News & Commentary
News & Commentary
—
—
February 2026
February 2026
Making Community Power work: Five Lessons for Pride in Place
Jonny Gordon-Farleigh
Jonny Gordon-Farleigh
Over the last three years, Stir to Action – the sister organisation of Centre for Democratic Business – has provided capacity building support to 33 Big Local Groups in deprived areas of England through our partnership with Local Trust. In communities as varied as Greater London, Cumbria, Isle of Sheppey, North East Hastings, Plymouth, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Blackpool, we have supported them with fundraising, strategy, business plans, grant applications, and financial projections, helping raise over £581,000 of additional funding.
With the exciting news about this year’s launch and expansion of Pride in Place to 284 areas, we’re sharing some lessons from working across these places, to guide work with partners on how we might approach capacity building support for this ten-year programme.
What have we learnt?
Specific support needs are too often ignored: Too often, community groups in areas of deprivation taking part in economic development programmes are only offered generic ‘business support’ delivered by national providers. This support fails to reflect the distinct social, economic, and cultural realities of place. Our experience working with Big Local areas showed that Pride in Place communities will require a fundamentally different kind of capacity-building support to that designed for the more professionalised organisations that have emerged over the past decade. This means support that is grounded in local context, starts from where communities actually are, and recognises the informal, relational, and slow-paced nature of place-based action – rather than assuming they have the structures, skills, and resources of established third-sector organisations.
Community Assets are a risk as well as an opportunity: While there is now broader agreement that increasing community ownership of assets is vital to long-term local economic resilience, asset acquisition is still widely perceived as high-risk by community groups. This often steers communities towards smaller, lower-risk projects, even when they are conscious of the insecurity it places on their efforts. Despite the odd exception, there has also been limited focus on the potential to bring existing, underused community assets back into productive use. Buildings such as Working Men’s Clubs, Women’s Institute halls, Royal British Legion halls, and bowling clubs represent overlooked opportunities for communities to retrofit, adapt, and reimagine spaces that already hold social value.
Ownership structures have a significant practical impact: Questions around local governance are often shaped by long-standing conflicts, divisions, and historical decisions, making them some of the hardest issues for capacity-building organisations to influence. While it is rarely possible to resolve deep-rooted disagreements, it is essential that support organisations recognise these dynamics rather than dismissing them. Actively working with groups to develop open, democratic membership structures can help ensure organisations are inclusive and accountable, rather than being controlled by a small number of directors or trustees.
Our work also highlighted how difficult it is to revisit decisions made early on about legal form: In many cases, Big Local groups were heavily guided by dominant norms within the Community and Voluntary Sector, where funders continue to – or are perceived to – favour charitable/trustee structures. As a result, where there might have been an opportunity for groups to adopt alternative models, they were deterred by the prospect of limiting the potential range of support available – reinforcing governance choices that may not be best suited to long-term community ownership or economic development.
Expectations and culture shape funding models: When we were first appointed as an official support provider, we deliberately introduced community groups to a wide range of funding options beyond traditional grant funding. This included community shares, social investment, and approaches focused on generating trading income. However, the majority of support requests from Big Local groups continued to centre on non-repayable grants. This reflected both the established culture of the programme and the constraints imposed by groups’ chosen legal forms.
That said, we did see a gradual increase in demand for support to develop trade-based income plans. This points to a clear opportunity for Pride in Place areas, where funding models need to move beyond short-term project funding towards approaches that support long-term economic activity, financial resilience, and the creation of decent local jobs.
Learning takes time: The majority of our support – aside from a short workshop series – was delivered through intensive, one-to-one support with local groups. While this kind of assistance is essential, it should not be the only model of capacity building. There is real value in cohort-based learning and structured programmes that bring together communities to learn collectively, share experience, and build confidence over time. Programmes that codify community economic development knowledge into accessible course formats – such as our ABCs of Community Assets – help embed learning more deeply and consistently across places.
Talk to us about capacity building through Network for Neighbourhoods
We’re really keen to bring Stir to Action's experience of working with 33 Big Locals to the Pride in Place programme over the next 10 years. And we’re excited that this could finally be a moment for the wider adoption of democratic membership models for businesses, asset ownership, and voluntary organisations.
