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:

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.

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:

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)

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).

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)

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.

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

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).

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).

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).

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).

The ALARP principle acknowledges that we might not be able to eliminate all risk, as risk is part of life, but we may be able to manage it. It is necessary to control risk, particularly when it comes to public health and safety. Throughout the pandemic we have continuously acknowledged the existence of COVID-19 risk and managed this risk to as low a level as practicable through various containment measures. When assessing COVID-19 risk ALARP, consider:

• What level of COVID-19 risk is as low as reasonably practicable and acceptable, e.g. for lockdown to end (this could be based on factors such as levels of hospital admissions due to COVID-19, or the number of people vaccinated)
• The likelihood of the hazard or the risk occurring and what degree of harm might result from the hazard or risk
• What actions are available to minimise the risk
• What cost is associated with available ways of minimising the risk - Is the cost proportionate to the risk
• Communicate with the public and educate them about risk being ALARP, to increase understanding that we will continue to live with COVID-19, and that recovery will consider risk in terms of ALARP
• Develop guidance for businesses (e.g. nightclubs) on operating according to the principles of risk ALARP in relation to COVID-19 containment

We present a high-level report of the 'light touch' Impact Assessment conducted by Essex Resilience Forum and Recovery Coordination Group following the first wave of COVID-19. Lessons include the need to revisit/update impact assessments to identify new impacts from subsequent waves.

To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 32 (p.2-5).

The 2021 UK Census offers a unique opportunity to increase our long-term understanding of the health, social and economic impacts of COVID-19 on different communities. In due course, local government can use the insight that the Census provides to plan and provide funding for services that will be critical in recovery and renewal, such as changes in housing, education and healthcare. Grassroots organisations, charities and businesses can also use this information to inform their future work and to secure funding. Consider:

• A targeted and localised communications campaign that highlights issues that are relevant for local people in their community:
  • Engage local community members/groups that may have influence and knowledge on the priorities of specific communities to inform communications and support the encouragement of people to take part
• Partner with organisations that work with different communities to promote the value and benefits that the information gained through the Census will bring
• Tailor communications and ensure that the value and benefits detailed are relevant to particular groups (e.g. people with disabilities, ethnic communities)
• Develop a variety of resources that support people to take part, for example:
  • Create a variety of resources (e.g. animation films) that explain how to complete the Census and where people can get support with filling out the Census form, signpost people to organisations that can help
• Ensure all resources are accessible in terms of language and consider access needs of people with disabilities

The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy provides a comprehensive view of the UK’s national security and international policy[1]. This case study will detail the key messages from this review relative to local and national resilience.

Building resilience in the UK and internationally (IV. Strategic Framework - Section 4)

The review recognises that national resilience goes hand in hand with global resilience. The unprecedented challenges brought about by the global COVID-19 crises highlights how international cooperation is critical yet fragile under such immense stress, unaided by the historic preference for efficient governance and processes rather than robust resilience capabilities. The review sets out the UK’s priorities for strengthening both national and global resilience (p.87):

• Build national resilience to mitigate the impacts of ‘acute shocks and longer-term challenges’ on the lives and livelihoods of people in the UK, through robust risk planning, ‘effective and trusted governance, government capabilities, social cohesion, and individual and business resilience’
• Build health resilience at national and global levels to improve global pandemic preparedness through a ‘One Health’ approach informed by learning from COVID-19
• The development of a ‘comprehensive national resilience strategy’ (p.88):
  • A ‘whole-of-society’ integrated approach to resilience that focuses on: ‘improving public communications on preparedness; strengthening the role and responsibilities of local resilience forums (LRFs) and assessing the resilience of critical national infrastructure (CNI)’
  • Review risk assessment approaches, ‘increase local and national capabilities (people, skills and equipment) and strengthen analytical, policy and operational tools’ (p.89)
• Funding and resources through the Spending Review (SR 2020) commitments include; the establishment of a ‘Situation Centre’ which will generate and produce live data, analysis and insights to decision-makers on real time events in the UK and across the world to increase the UK’s ability to quickly identify, assess and respond to national security threats and crises (p.104)

Climate change agenda

The review recognises the urgent need to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss to drive forward a ‘zero-carbon global economy, support adaption and resilience, and protect the most vulnerable’, and to build resilience to climate change impacts at local levels, e.g. against floods (p.89):

