This was an individual project completed for the class ‘PAIR3038 Reinventing Democracy: Innovation, Participation and Power’ (2024) at the University of Southampton, by Suleiman Sharif. 

Problems and Purpose

SO18 Big Local was a £1.1 million, ten-year Participatory Budget scheme funded by the National Lottery to work with councils’ fund pockets of the country that had been overlooked for funding and resources in the past and faced issues including civic engagement, the decline of local industry, high levels of unemployment, or a pressing need for new support services or activities.[1]

Covering distinct parts of Harefield, Midanbury and Townhill Park situated on the east side of Southampton ward of Harefield. SO18 Big Local was tasked to deliver the following outcomes 1. Communities will be better able to identify local needs and take action in response to them. 2. People will have increased skills and confidence so that they can continue to identify and respond to local needs in the future. 3. The community will make a difference to the needs it prioritises. 4. People will feel that their area is an even better place to live. Designed from the outset to be radically different from other funding programmes, at the heart of Big Local was a vision of empowered, resilient, dynamic, asset-rich communities making their own decisions on what is best for their area. Each area was given support, training, and networking opportunities to help them develop their plans and empower them to find solutions that work for their communities.

SO18 Big Local area was situated within one of the most income-deprived areas of Southampton. Being the 8th most income deprived lower super output area (LSOA) in Southampton and within the top 10% most income deprived LSOA in England.[2] The area had a higher proportion of older people; however, the local school had high levels of children receiving free school meals with many children living in the area with significant levels of child poverty, coupled with higher percentages of lone parents. The number of adults with no qualifications was four times higher than the city average so too were people living with long term illness, one in four of working age had a long-term illness. Additionally, many residents were living with fuel poverty resulting in poor health, nutrition, and isolation. Debt, loan sharks and access to IT had been identified as hidden issues. Finally, gang, domestic violence and anti social behaviour were areas of concern. 

Southampton City Council working in partnership with Southampton Voluntary Service (SVS) helped to identify an area that met the criteria of the Lottery Fund. Key requirements included an area not in receipt of external funding and resident or community leadership to lead. A major activity of capacity building was injected at the start of the programme to skill up and engage a resident led board of local volunteers. 

SO18 Big local was spread out over 10 years to build long term capacity, confidence and local skills. It also enabled ideas to be tried and if necessary for a change of course, particularly with partners who in the past had little or no engagement. It would over time engage more people as it became ‘trusted’ with the intention and ability to ride out any change in local politics, policies, funding priorities and in outsiders “parachuting in and out” and winding down just when interest and trust has been established. 

Background History and Context 

Southampton has large pockets of deprived communities with many wards failing within high levels of deprivation. SO18 Big Local area is situated within the ward of Harefield. Covering parts of Harefield, Midanbury and Townhill Park. What’s not clear is why this area were chosen as they do not naturally fall into obvious categories of council housing, demographics or of communities with similar interest. The area tends to have larger than average areas of green space with little space in terms of commercial opportunities. 

There is a general feeling of abandonment by the council, other areas have seen some investment in terms of regeneration, but many felt Harefield and SO18 Big local has been forgotten. Older people did not feel connected while young people and single parents felt like they lacked opportunities.   

The areas of Townhill Park/Midanbury and Harefield did not mix and are a short walk apart the areas have different catchment areas for schools and no connecting bus service. Both areas had a mixture of 1960’s council houses and blocks of flats. Local identity was very important with residents feeling more connected to Bitterne than Townhill as that was the area they frequented for shopping and socialising due to the fact their area had very few facilities where communities could come together.

Although presumed to benefit from large areas of green space, this had not necessarily been utilised or seen to its full effect. No ball games or cycling was allowed near the block of flats, grass areas grew unkept at times and were poorly maintained. The “hilly” layout of the roads was often a deterrent for older, less mobile and parents with children to make use of the open space. Many residents cited concerns around young people “hanging around” and feeling of anti social behaviour.  

The SO18 Big Local area was home to around 4500 people with around 1500 living in Harefield and the remaining 3000 in Townhill park and Midanbury.[3]

Southampton City Council (SCC) acknowledges that it lacked the financial ability to bring about the change it sought. Therefore, working in partnership, seeking external funds and delivery partners was a well-established model adopted. It enabled the council to draw in investment as partners but not as lead bodies. This was key to enhance democratic involvement. Your Community, Your Health, Your Voice[4] is an example Thornhill New Deal for Communities where over £50 million was secured to regenerate Thornhill. Similarly Single Regeneration Budget (SRB2) £26 million was secured to regenerate parts of the inner city of Southampton. Both areas developed and deployed new democratic innovations that went beyond working solely with elected councillors and instead deployed local control of programmes run by community representatives, with appointed professional as well as other public bodies representation such as health, police and private developers. Using a combination of participatory budgeting (PB), election of community reps, mini publics, citizen assemblies, focus groups, public votes and other forms of democratic innovation.   

