Supporting communities through turbulent times

What happens to a programme focused on public or community spaces during a lockdown, when such spaces are effectively rendered out of bounds? Has our understanding of what constitutes ‘community space’ been forever changed? And what has the experience of the pandemic taught us about the type of funding and support that the diverse ‘ecosystem’ of community space projects needs to survive and thrive?

These are some of the questions prompted by the experience of evaluating Space to Connect, a programme funded by the Co-op Foundation. As its name suggests, the programme aimed to build social connection (and specifically to tackle loneliness) by improving and protecting local spaces that give people opportunities to come together.

The Space to Connect programme

The original rationale behind the programme was that the number and variety of local or community spaces was decreasing, but that such resources were vital if people were to have the opportunity to make meaningful and sustainable connections. Overall, through a programme of short-term and relatively small-scale funding, coupled with a programme of learning and support activity, it was hoped to help new projects into existence and existing ones to develop and become sustainable over the longer-term.

The evaluation found that the early stages of the programme were implemented largely as planned. It attracted large numbers of high-quality applications and most of the projects subsequently funded were making good progress towards delivering the activities outlined in their original bids. And then COVID-19 happened…
Immediate challenges included the complete or partial closure of premises (and, often, resulting loss of income); the loss of staff members or volunteers through shielding, self-isolation or furlough; the need to cease delivery of in-person support services to clients who were vulnerable; the challenges of rapid transition to online communication and delivery; and the risks of staff and volunteer burnout.

In the face of such challenges, organisations responded impressively quickly, if in a variety of ways. Some effectively shut up shop, suspending operations and closing their ‘space' until such time as it could be used to bring people together safely again. But the majority ‘pivoted’ - using their spaces and wider resources for new purposes (like community food initiatives) and mobilising their volunteers and other networks to respond to emerging local needs. Others took the core of their previous work and moved it into new channels, such as online or telephone contact.

Such fluidity was facilitated by the approach of the funders, who allowed organisations to deploy any remaining resources flexibly in response to emerging and immediate community need.

What were some of the main lessons from all of this?

First, although projects sometimes switched to activities that were not obviously or immediately connected to community spaces, the fact that they were able to respond as effectively and flexibly as they did reflects the breadth and depth of local relationships already built up around such spaces. As such, the pandemic validated the original premise of the programme by demonstrating the fundamental importance of sustaining a diverse infrastructure of community space and ‘community anchor’ projects.

Secondly, the pandemic response usefully challenged and extended understandings of what community spaces are and how they operate. As one project representative put it: “We learned that 'space' was as much a state of mind as a physical entity. Once people were connected to each other, and less isolated and more confident, then the physical space they were in didn’t seem to matter so much.” Of course, there are important barriers associated with access to the ‘virtual’; but some projects also found they could reach sections of the population who had previously been resistant to or excluded from ‘traditional’ spaces. That said, the value of particular types of physical spaces – those outdoors, where people could meet safely even during COVID – was also highlighted.

Finally, the experience of Space to Connect reinforces an emerging sense that funders might usefully take a less prescriptive and more supportive approach. The small-scale, light touch and responsive character of the funding was welcomed by projects and undoubtedly helped to facilitate the speedy, flexible and effective response to COVID. But there was also a clear appetite for the opportunities for learning and connection that accompanied the funding itself – particularly from smaller, less well-established groups and organisations. In short, the programme helped to create spaces to connect not only for individuals within communities but for the funded projects themselves.

For a fuller account of the programme and its evaluation, see the full report and summary visit the Space to Connect webpage.