Written evidence from the Institute for Global Prosperity, UCL [CCI0050]

The following submission aims to respond to the call for evidence into community cohesion and address the questions around the assessment of community cohesion that have been made in a local context, the primary barriers and threats to community cohesion and what can be done at a local and national level to improve community cohesion. Our evidence is based on the work of the Prosperity Co-Lab for the UK (PROCOL UK) at the UCL Institute for Global Prosperity.

PROCOL UK is an innovative initiative to develop transformational thinking and action on shared prosperity in the UK and coproduces research around the barriers to prosperity for local communities. Our Prosperity in east London 2021-2031 longitudinal study investigating the impact of regeneration on local communities in the last two decades provides evidence relevant to this inquiry.

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

In October 2024, we launched the Citizen Prosperity Index1[1], an innovative way to measure prosperity, that unlike conventional measures of prosperity that focus on economic growth and employment, job creation and income, is multi-dimensional, offering a more comprehensive assessment of the quality of life of local residents.

This Index reports on an array of factors such as livelihood security, health and wellbeing, housing quality, education and lifelong learning, community life, and choice and freedom, and is based on people’s own views and lived experiences (see Fig. 1), all determining factors for creating a prosperous life.

The Citizen Prosperity Index uses a novel mixed-methods approach with quantitative data from household surveys complemented with qualitative contextual data from citizen social scientists. The citizen scientists are members of their community and neighbourhoods, trained at the UCL Citizen Science Academy to undertake research as social scientists.

Fig. 1 What does the Citizen Prosperity Index measure?

Our study takes a hyper-local [2] look at who benefits and how from regeneration investments, identifying the different pressure points people are facing, and at the same time addressing the lack of evidence about the hyper-local impacts and outcomes of urban regeneration.

Citizen Prosperity Index data[3] shows significant differences in prosperity across the 15 research sites located in 5 boroughs in east London, and identifies intricate, place-specific patterns of opportunity and inequality across gender, age, and for different ethnic groups.

Overall, our findings show that:

• Women generally report lower levels of prosperity than men.
• People from non-white backgrounds report lower levels of prosperity than those from white backgrounds.
• Men are more likely to report higher scores for secure income and work, and freedom from financial stress. While women are more likely to report higher scores for social and community-related aspects of prosperity.
• Deep-rooted challenges of livelihood insecurity persist across all areas and demographics, not mapping straightforwardly onto employment status and income.
• Residents in planned, new neighbourhoods in regeneration areas report higher levels of prosperity than those in established neighbourhoods on the fringes of development sites.

Community cohesion in areas of east London

The Index reports on ‘Belonging, Connections and Leisure’ which includes three subdomains: Social Relationships, Sense of Community, and Arts, Leisure, and Sports. ‘Social Relationships’ assesses social connectedness with family, friends and neighbours. ‘Sense of community’ looks at community involvement, feeling of belonging, trust and neighbourhood support. ‘Arts, Leisure and Sports’ is based on equitable access and participation to arts, sports, and leisure activities.

The scores show significant variation across the 15 areas under all three sub-domains showing how multiple intersecting dimensions impact on people’s experiences.

For example, ‘Social Relationships’ scores range from 5.27[4] (Heath, Barking & Dagenham) to 7.42 (Teviot West, Tower Hamlets), a 41% difference. ‘Sense of Community’ shows even more notable disparities, with scores ranging from 3.37 (Heath, Barking & Dagenham) to 5.56 (Leyton, Waltham Forest), a 65% difference.

In general, ‘Sense of Community’ scores are quite low across all the areas under study, showing a low sense of belonging to the neighbourhood and trust in neighbours.

Gender and ethnicity inequalities

Looking at the survey results, significant disparities in terms of both gender and ethnicity emerge.

