MassLocalism_Feb2010

8/9/2019 MassLocalism_Feb2010

1/52

DISCUSSION PAPER

MASSLOCALISMA way to help small communities

solve big social challenges

Laura Bunt and Michael Harris


2/52

FOREWORD 2

FOREWORD

Todays complex, global social and economic issuespresent a daunting challenge. Against such overwhelmingissues as climate change and declining public health,

individual action can seem marginal. Small steps dont seem togo ar enough in tackling issues o such scale.

Yet during NESTAs Big Green Challenge our 1 million prizeor community-led responses to climate change we have

witnessed the ingenuity, deep commitment and ambition ocommunities taking action on these issues together. Thoughindividually these actions may seem small, collectively theymake a signifcant impact.

This report draws on practical lessons rom the Big GreenChallenge and the experiences o the local groups we havebeen ortunate to work with. It oers a set o principles or howgovernment can stimulate and support more local responses to

big problems, at manageable cost to the public purse.

I have been struck by the number o organisations exploringingenious ways o supporting local solutions to big socialchallenges. This report sits within this wider movement andoutlines our approach an approach we call mass localism.

As ever, we welcome your input and views.

Jonathan Kestenbaum

Chie Executive, NESTA

February 2010


3/52

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Policymakers increasingly recognise that many o thesolutions to major social challenges rom tacklingclimate change to improving public health need to be

much more local. Local solutions are requently very eective,as they reect the needs o specifc communities and engagecitizens in taking action. And they are oten cost-eective, sincethey provide a conduit or the resources o citizens, charities orsocial enterprises to complement those o the state. Given thegrowing pressure on government fnances, these are importantbenefts.

But localism presents a dilemma. Government has traditionallyound it difcult to support genuine local solutions whileachieving national impact and scale.

This report oers a solution: an approach by which central andlocal government can encourage widespread, high quality local

responses to big challenges. The approach draws on the lessonso NESTAs Big Green Challenge a successul programme tosupport communities to reduce carbon emissions.

This approach might be applied across other challenge areas,rom public health to reducing re-oending, and has someimportant implications or how government can supportcommunities to take action at a lower cost than traditionalinitiatives. We call this approach mass localism.


4/52

In January 2010, NESTA announced the winners o the BigGreen Challenge, a 1 million challenge prize or communities inresponse to climate change. This marked the end o a two-yearprogramme, which set out to test an innovative way to stimulateand support community-led responses to a social issue.

The Big Green Challenge had over 350 entries rom community-based groups all across the UK, many o which didnt have anexisting environmental ocus and ormed especially or thepurpose. The fnalists ranged rom micro-hydro communityenterprises in the Brecon Beacons to ood growing projects incentral London, rom a small island going carbon-neutral to acity arm working to reduce its emissions by 60 per cent.

On top o this widespread action and engagement in theChallenge, the winning projects achieved reductions in CO2emissions o between 10 and 32 per cent in a very short timespan. Because the challenge has been successul in developingmore sustainable projects, the reductions in emissions achievedby these communities are likely to treble over the next threeto our years, meeting the UKs targets or 2020 well ahead o

time.

Policymakers increasingly recognise that this kind ocommunity participation is crucial in responding to manysocial challenges that drive escalating demand or publicservices. Centrally driven initiatives have struggled to make animpact on many o the complex issues conronting us today.Tackling climate change, improving public health and reducingre-oending requires not only action rom government, but

engagement and local knowledge rom citizens.

But despite support rom across the political spectrum, genuinelocalism is something governments fnd difcult to achieve. Asthe Big Green Challenge projects indicate, what makes localsolutions eective is their local specifcity, and the ability ogroups to tailor solutions to local contexts. Local groups arealso best placed to encourage community engagement ona social issue, through access to local networks and existing

relationships.

There is thereore an inherent tension between the actorsor successul localism and the impulse to achieve impact

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4


5/52

nationally. The strategic and increasingly expensive natureo todays social and economic challenges means thatpolicymakers need to make signifcant progress against theseissues, and quickly. However, approaching localism rom theperspective o centralism trying to scale-up eective localsolutions to other communities without the local ownershipthat makes them eective limits the potential or localsolutions to achieve impact in a sustainable way. The result isa vicious circle o misdirected investment in localism whichperpetuates a lack o confdence in local solutions.

Policymakers need an alternative that combines local actionand national scale an eective approach to mass localism.The wider principles inherent in the Big Green Challenge haveimplications or how to transorm centralism to unlock thepotential o mass localism. I these principles were integratedinto more government initiatives, it could create moreopportunities or communities to take the lead on addressingmajor social challenges.

Mass localism depends on a dierent kind o support rom

government and a dierent approach to scale. Instead oassuming that the best solutions need to be determined,prescribed, driven or authorised rom the centre, policymakersshould create more opportunities or communities to developand deliver their own solutions and to learn rom each other.It is not enough to assume that scaling back governmentbureaucracy and control will allow local innovation to ourish.

We set out fve principles that indicate how government should

approach mass localism, drawing on the Big Green Challenge:promoting a clear outcome; presuming community capacity;valuing advice and challenge; removing barriers; rewardingachievement.

This isnt just about government or other public bodies runninga series o challenge prizes, although in some circumstancesthis could be appropriate. Rather, mass localism holds moreradical implications or how government and others could

commission and support more community-led responses to bigsocial challenges at a lower cost than traditional initiatives.

This has a range o possible applications, most obviously

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5


6/52

in complex, behavioural challenges such as environmentalsustainability, health promotion, and reducing re-oending.NESTA will continue to investigate the efcacy o challengeprize mechanisms in other areas. However, there is sufcientlystrong evidence to suggest that government should establisha series o small open community challenge unds as parto current initiatives (and using existing unding), led by theprinciples outlined here, in order to stimulate and support manymore local responses to major social issues.

I enacted widely, these principles would represent a radicalshit in how government supports communities to act onsocial challenges. Such an approach takes localism ar beyonda means to better national programmes; localism becomesthe way in which more national objectives can be met, morecheaply, on the ground.

Mass localism reects a broader trend that is increasinglyapparent across the economy, culture and society, thato fnding distributed answers to problems and deliveringsolutions with citizens. It represents a shit rom mass

production to distributed production. Just as orward-thinkingbusinesses are opening up their R&D processes to theirsuppliers and customers, so policymakers should look orsolutions beyond established organisations and experts. Theyshould look also to citizens and communities.

This is part o an approach to reorm that we call people-powered public services. This paper is one o a series opublications that show how this approach can be applied to

public services and the benefts that can result so that ourpublic services are better placed to cope with the immediatedemands o the fnancial crisis and better able to respond tothe long-term challenges o the uture.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6


7/52

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

Part 1: Localism in action: NESTAs Big GreenChallenge 8

Part 2: Why localism works but remains 18largely untapped

Part 3: Unlocking the potential o mass localism 31

Conclusion 42

Endnotes 44

Acknowledgements 50


8/52

PART 1: LOCALISM IN ACTION: NESTAS BIG GREEN CHALLENGE 8

PART 1:

LOCALISM IN ACTION:NESTAS BIG GREEN

CHALLENGE

Policymakers rom across the political spectrumare increasingly looking to harness the energy andcommitment o local groups to address big social

challenges.1 Local solutions oer the promise o radically bettersocial outcomes by accessing local knowledge and socialresources.

Eager to explore this, NESTA launched the Big Green Challenge

in 2007, a 1 million challenge prize or community-ledresponses to climate change. We set out to test an innovativeway o stimulating and supporting communities to act onclimate change, and to develop ideas that would be sustainablebeyond the challenge prize process itsel.

Though there was initial scepticism about the potential ocommunities to tackle such a big issue as climate change,we believed that by working together local groups could

devise and implement eective solutions using their uniqueunderstanding o their particular surroundings and dynamics.Alongside government initiatives, this orm o what we callcommunity-led innovation can be a powerul means ordelivering urgent national objectives at a lower cost to thepublic purse and with less bureaucracy than traditional grantunding processes or community and voluntary groups.

