Developing Community Resilience at the Local-Level

London Community Resilience Steering Group

July 2019

1 | P a g e

Forward

Kim Smith, Chief Executive of the London

Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

and the Chair of the London Community

Resilience Steering Group

Building community resilience in complex urban environments is a challenge. I believe that the

key to genuine community resilience in London starts with communities themselves and any

shared ambitions to build resilience must keep communities at its heart. If we can get this right,

it could result in far wider benefits than just an empowered and resilient community in the lead

up to, during and after emergencies. We have an opportunity to support communities, whether

by geography or interest such as faith networks, school networks, resident associations,

business and community groups, to develop a lasting legacy of local pride, neighbourly support,

a more caring society and much more.

I would like to extend my thanks to everyone who gave their ideas and feedback to inform this

important review. I accept this only gives a condensed version of a range of developments

currently underway, but I am confident that by maintaining the drive and ambition of all those

involved to date, combined with the high level of collaboration I have witnessed; this will really

make a difference.

Finally, I would specifically like to note the contribution of Dr Fiona Twycross. Deputy Mayor for

Fire and Resilience and representatives from the voluntary, faith and charity sectors. The time

committed to this by community representatives, to assist London local authorities and partner

agencies to push forward with this work is greatly appreciated, thank you.

Signed

Kim Smith, Chief Executive, London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham

Chair of the London Community Resilience Steering Group

2 | P a g e

Introduction

The London Resilience Partnership Community Resilience Steering group was established in

2018 following recognition by London local authorities of the requirement for a coordinated and

long-term approach to establishing lasting community resilience across London, and the need to

determine how this can be achieved.

Research suggests that community resilience is most likely to be successful when built on the

myriad of established networks that already exist within London. It would be remiss of London

organisations not to harness the outpouring of community spirit witnessed in the aftermath of

recent incidents and develop an approach to embedding community resilience at a very local

level, including communities of interest, that will stand the test of time.

To achieve this, community resilience needs to be established within the fabric of London life,

and touch in some way every resident, worker and visitor. To support this aim, a clearly defined

long term multi-agency strategy is required to ensure clear direction and coordination of effort.

The Community Resilience Steering Group will continue to focus on this over the coming

months.

To begin the process of developing a multi-agency strategy, the Community Resilience Steering

Group secured funding from London local authorities and commissioned Sharon Long, Director

of Partnership for Young London https://www.partnershipforyounglondon.org.uk/ to review and

assimilate current and ongoing community resilience work happening in London. Sharon’s work

specifically focused on the response to incidents and how to support recovery. This was

designed to avoid confusion with broader community engagement and development initiatives

underway across London.

The gathering of examples of good practice, has helped to identify where challenges exist and

highlighted some practical ways in which we could all make a difference. This work has helped

us to gather momentum, engage with a myriad of partners across the region, understand some

of the barriers to community resilience and identify ways in which we can coordinate the work

across partners and promote good practice. It should be emphasised this is not a

comprehensive review of everything in place across London, but a collection of examples that

can be built on as we move forward.

To inform this work, an element of the government definition of community resilience has been

used:

Communities, businesses and individuals are empowered to harness local resources and

expertise to help themselves and their communities to:

• Prepare, respond and recover from disruptive challenges, in a way that complements

the activity of Category 1 and 2 emergency responders

This report gives a snap shot in time and a narrative into a range of initiatives taking place

across London. To really make a diffidence, these initiatives must be embedded into, or at the

very least complement wider work taking place under the remit of the 100 Resilient Cities

https://www.100resilientcities.org/cities/london/, programmes supporting volunteering across

the capital, and funders’ responses to supporting communities during emergencies.

3 | P a g e

Making a difference will take effort and collaboration at every level as one organisation cannot

do this alone. We must ensure that all future approaches take an asset-based approach. We

know that there is a lot happening already, and we need to constantly review how we can we

build on that and strengthen it. We also know that we need to get regular feedback on our work,

and as such, a consultation on this ‘resilience snapshot’ has taken place with sitting members of

the community resilience steering group. Finally, the Community Resilience Steering Group will

continue to meet and take forward several areas of work, constantly review and reflect upon our

achievements and continue to share our ambitions regularly.

Aim of Review

To provide a source of information on current community resilience

activities to local authorities and partner agencies, to stimulate thinking on

the means of further enhancing engagement with their communities to

foster community spirit, empowerment, and pride during times of stress.

This includes the means of helping local communities, both by geography and by interest, to be

prepared and then support the development of a safe and effective community response during

emergency situations.

The review was undertaken between December 2018 and February 2019, and included:

1. Online survey sent to all key leads in emergency planning, Community Resilience

Steering Group members, Voluntary and Community Sector networks, see Annex D for

full list of contributors.

2. One to one meetings with 25 representatives of local authorities, partner agencies and

community representatives to collect feedback on the emerging themes, case studies of

practice and learning for the future, see Annex A.

3. Creation of a data base of relevant research and reports.

The collated information contained in this review offers a snap-shot of that feedback. It highlights

a range of approaches and the overarching themes that have arisen from discussions. This

report will be further reviewed by the Community Resilience Steering Group to agree key

strategies and recommendations that are then taken forward across all partner agencies.

Also, it is important to note that alongside of this overview, wider work has already delivered

enhanced local authority communications planning across London and the vital role it will play in

engaging with communities in the lead up to, during and then when responding to emergencies.

This report should also be viewed alongside wider work focused on establishing regional and

local violence reduction units to tackle youth crime. For links to wider strategies and plans, see

Annex B.

Ultimately this report needs to be seen as one small part of the jigsaw of work taking place

currently. It fits under the remit and aim of the 100 Resilient Cities programme:

4 | P a g e

‘To develop strategies to support the capacity of

individuals, communities, institutions, businesses,

and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and

grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and

acute shocks they experience.’

Benefits of Community Resilience

The following are indicators of the benefits of resilient individuals, businesses and communities:

• reduced exposure to risks from hazards and threats

• a greater capacity and motivation for collective action

• a greater sense of community, with greater inclusivity and cohesion

• reduced social, financial and health impacts from hazards and threats.