• ‘Accelerate the global and national transition to net zero by 2050’ through a variety of initiatives (e.g. increasing support for net zero innovation and new industries)
• Drive ‘sustainable and legal use of natural resources by supporting agriculture that regenerates ecosystems’ and increases the availability of and accessibility to sustainable food resources (p.90)

Connecting resilience, health and migration

Outbreaks of infectious disease are likely to become more frequent in the future and efforts to manage and mitigate their effects is essential. The review supports the view that the resilience and health sectors are inextricably intertwined and require strategic prioritization at local, national and global levels through (p.93):

• Equitable access to healthcare (e.g. COVID-19 vaccines) for global, national and local recovery from the current pandemic through ambitious domestic vaccination strategies and by providing support for developing countries to increase access to vaccines globally (e.g. via the Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility initiative[2])
• Reviews of biosecurity strategies to recognise the interconnecting relationships between population ‘health, animals and the environment’ and the development of a robust approach to the resilience of healthcare supply chains (p.94)
• Increase of crisis response capabilities at local levels by providing funding (£5.4bn) to support local authority response capabilities (p.104)
• Investment and cooperation in the reformation of the global health system that recognises the potential value of data and identifies the strengths required between health and economic institutions for resilience (p.94)
• Global coordination and collaboration to increase and improve research and development for vaccination, therapeutics and diagnostics, to strengthen preparedness for pandemics on global scales (p.94)

Migration poses a multitude of complex challenges, such as risk to the lives of the most vulnerable and pressures on host country institutions and systems (e.g. health). To build resilience in this capacity, the UK is committed to providing support that addresses the root drivers of migration, e.g. to improve ‘stability and socio-economic conditions in fragile regions’ (p.95).

Implementation of the Integrated Review

To ensure the successful implementation and delivery of the goals set out in this review, the UK is prioritising (p.97):

• Flexibility, agility, accountability for delivery and strong ministerial oversight when dealing with complex strategic issues, to increase coherence, structure, the ability to react quickly to and deal with cross-cutting challenges and effective implementation;
• Building support for strategy implementation through strategic communications and community engagement
• This review reinforces the view of The National Risk Register[3] on how community engagement and participation in risk planning is essential. The pandemic has provided local and national governments with a unique opportunity to harness and develop volunteers and community response and recovery capabilities to strengthen community resilience and increase its positive impacts on preparedness for future challenges caused by COVID-19 and future crises in a broader sense
• The attainment of a culture that supports integration, adaption and innovation through inclusion and participation. To do this, the review acknowledges the need to further develop and harness the opportunities provided by the pandemic, those that will achieve a culture that manifests the collaborative, agile and inclusive behaviours that enable integration, for example (p.98):
  • The mitigation of cognitive biases that impact decision-making through a systematic process of challenging procedures, decisions and strategies
  • Increase awareness of, connectedness to and representation of all people in the community
• The importance of having the right people with the right knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA) to form ‘flexible, diverse and multidisciplinary teams’. To accelerate progress towards professionalisation, training and skills, the UK will review the viability of a dedication College for National Security, in preparation for the next SR (p.99)
• The establishment of a ‘Performance and Planning Framework’ and an ‘Evaluation Taskforce’ to provide continuous review and assessment of integration performance and impact measurement (p.99)

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/global-britain-in-a-competitive-age-the-integrated-review-of-security-defence-development-and-foreign-policy

[2] https://www.who.int/initiatives/act-accelerator/covax

[3]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/952959/6.6920_CO_CCS_s_National_Risk_Register_2020_11-1-21-FINAL.pdf

Many people, particularly those shielding, may be anxious about having annual servicing and repairs done to their homes, property or possessions e.g. cars, bicycles. Thus, they may delay routine maintenance and servicing of gas and electric appliances, vehicles, etc. or be encouraged to personally attempt maintenance or repair that they are not skilled to safely complete. This may put them, and others, at risk. Consider:

• Communicating the importance of annual servicing, repairs and maintenance in keeping people safe, including:
  • Encourage residents to check the expiry of, and keep up to date with, servicing, maintenance and repairs to avoid the risks of faulty boilers, for example
  • Signpost residents to safe working conditions that customers may expect of local organisations when they work in people’s homes
  • Encourage local organisations to detail the COVID-safe work practices that they have in place
• When restrictions ease, there may be a rush for maintenance and repair services, (e.g. roadworthiness/vehicle testing and servicing), which may cause a backlog or delay in service delivery:
  • Remind residents and encourage them to check when they are required to renew their MOT – the UK introduced a 6 month extension for vehicle roadworthiness (MOT) certificates in the first lockdown as garages were forced to close, so this will have disrupted normal scheduling
• Those who may be struggling financially due to the pandemic may be concerned about the affordability of maintenance and servicing:
  • Remind residents that keeping up to date with annual services can prevent future maintenance that may cost more to repair/replace
  • Signpost residents to financial advisory services (see TMB 30)

A number of countries have been praised for their management and containment of COVID-19, and are delaying vaccination delivery as they to continue examine data on different vaccines (e.g. Australia/New Zealand) and build public trust (e.g. Japan)[1]. Other countries continue to grapple with the virus and are yet to begin a full roll out of vaccination programmes, primarily due to supply issues[2]. In the UK, various factors have enabled more covid-19 vaccine first doses per 100 people than any other nation of comparable population size[3]. These factors are addressed in the four key areas of a national vaccination plan[4];

• Early investment in supply and coordinating activities, e.g. the establishment of a UK Government Vaccine Taskforce with the remit of ensuring the UK population would have access to a safe and effective vaccine
• A clear initial aim for the vaccination programme (see TMB 28): “the prevention of COVID-19 mortality and the protection of health and social care staff and systems”[4]
• A focus on Place: creating a network of vaccination sites to ensure safe and easy access for the whole of the population, e.g. active hospital hub sites and local vaccination centres
• A focus on People: the identification of priority groups and rapid recruitment and training of vaccinators (including a range of non-clinical support staff to increase capacity)

Local government have played a critical role in leading communities through the pandemic. They have harnessed strong community links and established partnerships with emergency services and the voluntary, community and faith sectors which have proven invaluable. For example, local governments have supported the planning of local health protection and emergency response, including supporting vaccine delivery[5],[6]. Below, we offer lessons from UK case studies that demonstrate the actions of local government in supporting vaccine delivery.

Manage logistics[7]:

• Take responsibility for logistical challenges to relieve the pressure on healthcare staff so that they can focus on administering vaccines
• Provide logistical support services to vaccination clinics and centres by mobilizing volunteers and council staff as stewards to all vaccination sites
• Set up marquees at new clinic sites, install heating, resolve parking problems, and organise additional bin collection services to deal with waste

Address vaccine hesitancy:

• Train community champions[8] or create an army of vaccine advocates[9] to address vaccine concerns and build trust, working with volunteers, and community and faith leaders. Create videos with key COVID-19 safety and vaccine messages in different languages to dispel myths
• Hold online discussions with councillors, healthcare planners and local general practitioners, to create a two way conversation with the local community; to hear, listen and respond to their important concerns and questions[10]
• Establish a programme to follow-up with those who have refused the vaccine. For example, The Health Sandwell team[10] are addressing vaccine take-up in their area by using their trained negotiation skills which they normally use to support people to stop smoking
• ‘Making every contact count approach’[11], where workers in non-healthcare settings are trained to provide guidance and interventions to the community on various health matters such as healthy weight and nutrition to promoting good mental health. For example, Gateshead council works with more than 40 organisations from across the public, private and voluntary sectors to address vaccine hesitancy in the community

Support accessibility:

• Recruit local vaccinators, e.g. retired health workers[12]
• Recruit or mobilise local community volunteers to provide transport for people who have mobility issues[13]
• Set up vaccination clinics in local community venues used by different groups, e.g. mosques

The key learning gained from the vaccine roll out in the UK reflects:

• The community leadership role of local government
• The importance of strategic partnerships within the community
• Harnessing these partnerships to enable the co-production of systems and actions between official bodies, community voluntary organisations, businesses and individuals, that have direct benefit for the community as a whole

References:

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/08/why-the-delay-the-nations-waiting-to-see-how-covid-vaccinations-unfold