The Big Green Challenge achieved positive results

In January 2010, we announced the winners. Four o the tenfnalists received a share o the 1 million prize money: the


9/52


Green Valleys; Household Energy Services; Low Carbon WestOxord; and the Isle o Eigg. All our achieved reductions in CO2emissions o between 10 and 32 per cent in a very short timespan and in a number o ways, and have the potential to deliverdeep cuts that will exceed the UK 2020 target in a matter oyears.2 But the success o the programme lies not just withthe perormance o the fnalists. NESTAs analysis shows that asignifcant number o applicants chose to progress their ownprojects despite not making it to the fnal stage.3

Something special had happened here. The Big GreenChallenge had been successul on its own terms, but it hadalso generated some valuable insights about localism notonly about why local solutions work, but how to achieve lotso them. It was a process or fnding distributed answers toproblems and as a result has galvanised widespread localsolutions with rapid impact at a national scale rom micro-hydro community enterprises in the Brecon Beacons to oodgrowing projects in central London, rom a small island goingcarbon-neutral to a city arm working to reduce its emissions

by 60 per cent. We will revisit these insights in Part Two, but ornow we look in more detail at the process behind the Big GreenChallenge.

Smart incentives for people-powered innovation how

NESTAs Big Green Challenge worked

NESTAs Big Green Challenge was designed to encourage andreward community-based organisations to develop and deliverinnovative approaches to signifcantly reducing carbon dioxideemissions.4 An open challenge prize model rewarding resultsbut not dictating how they are achieved was novel to the UKsocial sector, and we set out to learn rom our approach andhow the model and principles could be applied elsewhere.5

The challenge to entrants was to develop and test sustainableideas or reducing CO2 in their communities. We had over 350entries rom community-based groups all across the UK, o

which the 100 most promising were selected or the next stage.Through workshops and one-to-one advice, these 100 weresupported to articulate and urther develop their ideas into


10/52

more detailed plans. From these 100, 21 were invited to pitchtheir projects and ten fnalists were selected to receive supportor the Big Green Challenge year.

The ten fnalists then had one year to begin implementingtheir plans, with the help o a 20,000 grant and urtherdevelopment support, guidance and access to NESTAs widernetworks. At the end o the year the fnalists were judgedaccording to their perormance against a measurable outcome reduction in CO2 emissions. The 1 million prize was awardedto the fnalists who proved their approaches were mostsuccessul. Figure 1 shows the Big Green Challenge process.

The Big Green Challenge is distinctive as an open but

staged process of support

The process challenged, stretched, rewarded, helped,

excited and exhausted us.Participant, Global Generation, November 2009

There has been a groundswell in the number o challenge-led, prize incentive models to und and support innovation.Initially commercially driven challenges such as the X-Prizeincentivise technological breakthroughs towards a specifcgoal. More recently, innovation platorms such as the onlineInnoCentive community are applying incentive-led modelsto spur creative solutions to social challenges. The X-PrizeFoundation has recently partnered with the Bill and MelindaGates Foundation to tackle difculties in treating tuberculosis.

In the USA, the 700 million education innovation und has asimilar ambition or transormation in schools. The NHS hasdedicated 20 million o its 220 million innovation und to apublic competition or medical breakthroughs.7

Rather than looking or just one breakthrough solution, aundamental objective in how NESTA designed the Big GreenChallenge was to galvanise as much community action aspossible. We developed a new, hybrid model, combining

support and recognition or entrants with small-scale fnancialsupport or fnalists, alongside the incentive o the prizemoney. The process combined a number o essential designeatures that aimed to minimise bureaucracy and maximise



11/52


Stage 0Early engagement

Create a campaign, a brand anda buzz within the communitiesyou want to engage to encourageas many as possible to compete.

Stage 1Ideas collection

Show genuine interest in good,innovative ideas with potentialfrom a wide-range of groups, notfully-fledged plans or projects.

Keep barriers to entry low, withonly very limited eligibility criteria.

Ensure process for submittingideas is simple and accessible.

Stage 2From ideas to detailed plans

Ensure focus on developing projects thatwill achieve the measurable outcome.

Provide support and advice throughworkshops and 1:1 advice.

Allow sufficient time for competitors to takeup the support and submit their plans.

Stage 3Delivering projects and measuring outcomes

Provide finalists with ongoing support (1:1 advice/coaching) plus a grant to deliver their projects.

Get projects up and running, and keep them focusedon outcomes through monitoring, visits, and regularreporting.

Use evidence from Stage 3 to form a detailed final report,

also covering what finalists would do if they won themoney, and use this as the basis of winner selection.

In Big Green

Challenge...

355 eligibleideas received

100 Big GreenChallengers selected to

go through to stage 2

88 out of 100Challengers submit

detailed plans

21 shortlisted to givea face-to-face pitchto a panel of judges

10 Finalists selected togo through to Stage 3

Communities find out aboutand are empowered to

participate in the prize process

Competitors put forwardtheir initial ideas

Quality and high-potential ideas selected

Finalists selected

Judgesselectprize

winner(s)

Detailed plans reviewedand shortlist created

Face-to-face pitchesto Judges

Successful competitorsprepare and submit

detailed plans

Finalistsprojects are

delivered

Source: NESTA (2010) Smart incentives for people-powered innovation. London: NESTA.


12/52

participation. The section below outlines these eatures in moredetail.

i) An open access approach, with a very open rst stage

To help us fnd, identiy and mobilise new problem-solvers,we kept the barriers to entry to the Big Green Challengevery low and undertook a great deal o outreach andpublicity to attract applicants. Application criteria in thecall or ideas stage were very broad, and NESTA explicitlyinvited proposals rom any non-proft group whetherormally constituted or not 20 per cent o applicants were

just inormal groups at this stage. In addition, a signifcantproportion o the groups applying didnt previously havean environmental ocus, suggesting that the Big GreenChallenge captured peoples awareness and enthusiasmbeyond groups with a pre-existing interest in climatechange.8

In this frst stage, support took the orm o advice, ratherthan fnancial investment. This meant that NESTA couldconsider a wider range o proposals and avoid extensiveauditing processes until urther into the Challenge. Theapplication process asked challenging questions andencouraged teams to do things dierently, but in thespirit o critical riends rather than examiners. This adviceand challenge was valuable to applicants, as a signifcantnumber o applicants chose to progress their own projectsdespite not competing beyond the frst stage.

ii) A clear outcome, and a clear timetable

The Big Green Challenge specifed a simple outcome:that the applicants make a sustainable CO2 reduction at acommunity level. This outcome was clear and measurablerom the start. Combined with a tight timetable, thisgenerated urgency and momentum which was supportedby credible inormation on progress.

The Big Green Challenge did not speciy how the (small)fnancial support oered must be used by fnalists. Thisis relatively unusual in unding processes. As an example,



13/52

the Low Carbon Communities Challenge specifes that,in addition to the eligibility criteria, the unding receivedmust be spent on capital investment (although 10 per cento this can be used or project management). As a result,the types o solutions proposed by communities might bemore limited. Over-specifcation can crowd out some o themore imaginative, diverse suggestions that might not beanticipated.9

iii) A staged process, with help for the development of ideas

and graduated rewards

It legitimised us, and gave us the support to go on.Big Green Challenge nalist

At the last stage, the Big Green Challenge directly helpedthe ten fnalists (at a cost o 20,000 each) push orwardambitious plans or carbon reduction. Many o theseprojects have developed models which could be adoptedacross the UK. The Green Valleys model, supporting thedevelopment o micro-hydro schemes by local communities,

is already being promoted by other agencies throughoutWales.

Finalists also had access to a range o partners and expertknowledge sources, including 20 days o support rombusiness development experts UnLtd. This support ocusedon enhancing the quality o the projects, and building theircapacity to achieve measurable outcomes. Ongoing supportand development meant that at the end o the judging

period, ideas were well thought-out and properly structuredusing the most appropriate vehicles to implement them.

This combination o support and small-scale fnancialinvestment recognised that whilst community-ledentrants may care enough about the issue to invest timeand resources in the endeavour, there would be limits tothe time, potentially skills and fnancial resources theycould commit. The staged process allowed unders and

competitors to eectively manage risk, with clear andtransparent stages within the overall process that helpedthem make inormed choices as to how and whether tocontinue.



14/52

As a result, the fnal prize money was not the only incentiveor the projects, as ideas beneftted rom access to othernon-fnancial support in order to get o the ground. Theprize itsel generated a lot o publicity and legitimacy orboth the Big Green Challenge programme and or theindividual participants projects, and helped to leveragesupport or both.10

The Big Green Challenge allowed for reection,

exibility and space to innovate

The principles and ethos o openness, innovation and learningthat underpinned the Big Green Challenge were crucial toeectively engaging competitors and providing useul support.Openness in communication and exibility through built-in timeor reection, evaluation and eedback helped to generate aculture o experimentation and learning. This was particularlyimportant or NESTA as we were keen to learn rom our ownexperiences o running an innovative challenge prize.