• increased confidence to take positive action to prepare, respond and recover from

hazards and threats

• the ability to adapt to risks, both proactively and in response, and take advantage of

opportunities that longer-term changes present

• stronger relationships with government and responders resulting in mutual trust and

influence.

Principles for Supporting Community Resilience

The following principles produced by Central Government should guide activities to support

community resilience:

• take a participatory approach, be open-minded and use local perspectives to co-design

supportive, positive engagement – don’t assume you know what is needed or wanted.

• be ethical, inclusive and avoid bias, aim to engage with a representative cross section

including minorities and those with accessibility needs.

• be transparent and accountable, manage information appropriately, monitoring,

evaluating and sharing information about activities and outcomes.

• work through existing channels, groups and networks with aligned active agencies, it is

far more likely to get traction and avoid the risk of duplication and fatigue.

• acknowledge that different groups will need different levels of support (informing,

engaging, empowering).

• develop trust and overcome barriers to engagement through a consistent but responsive

approach.

For example definitions of Community, see Annex C.

5 | P a g e

Overarching Themes from the Review

This section includes a summary of emerging themes that came from information provided by

respondents from a range of partner organisations, plus quotes to add context. The areas

identified can serve as a good baseline for the future development of community resilience

initiatives.

1. Respect and value – Respondents noted that local authorities, with their community

leadership role, and partners, each with touch-points with the community, need to maintain

deep respect, and value the role of communities and community organisations. To utilise

existing networks and communities ties, those charged with building resilience must value

and respect the nature and purpose of diverse communities, to foster strong relationships

and engender trust. Finally, this is not about divvying up the funding. It needs to be clear

across all partners that this is about our mission and values, ‘what is the community

engagement strategy for local areas at the local-level and across London …. everyone

should be doing this’.

What could good practice look like?

Ensure that all work has the core belief of deep respect and value for the personal assets,

roles and value of communities and community organisations, showing respect for such

communities.

2. Community Resilience, Community Engagement, Resilient Communities? – work needs to be

done to determine whether there is a theoretical framework for engagement with

communities to build resilience; what is being agreed regionally? Up until this point, work has

been organic and functional, but how the scientific thinking on asset based community

engagement can be incorporated needs exploration; ‘building on the existing approaches

and assets, so that we don’t just build on good will, but a set of commonly held set of

ambitions, a pan London approach’

What could good practice look like?

Build on the assets of what is already in place and agree across stakeholders, including

communities themselves, a set of commonly held ambitions around community resilience

and the roles and remits of individual agencies within this.

3. Governance - Reviewing how we organise ourselves across London (locally and regionally)

so that there is seamless engagement and approach to community resilience and community

6 | P a g e

engagement. This needs to recognise that there has to be some level of infrastructure in

place, locally and regionally. This will help to clarify roles and remits and develop a framework

for community engagement systemically across all parts of our operations. Aligning strategies

will also assist along with putting in place a platform where the cross-cutting elements of this

are drawn together – ‘what are the key issues that will affect communities and what plans

and strategic responses do we have in place, which goes across all of these themes’

What could good practice look like?

Mutual understanding of the governance structures and how community resilience needs

to be linked within and across organisations (regionally and locally) so that there is a

seamless engagement and approach to communities of interest and those within

geographic boundaries.

4. Communications – the need to develop a strategy for ongoing communications with

communities at the local, geographical and thematic levels, which is underpinned by respect

and values. This will help in creating systems where information can be shared with

communities and in a manner which ensures the community and all partners are clear about

what is needed and their roles. This needs to be ongoing, but also what messages work

across a range of areas and themes; ‘We need to engage in a dialogue with communities

about the possible risks i.e. ‘climate change, flooding and what steps they can do before to

help, before during and after emergencies’

What could good practice look like?

Have a strategy for ongoing communications in place both supporting development of

community resilience and the dissemination of fast time information during an incident,

underpinned by respect and values, creating systems where information can be shared

through existing or developed networks so that all partners and the community are clear

about what is needed and their roles. This needs to be ongoing, focused on the possible

risks i.e. ‘climate change, flooding and what steps they can do before to help, before

during and after’

5. Capacity and Resources – this theme identifies the need to ensure that there is capacity and

resourcing in place to embed and harness community resilience, as well as sustain it. There

are variable levels of funding and support for the voluntary and community sector in place;

some locations have sustained an infrastructure for this, but some have not. Securing

resources and capacity to map local assets, provide capacity building and training were all

7 | P a g e

noted as key areas to both develop and sustain momentum in this area, but also how we

become more intelligent around sharing resources and practice; ‘creating a living network

across London that ensures cross-over into other sectors as well I.e. mental health,

regardless of financial constraints, we still need to devise a way to bring Londoners together

to do something meaningful’.

What could good practice look like?

Secure resources and capacity to map local assets, provide capacity building and training

to local groups and communities through sharing resources and practice across partners.

6. Roles and Remits – creating a clear focus on who is doing what was profiled across the

feedback, establishing a clear understanding within the community of who leads on the

emergency response but also who can offer what to mitigate the impacts, and how

communities can be engaged effectively and respectfully within this. This needs to be part of

a wider process around community development and engagement, building on the work

already underway and developing additional capacity through community support where

needed. Across this, the role of community volunteers was raised, reviewing how people are

engaged, trained and supported in a way that builds resilience, ‘how do we know and

understand everyone’s roles moving forward? This is about being clearer about who is doing

what but also what the gaps are and what resources are needed’.

What could good practice look like?

Establish effective communications on who leads on the emergency response but also

what other partners can offer, and how communities can be engaged effectively and

respectfully within this. Critically, assess the role of community volunteers within this, how

people are engaged in an ongoing way, trained and supported in a way that builds

resilience

7. Role of data and evidence – feedback has identified that there is duplication in this system,

which creates inefficiencies. We should be able to create a platform across London, where

community organisations can feed in data and evidence i.e. areas of specialisms, knowledge

and intelligence, building on and strengthening existing systems to create a synergy across

the various strands of work. It is vital that this works with the existing network of communities

and organisations that support them, because there is a huge amount of work underway that

needs to be recognised and supported. ‘Losing the ability to get great information, what is

our level of ambition on this, what is the role of the GLA, in this and the pan London

8 | P a g e

opportunities to be more than the sum of our parts?’ Additionally, how we use available

resources with academics and researchers must be considered, to gather data on the impact

of the interventions and shape our future approaches.

