Written evidence from Dr Ruth Weir, Violence and Society Centre, City St George’s, University of London and the VISION consortium [CCI0039]

Introduction

The Violence, Health, and Society (VISION) consortium is funded by the UK Prevention Research Partnership. We are a collaboration of epidemiologists, economists, data scientists, criminologists, evaluation experts, psychiatrists and more from multiple universities. Our research brings data together from health and crime surveys, health services, police, solicitors, and third sector domestic and sexual violence specialist services. Together, over the course of our five-year project, we aim to improve the measurement of data on violence to influence policy and practice and reduce violence and the health inequalities that result.

Community cohesion has been assessed in the UK using a variety of frameworks, often focused on social capital, collective efficacy, and neighbourhood structures. Our evidence draws on VISION research that applied Community Asset Mapping (CAM) and Geospatial analysis to assess community cohesion at the neighbourhood level, particularly in relation to domestic abuse. The research explored how variations in local assets and social networks influences levels of reported abuse and service provision.

What assessments have been made of community cohesion in the UK in a local and national context?

Nationally, assessments of community cohesion often rely on broad indicators such as crime statistics, deprivation indices, and social surveys. However, our research highlights the limitations of relying solely on quantitative data, emphasising the need for multi-agency approaches that incorporate local knowledge, community asset mapping, and qualitative insights (Weir 2022, 2019). 

At the local level, we used a model of the predictors of domestic abuse at the neighbourhood level (Weir, 2019), to identify ten areas in Essex where the model accurately predicted, overestimated or underestimated the level of abuse in the area (compared to levels of police recorded domestic abuse).  A CAM exercise with local stakeholders was carried out in each area that identified possible support and barriers for local residents.  The research found that community structure plays a significant role in cohesion. For example, neighbourhoods with strong collective efficacy—where residents trust each other and are willing to intervene for the common good—tend to have more cohesive social environments which lead to higher levels of reporting of domestic abuse. Assets such as foodbanks, churches and community centres where relationships between residents were formed and trust built were found to facilitate support and disclosures (Weir, 2022).

What are the primary barriers and threats to community cohesion? 

Our research identifies several key barriers to community cohesion, particularly in areas experiencing high levels of social and economic deprivation:

• Lack of collective efficacy: In areas with weak social ties, residents are less likely to intervene in community issues, leading to increased social isolation and vulnerability. Our research found that neighbourhoods with high levels of anti-social behaviour and transient populations often struggle to build trust and cohesion (Weir, 2022, 2019).
• Economic inequality: Our study in Essex found that areas that are homogenously deprived generally had access to a wide range of support services.  However, in areas with pockets of deprivation within largely affluent areas, there tended to be fewer accessible support services, particularly for those on low incomes, leading to reduced social capital and weaker support networks. 
• Fragmented service provision: The absence of coordinated responses across different agencies prevents effective community engagement. Many local government agencies in the UK operate on a needs-based rather than asset-based model, focusing on deficiencies rather than strengths. This limits opportunities to harness existing community resilience.
• Residential mobility and transience: High turnover in certain areas weakens long-term relationships between residents. Our findings show that transient communities, such as those in parts of Clacton, suffer from lower social cohesion, leading to increased isolation and distrust among residents.
• Mistrust in authorities: Certain communities, particularly those from racialised and minoritised backgrounds, often face institutional discrimination and negative experiences. Our research suggests that residents in some neighbourhoods may be reluctant to engage with authorities due to past negative experiences, reducing cohesion and limiting access to support.

What can be done at a local and national level to improve community cohesion?

Our research suggests that improving community cohesion requires a shift from a problem-focused to an asset-based approach. The following strategies can help strengthen cohesion at both local and national levels:

• Adopting Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD): This approach focuses on harnessing local strengths rather than solely addressing deficiencies. Local governments should map existing social assets, such as community hubs, voluntary groups, and informal support networks, to enhance cohesion.
• Enhancing multi-agency collaboration: A whole-system approach that involves the police, health services, voluntary organisations, and local authorities is essential. Our research highlights that reliance on police-reported domestic abuse data alone for commissioning creates significant blind spots, and integrating other data sources (e.g., NHS records, social care data, community asset information) would provide a more comprehensive understanding of community needs.
• Encouraging community participation: Encouraging resident-led initiatives can help build trust and foster local ownership over community issues. Our study found that areas with high volunteer engagement exhibited stronger cohesion, while those with disengaged struggled with social isolation.
• Addressing social and economic inequalities: Policies that tackle poverty, improve housing stability, and increase access to community services can enhance social integration. Our research suggests that improving access to affordable housing and employment opportunities can reduce the economic barriers that often contribute to social fragmentation.
• Embedding CAM in policy-making: Local governments should systematically use CAM to identify both strengths and service gaps in different neighbourhoods. This would enable targeted investments in areas with low social capital.

Conclusion

This response highlights how VISION consortium research on community cohesion, social capital, and asset-based approaches provides critical insights into the challenges and opportunities for strengthening communities in the UK. The findings suggest that moving beyond traditional needs-based assessments and adopting community asset mapping, multi-agency collaboration, and participatory initiatives can foster more cohesive and resilient neighbourhoods.

The VISION consortium is currently undertaking further neighbourhood level research into the relationship between violence, economic deprivation and social fragmentation in England and Wales.  The research should be published towards the end of 2025.

References:

Weir, R. (2022). Using Community Asset Mapping to Understand Neighbourhood-Level Variation in the Predictors of Domestic Abuse. In Geographies of Gender-based Violence (pp. 63-82). Bristol University Press.

Weir, R. (2019). Using geographically weighted regression to explore neighborhood‐level predictors of domestic abuse in the UK. Transactions in GIS, 23(6), 1232-1250.

January 2025