Each aspect o the process aimed to give communities control.Though clear on the challenge, the process didnt prescribethe solution. NESTAs role was to oer support and impetus tofnalists, transerring leadership to the communities themselves.Finalists were encouraged to manage their own monitoringprocesses, build partnerships with external stakeholders andadvisors and take responsibility or the knowledge generated.

The Big Green Challenge is part of a wider movement ofsmarter support for community-led innovation

This approach can be positioned as part o a wider movementtowards supporting community projects in a smarter, morecost-eective and ultimately more helpul way. Endowmentssuch as the Big Lottery Fund have moved towards unding oroutcomes, and invest a great deal in community capabilitiesto make real improvements in their local surroundings.11 There

are also a number o mutual support networks such as theCommunity Action Network, which supports social enterpriseat a local level by helping to leverage capital investment and



15/52

providing business development support.12

A quick glance to the emerging social investment sector shows

a range o intermediaries and platorms which are exploringhow the relationships between those giving and receivingmoney could be improved. Online peer-to-peer platorms suchas Kiva are revolutionising how social enterprise is fnanced,and the growth o the social investment sector (via CommunityDevelopment Finance Institutions, Intermediate LabourMarkets, Community Land Trusts, Fair Trade Bonds) points tothe underlying potential o more localised, relationship-basedfnancing.13

The impact of the Big Green Challenge

The Big Green Challenge demonstrates that community-ledinnovation can be a powerul means or responding to nationalsocial challenges. The fnalists have made a signifcant impacton CO2 emissions towards the governments national objective.The process has also achieved a surprisingly widespread

reach in terms o applicants and innovative approaches. Andimportantly, the Big Green Challenge has demonstrated aneective, relatively low cost way to support lots o localism andto help communities develop sustainable solutions.

Firstly, the Big Green Challenge has been eective at reducingCO2 emissions. The fnalists achieved an average reductionin CO2 emissions o 15 per cent during the fnal year (withthe winning projects achieving between 10 and 32 per cent

reductions). This means that in the space o just one year thesecommunity-led interventions have met almost hal (44 percent) o the UKs target or reducing CO2 by 2020.14 Becausethe challenge has been successul in developing sustainableprojects, the reductions in emissions achieved by thesecommunities are likely to treble over the next three to ouryears, meeting the UKs targets or 2020 well ahead o time.15

Secondly, the applicants to the Big Green Challenge covered a

broad area both geographically and in types o approach. Theyproposed a diverse range o innovative, ambitious projects.They tended towards approaches that actively addressed



16/52

liestyle and behaviour change, with 80 per cent o applicantseeling that changing practice was a crucial part o the solution.A high proportion o groups originated rom within their owncommunities, and they came rom all over the UK. Overall, up to5,800 people were engaged in the fnalists work, with around2,000 o these involved in some substantive way.

Amongst our ten fnalists, some grew rom highly urbanenvironments. Global Generation worked with young volunteersin Kings Cross in central London, building links with localbusinesses to fnd alternative ood-growing spaces. Faith andClimate Change brokered connections with aith groups inBirmingham to address environmental issues across religiouscommunities. Others worked with public service users, suchas the students and sta at St Bedes High School who aimedto be one o the frst carbon neutral schools, or the inmateso HMP Ford in Sussex, who were taught a sustainable tradethrough taking part in the prisons Waste Oil Recycling project.

Finally, the Big Green Challenge was a relatively low-cost wayto support widespread localism. The fnalists only received

a 20,000 start-up und alongside support rom businessdevelopment teams at an approximate value o 5,000. Evenwhen including the 1 million prize money, the running costs othe Big Green Challenge were ar less than 5 million.

In addition, the Department o Energy and Climate Change wasso impressed by the ambition and emerging impact o theseparticipants that they oered 17 urther, non-fnalist projectsextra direct unding and support worth a total o 600,000.

From a low carbon co-operative in Manchester, to a project todeliver local hydro power rom water mills near Bath, and a planto install renewable energy technologies on local arms aroundWinchester, these projects are now part o the Big GreenChallenge Plus, a joint initiative between DECC and NESTA.16

The Big Green Challenge supported solutions that wereparticularly eective in the way they took advantage o localknowledge and perspective. But despite their potential, this

particular kind o genuine, grassroots localism beyond localgovernment and the local outposts o national organisations could be harnessed more eectively by government initiatives.



17/52

Looking at the fnalists in more detail, some lessons emergearound what makes localism eective and how to overcome thechallenges in getting localism right.



18/52

PART 2: WHY LOCALISM WORKS BUT REMAINS LARGELY UNTAPPED 18

PART 2:

WHY LOCALISMWORKS BUT REMAINS

LARGELY UNTAPPED

During the fnal year o the Big Green Challenge,NESTA took a closer look at the ten fnalists throughrigorous, qualitative research alongside the quantitative

measurements o their impact on CO2 emissions.17 This sectionwill delve deeper into what made these projects eective,to understand why localism works and why it is crucial toconronting the many complex, seemingly intractable socialchallenges that are driving escalating demand or publicservices.

As the insights rom the fnalists indicate, local solutions rely ontheir specifcity, local ownership, and the ability o groups totailor solutions to particular contexts. Local groups are also bestplaced to encourage community engagement on a social issue,through access to local networks and existing relationships.

However, better understanding o what makes local solutions

work highlights why central government has traditionallyound genuine local engagement difcult to achieve. Trying tosupport and scale-up local action centrally can undermine thisrootedness, and take away rom what makes localism successulin the frst place.

Nonetheless, the urgent and increasingly expensive nature omany such challenges as climate change, mental and physicalhealth or anti-social behaviour demand more eective solutions

which can better engage the public in taking action. Thoughvitally important, government action alone isnt enough: impactdepends on the knowledge, commitment and engagement ocitizens.


19/52

Traditional approaches to big social challenges are

struggling to make much headway

Centrally led behaviour change campaigns or deliveringnationally standardised programmes are struggling to makean impact on some issues, especially when the challenge isintimately linked to how people live their lives or to complex,locally specifc circumstances. The most obvious example is theNHS. Most o its inrastructure is geared towards treating acuteillnesses, whilst the preventative health agenda (or example,to reduce the prevalence o chronic long-term conditions)remains comparatively marginalised despite the evidence thatsuggests the latter could drive down costs signifcantly.18

At the heart o this are the limits to the traditional defcitmodel o public services that undervalues the hidden resourceso service users, their amilies and communities. Defcit modelservices tend only to respond to our pressing problems, ratherthan aiming to reduce the occurrence o problems in the frstplace.19 Similarly, centrally led behaviour change campaigns,though increasingly sophisticated, can assume a defcit oinormation as the barrier to action. Though there are importantexceptions most notably on drink-driving, or the 5 A DAYcampaign which uses a positive, achievable message toencourage healthy eating these campaigns have oten beenmore eective at raising awareness (important though this is)than changing behaviour.

In contrast to the 5 A DAY message, the objective orgovernments Act on CO2 campaign is relatively broad and

immeasurable. A recent evaluation o the campaign showedthat on many signifcant environmental issues, attempts tochange behaviour rom the centre are having little impact. Inthe evaluation survey, people who claimed to always recycleand reduce ood waste, or intend to improve current levels,were less requent than a year ago, as were commitments toreducing energy in the home (turning o light switches, cuttingdown on water usage, leaving appliances on standby).20

Todays challenges that remain intractable are characterised bytheir complexity, and have two actors in common: uncertaintyas to what works best on the ground; and the requirementor deep levels o personal commitment and collective



20/52

action. There are limits to what constitutes best practiceand knowledge about what motivates people to change theirbehaviour.

Though it is commonly assumed that delivering solutionscentrally can be cheaper, the nature o some o the morebehavioural and social challenges means that one-tracksolutions will inevitably be high risk. As just one example, healthinequalities amongst young children remain persistent despitesignifcant investment and multiple national initiatives. Indeed,some health indicators such as obesity and dental health have worsened.21

Small communities can help to tackle big social

challenges

Solutions that are designed, developed and delivered locallyare oten better placed than central initiatives to understandlocal conditions and needs, and to engage citizens in takingaction to tackle challenges more cheaply and eectively. We

have highlighted two aspects o local solutions that accountor this, drawing on the fnalists rom the Big Green Challenge allowing the community to take real ownership o developingand implementing new approaches, and their ability to inspirepurposeul action on an issue.