If you’re already thinking about bringing organisations together to work on Pride in Place, and up for a conversation, let me know. Jonny@democraticbusiness.org
Over the last three years, Stir to Action – the sister organisation of Centre for Democratic Business – has provided capacity building support to 33 Big Local Groups in deprived areas of England through our partnership with Local Trust. In communities as varied as Greater London, Cumbria, Isle of Sheppey, North East Hastings, Plymouth, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Blackpool, we have supported them with fundraising, strategy, business plans, grant applications, and financial projections, helping raise over £581,000 of additional funding.
With the exciting news about this year’s launch and expansion of Pride in Place to 284 areas, we’re sharing some lessons from working across these places, to guide work with partners on how we might approach capacity building support for this ten-year programme.
What have we learnt?
Specific support needs are too often ignored: Too often, community groups in areas of deprivation taking part in economic development programmes are only offered generic ‘business support’ delivered by national providers. This support fails to reflect the distinct social, economic, and cultural realities of place. Our experience working with Big Local areas showed that Pride in Place communities will require a fundamentally different kind of capacity-building support to that designed for the more professionalised organisations that have emerged over the past decade. This means support that is grounded in local context, starts from where communities actually are, and recognises the informal, relational, and slow-paced nature of place-based action – rather than assuming they have the structures, skills, and resources of established third-sector organisations.
Community Assets are a risk as well as an opportunity: While there is now broader agreement that increasing community ownership of assets is vital to long-term local economic resilience, asset acquisition is still widely perceived as high-risk by community groups. This often steers communities towards smaller, lower-risk projects, even when they are conscious of the insecurity it places on their efforts. Despite the odd exception, there has also been limited focus on the potential to bring existing, underused community assets back into productive use. Buildings such as Working Men’s Clubs, Women’s Institute halls, Royal British Legion halls, and bowling clubs represent overlooked opportunities for communities to retrofit, adapt, and reimagine spaces that already hold social value.
Ownership structures have a significant practical impact: Questions around local governance are often shaped by long-standing conflicts, divisions, and historical decisions, making them some of the hardest issues for capacity-building organisations to influence. While it is rarely possible to resolve deep-rooted disagreements, it is essential that support organisations recognise these dynamics rather than dismissing them. Actively working with groups to develop open, democratic membership structures can help ensure organisations are inclusive and accountable, rather than being controlled by a small number of directors or trustees.
Our work also highlighted how difficult it is to revisit decisions made early on about legal form: In many cases, Big Local groups were heavily guided by dominant norms within the Community and Voluntary Sector, where funders continue to – or are perceived to – favour charitable/trustee structures. As a result, where there might have been an opportunity for groups to adopt alternative models, they were deterred by the prospect of limiting the potential range of support available – reinforcing governance choices that may not be best suited to long-term community ownership or economic development.
Expectations and culture shape funding models: When we were first appointed as an official support provider, we deliberately introduced community groups to a wide range of funding options beyond traditional grant funding. This included community shares, social investment, and approaches focused on generating trading income. However, the majority of support requests from Big Local groups continued to centre on non-repayable grants. This reflected both the established culture of the programme and the constraints imposed by groups’ chosen legal forms.
That said, we did see a gradual increase in demand for support to develop trade-based income plans. This points to a clear opportunity for Pride in Place areas, where funding models need to move beyond short-term project funding towards approaches that support long-term economic activity, financial resilience, and the creation of decent local jobs.
Learning takes time: The majority of our support – aside from a short workshop series – was delivered through intensive, one-to-one support with local groups. While this kind of assistance is essential, it should not be the only model of capacity building. There is real value in cohort-based learning and structured programmes that bring together communities to learn collectively, share experience, and build confidence over time. Programmes that codify community economic development knowledge into accessible course formats – such as our ABCs of Community Assets – help embed learning more deeply and consistently across places.
Talk to us about capacity building through Network for Neighbourhoods
We’re really keen to bring Stir to Action's experience of working with 33 Big Locals to the Pride in Place programme over the next 10 years. And we’re excited that this could finally be a moment for the wider adoption of democratic membership models for businesses, asset ownership, and voluntary organisations.
If you’re already thinking about bringing organisations together to work on Pride in Place, and up for a conversation, let me know. Jonny@democraticbusiness.org
Over the last three years, Stir to Action – the sister organisation of Centre for Democratic Business – has provided capacity building support to 33 Big Local Groups in deprived areas of England through our partnership with Local Trust. In communities as varied as Greater London, Cumbria, Isle of Sheppey, North East Hastings, Plymouth, Newcastle upon Tyne, and Blackpool, we have supported them with fundraising, strategy, business plans, grant applications, and financial projections, helping raise over £581,000 of additional funding.