What could good practice look like?

The sharing of existing research around data and evidence linked to community resilience

and experience to establish ways in which community organisations can feed in data and

evidence i.e. areas of specialisms, knowledge and intelligence, building on, and

strengthening existing systems to create a synergy across the various strands of work.

Conclusion

The information contained in this review is designed to stimulate thinking and encourage local

authorities and partner agencies to consider how they currently engage with communities at the

local-level to develop more resilient communities. The case studies are examples of good work

already underway or having been completed and by capturing the drive and commitment of

those individuals and the support provided by their organisations, there is every opportunity that

community resilience can become the established norm and not the aspiration it often appears

to be.

Sharon Long

Director, Partnership for Young London.

9 | P a g e

Annex A

Case Studies and Key Thoughts

Theme: Respect and Values

Case Study – The Way Ahead (London Funders) https://thewayahead.london/. The

ultimate goals of the Way Ahead are a thriving civil society which is resilient, collaborative and

sustainable. The Way Ahead proposes a systemic approach that puts London’s communities at

the heart of the way that organisations across all sectors work. It begins with co-producing an

understanding of need and how to tackle issues with communities, through the better sharing of

data and intelligence across all sectors, making sure that civil society’s voice is heard in decision

making at all levels.

This begins with an asset-based approach to communities, where civil society is an integral part

of any cross-sector work. It is about the way we work together, and the implementation of the

Way Ahead is demonstrating how relationships between sectors can change for the better. ‘It is

important for us to work in this way, because we know that no one service, no one organisation

or intervention delivers what people need to help them thrive. None of us own the people we

work with and for. They are not our service users, our beneficiaries, our customers. They are

people, they are Londoners, they have assets and ambitions and it is only when we collaborate

that we achieve our true potential as a community’.

There was consistent feedback from respondents on how respect and value must be embedded

across any future community resilience planning, with all partners recognising that this was

critical and needed to be considered in future programme delivery. To put this into context ‘7.3

million Londoners have used voluntary and community sector groups in the last year. The sector

employs 250,000 staff and involve an estimated 3.5 million people as volunteers’. Andy Haldane

from the Bank of England identified how to estimate that volunteering, in money terms, is

equivalent to 27 billion pounds a year.

Key Thoughts and information:

• People want to be part of civil society not ‘picked up and put down’ - Integrity between

and a two-way relationship between partners is necessary. ‘we pick your brains and then

you don’t see us again, it’s got to be respectful and you need to make sure that this is

sustainable, things like places of worship will still be around’

• Local Authorities need to show more leadership but, in a collaborative way. ‘Main issue

is trust across the various sectors .... you need to build that relationship across religious

groups and across the religious groups and the statutory sector’

• ‘Whatever happens with austerity we still need to devise a way to bring Londoners

together to do something in a meaningful way. How can this be resourced moving

forward, because public services will not be able to meet the demands in the future’

• ‘The service plan for April (Local Authority) will change the way we do business …. and

build communities, but in a way that we are not holding their hands the entire time but

helping them to be empowered to act and be accountable. Voluntary strategy into the

compact ownership, much more voluntary sector led, shared ownership with key

partners’

10 | P a g e

• Capacity and resourcing continue to be an issue in local authorities with the expectation

that the community sector will take on the work. ‘Loss of staff is critical in this, but we still

have a huge amount of good will, but not manipulating and not instrumentalising, not just

picking them up and dropping them’

Theme: Defining Community Resilience or Resilient Communities

Case Study – Public Health England. Public Health corporately use the term resilient

communities. This encompasses around open space, housing, work, mental health and

wellbeing, a sense of place and wellbeing. The key things that make people healthier and more

resilient. ‘How do people understand community resilience - they see it as much wider i.e.

feeling safe in my street, knowing my neighbour. We need as LAP to be clearer about our remit

and how it links to wider community development …. what about the rest of the team’s

responsibilities within this’? This needs to flow from community development right through to

dealing with major incidents.

It was recognised that although this review was very specifically focused on responding to

emergencies, it had to link with wider strategies and plans around community development and

resilient communities. Additionally, through work such as the 100 Resilient Cities there is an

opportunity to learn from other places, review what is in place and develop new approaches.

There are challenges in terms of how community resilience is defined by partners as local areas

or ward level i.e. geographies of London but not communities of interest, ‘networks or

communities of interest’. How do we get the learning and needs of communities not bounded by

geography i.e. the Westminster attack, the learning from Finsbury Park mosque, and the 1999

nail bomb attacks in Brixton, Brick Lane, and Soho, embedded in anything that moves forward –

‘how does that cut across both identities and geographies, challenge internally across

departments and roles and remits, challenges re the politics of the geography, challenges re the

needs of communities’. This also needs to consider the wider impact on communities including

international incidents.

It is important to create the right balance between building resilient communities and

recognising the support that more vulnerable groups need. ‘Balance between making people

more self-sufficient and recognising the needs of the more vulnerable in the community’.

Key thoughts:

• ‘Can community resilience be a unifying principle across all of our work that will make

the change across the system - This could be a vehicle to do very good work to join up

the system across London’. How can we mobilise the energy and sustain our

commitment to community?

• Developing a wider approach on community resilience? Connections is the issue and

how can we enable people to connect. Community resilience is part of the wider eco-

system for London not just for emergencies.

• The variation between major incident responses versus ongoing stresses in an urban

environment, also how to respond to wider incidences, i.e. something happening in

another country.

11 | P a g e

• Promoting resilience – what does this mean? It’s a circular name? How can they return

to as near normal as possible? Treating the community immediately - technical get down

there and get it sorted, needs assessment post the event – social needs assessment

and the pre-existing social problems are we trying to restore them to that baseline i.e.

food poverty there are real moral challenges in that’ ‘Check that everything (we do) isn’t

doing damage’.