Communities can develop and implement new

approaches locally, which can make them more effective

Responses that are developed as well as delivered locallyprovide or real local ownership. This ownership mattersbecause it means that projects can make better use o localknowledge, assets and inrastructure. These assets help to makethe solutions more efcient and eective than nationwide, moregeneric or best practice approaches. Such assets are almostinvariably unknown to or beyond the reach o approachesdesigned and developed rom the centre.



21/52

The project was collectively owned and made use of the

hidden wealth that can only be useful when the community

comes together.Resident, Isle of Eigg

Community ownership raises awareness and demand for new

approaches

The Green Valleys project is developing community-ownedmicro-hydro schemes, and improving the energy efciencyo homes in the Brecon Beacons National Park. The GreenValleys team wanted to create a local sustainable energy

market, supporting the community to reduce their own carbonemissions and explore the potential o alternative energysources. By setting up community renewable energy schemesand reinvesting revenue in community-based carbon reductionprojects, the team aims to make the region a net exporter osustainable energy.

During the fnal year o the Big Green Challenge, Green Valleysinstalled a number o community-owned, hydro electric power

turbines, just one o which will generate over 80 per cent othe electricity needed by the local community. But rather thanjust introducing a new technology and assuming its uptake, theGreen Valleys team led an intensive local education campaignaround climate change to drum-up support or the project.They put on more than 60 public lectures to get peoplethinking and talking about climate change. Not only did theyramp-up demand or alternative energy sources, but they builta coalition and community ownership around the project that

was critical to its success.22

As a result o actions taken during the Big Green Challengeyear, Green Valleys will reduce CO2 emissions in the area bybetween 370 and 435 tonnes per year, a reduction o 20-23 percent.23 This impact is set to increase; with 40 hydro schemesplanned to be installed in the next our years, Green Valleyscould reduce emissions by 1,670 to 2,000 tonnes per year the equivalent o over 500 households successully meeting

governments 2020 target o a 34 per cent reduction in CO2emissions many years early.



22/52

This approach community ownership has proven to beeective in other projects. The UKs frst renewable energyco-operative, Baywind Cooperative Wind Farm, now has over1,300 members, and generates enough energy to power 1,700homes. The profts rom the six wind turbines currently inoperation in Cumbria are distributed amongst the members othe co-operative and invested in local environment projects.Baywind started as a community initiative over ten years agoand has recently ormed the development company Energy4Allto help communities around the UK own a stake in communityenergy schemes. Baywind cites the local ownership o the wind

turbines as the key actor in raising peoples awareness andappreciation o renewable energy, creating both supply anddemand.24

It is very odd that, I mean I thought that by generating your

own electricity you would think oh well but in fact it has

the reverse effect...I mean you are more conscious of using

it.Participant, the Green Valleys

Community ownership invests back into the community and

builds capacity for action

Like Baywind, a number o the fnalists either are or have thepotential to become sel-sustaining. Many have developedindependent unding schemes by harnessing fnancial supportdirectly rom their community oering shares or communityinvestment programmes. Low Carbon West Oxord is acommunity working to reduce carbon emissions in households,

through planting trees and local transport and ood projects.The resources to support this work were provided by WestOxord Community Renewables, a Friends Provident investmentsociety that is developing a portolio o community-ownedrenewable energy initiatives.

Others generate income streams rom training or educationservices the Waste Oil Recycling in Prisons (WORPP) projecthas developed the only accredited training programme on

small-scale biodiesel production rom waste oil as a trainingproduct. In some instances the fnalists have got to the pointwhere they are investment ready they are primed to bothattract and eectively use fnance rom a range o sources (a



23/52

share o the Big Green Challenge prize, private investment, ormore traditional government grants).

Such local ownership has other benefts. The Big GreenChallenge fnalists have, in a very short time, developed thecapacities o their communities to act on climate change.Whether in establishing the right legal structures to assist thedevelopment o social enterprises, organising their initiativesso communities can input into decision-making or utilisinglocal expertise to write business plans, unding bids or riskassessments, these capacities are the essential basis oreective community action or the operation o successul socialenterprises.

For example, all the Big Green Challenge fnalists havedeveloped the skills base in their communities. These havevaried rom communication skills (as Green Ambassadors atHackney City Farm), technical skills (such as turning wastecooking oil into biodiesel in Waste Oil Recycling in Prisons),energy surveying (such as the local volunteers workingalongside proessionals with Household Energy Services) or

woodland management (or example the Green Valleys). Theyhave also developed soter skills such as how to support eachother and work together. This can be crucial in raising theconfdence and abilities o local people in decision-making andto sustaining voluntary inputs.

Communities can inspire purposeful action on an issue

A common piece o eedback rom participants was that theeeling that were all in it together had helped them adopt newpractices or change how they live, not least by giving them anoverall sense that it was easier to do than they imagined.

As a single person reducing their carbon footprint isolated

from everybody else, the effect of that reduction is very

minimal and thats very frustrating... As an individual it is

difcult to get motivated and thats the key thing about the

Big Green Challenge as a community we can cumulativelymake a difference.Participant, the Green Valleys



24/52

Local groups can build a community around an issue

Our aim was to create a community around the challenge

to stay local but have an effect that can be global.Participant, Global Generation

I important aspects o some o the challenges acing publicservices depend on people changing the way they leadtheir lives, the best people to organise this are oten thecommunities themselves. Though some o those who havebecome involved in the Big Green Challenge projects werealready motivated and active, many fnalists brought in new

people with varying levels o environmental interest who wouldnot have taken action otherwise.

Local groups can access hidden pools o social capital,distributing responsibilities and aligning the right incentivesto get people involved.25 In contrast, central and even localgovernment can be too remote rom circumstances andconditions on the ground to access the untapped resources ocommunities and local networks. Local groups are oten much

better placed than either bureaucrats or researchers to identiythe needs, motivations and values o people within theircommunity, and to use these to inuence both individual andcollective understanding and most importantly action.

For example, the residents o the Isle o Eigg, led by the Isleo Eigg Heritage Trust, are working together to generaterenewable electricity, install insulation and solar panels, producelocal ood and develop low-carbon community transportschemes. The residents o Eigg have an ambitious goal: tobecome the frst green island in the UK. Fundamental to theprojects success has been the active engagement o the entireisland, and the Isle o Eigg team has oered lots o dierentopportunities or participation and made volunteering possiblealongside day-to-day commitments.

I cant imagine where somebody wanted to do more

and there was something stopping them. We all had the

opportunity to give as much as we could.Participant, Isle of Eigg



25/52

Local groups can draw on existing social capital and motivate

collective action

The Isle o Eigg is a remarkable place, with a very smallpopulation. Tight social networks that already existed inthe community meant that collective action had a strongeroundation to start with. This might be an inspiring example,but transerring these practices to another context could bechallenging. Rather than direct replication, the islanders haveinvested a great deal o eort in sharing the principles andethos behind their green movement with other communities.The Isle o Eigg is not ar rom achieving its ambition, having

already reduced their carbon emissions by 34 per cent (111tonnes) during the year o the Big Green Challenge.

But despite the unusual circumstances o the Isle o Eigg, manyo the Big Green Challenge fnalists have shown a capabilityto use existing local networks, ace-to-ace contacts, word omouth channels and trusted individuals to communicate ideas,and to motivate action by a broad range o ordinary peoplein their communities. Both Household Energy Services and

Meadows Ozone relied on trusted aces to encourage othersto take action. This is indicative o how local groups are ableto identiy and access networks that are easily recognisable bya community, but difcult to decipher by central or even localgovernment.