Successful applications of these new schemes set the scenes for similar innovations for SO18 Big Local. Having developed a strong relationship with the National Lottery and a proven track record influenced the current success in securing lottery funding and in deploying similar innovations developed and worked on by SVS,[5] TWICS[6] and other democratic partners in the city. Southampton City Council understood that true innovation came from partnership working and not being in control. 

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Big Local initially worked with Southampton City Council (SCC) to draw a profile of the area and pull together key statistical information. Using this as a start point the council engaged with Southampton Voluntary Service (SVS) to act as the accountable and lead body. SVS has a track record of engaging with communities across the city on several communities’ initiatives.

The next stage was to go out and engage with the local community to better evaluate and understand local issues, beyond the statistics. A steering group of local people and agencies was established. Through “Getting People Involved Round 1 Funding”, consultations were organised in the summer of 2011. The following organisations were funded to go out and carry out local engagement activities, Videopod, Southampton Community Family Trust, Carers Together and Training For Work In Communities (TWICS). Having gathered a good amount of data on the issues of concern. Round 2 involved moving beyond the quantitative and qualitative data to how the community could be engaged to act and take ownership as stipulated by the funders. To achieve this TWICS was funded to recruit, train and support a group of local community researchers (the ‘Getting People Involved’ group) to undertake in depth research and questionnaires to find out what people liked about the area as well as issues and needs. With a focus on how local people could bring about change and most importantly get involved. Funding was used to pump prime round 1 and 2 to better understand the “doing” part going forward. The National Lottery once happy with the engagement levels, feedback and agreed to fund a new body called SO18 Local with £1.1 million over the following ten years.[7]Run by the “Partnership Committee” predominantly made up of residents, supported by employed Big Local Workers and by TWICS named as the local trusted organisation (LTO).  The project ran from 2012 until its conclusion in March 2024.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

It was clear from the outset to secure funding the programme had to demonstrate active participation and local ownership. Therefore, data collection and being inclusive was key for the programme bid and its long-term success. Data clearly showed the makeup of the area in terms of age, income, and qualifications. Further analysis of primary and secondary data such as deprivation and super output area (SOA) showed people living in poverty, isolation, and lacking opportunities. Success would be measured in terms of diverse and inclusive participation.

To begin with SCC engaged SVS to lead on this work, a smart move as being a voluntary organisation it came with no loaded agendas and would not be seen as the “council”. Secondly the approach deployed to recruit participants was to engage communities using a multipronged approach. Phase one involved reaching out to known and established groups/organisations working in the area who had residents using their services. This included groups like the over 50’s group and sheltered housing for the elderly, kids’ football and scouts groups for the youth and Sure Start for parents.  Other forms of recruitment involved leafteting, video pod interviews, stand alone events and a game designed by Big Lottery called “Bigopoly” designed to identify issues and people who might get involved. 

Having raised awareness, phase two was about was about turning ideas into action and to achieve this resident needed to be recruited to get involved in. A “getting people involved group” was formed. Residents were recruited and trained by TWICS to undertake community research work. Not only were they known by the community as trusted individuals they overcame the issues of outsiders asking opinions and then never to be seen again. This form of engagement and recruitment allowed residents to give their views freely but also an opportunity to stay engaged and further partake in planned activities. 

Participation selection came from those who engaged in the process. Although every house was leafletted, numerous posters were sent out and put up in public spaces and a website established, direct participation came from those who freely engaged in the process from being stopped on the street for their opinions to attending local groups or from attending numerous community events held.  

Methods and Tools Used

SO18 Big Local was supported by two well established and trained organisations. SVS and TWICS deployed several community inclusion activities that led to considered judgment before ownership and control. 