• ‘Issues are; conflicting priorities what do we need to be asking and saying? Too many

competing priorities internally. How we link community development with community

resilience …. this should all be linked, all so intertwined’.

Keeping momentum going was raised as an issue across many partners.

• ‘The feedback from community events was positive but people don’t necessarily see it as

an issue. Hard to get this up people’s agenda, see this as a very central London agenda.

Organisations need to be engaged but also where does this sit on the agenda for chief

executives? Has it moved high enough up via assurance processes? Is it critical for

elected members to drive this higher up the agenda?

• ‘Keeping the momentum going is critical so we don’t slip back into old ways of being’.

• Engagement is critical before an emergency, ‘they may not be bothered - How to get

people on board when they feel it’s not an issue. Getting the buy in is a major issue’.

Theme: Governance, Strategy and Planning

Case Study – London Borough of Havering. There are connections across Emergency

Planning, Business Continuity, Counter Terrorism, Community Development in the borough,

trying to bring a lot of networks together under all the various remits. This is linked to the

Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS) strategy, which has been developed and this has been

done with all the key partners. Within this, the VCS grants leads sit with this team, so that

enables resourcing to be part of the wider strategic work, aiming to create a narrative across all

the various work strands that is focused on supporting resilient communities.

Within this, building capacity and having training in place for the community sector about

responding to an emergency was seen as vital. ‘If I needed 50 volunteers, I could get them

quickly via the volunteer centre – VC is funded by the borough with limited resource’.

Recognising the routes to engage and working alongside others to do this. ‘We do community

events at the hospital with a focus on different things we can do around community resilience’.

‘We have links with the local churches, so we have worked with them to run training and looked

at what they can offer in case anything happens’

Case Study - London Borough of Southwark. Strategic approach to community resilience

across the board. This focuses on community resilience across all planning processes and it is

under discussion constantly both around vulnerable adults and children and the wider

community. There is a focus on community cohesion across the borough, and they undertook

an early intervention review with Lambeth, and this has resulted in an outcomes framework that

was developed in partnership across the CCG, the LA and the VCS. The focus looks at the

issues of risk, but not in a panicky way but in a respectful way. You need to pay attention to it

constantly, what is people’s vision for themselves and the community in general to avoid an

12 | P a g e

imprint of fragility, changing services to send a different message to the communities, we have

been bold with various projects and the work in schools and adult social care, it’s a strong core

feature of what we do’.

Key thoughts:

• Building community resilience across all services … ‘how do we support people to look

out for each other? This needs to link across all services i.e. CT, EP, Community

Development, Business Continuity. Partnership working and good relationships across

all of these services are critical’.

• Using the resources that already exist and capitalising on these, no cost options that can

be put in place as well as resourcing services to do the work.

• Sharing resources – ‘what can be done across London that doesn’t need to happen in

each local area or borough? How do we share resources then identify the locally specific

work that needs to happen? This will also help to build in standardisation across the offer

and help support residents who are more mobile across boroughs’.

• Other issues raised included the role of elected members locally to help communicate

and build links with the community. This is a key part of the remit and it is vital to get this

right. Developing community assets in wards can be part of the remit. ‘How do you know

and understand what is on offer and what else they need to support community

resilience and where do councillors see their role in this?’

Theme: Communications

Case Study - Emergency Planning, Hammersmith & Fulham. The work underway around

community resilience was developed through a community engagement event, whereby groups

highlighted the need for a platform for communications and information exchange was

discussed. This has now resulted in an extranet system which gets key groups to sign up, with

message boards and updates being shared. This is being piloted with community groups

currently. The idea will be to test out this format and share information about who can offer what

in the case of an emergency.

This will be followed up again by a further session with the community to help showcase what

happens in an emergency and explore how they can be engaged effectively.

Case Study - My Emergency Plan, London Borough of Islington. A borough leaflet has

been developed and was distributed via housing leads, and the fire brigade using their fire safety

checks, bringing in a phased approach around community resilience. Starting with the resource

that all partners can use, then bringing in a wider community resource where needed– the

borough also has an MOU with Muslim Aid post Finsbury Park Mosque so that they can deploy

trained volunteers. Finally, wider work is happening via community links such as the Octopus

network so that links can be established via the existing infrastructure in the borough to explore

roles and remits and improve communications. The work to date covers:

• Website on community resilience ideas – profiling the opportunities on offer

• A database on resources that can be shared

• Details on the wider preparedness for local responders

13 | P a g e

• A communications plan with the central comms team ready to update the website and

twitter

• Identified opportunities to showcase the role of emergency responders.

Having a communications strategy in place that can be used across any platforms, that all

partners are clear about and can support where needed. ‘Creating a platform where key

community groups have the right information that can be shared with their partners’.

Making Londoners aware of what risks they face – what tools can they use, materials that can

be used across a range of networks. What groundwork can happen – too worried not looking

forward enough on this. Why can’t one leaflet ‘be used and 75% be centrally dictated and then

25% be locally defined?’ Too siloed in the working – what could happen regionally to reduce

siloes and do something simple but useful?

Case Study - Muslim Aid. In the response to the Finsbury Park attack, Muslim Aid provided

support around dealing with the media and press post the incident. They offered specialist PR

and media support to help the community manage. This happened as there is an ongoing trust

in place across the organisations. This helped to mitigate any issues, create a space where

people could be guided through the process, ‘a community steward role’ where expertise can

be shared but based on trust and respect.

Key thoughts:

• Creating some standardised materials across London, recognising the need to reduce

duplication and share resources but also the mobility of residents

• Creating local solutions and platforms where key partners can communicate and share

information and garner support

• Include support and training for community leaders who may have to have difficult

conversations; ‘we couldn’t take donations and all people were too scared to stop them,

too much time taken up with managing this and it created huge issues and staff need to

learn how to have those difficult conversations with donors’ community leaders may

need help i.e. public speaking’

• Donations – agreeing practically who can offer what before it is needed, then having a

communications processes that goes into action so that anything that comes in is

needed, reducing the burden on groups and managing people’s desire to help.