...being based in the community is absolutely key...you need

a gure that people will relate to, because then they will

listen. But if its just an outsider promising great things, I

dont think it has the same impact.Participant, Meadows Ozone

Local groups can then support action as part o the community,driven by the notion that were in it together at a morepersonal level. Where governments might be nervous aboutbeing seen to preach to the public, communities can tackleentrenched behaviours and social norms through dierent,more eective methods o engagement. They can enable actionthrough practical help, provide ideas, role models and support

rom within the community to develop new social norms. Thisefcacy has been demonstrated in the popularity o variousgroup-led approaches such as WeightWatchers or Pledgebanks



26/52

(an online I will i you will pledge platorm).26 Indeed, localgroups oten develop their plans with their local communities.27

Detailed analysis o all o the Big Green Challenge applicantsoutlined a range o models used to harness existing networksto inspire action. Only 8 per cent o the applicants basedtheir intervention on direct, one-way relationships. Thirty-twoper cent were direct, two-way relationships embedded in thecommunity they were working with, and 24 per cent wereindirect relationships that relied on community-embeddedintermediaries. Over hal o applicants were seeking to build onalready established relationships.28

Recent research rom a number o disciplines, rom behaviouraleconomics to psychology and neuroscience, reinorces theimportance o these types o relationships, by demonstratingto what extent our behaviour and the choices we make areinuenced by ace-to-ace relationships, our communities andnetworks.29 The way in which the Big Green Challenge fnalistsacted through trusted local networks and provided supportiveenvironments in which to negotiate change was striking.

One of the things weve learnt is that people want a

reliable, trustworthy and most important of all, a local

service.Adam Kennerley, Chief Executive of Household Energy Services

Household Energy Services (HES) utilised existing localnetworks to identiy barriers to people acting on climatechange. They ound that building relationships with people inthe community was strongly to their advantage in setting up adoor-to-door energy service helping households reduce theircarbon emissions. Based in Bishops Castle, Shropshire, HES isa community-based energy service that works with householdsto reduce carbon emissions, improve energy efciency and savemoney on uel bills. From helping out with draught proofngto brokering deals on renewable energy equipment, HES hasdeveloped a range o measures to help people take practicalaction, rather than just providing inormation.

HES is run by a not-or-proft Community Interest Companythat partners with local community and environmental groupsand uses teams o Volunteer Energy Surveyors to ensure take-



27/52

up o energy-saving measures at the lowest cost. HES has nowextended its energy service to other communities in Shropshire.It has assisted over 15,000 homes tackle their energy efciencyand has reduced carbon emissions in its community by 10-14per cent.

Going beyond climate change untapped opportunities

in community-led solutions

This kind o community approach has relevance beyond climatechange, and could be applied to issues ranging rom obesity

to mental health challenges where there are limits to bestpractice and where technological fxes are unlikely to work ontheir own. Whether tackling public health, targeting anti-socialbehaviour, reducing alcohol consumption or promoting ftness,all o these issues have social aspects that would beneft roma deeper knowledge o local conditions and better levers toinuence collective behaviour.

As an illustration, Social Action or Health (SAFH) works

through local networks and partnerships in very deprived partso East London to run a series o local projects to promote andsupport healthy living. SAFH supports action and involvementwithin a dense, urban environment not generally assumed topossess deep reserves o social capital. Their work includesa Health Guides project which trains local people to givehealth guidance and advice in their community. The Guidessimultaneously raise the profle o local health issues topolicymakers and provide a critical bridge between rontlinehealth proessionals and community groups. There are already70 active Health Guides within Social Action or Health, withplans to extend the scheme to other boroughs.30

The ingenuity and local knowledge o communities is apowerul national asset. Beyond the vibrant social enterprisesector, the voluntary sector is a large and growing part o oureconomy, with a rising income o 33.2 billion an increasein 3.3 per cent over the past year. There are roughly as many

hours o unpaid work as paid work each year in the UK, mainlywithin the amily.31 Volunteers add greatly to the delivery opublic services particularly in addressing the needs o those



28/52

that the government can fnd hard to reach. This contributionis signifcant in economic terms the National Council orVoluntary Organisations estimates that the contribution ovolunteers in 2007/08 was 22.7 billion.32

However, the voluntary sector remains a small proportion ogovernment expenditure on public services (2 per cent).33 Onthe whole, community enterprise remains largely undervaluedgiven the challenge o harnessing and supporting it centrally.

The challenge with localism

The UKs major political parties have all pointed to theimportance o encouraging and supporting more communityaction to address big social challenges, in part because o ashared recognition o the limitations o traditional governmentapproaches.

However, government has traditionally ound it difcult tosupport genuine local solutions, and when it does struggles

to marry localism with national impact and scale. This is ortwo reasons: frstly, because local solutions seem marginal incontrast to the strategic and increasingly expensive natureo todays social and economic challenges; and secondly, asgreater local agency inevitably leads to greater diversity, morelocalism tends to raise concerns about a postcode lottery thatwhere you live dictates your access to and experience o publicservices such as education, health or access to employment.

In terms o the ormer, it is understandable that trying toachieve the kind o impact necessary may seem more cost-eective through centralised, national approaches. Thetraditional response to achieving impact through localism is toidentiy a solution that works locally and to try to scale-up theapproach to other communities. For example, the Departmento Energy and Climate Changes Low Carbon CommunitiesChallenge explicitly states that it has been designed to involvecommunities as case studies or the applicability o new

systems, inrastructure and technologies towards a low carbonuture acting as national blueprints that will be used toinorm government policy development and delivery.34



29/52

To avoid accusations o the latter, governments assess andcompare perormance across a number o localities andpromote public service entitlements that guarantee a certainlevel o service. But despite leveling across some importantareas, inequalities remain high particularly in health.35

There are other drivers o this kind o approach. Whilstostensibly recognising the value o localism, it can be atough challenge or central government policymakers toleave communities to come up with the solutions. Genuinelyletting go o control is difcult when accountability is seento lie with politicians and central government departments.Close scrutiny rom opposition parties and the media putspressure on government to come up with the answers and todemonstrate their response to problems. The short-term natureo the political cycle and o policymaking generally leads topressure or impact to get the headlines.

Centrally led roll out of solutions can undermine local

ownership

However, scaling successul local solutions by mandatingtheir adoption in other areas or showcasing them as bestpractice can undermine the local ownership, engagement andsustainability o solutions that make them eective in the frstplace, and erode communities own motivation and capacity oraction. This questions the assumption that localism is in eect atesting-ground or ideas that can subsequently be scaled up ata national level, a kind o R&D lab or public sector practice.

This is reected in other areas o public policy. Whetherat the rontline o public services, in local authorities or incommunities, centrally-led initiatives can undermine capacityor local innovation and leave local bodies too reliant on setprocedures, targets and assessment rom the centre. Rolling outbest practice makes it difcult to develop local social capitaland capacity on the one hand, and avoid too much centrallyimposed auditing and accountability on the other.36

Not all local social innovations have the potential to scalenationally, even with the right support. In many cases, they arepowerul because o how well they work in a specifc context,which may be replicable in only some other places, or even



30/52

not at all. Trying to support and scale up local action centrallycan undermine this local rootedness, and take away rom whatmakes localism potentially so successul.37

Existing support structures can create a vicious circle of

dependency

Furthermore, the existing inrastructure o government limitsthe sustainability and growth potential o local projects,creating dependency on grant unding. There is a tendency tound activity rather than outcomes, which results in a urry ounderdeveloped and underexploited action that can peter out

once unding comes to an end. This can result in a vicious circleo misdirected investment in localism which perpetuates a lacko confdence in local solutions.

The Green Valleys initiative has been very much about

us initially taking the lead, then working alongside, and

increasingly now providing a support and facilitating role as

communities say thanks, weve got it now. Well take it from

here.

Participant, the Green Valleys

The challenge or policy is not to scale local approaches tothe national level, but to design an efcient and eectiveapproach that can support a large number o locally developed,locally owned projects across the country. In order to realisethe potential o localism, we have to change the type ointervention that is intended to support community action,relying less on scaling up best practice models and creating

more opportunities or communities to develop their ownsolutions and to learn rom each other.



31/52

PART 3: UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL OF MASS LOCALISM 31

PART 3:

UNLOCKING THEPOTENTIAL OF

MASS LOCALISM

This section will outline an approach by which centraland local government can encourage widespread,high quality local responses to big challenges we call

this approach mass localism. Mass localism is an alternativeapproach to combining local action and national scale, bysupporting lots o communities to develop and deliver theirown solutions and to learn rom each other.

We set out fve principles that indicate how government shouldapproach mass localism, drawing on the design eatures inNESTAs Big Green Challenge. This isnt just about governmentor other public bodies running a series o challenge prizes,although in some circumstances this could be appropriate.Rather, mass localism holds more radical implications or howgovernment and others could commission and support morecommunity-led responses to big social challenges at a lowercost than traditional initiatives.

