Making community cohesion count

In an earlier piece, we set out a way of seeing community cohesion that starts from what is already strong, mapping the organisations, assets and forms of activity that help people build agency, connection and opportunity in place.

That work surfaced a wide and often under-recognised civic landscape. But insight alone does not shift outcomes.

In a polycrisis context, where pressures overlap and compound, the real question is how funding, power and learning move differently as a result.

What this reveals about investment and capability

Funding flows are broad and varied, with both major national funders and smaller players supporting this field. This diversity signals strong foundations for collaboration and investment.

The geographic spread matters too. The mapping points to clusters of assets in place: organisations that are active, established locally and working across cohesion‑related themes. Each represents a potential entry point: a strong local asset that can help convene others, connect neighbours, and draw in resources.

The policy moment we are in

The government’s Pride in Place programme is a decisive intervention: a multi‑year, multi‑billion pound commitment to neighbourhoods over the coming decade. It is needed and welcome.

But it also creates a risk of narrowing the geography of opportunity. If private philanthropy and institutional investors simply follow government into the same named places, we risk concentrating capital into a limited set of geographies while missing the neighbourhood next door, that might have strong community assets and the capability to steward investment.

Statutory selection (which rightly targets need) and an asset‑based view (which starts from local strengths) are complementary, but not identical. By recognising where local capability already exists – where there are active organisations, community‑owned assets, or clusters of civic activity – we can widen the field of learning and investment. This matters for local and regional government trying to stretch limited resource. And it matters for funders who want to catalyse impact.

What funders and policymakers should do

1. Use data to open doors

Mapping is most powerful when it helps identify potential partners and anchor points. Treat it as a prompt for local conversation.

2. Back what is already strong

Look for community businesses, community‑owned assets, cultural organisations and infrastructure bodies already embedded in place. These actors can move resources effectively, convene neighbours and redistribute funding to smaller groups.

3. Enable collaboration and local aggregators

Many neighbourhoods have several strong organisations but no mechanism to work together. Fund small collaboratives or “aggregators” that help local actors coordinate around shared opportunity, steward shared assets, and circulate learning.

4. Align funding behind shared interests

Funding for the cohesion field is diverse but disconnected. Government can help align funders with shared interests. The Office for the Impact Economy (or similar convening function) could bring together funders, facilitate shared learning across portfolios, and explore co‑investment models that support coalitions of actors in place.

5. Use impact capital to experiment and raise ambition.

Philanthropy can act with agility and ambition in ways statutory funding often cannot – taking informed risks, backing work that is harder to monitor, and funding parallel interventions across different geographies and asset mixes. This kind of experimentation builds comparative insight and strengthens the evidence base for long‑term investment.

What becomes possible

If we agree, as policy signals suggest and community wisdom has long made clear, that community-led change is central to a more cohesive society, then the work begins with what is already strong. That means resourcing embedded organisations that hold trust and relationships, helping them draw in new forms of capital and create opportunities for collaboration – widening the frame for where investment, learning and partnership might be most catalytic.

The era of polycrisis demands more than better programmes; it demands better ways of seeing. By adopting a systemic, place-based lens and backing what is already strong, philanthropy, alongside government, investors and anchor institutions can move from reacting to crises to shaping the conditions for cohesion and resilience over time.

Read the full blog series:

• Part 1: Seeing the bigger picture: Using a systems approach to guide philanthropy
• Part 2: Identifying the building blocks of community cohesion