Phase one was a statistical analysis conducted by Southampton City, this was followed by a series of consultation events where residents, local organisations and providers could come along and understand what the programme was about and how they could get involved. At a local briefing event 22 people attended. Further consultation at Meon Court (sheltered accommodation) attracted 20 residents. Two stand alone events took place at the Scouts hut and All Hallows Church. To engage young people a popular football event was held with a video pod so that young people could record interviews. A total of 115 young people attended with 34 recording videos. Further events were held in Townhill Park Community Centre, Sure Start and the local Housing office. Some confusion around how this new programme differed from pervious regeneration programme was identified. As a result, the Big Lottery designed a game called “Bigopoly” that identified local issues and asked who could get involved to solve these problems. 6 groups engaged in this process with a number of learning outcomes achieved. 

Phase two was about turning ideas and concerns into community participation and ownership. Big Local was insistent that the community had to be part of the solution and “take action in response to them” (Big Local Key Outcome.) The next stage involved recruiting and training local researchers in conducting surveys and interviews and importantly achieving change through local involvement. This was a new and pioneering democratic innovation, not deployed before within deprived wards of the city. The researcher attended many events, groups and undertook surveys out in the streets. A new way for “known faces” to talk to people and record feedback. a total of 67 questionnaires were completed and a total of 80 questioned. The answers to the main questions were shown using word pictures. 

Two follow up events were held to feedback the results of the consultation to the wider community. Using leaflets, posters, word of mouth and website promotion to advertise the events. The idea behind these events was to start the process of identifying priorities to go into a plan as well as to attract more people and interest. A total of 73 attended both events. 

Thematic themes were established around for example young people and the environment. Several community events were established around Easter, Christmas and Halloween to regularly bring communities together including play schemes and sports events. Also due to feedback and interest in campaigning for change two new groups formed call Thornhill Park Regeneration Forum and We Can campaigning for better road crossings and services.[8] Highfield Hub a local place for people to meet and a small grants scheme was established.  

What Went On: Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

The tools used included a combination of voting, allocating 10 stars to each attendee to use against a preference of some 30 ideas that had been generated. In addition, post boxes were used for people to identify their preference on different themes, such as youth, environment health etc. the option boxes were labelled must have, should have, could have and don’t have. All of this information was fed into the Big Local Plan.

Parallel work was also undertaken to address key issues that needed to be addressed in a sensitive manner, such as debt issues, welfare, care issues and children attendance. Key groups and agencies in the area were commissioned such as Solent Credit Union and SVS Family Project. 

A Big Local Lunch was organised for those who attended the consultation events as a thank you and as part of the next process so that residents could see what priorities had come back and how they planned to be implemented, most importantly continued engagement to get people involved. 12 people attended the lunch. A further “Away Day” to build a vision was attend by 15 people. Over the course of the programme and into delivery a continuous use of small-scale events and activities have been deployed to engage with local people.

The residents were then invited to form subgroups to take forward ideas, open to all residents living in the area. Primarily those involved in the process were ones to come forward onto subgroups.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

SO18 Big Local worked with a number of groups, organisations, and members of the public to fully engage and ascertain as wider public and stakeholder opinions as possible. In total 20 plus organisations were consulted directly, including those with a statutory service like the police, NHS, schools, and care providers. Directly the community influence was critical, this was achieved through a mixture of word of mouth, one to one engagement, events, video blogs, letters, questionnaires, surveys, newsletters steering groups and strategic away days.

The effects of the engagement, influence and outcome was the early stages of a long term vision. SO18 Big Local states “it is here to enhance aspects of community life in Harefield, Midanbury and Townhill Park.” Trips were planned by local people and local families, to increase their confidence and broaden experiences. Money workshops were planned with focus on safe options for saving, advice on debts and benefits will be readily available and credit unions will run locally, using local people to run them. 

Analysis and Lesson Learned

SO18 Big Local is a good example of PB designed from the bottom up. “Institutions that have been specifically designed to increase and deepen citizen participation in the political decision-making process” (Smith 2009: 1). Core to the success has been in rooting community development into democratic innovations.  

(Brennan 2016) argue that citizens do not have the capacity to deal with the complexity of politics, making citizens involvement in democratic politics undesirable. (Geissel 2012) go on to say democratic innovations are mere window dressing, that do not really empower citizens in policy making. SO18 Big Local has shown that for democracy goods to be effective and most importantly demonstrate success; engagement, participation and ownership by those being affected is key. In fact, Southampton over the past decade has stubbornly remained in the top 10% of most deprived wards in England, the systems of councillors and council officers “knowing what’s best” hasn’t worked.  The assumption that communities are incapable of grasping complex issues or developing policies untrue. PB has shown the potential to make contemporary political systems more inclusive, effective, and legitimate.[9]

Open to everyone living within the neighbourhood as defined by the boundary map, SO18 Big Local was keen to target those least likely to engage and considered marginalised. Using the PB approach of having £1.1 million to spend over 10 years broke down many of the typical barriers to democratic engagement, those being time limitation and secondly budgets controlled by others. SO18 Big Local staged its engagement and involvement in “trusted phases” from information sharing, engagement events, deep dive discussions to task groups. They then deployed PB to decide which activities to fund and each year reviewed progress and adjusted course where necessary.