This has a range o possible applications, most obviouslyin complex, behavioural challenges such as environmentalsustainability, health promotion, and reducing re-oending. Weestimate that establishing a series o small open communitychallenge unds as part o current initiatives and unding, ledby the principles outlined here, could have a signifcant impacton these issues and thereore their costs.


32/52


Mass localism is about seeking distributed solutions to

problems and supporting communities to implement

themMass localism is an alternative approach to combining localaction and national scale. Instead o assuming that the bestsolutions need to be determined, prescribed, driven orauthorised in some manner rom the centre, policymakersshould create more opportunities or communities to developand deliver their own solutions. It is not enough to assumethat scaling back government bureaucracy and control will

allow local innovation to ourish. Mass localism depends ona dierent kind o support rom government and a dierentapproach to scale.

Our research suggests that given the right kind o opportunity,advice and support, communities rom various backgroundswould be likely to participate in local projects that address asocial issue. Though many people ace signifcant barriers toparticipation, class and income do not necessarily defne desireand capacity to act provided appropriate support is in place.Further, the public appear much more likely to get involved in alocal project i it is truly local rather than government-led.38

The principles of mass localism the broader

implications for government

Looking at the Big Green Challenge, we have drawn outa number o principles that indicate how government can

stimulate and support communities to take the lead inaddressing major social challenges. These are not highlyspecifc design eatures or uture government programmesand initiatives. Rather they are a set o deliberately broadprinciples that government and others could use to reormat orcomplement aspects o some existing programmes.

There are fve principles:

i) Establish and promote a clear, measureable outcome

The Big Green Challenge fnalists welcomed the emphasison outcomes, allowing the community to identiy the most


33/52

appropriate and eective approach. A clear, tight timetablecreated a sense o urgency and purpose around thechallenge, and the measurable impact o carbon reductiongranted tangible reward to participants.

In contrast, many government initiatives containadditional objectives, targets, secondary aspirations andconsiderations. This happens or understandable reasons,given the various dimensions o social problems and themultiple departments and stakeholders involved, but itcan undermine clarity o purpose and so the potential toengage citizens and communities in the challenge.

Big clear goals can start a national conversation. To putthis into practice, government should radically simpliyoutcomes rom assessment criteria and ensure clarityand consistency o priorities across national and localgovernment priorities that are not subject to requentrevision and addition.

ii) Presume a community capacity to innovate

The Big Green Challenge was built around an openapproach, with a very open frst stage. Inherent inthis design was a belie that communities could, withappropriate support, develop and deliver their ownresponses to big social challenges. Such a belie is notuniversally apparent in the design o government initiatives,but it is the frst and most undamental step in givingcommunities real ownership o solutions.39

Rather than looking to implement best practice andexisting codifed solutions, government should presume acommunity capacity to identiy opportunities and resourcesthat could make solutions more eective. Not only does thiscreate space or the potential ingenuity o local approaches,but it allows or more local ownership o solutions. In orderto achieve this, government should wherever possible takean open approach to problem-solving and not assume

where the best solutions will come rom. Whenever theycan, unding schemes ought to welcome non-constitutedgroups (especially at early stages), and government shouldlook to as wide a range o suppliers as possible.40



34/52

iii) In the early stages, challenge and advice is more valuable

than cash

The Big Green Challenge was a staged process, with helpor the development o ideas and graduated rewards. It wascrucial in the frst stages not to provide fnancial support,but rather to stretch and develop ideas and encouragecommunity projects to think creatively about fnances andthe uture. A striking proportion o the Big Green Challengefnalists developed their ideas as social enterprises orCommunity Interest Companies (CICs). A number set-uprenewable energy schemes that generated revenue whichcould be reinvested back into the community.

Rapid capital investment limits the potential orcommunity projects with signifcant promise but withoutthe prerequisite skills and capacity to respond.41 Inaddition, large initial investments increase the risk tounders, thereore limiting both the experimentation andambition o the providers but also the risk-propensity othe commissioners. Instead, government should ocus on

helping community-led initiatives to become more sel-sustaining. At an early stage this could mean increasingaccess to expert advice or assistance with networking orunderwriting some o the fnancial risks o initiatives tomake them more attractive to private investors.

iv) Identify existing barriers to participation and then remove

them

The Big Green Challenge created an environment orinnovation, with exibility and space to rethink anddevelop approaches. In doing so, it also generated useulintelligence about what makes community action possibleand what inhibits it. The individual and shared experienceo projects can help to illuminate the conditions necessaryor community action, and identiy existing barriers todesigning and delivering local solutions o various kinds.42This is real, useul policy intelligence, and it should inormurther policy development. In particular, regulatory regimesneed to be appropriate or small-scale projects.

For example, in the case o the Big Green Challenge, the



35/52

fnalists relied heavily on local volunteers donating their time,which at times made it difcult to comply with governmentregulations and requirements or proessional, accreditedcontractors. Wherever possible, conditions that eectivelydisallow use o local contractors should be removed.

v) Dont reward activity, reward outcomes

Aside rom relatively inexpensive but valued support,the Big Green Challenge rewarded outcomes. Providingfnancial support upront can easily be misinterpreted asgrant unding made in payment or activity. The whole pointo the Big Green Challenge was to galvanise community-ledaction that was sustainable not to induce a dependencyon relatively short-term fnancial support.

The challenge with traditional unding schemes is thatthey tend to over-speciy outputs and thereore getcaught in unding particular activity rather than actualprogress towards outcomes. Instead o ocusing on thehow, government ought to ocus more explicitly on what.Practically, this means a commitment to commissioningon the basis o outcomes, rather than closely monitoringongoing perormance against a number o dierenttargets.43

I enacted widely, these principles would represent a radicalshit in how government supports communities to act on socialchallenges. It means government ocusing less on codiyingpractice and pushing ideas out rom the centre and more

on fnding new ways to tap into the energies, insights andexisting networks in local communities. It wont be easy, buta commitment to this more radical transer o power will helpus to establish greater intelligence about what makes localismeective and more confdence in the capacity o communitiesto deliver national objectives.

Mass localism represents a different approach to scale

From the application o these principles, a dierent type oscale emerges. What we are learning is that or the type oresponses that engage and enthuse local communities, scale



36/52

can only really be achieved organically, rom the groundup. Scale is achieved by having lots o local solutions thatcollectively have a big impact on social challenges, by providingthe inrastructure or local innovation and allowing communitiesto learn rom each other.44

This is perhaps best demonstrated in the social ranchisingmodel the Green Valleys team used to take the project to scale.This was a key eature o the projects success, as it sparkeda network o interdependent but sustainable CommunityInterest Companies (CICs) that were owned by particularparts o the community. The Green Valleys is itsel a CIC, butrather than extending their service across the Brecon Beacons,they developed a model that enabled other groups to set uplocal enterprises. The Green Valleys project has established 13town and village community groups ocused on developing avariety o dierent carbon reducing activities, including electricvehicle trials, cultivating allotments, art projects, energy advicesurgeries and woodland uel schemes.

This dierent approach to scaling supporting mass innovation

rather than stretching particular solutions questions theefciency o so-called economies o scale. The most cost-eective impact will not be achieved by pushing a singleone-size-fts-all solution or limited number o models o bestpractice, particularly in approaching tough, entrenched socialchallenges.

More local diversity necessarily results in a variety o provision.But a greater variety o approaches is necessary where specifc

social contexts, behaviours and networks have a demonstrableimpact on peoples actions and attitudes. Areas dier in theprevalence o certain environmental, health, and re-oendingissues. For this reason, we already have postcode lotteries notbecause public services are insufciently standardised, but inpart because they are too standardised.