• Supporting volunteers in the community with social media training so they can manage

more effectively during an incident was flagged up by a range of partners including

Muslim Aid.

• The remit of the 100 Resilient cities and the benefits to all parts of the system on getting

some key resilient messages out.

Theme: Capacity and Resources

Case Study – London Borough Faiths Networks (LBFN). Delivering Training on Safe,

Secure and Resilient LBFN brings together churches, mosques, temples, gurdwaras &

14 | P a g e

synagogues (c250 per borough) which have useful buildings, extensive networks of

people who trust each other & reliable structures for sharing information.

Building on this network, LBFN’s has developed bespoke “Safe, Secure, Resilient” training to

enable places of worship to work together (not separately) and know:

• what to do in an emergency

• who to contact (public services, other local responders, vulnerable groups)

• what messages to pass on

• how to work together across communities.

LBFN’s pilot training course at New Scotland Yard covered:

• keeping people & buildings safe

• responding to emergencies: flood, attack, pandemic, chemical, black sky, cyber

• hate crime

• making solid connections with emergency planners and local public sector officers

• first aid on breathing and bleeding until help arrives

• checklists & evacuation drills

• learning from the experiences of past emergencies.

Through the training, London Boroughs Faith Network has provided the go-between with the

emergency services and others. LBFN is the Training & Exercising Lead for London Resilience’s

Faith Sector Panel and is a member of the Inter Faith Network UK. There is now a WhatsApp

Group on Community Resilience and a growing group of Londoners with the skills and

connections to play their part in responding to an emergency.

The plan is to roll this out over two years. ‘Across the 12 BCU we will have covered all of the

areas and boroughs and created a network of people who are connected up and have all done

the training …. People are enthusiastic about this and they want their neighbourhoods to thrive

and be more part of London’s society’

Case Study - Possible Not Perfect (London Funders). In response to three different

emergencies in June 2017, funders dispensed with ‘business as usual’, developing collaborative

programmes to provide urgent support to community organisations and services responding to

the Grenfell Tower fire, Manchester Arena bomb and London Bridge attack. London Funder’s

report “The possible, not the perfect: Learning from funder responses to emergency” examined

what funders can learn about responding effectively in an emergency; but also, what

opportunities there may be for day-to-day grant-making practices. Recommendations included

streamlining core processes and exploring collective efforts to reduce the burden of fundraising

for community organisations; but more importantly, creating better engagement between

funders and community organisations – the frontline voice and experience needs to be at the

forefront of thinking. London Funders also supports the London Emergencies Trust which is

activated in response to an emergency to distribute donated funds to the bereaved and

survivors. The evaluation of the LET’s work in 2017, echoes the need for strong ‘peace-time’

relationships and robust collaborative infrastructure, which in turn will support how effectively

money flows in a crisis.

Key thoughts:

15 | P a g e

• ‘Loss of staff is critical in this, but we still have a huge amount of good will but not

manipulating and not instrumentalising, not just picking them up and dropping them’

• Creating a living network across London but it will cross over into other sectors as well I.e.

mental health - This is not about just about funding it’s about stretching the resources out

across London

• Sharing practice across the region on some simple developments that could work and be

replicated

• It is about how well-connected people are, and communities being able to lend a hand in a

light touch way

• Not being risk adverse to community involvement and being clear what simple things can

happen on the ground that add value and build resilience.

Mapping Local Assets

Case Study – London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham. They have been mapping local

assets, working with a range of local services and organisations i.e. football clubs, theatres,

community groups and Tenants’ and Residents’ Associations to gather information about what

could be offered before, during and after an incident. To date over 60 groups have registered

their services online.

Planning work before anything happens and mapping assets needs to be part of the ongoing

community resilience work across all of the strategies and plans locally and regionally. ‘You

need capacity to do this’. The groups provide a useful source of information and support. You

need to know who is out there. You need to know what people need and not just respond to the

loudest groups’. It makes the engagement more meaningful. This is not just about funded

groups; it is about your communities.’ Residents’ associations proved phenomenally useful. They

know who is there and have access to looser community contacts not just the constituted

groups’.

Case Study – London Borough of Hackney. A community reassurance event was facilitated

in April 2018. This looked at the impact of serious youth violence and knife crime on

communities and explored how they could work together to provide community reassurance.

Providing a more coordinated and consistent partnership response in the event of a violent

incident was raised, to engage communities and ensure that they are both informed and

supported. A mapping exercise commenced; looking a gaps, issues and key themes across the

provision. This identified a lack of consistency in place about approach and messaging linked to

knife crime and serious youth violence. Mapping and working with local partners to inform and

reassure the community post an incident, to help residents feel they can carry on and take the

necessary precautions to stay safe.

Key thoughts:

• ‘Knowing who does what … how do you know who all the key partners are and their

respective responsibilities?’ Accessing existing networks, people who are out there with

links who can be used to get messages out.

16 | P a g e

• ‘Being clear who is a designated rescue centres – they need to be well regarded local

centres, knowing who can be used and how can they be used; all needs to feed into

community plans or strategic plans’.

• A community reassurance response in the aftermath of an incident. ‘Defining a

consistent message around staying safe to be adopted across all partners’.

• Stage one – ‘running awareness session, grass roots organisations, People don't know

what the council does in an emergency so that people are clear who can offer what

really basic information about what happens - they only deal with the team who give

money they don't know the emergency planning team - spend time with them and get a

relationship in place - channels in place’.

• Stage two – ‘more detailed what can we do and offer more detailed discussion not just

Age UK but could also be the karate club and then go broader’.

• Asset mapping is critical - database of key locations and what they offer re rooms. They

need to look at what other things can be offered. ‘The London voluntary sector table is

useful take it and extend this for local groups’.

• Making sure that this aligns with not just local assets but also regional and thematic

ones. ‘Very well distributed churches and faith sector settings across London, linked to

where people live, and they are very localised as well as specific i.e. key communities of

faith’. There is a need to create a flow of those community connectors and develop links

with those connectors to get the message out.

• ‘The community doesn’t necessarily understand what the Emergency Planners do and

what a local response is- there is a learning moment now that we need to capitalise on’.