To be fully inclusive and address difficult or sensitive issues SO18 Big Local made use of trusted intermediary organisations, not only to engage, train and recruit residents but also to fund third party delivery of activities, such as debt advice, parenting to welfare benefits. (Phillips 1995: 13) rightly argues that policies worked out for rather than with excluded constituency are unlikely to engage all relevant concerned.  

Offering activities such as fun days, community lunches, footballing events and a “local hub” space for people to meet had brought out marginalised and disadvantaged groups. Use of incentives to mobilise participation such as free hampers, lunches and free events were successful in bringing out families, older people and those on low income who otherwise were unlikely to engage due to financial difficulties.[10]

Arnstein (1969) developed a typology that consists of eight layers of citizen participation, ranging from more desultory manipulation to more empowering citizens’ control. In the lower layers, participation is an illusion organised by decision-makers. It does not enable citizens to weigh in on decision-making. The upper layers suppose, in contrast, a radical transformation of power relationships. Here SO18 Big Local used its funding to draw in “balanced relationships” based on respect, accountability, and involvement. Everyone had an interest to see the area improve and shared responsibility to make it happen. 

SVS and TWICS laid the foundations for considered judgements. Knowing that individuals would be coming at issues from self-interest and personal bias, it was crucial to support well informed and reflected views of others, so thematic themes, commissioning of targeted work and focus groups allowed the space and time for everyone to understand how the “dots” all connected. For instance, in order to make a thoughtful decision, it was necessary to understand why young people were generating a nuisance in light of the lack of youth facilities in the area and their low financial resources.

SO18 Big Local was tasked to “better able to identify local needs and take action in response to them”. Having 10 years and full control of a budget enabled residents to get behind the issues and take control. Although (Lijphart 1997) points out the dilemma of unequal participation. The key here was to engage the hard to reach the ones that get ignored by the political class and ensure their views were listened to and most importantly acted. Success can be measured in terms of the participation rates of young people and families who attended events and projects. Similalrly older people attending the hub and the establishment of successful projects around the environment, regeneration, and local grants. “We Can”[11] and Thornhill Park Regeneration Forum are good examples of power sharing and co -governance that allowed all sides to share control and support one another to achieve better outcomes. 

SO18 Big Local knew that in order to succeed they had to engage residents and build trust; this was best achieved by openness and transparency. Residents needed to see that the process of engagement was “actively” open to all, and it was open to see who was funded and why. Through open meetings, bidding processes, and feedback sessions residents where able to witness and provide feedback to how the programme was running and this feedback was used to alter or reshape the programme moving forward. External transparency also referred to as “publicity” was actively engaged, from newsletters, a dedicated website to flyers and public meetings, not only did this open for external scrutiny it also was deployed as a recruitment tool. Each year the previous year was reviewed with revised priorities for the year ahead that included the activity, outcome expected and lead body. 

SO18 Big Local understood that to address the huge gap in deprivation and many of its residents feeling ignored or left behind it had to address representation and engagement at strategic levels. (Allen,1990) argues for representation and recognition for diverse voices that are oppressed or disadvantaged. Setting up “We Can” a campaign for improved services and “Thornhill Park Regeneration Forum” underscored the transferability of small assemblies that have local knowledge and understanding of local issues.[12] Not only did they save public bodies time engaging on new ideas and projects they also had the added advantage of acting as anchors to draw in additional funding, many funders such as the National Lottery, Trusts and grant funders demand to see local involvement in any application and often democracies will rely upon or seek partners like local groups to apply for and act as lead bodies, so programmes such as Big Local, SRB’s and New Deals represent a new form of local democracies that funders want to engage. They want local democracy to be partners but not leads. Indeed, it was due to the efficiency of having a constituted independent group that SO18 Big Local managed to draw in an additional £30,000 from Lovell a local house builder.[13]  Failure to see the benefits of long-term efficiency of public engagement will lead to a loss of investment and increase costs to start the process again from scratch. Applying additional burdens to already stretched councils. Established systems can save money and time, as demonstrated, for example, by the recent introduction of the Permanent Citizens’ Dialogue in Ostbelgien(East Belgium).[14]

Although it is fair to say that strategic decisions are taken at a more political city levels, such democratic innovations as Big Local are here to stay. With local government facing cuts to budgets the future is “partnership democracies”. No one side can deliver alone and only through partnerships can democracies deliver for the people. 