While minimum standards in public services should remain,it is the current fction o supposedly standardised provision

in mainstream public services that generates concern aboutpostcode lotteries, more than the ear o more genuinely localand diversifed responses that would be much better placed tomake an impact on the inequalities that persist.45



37/52

Unlocking the potential of mass localism to save money

and improve outcomes

The fnancial context or public services makes fnding eectiveand efcient responses to social challenges all the more urgent.The Chancellors Pre-Budget Report orecast that public sectordebt would reach 178 billion in 2009/10, or 12.6 per cent oGDP. From 2011, public spending is projected to rise by only 0.8per cent a year in real terms a sharp adjustment or publicservices that have grown accustomed to relatively steadyincreases in investment. The Institute or Fiscal Studies hasestimated the total cuts required by 2013-14 at 35.7 billion.Even with the cuts and efciency savings set out by the currentgovernment, there remains a gap o 15 billion o savings yet tobe identifed.46

Public services in the UK ace enormous challenges andincreasingly constrained resources. Community-based groupsand organisations have untapped potential to assist publicsector colleagues to meet these challenges and create morevalue rom public spending.

The principles or mass localism present some signifcantimplications or how policymakers approach many major socialchallenges and show how we need to rethink our approach togalvanising community action. Existing and new initiatives inpublic services and social challenges should adopt a similarmass localism approach, to save money and increase impact.This has a range o possible applications, most obviously inenvironmental sustainability, health promotion, and reducing

re-oending rates. These are outlined below.

Making this kind o shit in government policymaking mightbe a challenge. But the best way to change culture is otenthrough action; this represents the kind o action thatgovernments wanting to change their culture and processes tosomething ar more supportive o localism should embrace.

Mass localism in climate change could producesignicant progress against UK targets

As noted in Part 1, the varied and vibrant community-led



38/52

projects supported through the Big Green Challenge haveachieved an average reduction in CO2 emissions o 15 percent during the fnal year o the challenge (with the winningprojects achieving between 10 and 32 per cent reductions).This means that in the space o just one year these community-led interventions have met almost hal (44 per cent) o theUKs target or reducing CO2 by 2020.47 Because the Challengehas been successul in developing sustainable projects, thereductions in emissions achieved by these communities arelikely to treble over the next three to our years, meeting theUKs targets or 2020 well ahead o time.

Government has made very signifcant and importantinvestments in initiatives to reduce carbon emissions in orderto meet the UKs target, committing 2.7 billion a year toenergy efciency programmes and measures alone (nearly9 billion between 2008 and 2011).48 This includes the CarbonEmissions Reduction Target (CERT), the Community EnergySaving Programme, and Warm Front. However, the Committeeon Climate Change (the independent body that advises

government on reducing greenhouse gas emissions) has calledor a step-change in the pace o reductions. It notes thatbetween 2003 and 2007 emissions reductions averaged 0.5 percent a year, whereas reductions o 2 to 3 per cent a year will benecessary to meet the UK target.49

As part o this step-change, the Committee on ClimateChange has emphasised the need to make a major shit inthe strategy on residential home energy efciency to achievea transormation o residential building stock. Residentialhousing produces about a third o UK greenhouse gases. TheGovernment is already investing 959 million in the Warm Frontscheme between 2008 and 2011, to install better insulation andheating in low-income households. Nonetheless, many low-income households do not realise that they are eligible or thisassistance, and many more wealthy households are unawareo the benefts o better insulation (or example, in reducedenergy bills). Last year, 57,000 lots and 27,000 walls were

insulated under Warm Front.50

The Committee suggests that this should be done through awhole house or neighbourhood, street-by-street approach,



39/52

with advice, encouragement, fnancing and unding availableor households to incentivise major energy efciencyimprovements. Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire has recentlywon the prestigious Ashden Award or its initiative whichdemonstrates the impact that can be achieved throughthis type o approach. Advisors go door-by-door, oeringall households ree lot and cavity wall insulation with noconditions. So ar, this has resulted in more than 25,000reurbishments. However, the Kirklees approach would be veryexpensive i scaled up to a nationwide scheme in the traditionalmanner; the frst three years o the Kirklees scheme will cost

20 million.Working alongside initiatives such as Warm Front, community-led projects could play a signifcant role in achieving this kind oimpact but at a raction o the cost o a national programme.51For example, as noted in Part 2, Household Energy Services(HES) is a community-based energy service company that haspartnered with local community and environmental groups anduses teams o Volunteer Energy Surveyors to ensure the take-

up o energy-saving measures at the lowest cost. It has alreadyassisted over 15,000 homes and in one year has reduced carbonemissions by 10-14 per cent; it is estimated that the carbonreductions rom this one project will triple over the next ewyears.

As part o Warm Front, appropriate encouragement andsupport or two hundred similar projects across the country(at a total cost o up to 3 million) could result in carbonreductions o approaching hal a million tonnes a year (442,000tCO2) a signifcant contribution to the Governmentsambitions or the programme.52

Mass local solutions could have a signicant impact

in other areas such as physical and mental health or

re-offending behaviour

As noted in Part 2, social challenges that remain seemingly

intractable are characterised by their complexity, and havetwo actors in common: uncertainty as to what works best onthe ground; and the requirement or a deep level o personal



40/52

commitment and collective action. Such challenges requirenot only action rom government, but engagement andlocal knowledge rom citizens. Solutions that are designed,developed and delivered locally are oten better placed thancentral initiatives to understand local conditions and needs, andto engage citizens in taking action to tackle challenges morecheaply and eectively.

Centrally designed, prescribed or authorised approaches arecertainly struggling to make substantive progress against suchchallenges:

The NHS is aced with rising levels o obesity, at anestimated cost o 4.2 billion per year.53 Currently, 8 percent o young males and 10 per cent o young women areobese; government has projected this to rise to an averageo 15 per cent by 2025.54

Mental illness costs the NHS 22.5 billion a year, projectedto increase by 45 per cent to 32.6 billion in 2026.55 Thewider economic costs o mental ill health are estimated at

110 billion, mostly due to lost productivity.56

Re-oending rates remain stubbornly high, particularlyamongst young people. More than 55 per cent o prisonersare reconvicted within two years (70 per cent or youngpeople).57 Each oence leading to reconviction costs the UKcriminal justice system on average 13,000 with the totalcosts close to 11 billion a year.58

NESTA will continue to investigate the efcacy o challenge

prize mechanisms in other areas. However, there is sufcientlystrong evidence to suggest that government should establisha series o small open community challenge unds as parto current initiatives (and using existing unding), led by theprinciples outlined here, in order to stimulate and support manymore local responses to major social issues.

The Governments Change4Lie campaign has promotedthe importance o reducing obesity through healthier

eating and taking more exercise, with some support orcommunity projects. We estimate, on the evidence o impactor community-based interventions59 and the ability o theseapproaches to reduce obesity levels by at least 5 per cent, that



41/52

incorporating support or ar more community-led projects intoChange4Lie through the principles described here could savethe NHS 210 million a year on a very modest investment (lessthan 3 million).60

We should make similar investments in other areas. In mentalhealth, recent analysis rom the Department o Healthdemonstrates that increased provision o current modelso care might only avert 28 per cent o the costs o mentalillness.61 However, non-institutional community-based projects(sometimes working alongside mainstream services) canimprove prevention and provide more eective support.62 Isuch approaches were to become much more commonplace aspart o our response to mental illness, as part the recent NewHorizons initiative, this would produce a saving to the NHS o700 million a year (based on a 5 per cent reduction in theprevalence o mental illness).63

Lastly, there is a growing body o evidence or the eectivenesso tackling oending and re-oending at a local level throughcommunity-based rehabilitation, support or transition rom

prison to society, training and resettlement or ex-oenders.64Preventative and restorative approaches embedded in thecommunity can have transormative eects.65 Such approaches,integrated into the Governments Crime Strategy (particularlythe Youth Crime Action Plan), would be likely to reduce thecost o re-oending by signifcant amounts, but even a 5 percent reduction would result in savings o 550 million per year.



42/52

CONCLUSION 42

CONCLUSION

The adoption o a mass localism approach could createa virtuous circle o eective local action, with greaterimpact and savings encouraging a greater emphasis on

locally developed and delivered solutions. The way to resolvethe current concerns over the efcacy o localism is to generatemuch more o it, not limit it, and to do so in a systematic way.

Social activists have long been encouraged to think global,

act local to consider the health o the entire planet but totake action in their own communities. But policymakers needto think local in order to create the conditions or change tohappen on a global, or national, scale they need frst o all toconsider how to stimulate and support local responses to bigproblems, not what these solutions might or should be. Thisrequires a dierent type o policymaking a much greatersharing o responsibility between the state, communities andcitizens to determine what works and to deliver results.