• ‘Growing an understanding of the roles and unique services and expertise available

locally, creating a space whereby dialogue can take place about how all services can

offer more joined up support for local residents and visitors to the local areas and also

build a bank of volunteers who have been trained in various roles for the future’.

• ‘Better links with the business sector as they have properties and people from the faith

network and how can this happen. All congregations have access to a huge array of

Londoners and a range of skills’.

Theme: Roles and Remits

Case Study – Hammersmith & Fulham. A large hackathon event was facilitated in

Hammersmith & Fulham with 70+ groups. The focus was on developing links with emergency

planning, exploring what the emergency services will offer during an incident and reviewing how

community groups wanted to communicate with the council. The facilitators used Sli.do as a

technique to gather questions from the audience, which meant anyone could ask anything

anonymously. It also gave feedback about the key issues people were concerned about. A key

feature that emerged was that groups wanted a way to communicate with the council that was

not just the call centre. At the event an idea developed for a ‘one-stop-shop’ where the

17 | P a g e

community network could access information quickly during an emergency and see where their

specialist support might be best used.

This was followed up with targeted events. A smaller community event was then facilitated with

30 organisations to talk through the structure of how the local areas respond to incidences.

Groups were invited to participate in various aspects i.e., CCTV coverage, cordoning off areas

and setting up a rest centre for an evacuation. This helped highlight roles and responsibilities

and got groups on board to explore the roles they could play. It was a very practical example of

what happens and what the community can offer to help. It was very productive, and it gathered

positive feedback. It also enabled the local authority and local partners to explore with groups,

who needs to be engaged i.e. community leaders, and how they get the message out to wider

communities.

Case Study - Resilience of people in frontline organisations (London Funders). Grantees

have been reporting back to funders that they have observed increased pressures, complexity

and demand at the frontline of London’s civil society organisations. Affecting their management

and people who are working to support service delivery, this is leading to concerns about the

resilience of the staff and volunteers. These concerns cut across funding themes –from

organisations working in both children and youth and older people’s services, from information

and advice, refugee, and domestic violence projects, and from multi-activity community centres.

Often the reason for increased pressure is lack of access to statutory services for people who

would previously have been supported through that route. Sometimes it is a place-based issue

that requires an increased response from local organisations. Civil society organisations that

expect to be dealing with trauma often have appropriate support and supervision structures in

place. Those that don’t provide trauma services but more frequently encounter it are

experiencing high staff burnout. London Funders is exploring with members how funders can

work both individually and collectively to ensure people working in frontline organisations have

access to the support they need to continue to deliver outcomes for London’s communities.

Key thoughts:

• ‘Don’t just focus on the statutory sector who are the wider partners who have something

to offer in this space. That could be services or links, or intelligence i.e. law centres,

football clubs. Sometimes we take too narrow a focus’. ‘Health and the LA can get siloed

on this’.

• ‘How can we link this more with areas of work strategically and on the ground i.e. social

prescribing as an umbrella – quite useful as people recognise the term and can identify

what we are talking about’.

• ‘How can people come together to debate what needs to happen before the

incidents? How do we know and understand everyone’s roles moving forward? What is

safe and what is not safe to do in this space’.

• Being clearer about who is doing what but also what the gaps are and what resources

are needed – ‘Defining the boundaries is critical, but so is the overlap and the fit with

connectiveness in communities and resilience indicators’.

18 | P a g e

• Single agencies are good at doing work for themselves but not good at doing this as a

multi-agency network - Dealing with separate issues I.e. fire go into schools, police go

into schools and the amount of cross-over is huge – how can we rationalise and link

this?

• Infrastructure – the role of infrastructure to make sense of the structure as it forms,

knowing all the players and help coordinate activities. Is there a single point of contact to

help navigate between these small groups and wards I.e. churches, mosques and

tenants’ groups?

The Role of Volunteering

Case Study - CAMERA, Coordinating and mobilising emergency response activists (NESTA) -

The focus is on creating a bank of volunteers who have been trained in emergency awareness,

have skills in other languages, know their communities so they can be activated if there is an

emergency. This is being developed via the NESTA funding and will be rolled out in

Hammersmith & Fulham and Camden.

Case Study - Muslim Aid – They are developing a coordinated infrastructure around

emergency response volunteers. This is taking place across the country and they have recruited

3000 volunteers. They are currently looking at how they develop an infrastructure to make this

happen and provide training and support for volunteers so that they can be deployed effectively

in an emergency. This is being developed in partnership with the Red Cross and a ‘training-the-

trainer’ programme is being facilitated. This ensures that all volunteers have been trained, know

and understand their remits. This approach is currently being modelled in Islington with a MOU

in place with Muslim Aid.

Case Study - Volunteer Centre, Croydon – Creating a framework for volunteers was a

consistent theme across the review. Work was undertaken by the volunteer bureau in Croydon,

during and in the aftermath of the riots. This created a bank of over 100 volunteers. These were

volunteers who are known to the service and who could act as team leaders to help with the

wider groups of people who wanted to help. This created a framework for volunteers across the

board and provided clear routes in for people who wanted to help.

Case Study – London Borough of Havering – Havering has created a flood warden scheme

which has been tested out over two years. Identifying people who can collect data and

information for us i.e. photos from rivers’. 12 community members have been identified who can

help with anything on flooding. ‘All areas that are subject to flooding have done engagement

events and we have a third one coming up. We openly recruit for Flood wardens who can help -

They are all on the data base and can be communicated with regularly and feed us information

on a regular basis. It’s all voluntary and they now plan to expand the work through friends of

parks.

Key thoughts:

• Creating training and support for volunteers on communications and social media –

‘creating a bank of people who can help the existing communications channels and get

the right messages out’.

• Developing a bank of volunteers who are used for emergencies but will be an ongoing

asset locally ‘’Role of infrastructure (volunteer centres or local community and voluntary

19 | P a g e

sector infrastructure groups) to help shape what’s happening with partners but also

being an independent broker to ensure there is trust and also an ongoing relationship’.

• ‘We know volunteering isn’t free’. To do it well needs resourcing, supporting and

encouraging‘.

