Measuring Social Integration and Social Value in Regeneration
The focus of one of our recent events — held on 27 January — was a discussion of the GLA’s newly launched Social Integration Management Toolkit; its aims and principles, and the ways in which it can be applied in practice.
In providing an introduction to the toolkit, Barney Cringle (PRD Solutions, Senior Associate director) and Barry Fong (Senior Research and Statistical Analyst (Social Policy), City Intelligence Unit, GLA) described it as a way
to help establish a better understanding of social integration across London’s places and communities….and the impact of policy, investment, and delivery in strengthening it.
With a focus on practical tools and guidance, the toolkit is relevant across a range of themes and organisations, from large-scale policymaking to grassroots communities.
The toolkit is structured according to four distinct parts:
1. Defining social integration
2. Guidance on social integration measurement
3. Tools to support social integration measurement
4. Practical examples of social integration measurement
In line with the Mayor of London’s definition of social integration (“determined by the level of equality between people, the nature of their relationships, and their degree of participation in the communities in which they live”), the toolkit posits outcomes as emerging from these three ‘measurement themes’, and sub themes:
The measurement process was conceptualised as a ‘feedback loop’, with conclusions and reflections directly feeding into subsequent planning:
The toolkit, its usability and applicability were lively discussed by participants, who emphasised the needs of systematic and coherent frameworks and methodologies to measure social integration. The toolkit is available and can be downloaded here.
Whilst the Social Integration Measurement Toolkit is important in helping use understanding the impact of regeneration projects on social integration outcomes, other, broader but rigorous considerations of social value methods in economic development initiatives can lead to positive social outcomes to all Londoners.
Alex Talbot, Regeneration Officer at the London Borough of Croydon and Caroline Wilson, Director of Inclusive Economy and Jobs at the London Borough of Islington, brought to life the complexity of practical considerations and application of social value in the context of regeneration.
As Alex observed, social value always carries a cost, something that should not be obscured by the political enthusiasm for it. In this sense, it is important for ‘monitoring by design’ — i.e. building this process into organisational capacity — to be presented as a means of instilling a culture of social value, as well as encouraging compliance. Alex’s presentation was an essential set of practical considerations for local authorities, rooted in the reality of monitoring and contracting and the difficulty of ensuring (and measuring) social value in practice. Many of these points were taken up in the breakout discussions later on, with participants citing the importance of a ‘golden thread’ (a term used by Alex) running through the corporate plan and other relevant processes, in terms of ensuring a holistic and consistent approach to social value.
Caroline then discussed the principles of community wealth building and its centrality to Islington’s recovery, covering several key concepts:
· A systems approach to an inclusive, sustainable economy
· Place-based work, built on local and broad ownership
· Opening up economic opportunities and voices to previously marginalised groups
In practice, this means keeping wealth within the local economy, and giving local people more control of (and benefit from) institutions and assets. This emphasis on ‘the local’ also applies to jobs, with greater security and progression routes. In addition, community wealth building entails a broadly-owned supply chain — one that ‘gives back’ — while working to regenerate biodiversity and meet net zero carbon targets.
In doing so, Islington can ‘use its levers’ as an employer, buyer, landlord, investor and leader. Caroline provided a case study in the form of the Affordable Workspace Strategy, which has already secured approximately 4,000 square metres of space. Managed by an operator, and sub-let to users below market rates, the strategy provides ‘peppercorn rent’ (low/nominal amounts) in return for specified social value (often in the form of start-ups and early-stage micro-businesses).
In our subsequent breakout discussions, participants emphasised the unprecedented importance of measuring social value and impact in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. With this in mind, the participants acknowledged the usefulness of the toolkit in providing a consistent and standardised approach to measuring social value (since it is measured differently across — and even within — various boroughs).
The participants also drew attention to the interconnections between social value, equality, diversity, inclusion and social integration. From this perspective, measuring social value must go beyond a ‘tick-box exercise’ and instead demonstrate a concerted effort to achieve meaningful impact. In doing so, participants stressed the need to speak to communities, and capture ‘heard and unheard’ voices. This can be achieved through hiring a community ambassador to facilitate conversations, or recruiting students to research first-hand.
This emphasis on community engagement echoes another key point raised in the discussion: the need for social value strategy and indicators to be ‘grounded in the community’. In this way, the community can help with the process of measurement, bringing in extra intelligence (through citizen science, for example), thus selling evaluation services back to the local authority.
The toolkit was seen as a way to help choose the right measurement for the right project, a valuable asset given the varying interests of stakeholders (e.g. the differences in views between developers and residents). As the participants maintained, many developers are in fact appreciative of social values, and recognise that “the legacy of a building is more than bricks and mortar”. Similarly, the toolkit was acknowledged as a potential means of ‘measuring the unmeasurable’: social value is typically represented in quantitative terms in funding applications (e.g. volunteer time, volunteer numbers), whereas the toolkit can be conducive to non-numerical social value outcomes.
The richness of these discussions bodes well for the next SIRLN workshop on 24 February, which will focus on supporting social infrastructure in London. In doing so, we aim to:
· Develop a better understanding of what we mean by social infrastructure in London
· Explore ways in which regeneration can enable social infrastructure development to address local need
· Share lessons from the Covid-pandemic and the role that inclusive and high-quality social infrastructure plays in supporting resilience in communities
As always, your shared experiences of regeneration, community engagement and inclusion provides crucial input in our network. Sign up for the network here and tell us about your ongoing projects at Socialintegration.learning@londonmet.ac.uk.