With the exciting news about this year’s launch and expansion of Pride in Place to 284 areas, we’re sharing some lessons from working across these places, to guide work with partners on how we might approach capacity building support for this ten-year programme.
What have we learnt?
Specific support needs are too often ignored: Too often, community groups in areas of deprivation taking part in economic development programmes are only offered generic ‘business support’ delivered by national providers. This support fails to reflect the distinct social, economic, and cultural realities of place. Our experience working with Big Local areas showed that Pride in Place communities will require a fundamentally different kind of capacity-building support to that designed for the more professionalised organisations that have emerged over the past decade. This means support that is grounded in local context, starts from where communities actually are, and recognises the informal, relational, and slow-paced nature of place-based action – rather than assuming they have the structures, skills, and resources of established third-sector organisations.
Community Assets are a risk as well as an opportunity: While there is now broader agreement that increasing community ownership of assets is vital to long-term local economic resilience, asset acquisition is still widely perceived as high-risk by community groups. This often steers communities towards smaller, lower-risk projects, even when they are conscious of the insecurity it places on their efforts. Despite the odd exception, there has also been limited focus on the potential to bring existing, underused community assets back into productive use. Buildings such as Working Men’s Clubs, Women’s Institute halls, Royal British Legion halls, and bowling clubs represent overlooked opportunities for communities to retrofit, adapt, and reimagine spaces that already hold social value.
Ownership structures have a significant practical impact: Questions around local governance are often shaped by long-standing conflicts, divisions, and historical decisions, making them some of the hardest issues for capacity-building organisations to influence. While it is rarely possible to resolve deep-rooted disagreements, it is essential that support organisations recognise these dynamics rather than dismissing them. Actively working with groups to develop open, democratic membership structures can help ensure organisations are inclusive and accountable, rather than being controlled by a small number of directors or trustees.
Our work also highlighted how difficult it is to revisit decisions made early on about legal form: In many cases, Big Local groups were heavily guided by dominant norms within the Community and Voluntary Sector, where funders continue to – or are perceived to – favour charitable/trustee structures. As a result, where there might have been an opportunity for groups to adopt alternative models, they were deterred by the prospect of limiting the potential range of support available – reinforcing governance choices that may not be best suited to long-term community ownership or economic development.
Expectations and culture shape funding models: When we were first appointed as an official support provider, we deliberately introduced community groups to a wide range of funding options beyond traditional grant funding. This included community shares, social investment, and approaches focused on generating trading income. However, the majority of support requests from Big Local groups continued to centre on non-repayable grants. This reflected both the established culture of the programme and the constraints imposed by groups’ chosen legal forms.
That said, we did see a gradual increase in demand for support to develop trade-based income plans. This points to a clear opportunity for Pride in Place areas, where funding models need to move beyond short-term project funding towards approaches that support long-term economic activity, financial resilience, and the creation of decent local jobs.
Learning takes time: The majority of our support – aside from a short workshop series – was delivered through intensive, one-to-one support with local groups. While this kind of assistance is essential, it should not be the only model of capacity building. There is real value in cohort-based learning and structured programmes that bring together communities to learn collectively, share experience, and build confidence over time. Programmes that codify community economic development knowledge into accessible course formats – such as our ABCs of Community Assets – help embed learning more deeply and consistently across places.
Talk to us about capacity building through Network for Neighbourhoods
We’re really keen to bring Stir to Action's experience of working with 33 Big Locals to the Pride in Place programme over the next 10 years. And we’re excited that this could finally be a moment for the wider adoption of democratic membership models for businesses, asset ownership, and voluntary organisations.
If you’re already thinking about bringing organisations together to work on Pride in Place, and up for a conversation, let me know. Jonny@democraticbusiness.org
The CfDB is a project of Stir to Action Ltd, a worker co-operative registered in England as a Company Limited by Guarantee. Company number 07951013
Our team is based in Dorset, London, and Manchester
Designed and built by Guillermo Ortego
You can subscribe to our newsletter here
The CfDB is a project of Stir to Action Ltd, a worker co-operative registered in England as a Company Limited by Guarantee. Company number 07951013
Our team is based in Dorset, London, and Manchester
Designed and built by Guillermo Ortego
You can subscribe to our newsletter here
The CfDB is a project of Stir to Action Ltd, a worker co-operative registered in England as a Company Limited by Guarantee. Company number 07951013
Our team is based in Dorset, London, and Manchester
Designed and built by Guillermo Ortego