• Standard and accountability for these networks using materials from organisations such

as Red Cross, but also cascading out a ‘training-the-trainer’ approach to create greater

capacity across London and recognise the costs.

• Asset based approaches - Addressing the risk-adverseness that can be in place in terms

of using volunteers and creating the right training and support structures, so this can be

mobilised well.

• What role can the volunteer centres take across London in keeping a network in place

across London of volunteer centres who can support each other. Where pockets of

issues arise, and they can be proactive.

• Networks for volunteers are critical as is being clear what they can offer. Being clear

what the roles are for each of the people and being clear we have people who can be

trusted being team leaders, staffing the phones, sorting donations.

• Engagement of the volunteer centres and local infrastructure and networks in the

Borough Resilience Forum. This needs to be sustained and respond to crises but also

being planned to help counter any issues before they arise – ‘What actually needs to be

done beforehand and then at the time and then afterwards’.

• Equipping the public to do things in a safe way but also knowing when key services are

needed - ‘Safeguarding systems that need to be in place across organisations, not being

risk-adverse but recognising the training and support that may be required’.

• Providing support mechanisms for volunteers to move into post-incident in a sensitive

way that recognises their contributions and sign posts them into different opportunities.

Theme: Evidence and Impact

Case Study – GLA, Social Infrastructure Mapping. A recent poll carried out by the GLA

found that public buildings such as community centres are important sites in which Londoners

meet and develop relationships with one another. The GLA are currently collecting information

on where such buildings are, focusing initially on community centres owned by local authorities

and housing associations, before extending this work to community-owned centres. This work

will help a number of teams at the GLA and other public bodies with policy development,

highlighting issues impacting communities and their access to social infrastructure.

Additionally, a GLA survey is underway with NatCen on aspects of social integration and

attitudes to local areas. This aims to explore the issues that matter to Londoners age 16+. This

will provide data on resident populations and demographic changes and the impact that has on

changing views. This will be particularly useful to look at changes over time. i.e. how do people

who are new to local areas view them. It will also produce data on where people live and work

which will help shape thinking about responses to social integration, but also mapping % of time

spent at home and at work.

20 | P a g e

GLA London Climate Change Partnership – research is underway looking at the effects of

behaviour on climate risk and resilience. There will be a stakeholder engagement exercise on

community resilience and responses to weather and climate related impacts.

Key thoughts:

• Understanding and using the existing research to help shape the way responses take

place, but also to learn from wider approaches being adopted regionally, locally,

nationally and internationally. Utilising the resources on offer, but also creating structures

across the various places that this is happening to help reduce duplication and identify

the gaps.

• It was stressed that approaches such as the 100 Resilient Cities could support this,

structurally holding this together, where dealing with emergencies was noted as one

aspect of the wider picture. However, it was also queried if you could apply frameworks

across all incidences. ‘Can you really draw a diagram on local recovery? On what

timings are taking place - Duration of recovery for various incidents …. This is variable,

and we need to be cautious’.

• Using resources such as PHE, in terms of data and behavioural insights team as well as

social marketing teams. There are a series of things from the behavioural insights team

that can be embedded across this work as a resource that could be better utilised.

• This aligns with the recommendations from the WHO report ‘Develop a whole-system

approach to measuring common domains of resilience by promoting intersectoral

collaboration among the health, emergency planning, economic development and

education sectors and civil society organizations’

• Sharing existing research - Guys and St Thomas funded research after London Bridge

and have evaluated this response. Research around heatwave resilience from PHE,

London Emergency Trust have done their evaluation on distributing funding in a disaster

and the GLA is commissioning research on climate change.

• The role of social capital is raised in various reports, indicating that where there is strong

sense of social capital, communities will be stronger and more able to mitigate against

the impact of emergencies.

• ‘Bringing together where research is underway across all partners and sharing expertise

and also identifying the gaps’. ‘Mayor of Bristol has a PHE deputy chief executive

working on how you build community resilience in Bristol.’

• Changing demographic profiles and how to respond to migrations over the next four

years as the profile is changing dramatically.

• Participatory research and evidence – how to create ongoing communications with local

people to check we know what they need and make sure that the more vulnerable

groups are included in this. ‘Engage citizens in assessment and use participatory

21 | P a g e

methods to promote collective action and develop a shared understanding of community

resilience within marginalized communities’ (WHO).

• ‘Is there a discourse that communities heal themselves? Gap between the rhetoric and

the reality, People take a long time to recover. Need to be challenging this discourse as

it can be misleading‘.

22 | P a g e

Annex B

Links to Wider Strategies and Plans

The work listed above needs to be seen alongside of a range of other initiatives taking place.

This includes:

London Local Authority Crisis-Communications Initiative

This has developed and published guidance for London Local Authority Directors of

Communications on the means of supporting an effective fast-time communications and media

response from the out-set of large-scale incidents; the development of operational guidance to

support a buddy network of Directors of Communications and Cadre of trained press officers

available to support affected boroughs; and to develop and design a training programme for

Directors of Communications, Cadre of Press Officers and Local Communications/Press Teams.

A key consideration for Directors of Communications is developing the means by which they can

actively communicate and engage with communities at the micro-level.

Timescale January – May 2019

Lead London Councils

The Way Ahead

The Way Ahead is a joint initiative by civil society, public sector bodies and funders. The ultimate

goal of the Way Ahead is a thriving civil society which is resilient, collaborative and sustainable

and which will lead to improved outcomes for Londoners.

The Way Ahead proposes a system that puts London’s communities at the heart of the way we

all work. It begins with co-producing an understanding of need and how to tackle it with our

communities, through to better sharing of intelligence and data across all sectors and making

sure that civil society’s voice is heard in decision-making at a strategic level.

Timescale Ongoing

Lead London Funders

100 Resilient Cities

The 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) programme is pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation and is

dedicated to helping cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, social and

economic challenges that are a growing part of the 21st century. “100RC supports the adoption

and incorporation of a view of resilience that includes not just the shocks - earthquakes, fires,

floods, etc.- but also the stresses that weaken the fabric of a city on a day-to-day or cyclical

basis.

