state that "physical or cultural regeneration initiatives will also delver economic growth" should also provide robust evidence as little evidence has shown that investment in new community assets/improved housing quality will deliver local growth

Involving citizens in the recovery planning and development process can lead to more effective policy outcomes and build trust and a two way dialogue between citizens and government. COVID-19 has had diverse impacts on the lives of individuals and communities, and their involvement in deciding the routes to long-term recovery following the pandemic is crucial. Consider the good practice principles for deliberative processes offered by the OECD, which will support the achievement of "high-quality processes that result in useful recommendations and meaningful opportunities for citizens to shape public decisions":

• Clearly define the issue as a question that is aligned with the concerns and challenges faced by different communities
• Invite people to make recommendations for addressing the issues that affect them, respond to recommendations in a timely manner, and monitor and feedback regularly to people on the progress of their implementation (e.g. Scotland's Citizens' Assembly)
• Ensure the process is inclusive and representative of all people in the community, e.g. stratified random sampling to select a participant group which fully represents a community's demographic profile
• Make information easily accessible through public communications. Include the purpose, design, methodology, recruitment details, experts, recommendations, the response, and implementation follow-up
• Establish a mechanism through which people can request additional information, ask questions and keep up to date on progress of activities
• Appoint a liaison person who can feed information in from and out to the community
• Take time to reflect on and evaluate deliberative processes, to ensure learning, help improve future practice and understand impact

Stephen Brookes, University of Manchester and Umer Khan, Greater Manchester Police, explore public leadership to create public value recovery and renewal - including the role of local community policing, partnerships, and 'consequentialist leadership'.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full (p.3-6).

Ethnic minority-owned businesses play a vital role in the UK economy, the FSB reported that 'ethnic minority businesses (EMBs) contributed 25 billion pounds to the UK economy in 2018'. The entrepreneurial characteristics of diverse communities will be crucial for economic recovery. The impacts of the pandemic on EMBs is significant, as they account for a large number of businesses within the sectors closed during national lockdowns (retail, health and social care and hospitality). Consider:

• Invite ethnic minority business owners to discuss how best local government can support and facilitate entrepreneurship and growth post-COVID
• Targeted support programmes for ethnic minority-owned organisations and businesses that provide advice and support for applying for financial assistance, IT and tech support so that they are equipped with the skills and tools needed to recover and renew
• Create an 'inclusive matrix of support, including grants, wage subsidy and micro-loans for small ethnic minority-owned organisations, start-ups and new businesses'. Those businesses that may not have qualified for government financial support schemes introduced during the pandemic
• Go beyond the restricted lens of the 'Business Rate System' and broaden the understanding of how local economies function. This can be done by including 'all sectors, including homeworkers, night time economy, responses to local transport needs and the retail sector, to provide a comprehensive picture of local businesses and economic activity'. Use this to introduce support systems that promote sector diversity, good practice in sustainability, growth and cooperation in economic recovery

In Scotland, the government's Social Renewal Advisory Board has proposed ways that transformational renewal can deliver lasting change post-COVID. The board published a report in January 2021 titled 'If not now, when?' which recognises the inequalities that have been exposed by the pandemic, and the civic response which emerged. The report presents 'Calls to Action' to tackle these inequalities and further galvanise the social action that is instrumental. Consider the principles offered by the report with regard to three key aspects of renewal:

• Money and Work: the need to support low income communities and tackle the structural inequalities in 'homes and across society' (e.g. unpaid care predominantly offered by women), including those disproportionately impacted by the health, economic and social impacts of the pandemic. The report calls for:
  • A "Minimum Income Guarantee". All incomes should "meet a minimum income standard through a combination of paid work and/or social security". This provides payments based on a person's circumstances, accounting for differing "needs and costs associated with disability, childcare and housing"
  • A "person-centred approach to money, financial education and help". Addressing individual debt through temporary payment moratoriums, improved financial education and support, particularly for those in ethnic minority groups who may not seek financial advice
  • A "new social contract on Fair Work". Partnerships between government, public sector and employers to deliver greater levels of financial security for workers through focusing on inclusive and targeted employment programmes
• People, Rights and Advancing Equality: the need for all people to have adequate housing, food and access to services and information, including migrants and refugees. The report advises:
  • "Make the prevention and ending of homelessness a national priority for the next parliamentary term". Tackle the gaps in financial housing support and make adequate housing a human right for all people in Scotland
  • "Increase access to nutritious, culturally appropriate and affordable food". Invest in local food partnerships to build greater local food resilience
  • Tackle the digital divide. End digital exclusion by placing a duty of responsibility on public bodies to enable digital access
• Communities and Collective Endeavour: focused on empowering people, communities and frontline teams to drive new ways of working which started to emerge during the pandemic, and develop new arrangements for local governance:
  • Co-producing policies and programmes with the public through citizen participation in design and delivery, and supporting the inclusion of a wider portion of society
  • "Values-based leadership" to empower frontline teams to deliver flexible services based on community needs and priorities
  • "People, communities and places, building on strengths and assets" to share responsibility and ownership with communities to build local resilience capabilities

Peer reviews can offer local governments an opportunity to reflect, assess and improve their preparedness for disaster (ISO 22392). This process can also enable collaborative dialogue on recovery and renewal plans, ensure transparent assessment and create value when building local and national resilience. Consider:

• Establish a peer review mechanism to enable external critique of review recovery and renewal plans
• Connect local governments to national associations that can facilitate a connecting structure between cities and regions to share lessons, knowledge and insights
• Conduct focus groups/workshops that enable local governments to 'pause and reflect' on lessons learned from their response to COVID-19 and collaboratively discuss recovery and renewal
• Appoint a panel of 'officer and member peers' to review local government plans for recovery and renewal in their communities

We identify the core barriers to co-production during the pandemic: Pace, distance and complexity, and provide a broad framework which can be designed into a project's main policy framework to facilitate co-production in preparedness and response.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 33 to read this briefing in full (p.3-6).

We bring together international lessons and actions to address the attainment gap and support vulnerable children who have lost out on significant learning time during the pandemic.

Read this case study in full by following the source link below to TMB Issue 33 (p.13-14).