Mass localism reects a broader trend that is increasinglyapparent across the economy, culture and society: fndingdistributed solutions to problems and delivering solutionswith citizens. Just as orward-thinking businesses are openingup their R&D processes to their suppliers and customers, sopolicymakers and public organisations should look or solutionsbeyond established organisations and experts. They should lookalso to citizens and communities.

In this case, policymakers need to resist the notion that localismrepresents a orm o R&D or central government. Rather, itis the local approaches themselves that represent the fnal


43/52

CONCLUSION 43

product and which we need more o. In other words, localismis not a means to better national programmes; it is the way inwhich more national objectives can be met on the ground.

Advances in digital communication technologies and the trendtowards more distributed production in other parts o theeconomy provide an opportunity or this approach to be muchmore widespread. Where previously local solutions aced limitsin their capacity to scale and share experience nationally, nowthe tools or leveraging greater impact rom local approachesare more widely available.

This is part o an approach to reorm that we call people-powered public services. This paper is one o a series opublications that show how this approach can be applied topublic services and the benefts that can result so that ourpublic services are better placed to cope with the immediatedemands o the fnancial crisis, and better able to respond tothe long-term challenges o the uture.


44/52

ENDNOTES 44

ENDNOTES

1. See or example Cabinet Ofce (2009) Putting the Frontline First: SmarterGovernment. London: Cabinet Ofce; and Department o Communities and LocalGovernment (2008) Communities in Control: Real People, Real Power. London:Department o Communities and Local Government; and The Conservative Party (2009)Control Shit: Returning Power to Local Communities. London: The Conservative Party;and Lamb, N. (2010) The NHS: A Liberal Blueprint. London: Centre Forum; and TheLiberal Democrat Party (2007) The Power to be Dierent: policy paper or the LiberalDemocrat Conerence Autumn 2007. London: Liberal Democrat Party.

2. CO2 reductions in the Big Green Challenge year were monitored by CRed on behal oNESTA. This data provides a conservative estimate o reductions achieved by fnalists

across the Big Green Challenge year. The emissions reductions achieved, now and in theuture, may well be higher than the reductions reported here.

3. NESTA (2009) People Powered Responses to Climate Change: Mapping the Big GreenChallenge. London: NESTA.

4. For the purposes o the Big Green Challenge (and thereore this paper) communitiesare considered to be sel defning groups o individuals or organisations broughttogether by geography, identity or interest. Though the Big Green Challenge fnalistswere predominantly communities defned by geography, a number o applicants wereinterest groups or virtual communities. See NESTA (2009) People Powered Responsesto Climate Change: Mapping the Big Green Challenge. London: NESTA.

5. Evaluation o the Big Green Challenge was led by Brook Lyndhurst or NESTA and alldata and evidence comes rom the fnal evaluation report; or urther details about theBig Green Challenge process see NESTA (2010) Smart Incentives or People PoweredInnovation: How to Deliver the Big Green Challenge Approach. London: NESTA.

6. NESTA (2010) Smart Incentives or People Powered Innovation: How to Deliver the BigGreen Challenge Approach. London: NESTA.

7. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book o Social Innovation:ways to design, develop and grow social innovation. London: NESTA and The YoungFoundation.

8. NESTA (2009) People-Powered Responses to Climate Change: Mapping Community-led Proposals to NESTAs Big Green Challenge. London: NESTA.


45/52

ENDNOTES 45

9. The Department o Energy and Climate Change (2009) Low Carbon CommunitiesChallenge: 2010-2012. London: Department o Energy and Climate Change.

10. Evidence suggests that the strength o the prize is rarely derived rom the size o itspurse and that the support and eective implementation o the process is as valuable.See McKinsey & Company (2009) And The Winner Is London: McKinsey & Company.

11. The Big Lottery Fund (2007) Answering Big Questions: impacts and lessons learnedrom our evaluation and research. London: The Big Lottery Fund.

12. See http://www.can-online.org.uk

13. Social Enterprise (2009) Good Deals 2009: the Social Investment Almanac. London:Social Enterprise, Cabinet Ofce, NESTA.

14. The Governments Low Carbon Transition Plan (published in July 2009) claims the UKhas reduced greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) between 1990 and 2007 by21 per cent, and that to deliver the Governments 34 per cent target by 2020 the UKneeds to reduce emissions by a urther 18 per cent (equivalent to 16 per cent between2008 and 2020). Because the Challenge has been successul in developing sustainableprojects, the reductions in emissions achieved by these communities are likely to trebleover the next three to our years, meeting the UKs targets or 2020 well ahead o time.

15. The Low Carbon Transition Plan includes the target or cutting emissions rom homeenergy use (which represents 13 per cent o the UKs greenhouse gas emissions) by 29per cent o 2008 levels by 2020.

16. For more details about the Big Green Challenge Plus, see Department o Energy andClimate Change (2009) The Low Carbon Transition Plan. London: Department oEnergy and Climate Change.

17. Undertaken as part o Brook Lyndhurst Big Green Challenge evaluation or NESTA.

18. For urther discussion, see Bunt, L. and Harris, M. (2009) The Human Factor: HowTransorming Healthcare to Involve the Public Can Save Money and Save Lives. London:NESTA.

19. Boyle, D. and Harris, M. (2009) The Challenge o Co-Production: how equal partnerships

between proessionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. London:NESTA and ne.

20. TNS (2009) ACT ON CO2 Campaign Evaluation, Q2 08/09. London: TNS.

21. Since 1997, there have been 27 national policies (approximately one every six months)aimed at improving the health o under-fves as a way to reduce health inequalities.See Audit Commission (2010) Giving Children a Healthy Start: a review o healthimprovements in children rom birth to fve years. London: The Audit Commission.

22. There are a number o unds or community-owned energy saving measures andmicro-generation technologies, or example as part o Changing Spaces: CommunitySustainability Energy Programme unded by the Big Lottery. See or example The BigLottery Fund (2008) Changing Spaces England. London: The Big Lottery Fund.


46/52

ENDNOTES 46

23. CO2 reductions in the Big Green Challenge year are estimated as annual reductionsbased on those actions taken during the year.

24. For more inormation see www.baywind.co.uk

25. The London Collaborative (the Young Foundation and the Ofce or PublicManagement) (2009) The Capital Ambition Guide to Behaviour Change. London: TheYoung Foundation.

26. Sustainable Development Commission report rom Sustainable ConsumptionRoundtable (2006) I Will i You Will: towards sustainable consumption. London:Sustainable Development Commission; also Sustainable Development Commissionreport rom Sustainable Consumption Roundtable (2006) Communities o Interest...and Action? London: Sustainable Development Commission.

27. This was the case with more than three-quarters o the applicants to the Big GreenChallenge. Further, nearly three-quarters o applicants based their plans on workingdirectly with their communities, as opposed to working through other organisations.See NESTA (2009) People-Powered Responses to Climate Change. London: NESTA.

28. NESTA (2009) People-Powered Responses to Climate Change. London: NESTA.

29. See or example Grist, M. (2009) Changing the Subject: how new ways o thinkingabout human behaviour might change politics, policy and practice. London: RSA; alsoHalpern, D. (2010) The Hidden Wealth o Nations. Cambridge: Polity Press; and Lehrer,J. (2009) The Decisive Moment. London: Cannongate Books.

30. For more inormation see www.sah.org.uk

31. The Young Foundation (2009) Sinking and Swimming: understanding Britains unmetneeds. London: The Young Foundation.

32. ESRC (2009) The Value o Volunteering: mapping the public policy landscape. London:ESRC.

33. Clark, J., Dobbs, J., Kane, D. and Wilding, K. (2009) The State and the Voluntary Sector:recent trends in government unding and public service delivery. London: NationalCouncil or Voluntary Organisations.

34. Department o Energy and Climate Change (2009) 10m or 20 best low carboncommunities. Press Release. London: Department o Energy and Climate Change.Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn109/pn109.aspx

35. Marmot, M. (2010) Fair Society, Healthy Lives: the Marmot review fnal report. London:Department o Health.

36. Boyle, D. (2009) Localism: Unravelling the Suppliant State. London: new economicsoundation.

37. Mulgan, G., with Ali, R., Halkett, R. and Sanders, B. (2008) In and Out o Sync. London:NESTA.

38. NESTA (2010) Mass Localism Survey. Research conducted by Opinion Matters. London:NESTA.


47/52

ENDNOTES 47

39. Local authoriti

Documents

MassLocalism_Feb2010