See Also

https://so18biglocal.org.uk/ - Big Local website.

https://so18biglocal.org.uk/?page_id=9 - Local Trust in 100 seconds, gives a short overview of what Big Local is all about

External Links

SO18 Website : https://so18biglocal.org.uk/ - In Southampton, £1.1 million was allocated to areas of Harefield, Midanbury and Townhill Park, to allow the project to run for 10 or more years, and this project was named SO18 Big Local

References

Allen, D., 1990. Social Movements and the Politics of Difference. In: Justice and the Politics of Difference. REV-Revised ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.156-191. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcm4g4q.13

Arnstein, S., 1969. ‘A ladder of citizen participation’. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), pp.216–24.

BIG Local | The National Lottery Community Fund (tnlcommunityfund.org.uk).

Brennan, J., 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN: 9780691162607. 

Geissel, B., 2012. ‘Impacts of Democratic Innovations in Europe: Findings and Desiderata’. In: B. Geissel and K. Newton, eds. Evaluating Democratic Innovations: Curing the Democratic Malaise?, New York: Routledge, pp.211-230.

Harrison, G. Studying democratic innovations: an analytical framework a failure to systematically engage in the ‘messy’ and detailed task of institutional design p8.

Jacquet, V., Ryan, M. and van der Does, R. The Impacts of Democratic Innovations.

Lijphart, A., 1997. ‘Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1996’, American Political Science Review, 91(1), pp.1–14. doi:10.2307/2952255.

Local Trust was established in 2012 to deliver Big Local, a National Lottery Community Fund-funded programme which committed £1m each to 150 neighbourhoods across England. Available at: https://localtrust.org.uk/insights/research/

Niessen, C. and Reuchamps, M., 2020. ‘Institutionalising citizen deliberation in parliament: the permanent citizens’ dialogue in the German-speaking community of Belgium’. Parliamentary Affairs, Online first. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsaa056

Participedia.net/case/1188 - Your Community, Your Health, Your Voice. https://participedia.net/case/1188](https://participedia.net/case/1188

Phillips, A., 1991. Engendering Democracy. Cambridge: Polity. ISBN: 978-0-745-60649-1. 192 pages.

The Big Local story, 22 Feb 2024, https://localtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/9951-The-Big-Local-story-Summary.pdf

Smith, G., 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions For Citizens Participation. pp.8-29, 70, 164-6,175-83.

SO18 Big Local Strategic plans years 1- 10/11. WHAT HAVE WE DONE SO FAR? - SO18 BIG LOCAL

Townhill Park Community Group Ends as 56 Homes to Be Built. Daily Echo. Accessed May 20, 2024. Available at: https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24035392.townhill-park-community-group-ends-56-homes-built/

[1] BIG Local | The National Lottery Community Fund (tnlcommunityfund.org.uk)

[2] See SO18 Big Local Profile, SO18 Big Local, February 2016, page 9, https://so18biglocal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SO18-Big-Local-Profile-v1.2-FINAL.pdf

[3] See SO18 Big Local Profile, SO18 Big Local, February 2016, page 9, https://so18biglocal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/SO18-Big-Local-Profile-v1.2-FINAL.pdf

[4] See  Your Community, Your Health, Your Voice, Participedia, https://participedia.net/case/1188](https://participedia.net/case/1188

[5] Southampton Voluntary Services https://www.southamptonvs.org.uk

[6] Training for Work in Communities 

[7] Townhill Park Community Group Ends as 56 Homes to Be Built, Daily Echo, https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/24035392.townhill-park-community-group-ends-56-homes-built/

[8] See https://so18biglocal.org.uk/?page_id=63

[9] See Smith, G (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions For Citizens Participation. P.2

[10] See https://so18biglocal.org.uk/?page_id=57

[11] See https://so18biglocal.org.uk/?page_id=63

[12] See https://so18biglocal.org.uk/?page_id=63

[13] See https://so18biglocal.org.uk/?page_id=13

[14] See Niessen, C. and Reuchamps, M., 2020. ‘Institutionalising citizen deliberation in parliament: the permanent citizens’ dialogue in the German-speaking community of Belgium’. Parliamentary Affairs pp. 1 - 7