[2] https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40212677.html

[3] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/uk-covid-vaccination-doses-per-capita?tab=chart&stackMode=absolute&time=2025-08-03&region=World

[4]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/951928/uk-covid-19-vaccines-delivery-plan-final.pdf

[5] https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/covid-19-vaccination-case-studies

[6] https://www.opml.co.uk/blog/five-lessons-for-local-governments-during-covid-19

[7] https://www.local.gov.uk/sheffield-city-council-dealing-logistics-so-nhs-can-focus-jabs

[8]https://www.local.gov.uk/birmingham-city-council-training-community-champions-address-vaccine-concerns

[9] https://www.local.gov.uk/sandwell-council-creating-army-vaccine-advocates

[10] https://www.local.gov.uk/sandwell-council-creating-army-vaccine-advocates

[11] https://www.local.gov.uk/gateshead-council-using-making-every-contact-count-approach

[12] https://www.local.gov.uk/cambridgeshire-and-peterborough-working-whole-community

[13] https://www.local.gov.uk/kirklees-council-weve-set-free-transport-service-get-frail-residents-vaccination-clinics

View this case study in its original format (including references) by following the source link below.

As COVID-19 vaccine delivery programmes gain pace, attention has turned to vaccine hesitancy and the associated challenges to achieving optimal vaccination goals[1]. Public hesitancy has developed as people are anxious and uncertain about the safety and regulation of the vaccine[2]. Vaccination hesitancy has been found to relate to the public perception of risk, connected to two factors:

• The risk of morbidity or mortality
• Elements of an event that cause fear, worry, mistrust or upset to the public[3]

Recent studies have identified three predominant groups that are at higher risk of COVID-19 vaccine refusal, requiring targeted strategies and communications to address their concerns and hesitancy:

• Women aged 30-39[4]
• Low-income groups[5]
• Socioeconomically disadvantaged groups and BAME communities[6]

Potential causes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy:

• The speed at which the available COVID-19 vaccines were produced and approved may lead to scepticism or mistrust relating to their benefit, effectiveness and long-term side effects[7]
• Pregnant women were not included in the majority of COVID-19 clinical trials, so there was little data available to evaluate vaccine safety relating to fertility, pregnancy and young children[8]
• Misinformation through social media and the challenges caused by the anti-vaccination movement in developing and communicating scientific expertise and building public trust in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines[9]

Strategies to address vaccine hesitancy

Although the WHO advise that there is no specific reason for risks that would outweigh the benefits for pregnant women in some vaccines[10], the inclusion of pregnant women in COVID-19 therapeutic trials is crucial to ensure the identification of efficacious and safe treatment[11]. The Behavioural Science and Public Health Network[12] and the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control[13] offer the following recommendations to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy:

• Increase trust and confidence in the safety and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine by:
• Clearly communicating its rigorous development and testing process
• Provide details of the COVID-19 development and testing process, highlighting the way in which the same rigour has been applied for previous vaccines
• Train health care workers to respond to hesitant patients, e.g. their common concerns, addressing those concerns
• Design community-level interventions to target high risk vaccine refusal groups by supporting the development of community networks:
• Leverage and support existing channels that have influence on decision making, such as; community and faith leaders of ethnic minority and low-income communities; teachers and youth/sport club leaders who interact with the parents of young children; online communities and networks[14], e.g. Mumsnet
• Establish community educational and promotional activities to inform on the safety and benefits of vaccination (via talks, videos, presentations and discussions)
• Launch advocacy campaigns supported by community members to promote vaccine safety and counter anti-vaccination messages, to mitigate the prevalence of misinformation in BAME communities[15]
• Establish an on-line decision aid for parents
• Use information from trusted health agencies to produce online information and vaccine information pamphlets for pregnant women and new mothers:
• Detail different vaccines in full, relative to their available safety data, to ensure women can make a factually informed decision
• Raise awareness of online information and disseminate pamphlets

References:

[1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(20)30016-8/fulltext

[2] https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/documents/Catalogue-interventions-vaccine-hesitancy.pdf

[3] https://oxfordmedicine.com/page/measles%20and%20the%20hesitancy%20to%20vaccinate/measles-and-the-hesitancy-to-vaccinate

[4] https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/covid-19-vaccine-advertising-campaign-to-target-specific-fears-20210109-p56svi.html