Timescale 2019 – 2021

Lead GLA

23 | P a g e

See 100RC Framework on Page 22.

100 Resilient Cities Framework

Health and wellbeing

(people)- Systems that

ensure the health and

wellbeing of people

living and working in

the city.

• Minimal human

vulnerability

• Safe and affordable housing

• Adequate and affordable energy supply

• Inclusive access to safe drinking water

• Effective sanitation

• Sufficient and affordable food supply

• Diverse

livelihoods and

employment

• Inclusive labour policies

• Relevant skills and training

• Local business development and

innovation

• Supportive financing mechanisms

• Diverse protection of livelihoods

following a shock

• Effective

safeguards to

human life and

health

• Robust public health systems

• Adequate access to quality health care

• Emergency medical care

• Effective emergency response services

Economy and society

(Organisation) - The

social and financial

systems that enable

urban populations to

live peacefully, and act

collectively.

• Sustainable

economy

• Well-managed public finances

• Comprehensive business continuity

plans

• Diverse economic base

• Attractive business environment

• Strong integration with regional and

global economies

• Comprehensive

security and rule

of law

• Effective systems to deter crime

• Proactive corruption prevention

• Competent policing

• Accessible criminal and civil justice

• Collective identity

and community

support

• Local community support

• Cohesive communities

• Strong city-wide identity and culture

• Actively engaged citizens

Infrastructure and

Environment (Place) -

Built and natural

systems that provide

critical services,

• Reliable mobility

and

communications

• Secure technological networks

• Reliable communications technology

• Effective transport operation and

maintenance

• Diverse and affordable transport

networks

24 | P a g e

protect and connect

urban citizens.

• Effective

provision of

critical services

• Adequate continuity for critical assets

and services

• Diligent maintenance

• Retained spare capacity

• Flexible infrastructure services

• Reduced

exposure and

fragility

• Robust, protective infrastructure

• Effectively managed protective eco

systems

• Affordable codes, standards and

enforcement

• Comprehensive hazard and exposure

mapping

Leadership and

strategy (Knowledge)-

The need for informed,

inclusive, integrated

and iterative decision

making in our cities.

• Effective

leadership and

management

• Appropriate government decision

making

• Effective coordination with other

government bodies

• Proactive multi stakeholder

collaboration

• Comprehensive hazard monitoring and

risk assessment

• Comprehensive government

emergency planning

• Empowered

stakeholders -

• Adequate education for all

• Widespread community awareness and

preparedness

• Effective mechanisms for communities

to engage with government

• Integrated

development

planning

• Comprehensive city monitoring and

data management

• Consultative planning processes

• Appropriate land use and zoning

• Robust planning approval processes

25 | P a g e

Annex C

Definitions of Community - What does ‘community’ and ‘community

resilience’ mean?

Public Health England

This definition has been taken from the Public Health England Report on Community centred

approaches for health and well-being. ‘Community’ is defined as a term which is often is used

as shorthand for the relationships, bonds, identities and interests that join people together or

give them a shared stake in a place, service, culture or activity.1

Distinctions are often made between communities of place/geography and communities of

interest or identity, as strategies for engaging people may vary accordingly2. In this report it

notes that ‘communities are dynamic and complex; people’s identities and allegiances may shift

over time and in different social circumstances.’ Community within the context of this report and

the feedback for the Community Resilience Steering Group uses the definition of community as

an umbrella term, ‘to cover groups of people sharing a common characteristic or affinity, such

as living in a neighbourhood, or being in a specific population group, or sharing a common faith

or set of experiences’.

A World Health Organization (WHO) Europe publication3 on community participation in local

health and sustainable development summarises the rationale to:

• increase democracy, as participation is both a basic right and an essential element of

citizenship

• combat social exclusion by giving people a voice, especially marginalised populations

• empower individuals and communities and enable them to gain more control over their

lives

• mobilise community resources and energy

• develop holistic approaches

• aid decision-making and design more effective services through better local intelligence

• ensure community ownership and ultimately the long-term sustainability of programmes.

Asset-based approaches are key within this, as stated in this report, there is ‘a growing interest

in the UK in asset-based approaches that identify and mobilise the assets of individuals,

communities and organisations to enhance individual and community capabilities and address

health inequalities.’ Resilience is an important concept at individual and community levels4,

linked to an evidence base on social factors that protect and maintain health in adversity.5

Creating resilient communities and supportive environments is one of four priority areas in the

Health 2020 policy framework for improving health and reducing health inequalities in the WHO

European Region A whole-of-society approach to health recognizes that community-level

1 Yerbury H. Vocabularies of community. Community Development Journal. 2011;47(2):184-98. 2 Campbell F, Hughes L, Gilling T. Reaching out: community engagement and health. London: Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA), 2008 3 World Health Organization. Community participation in local health and sustainable development. Approaches and techniques. WHO regional Office for Europe, 2002 EUR/ICP/POLC 06 03 05D. 4 Brodsky AE, Cattaneo LB. A transconceptual model of empowerment and resilience: divergence, convergence and interactions in kindred community concepts. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2013;52:333-46. 5 Friedli L. Mental health, resilience and inequalities. Denmark: World Health Organization Europe, 2009.

26 | P a g e

determinants, such as the local environment, social connections, community cohesion,

empowerment and resilience, are important determinants of health and, moreover, can help to

mitigate or buffer the impact of structural conditions that drive health inequities.

This links to the sustainable development goals whereby 4 types of resilience capacity were

identified.

• adaptive resilience – the ability to withstand and adjust to unfavourable conditions and

shocks;

• absorptive resilience – the ability to withstand but also to recover and manage using

available assets and skills;

• anticipatory resilience – the ability to predict and minimize vulnerability; and

• transformative resilience (applies to systems) – transformative change so that systems

better cope with new conditions.

Central Government

Communities, businesses, and individuals are empowered to harness local resources and

expertise to help themselves and their communities to:

- prepare, respond and recover from disruptive challenges, in a way that complements the

activity of Category 1 and 2 emergency responders

- plan and adapt to long term social and environmental changes to ensure their future

prosperity and resilience.

27 | P a g e

Annex D

List of Contributors