We observed that:

• Women are more likely to report that they feel lonely (this is more prominent in Hackney and the Olympic Park area, where in some cases, women’s scores for feeling lonely are up to 20% higher).
• Overall, people from non-white backgrounds report lower levels of belonging to the neighbourhood, with Black people and other minority ethnic groups scoring the lowest.
• In some areas like Teviot Estate and Hackney, the Black ethnic group report a sense of loneliness about 10% more compared to other ethnicities.
• Similarly, people from non-white backgrounds felt less confident when asked if they felt they could “Borrow things and exchange favours with neighbours” and “whether they feel they can ask favours from neighbours,”. however, this could also be cultural.

One result that stands out is that Black people report very strong scores in the question “Relationships you have in the neighbourhood mean a lot to you”, which may seem to contradict the above findings, but it also demonstrates that people have different perceptions about place-based identity and social networks.

Disparities in established versus new neighbourhoods

The comparison between new[5] and established[6] neighbourhoods regarding belonging, identities, and culture reveals subtle differences across various aspects.

For ‘Social Relationships’, scores are similar between established and new neighbourhoods with scores of 6.42 and 6.26, respectively.

In the ‘Sense of Community’ subdomain, established neighbourhoods scored 9.4% higher than new neighbourhoods, 4.43 versus 4.04. However, this disparity could be due to the shorter average tenancy in new neighbourhoods, where residents typically stay about two-thirds as long as those in established areas.

Regarding ‘Arts, Leisure, and Sports’, new neighbourhoods (4.92) perform slightly better over established ones (4.72) which suggests newer areas might offer marginally better-perceived access to or engagement with cultural and recreational activities. Overall, the findings show how community cohesion dynamics are linked with place, with established neighbourhoods marginally performing better in social cohesion while new neighbourhoods demonstrate a slight edge in cultural and recreational opportunities.

3. What are the primary barriers and threats to community cohesion

Income

From our Citizen Prosperity Index data, is evident that income is as a significant factor influencing social experiences and leisure participation. Higher income is associated with lower levels of loneliness and increased participation in leisure activities.

Education

Higher education levels strongly correlate with increased participation in organisations and leisure activities, as well as higher income. This relationship suggests that educational attainment not only provides individuals with more opportunities or inclination to engage in community and leisure pursuits but also enhances their earning potential, further supporting such involvement.

Age

Age is a significant factor in shaping experiences of belonging and social connection. Older individuals report a stronger sense of belonging to their neighbourhoods, with scores approximately 20% higher than the youngest age group. However, this increased sense of belonging is paradoxically accompanied by higher levels of loneliness, with older residents reporting loneliness levels about 15% higher than their younger counterparts.

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

Based on our key findings[7], that show complex and place-based interactions between different dimensions that explain significant variation in lived experiences, and inequality across gender, age, and for different ethnic groups, we advocate for:

1. A hyper-local focus to better understand the pressure points that people from various backgrounds are facing.  

Addressing both gender and ethnicity inequalities will need targeted interventions.
By taking account of the full set of assets, services, and networks, that people depend on, and recognising how these are interdependent, policy responses can more closely align with the realities communities face. Hyper-local insights about livelihood insecurity in east London identify neighbourhoods most likely to be vulnerable to economic shocks and provide local authorities with an alternative starting point for developing targeted responses to the cost-of-living crisis that will address the underlying chronic issue of livelihood insecurity.

2. An intersectional approach, that analyses how characteristics like gender, ethnicity and place impact on experiences of community cohesion.
   In our research, analysis of the differences between new and established neighbourhoods and data about how age, gender and ethnicity impact on community cohesion, and prosperity more generally, indicate that the effects of structural inequalities are too great for regeneration investments to generate positive ‘spillover’ effects in deprived neighbourhoods without targeted interventions that adopt an intersectional approach.

Acknowledgments

This response has been prepared by the UCL Institute for Global Prosperity:

• Henrietta L. Moore, Founder and Director
• Saffron Woodcraft, Principal Research Fellow, Executive Lead of PROCOL UK and Director of Social Policy.
• Eva Lamorgese, Senior Global Engagement and Impact Manager
• Rayhaan Lorgat, Research and Policy Officer

January 2025