[5] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666776220300120?via%3Dihub

[6] file:///C:/Users/r66633rj/Downloads/COVIDvaccinePaper4.pdf

[7] https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/covid-19-vaccine-hesitancy-uk#

[8] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30484-8/fulltext

[9] https://www.bma.org.uk/news-and-opinion/pushing-back-tackling-the-anti-vax-movement

[10] https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/the-moderna-covid-19-mrna-1273-vaccine-what-you-need-to-know

[11] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30484-8/fulltext

[12] https://www.bsphn.org.uk/_data/site/54/pg/675/COVID-19-Vaccination-Reducing-Vaccine-Hesitancy.pdf

[13] https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/portal/files/documents/Catalogue-interventions-vaccine-hesitancy.pdf

[14] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32642-8/fulltext

[15] https://socialcare.blog.gov.uk/2021/01/27/overcoming-vaccine-hesitancy-in-our-diverse-communities/

Graham Bell of AJC Bell Consulting outlines some over-arching principles of organisational resilience which can help organisations to reflect on the pandemic and learn from it to recovery and renew. This briefing offers guidance on beginning the journey to post-pandemic recovery and renewal.

Read this briefing in full by following the source link below to TMB Issue 29 (p.2-7).

There is not yet sufficient global supply of COVID-19 vaccines - echoing the challenges faced at the beginning of the pandemic when there was insufficient PPE. Variation across regions/countries in the availability of vaccine brings the risk of accentuating long-term health inequalities and could entrench wealth inequalities, as some regions/countries are yet to begin their vaccination programme. This could lead to challenging questions for officials and elected leaders on the prioritisation of who receives the vaccine. For example, "Is it right to vaccinate a low-risk person in Country A (that has vaccine) rather than a high risk, front line health worker in Country B (that does not have sufficient vaccine)?" Consider how vaccine distribution plans and priority groups may polarise public opinion on the value of life and risk, including:

• The UN note that a 'me first' approach could prolong the pandemic as well as cause further economic and human suffering
• Changes to vaccination supply plans or redirecting vaccine stock to other regions/countries to manage targets may heighten public discomfort and disturbance
• Creating tier systems for access to vaccines can lead to fracture lines emerging in society, prompting civil disturbances or protests which may also increase transmission and lead to local outbreaks
• Individuals not agreeing with their classification may reject authority and breach guidelines
• Negative publicity for officials in managing change and social order may impact coming elections

As the roll out of the COVID-19 vaccine gains pace, there has been reporting of a rise in criminal activity targeting people who await information about their vaccine. Examples of how fraudsters are exploiting the vaccine launch includes: scam text messages that request personal information such as bank details; fraudsters turning up at peoples' houses posing as National Health Service employees and offering vaccination for immediate payment. Fraud undermines public confidence in official programmes and contribute to a negative narrative around the vaccine programme. Consider public messaging to:

• Use a range of communication channels to build public awareness of fraudsters' tactics to encourage vigilance regarding vaccination communications
• Ensure communications about fraud awareness are available in different languages and different media e.g. to support migrants or support people with disabilities such as via informational videos: https://signhealth.org.uk/resources/coronavirus/
• Publish a list official government and health websites/social media channels that are authorised to provide official information on the vaccine
• Include in fraud communications information on the ways in which people will be invited for an official vaccine, and ways that they will not be invited
• Identify partnering organisations that can distribute messages about vaccine fraud e.g. organisations that run befriending schemes, check-in and chat services, vaccination partners
• Disseminate consistent information to these partnering organisations to advise them of how to provide information about fraud without concerning people about the safety of the vaccine itself

Developing a succinct plan that details the organisation's overall strategy for recovery and renewal can help ensure the organisation is working towards the same goal and with the same vision. The plan can be developed with partners and disseminated to relevant parties through local networks. An example of this is the Core Cities UK 10 Point Plan to Leave Lockdown - 10 policy initiatives developed for government to work with cities in exiting lockdown. In brief, the plan considers:

• Clear and transparent criteria for entering and exiting lockdown
• Rapid, localised Test and Trace and vaccination
• Adequate business support packages
• Extended furlough and self-employment support
• Sustainable financing of local government
• Winter support packages for vulnerable people
• Safe and secure places to live e.g. ban on landlord evictions and return of the 'Everyone In' campaign to end rough sleeping
• Commitment to dialogue with key stakeholders across locally agreed geographies
• Focused support for education and learning institutions e.g. rapid Test and Trace for all students and staff, reviewing exam timetables
• Increased local enforcement powers to tackle non-compliance

The pace at which some organisations and individuals have been moving during the COVID-19 pandemic has been relentless with many in prolonged ‘crisis mode’[1]. The pace, combined with mounting tensions and ever-present uncertainties have taken their toll on individuals and systems, leading to systems being overwhelmed, burnout and fatigue. For some systems, organisation and individuals, the recent holiday period has led to a pause in the relentless pace of COVID-19. This case study raises questions about whether continuing to work in a crisis response mode throughout 2021 is the best option, whether it is feasible, and which operations can be paused to create capacity in overwhelmed systems in order to create a potentially more sustainable pace and nurture resilience in people.

Gradually, people have begun to familiarise themselves with the notion of a ‘new normal’ in which our behaviours and expectations of the world we live in are adapted and changed[2]. This new normal came quickly and unexpectedly, and had to cement itself into organisations and individuals during an emergency and, as a result, the pace was rapid. But, as time moves on the new normal has to transition into a new business as usual. This is not a return to normalcy pre-pandemic, but rather a strategy of consistency that adopts COVID-19 learning to substantively address identified shortcomings with a view to facilitating systems, organisations and people to function in a sustainable way, despite the ongoing difficulties and disturbances. This requires:

• The identification of processes to pause or reduce
• The reorganisation of priorities and tasks
• The redeployment of resources[3]

Developing a sustainable pace that will take systems, organisations and individuals through the whole of 2021 might be achieved through analysing lessons learnt and undertaking impact assessments – TMB 17 and TMB 18.

These assessments can help systems, organisations and people to:

• Take stock of their current environment, operations and behaviours to consider whether their pace and activities are fit for purpose and sustainable for 2021
• Take the time to draw on expertise from a whole range of other systems, organisations and people to evaluate their situation
• Take the time to make necessary systematic and sustainable changes to the pace of operations to ensure inclusivity and resilience
• Build relationships and resources beyond an organisation or individual to develop partnerships which may help to reduce pressures and develop a more sustainable pace of operating

In turn, this helps to build approaches for 2021 and the future that can protect systems, organisations, and people, built their resilience and align components of the system (that may unnecessarily be running at a different pace) to increase overall efficiency and resilience.

References:

[1] https://www.health.mil/News/Articles/2020/03/26/In-a-COVID-19-world-pace-yourself-to-stay-resilient-and-avoid-burnout

[2] https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-has-led-to-an-explosion-of-new-words-and-phrases-and-that-helps-us-cope-136909

[3] https://www.alliancembs.manchester.ac.uk/media/ambs/content-assets/documents/news/the-manchester-briefing-on-covid-19-b16-wb-20th-july-2020.pdf

In Greater Manchester UK, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) Ageing Hub, Greater Manchester Health and Social Care Partnership, and partners launched the ‘Keeping Well this Winter campaign’ to support older residents in the region. The resources are designed to:

• Encourage conversations about keeping well during winter using a short film produced by older people, a talking tips guide and booklet to provide clear, practical resources containing key messages for staff and volunteers who have any contact with older residents, their friends or families

Resources are also being distributed directly to older residents through printed copies to avoid digital exclusion.

In addition, to support the promotion and dissemination of this information, a communications toolkit has also been designed for partners and includes:

• Leadership messages
• Briefings and networks/forums
• Internal and external electronic/printed newsletters
• Websites and social media accounts

The tips in these resources may be adapted to apply throughout the year and with other vulnerable people.

We describe the background, perspective, research design and approach, our work and deliverables and our team. To read this briefing in full, follow the source link below to TMB Issue 27 (p.2-5).

Time is a main barrier to learning lessons and implementing actions from those lessons. However, learning lessons while an event is still unfolding provides contemporaneous thinking to help guide actions. Organisations or all sorts can identify and learn their own lessons, feeding into industry/association calls for learning. Consider:

• Appointing someone to identify lessons during events
• Maintaining an up-to-date log of lessons to capture learning and support institutional memory
• Using the log of lessons dynamically and reflectively to asses performance and guide debriefs
• Coordinating the lessons learned across an area or industry to pool learning for greater effect, to bring the system together to share context specific learning through:
  • Holding workshops and industry seminars
  • Liaising with academic institutions, networks/associations, and business centres
  • Promoting information widely through various medias e.g. online and in print
• Guidance on collating lessons to assess performance and processes for debriefing can be found in TMBs 18 and 22

Building on TMB 24 (People) and 25 (Place), this briefing focuses on Renewal through Processes, concerning changes to ways of working, rules, procedures and access to services. To explore this we discuss some of the overarching conditions that influence why renewal through Process may be needed, we consider how Reshaping and Reorganising can assist in assessing performance of Processes for renewal and we present our thinking on a structure way to operationalise Reshaping and Reorganising Processes in the context of COVID-19.

Follow the source link below to read this briefing in full (p.2-5).

In October 2020, we were awarded funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) to continue our work on The Manchester Briefing through a new project titled “Recovery, Renewal, Resilience: Informing, supporting and developing guidance for local resilience”. The project starts on 1st January 2021 so we will only briefly introduce it here – and the next issue of TMB (on 8th January 2021) will describe the project in more detail.

Research Objective: This project works closely with resilience partners to develop a generalizable, theoretically underpinned framework for how short-term recovery and long-term renewal to COVID-19 can enhance resilience. The framework will:

• Take a whole system approach to recovery and renewal (from community to national)
• Explore how to manage the changes in people, places and processes that is needed
• Address short-term, transactional recovery as well as longer-term, transformational renewal
• Complement existing guidance and resilience standards and lead to an international standard on recovery and renewal

Approach: The framework will be informed by (and inform) the committees that coordinate recovery in a local area by working closely with the resilience partners and engaging with local and national organisations on how they plan recovery and renewal on a system-wide basis. Our local government partners have different structures and geographies so we can create a framework that is widely applicable to local variations. At present we are pleased to have the collaboration with four local resilience partnerships and intend complementing this by partnering with three overseas cities.

Activities

• Collect and analyse national/international lessons on recovery and renewal
• Interview experts across the world on emergency planning, risk, and resilience
• Contribute to three local committees that coordinate their city’s recovery and renewal projects
• Facilitate webinars and training on recovery and renewal for resilience
• Develop and test a framework for recovery and renewal, refine it in different contexts (national and international), learn about its application, and use feedback to improve it
• Develop and test a methodology to assess the impact of the framework

Main deliverables

• Expert briefings on how to implement recovery and renewal for local resilience
• A searchable database of lessons for recovery and renewal for local resilience
• A theoretically underpinned, practice-tested framework to support thinking about recovery and renewal for local resilience
• A self-evaluation methodology to reflect on recovery practices
• The Manchester Briefing, case studies, and training products
• International and national standards having a global impact

We know that, across the world, organisations are at different stages of thinking about recovery so we aim to provide results that are helpful to those that may not yet have formally begun (nor have the structures to begin) their recovery process, as well as involve those that are more advanced in their thinking and activity.

We are grateful to the following organisations for their interest in the project: Essex LRF, Thames Valley LRF, Merseyside FRS, Global Resilient Cities Network, Civil Contingencies Secretariat (Recovery and Human Aspects Team), Emergency Planning Society, Local Government Association, SOLACE, International Standards Organization, British Standards Institute.

The project is co-funded by Economic and Social Research Council (under grant reference number: ES/V015346/1), and The University of Manchester, UK.

The novelty of the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that information about the disease has continually been changing. During the pandemic explicit or implied certainty has led to inaccurate predictions e.g. in death and infection rates. While so little is known about COVID-19 (meaning uncertainty is unavoidable), communicating preliminary or emergent data as certain facts had impacts on behaviours and lives. Consider how acknowledging uncertainty about COVID-19 may:

• Improve the atmosphere around scientific debate and build public trust through conveying that evidence and practice could/should change with more information and research
• Improve people's trust in government authority as the information they provide is transparent, and in respecting uncertainty are able to acknowledge credible yet conflicting evidence

Increase regular evaluation of pandemic management plans - emergency planner's understanding of influenza viruses has increased dramatically in recent decades, yet, there is very little certainty about the determinants of, and possibilities for, pandemic emergence ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862331/). This is illustrated by contradiction that: COVID-19 was largely unexpected, but that there are a large number of influenza pandemic management plans in circulation.

COVID-19 has fundamentally changed the way organisations operate, and has COVID-19 has become more integrated into organisations, new forms of 'business as usual' have emerged:

1. Business as usual pre-COVID-19: processes in place before the pandemic that were considered the usual way of operating during minor disturbances e.g. annual infrastructure maintenance
2. Business as usual during response to COVID-19: processes that had to adapt swiftly under extreme uncertainty and completely changed normal pre-COVID operations e.g. building of additional hospitals to increase health service's capacity
3. Business as usual during recovery from COVID-19: processes that have ramped down but consider COVID-19 requirements e.g. standing down of Strategic Co-ordination Groups, and a return to organisations relying more on internal capacity/information, rather than multi-organisational approaches

An organisation's approach to 'business as usual' can impact response and recovery. Interconnectivity and connected governance is required to ensure that people's health and wellbeing are considered; that organisations have capacity; and that response and recovery are integrated. Consider:

• Pre-COVID operations (such as maintenance) may need to continue, but should not be undertaken without consultation with other partners who may be affected by such actions e.g. building/service closures due to maintenance. Undertaking pre-COVID operation's should therefore consider knock-on effects on the functionality of operations/organisations
• Risk assessing actions and disseminating this information to relevant stakeholders
• Key partners and related sectors should be included in decisions about 'business as usual' operations, to ensure they are appropriate, scalable and maintain interconnectivity

Formal learning from COVID-19 is beginning to take place at national and international levels, to capture rapid dissemination of information and lessons. Similar approaches at local government levels are identifying emerging trends in response and identifying gaps and opportunities for the future e.g. The Ney report on Local COVID-19 outbreaks: Lessons learnt and good practice from Leicestershire’s experiences of responding to a local surge in COVID-19 cases. Consider:

• Learning can capture information in cities or regions
• Learning can be undertaken by individual local governments or a consortium through mechanisms such as peer review (see ISO 22392)
• Lessons may be disseminated within a single locale or more widely. The may be between cities or regions or internationally with organisations such as the Global Resilient Cities Network

We provide a few examples of formalised international learning and the key issues addressed to provide consideration for similar pieces of work at local level.

• The UN has developed The Compendium of Digital Government Initiatives in response to the COVID-19 to capture emerging trends in digital responses of UN Member States against the COVID-19 pandemic, and provide a preliminary analysis of their main features
• The Health System Response Monitor (HSRM) collects and organises up-to-date information on the responses of health systems and also captures wider public health initiatives
• New Zealand’s Independent Review of COVID 19 Clusters in Aged Residential Care Facilities which provides lessons on care facilities for the elderly and recommendations for improvements
• Korea’s COVID-19: Testing Time for Resilience which includes information on holding elections during COVID-19
• Consideration of how to learn lessons through debrief, assessing performance and peer review

TMB 24 outlined our thinking on what the renewal of People might entail and this briefing argues that Places play an integral role in Renewal. Renewal may focus on healthier communities and equitable access to critical goods, services and amenities. This requires place-based economic planning to revitalise commercial development and employment opportunities.

Read this briefing in full by following the source link below to TMB 25 (p.2-8).

We argue that Reparation is only one step in the process of helping people recover and move forward from COVID-19. An approach which considers Reparation and Reconciliation is required to build trust, and encourage healing in, and between individuals, communities, organisations and levels of government.

Follow the source link below to TMB Issue 24 to read this briefing in full (p.2-12).

The COVID-19 pandemic has produced a huge amount of information from a variety of sources, not least on the rules for local lockdown. In the UK, COVID-19 rules vary depending on whether you live in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. In addition, millions of people are also affected by local restrictions. In Greater Manchester, for example, these restrictions have differed between metropolitan boroughs. The BBC have created a webpage 'Local lockdown rules: Check Covid restrictions in your area' that provides an example of how to support the public in finding information about COVID-19 restrictions in their areas, or areas of interest, through postcode searches. This helps to provide information about restrictions in individuals' locations and that of their friends, family or workplaces.