Many years ago, I came across a story about a visitor to Ireland who stopped to ask a local man for directions. The man listened carefully, considered where the visitor wanted to go and began to explain the route. Then he added: “But I wouldn’t start from here.”
That story has stayed with me, and it comes to mind now as devolution becomes an increasing part of the conversation about bringing decisions closer to communities. The direction makes sense to me: local people having a greater say in what happens in their community. The question is, not where does this end, but rather where does this start?
Recently in Politics Home, Power to Change’s Nick Plumb rightfully called for devolution to go deeper and wider, beyond mayors and town centres, and travel the ‘last mile’ down to communities. But if devolution arrives through existing institutional cultures and structures, established relationships and familiar ways of working, it will be difficult to create the space for something different to emerge. The language may change, but will the relationship with communities change with it?
For me, the “last mile” of devolution isn’t simply about transferring another set of decisions further down the system. It has to involve changing the relationship between institutions and communities. That requires time, investment and a willingness to work differently.
We cannot ask communities to take a greater part in shaping what happens unless the conditions allow them genuinely to do so. Devolution should be about giving people the time and space to say what matters to them, rather than always beginning with a programme, a structure or a question that has already been decided somewhere else, far away from the people it impacts. It means being prepared to listen without assuming what the answer will be and being open to what might emerge.
Start with local knowledge and insight
A recent experience brought this home to me. At Kimberworth Park Community Partnership (KPCP), our social supermarket was asked to provide data to help inform a government funding application. I had no problem with that; good information matters. But I found myself asking why the people using the service, and the people delivering it alongside them, were not necessarily part of the wider conversation.
Behind the numbers is knowledge and experience. The people who come through our doors, and those of us working alongside them, know why they are coming, what they are struggling with, where the gaps are and what seems to help. That knowledge has something to offer too. The question for me is not simply whether communities are being asked to contribute, but exactly when they are brought into the conversation and what value is placed on what they know.
Our communities already contain huge reserves of knowledge, skills, relationships, leadership and creativity. But these are not always recognised or valued, and people don’t necessarily have the time, confidence, resources or opportunity to bring them to the table. Trust and relationships also take time to develop. There are longstanding barriers to participation which won’t disappear simply because power has notionally been devolved.
Of course, each community starts from a different place. Some have strong local organisations, established networks and people who are used to getting involved. In others, those things may be less visible or may hardly exist at all. But there is always a starting point. There are people, relationships, knowledge, skills and experience already there, some of which may never have been recognised or drawn upon.
Years of being consulted or invited to take part do not necessarily leave a community better able to shape what happens next. So before asking what part a community might play in devolution, there are other questions to ask. What do people need to know? What roles might they need or want to take on? What part will their own experience and local knowledge play, and how will these be valued?
Institutions have to change
But there is another starting point to consider too: where are the institutions? Programmes such as Pride in Place may seek greater community involvement, but they are still being developed within existing public-sector and institutional cultures. Existing structures, behaviours and resources do not necessarily create the space for communities to breathe and play a meaningful part.
So, are institutions ready for devolution, and will it require them to work differently? Can they recognise knowledge that comes in different forms and reach beyond the people and organisations they already know? Can they make room for an answer they were not expecting?
These are not easy changes for either communities or institutions to make. Established ways of working exist for reasons, and people in communities and institutions each have their own pressures and responsibilities.
Collaboration and curiosity are key
What would it take for communities and institutions to genuinely share responsibility for the places in which people live? What would each need from the other? What needs to be invested, in time, people, relationships and trust, as well as money, to make that possible? How do we avoid deciding in advance what that shared responsibility should look like? I don’t think there is one answer. The important thing is a willingness to ask the questions.
Investment matters, but Pride in Place needs to be more than a programme or a pot of money. It has the potential to become an ethos for how communities and institutions work together, sharing responsibility not only for decisions but for what they are trying to achieve together. Its value should lie not only in what is funded or delivered, but in what remains when the funding itself has moved on.
The ambition for devolution should be greater than helping communities participate more effectively in structures designed elsewhere. It should create space for communities to be part of shaping what happens in the first place. If we can achieve that, the last mile of devolution becomes more than a political proposition. It becomes a different way of thinking about the relationship between communities, government and public institutions, and what they can achieve together.
For me, this is not simply about handing power to communities or ‘empowering’ them. It is about people having their voices heard and having a genuine part in decisions about the places where they live.
Genuine, shared responsibility has the potential to change more than how decisions are made.
When people can see that their knowledge, experience and contribution matter, it can strengthen their connection to the place where they live and to one another.
Over time, that can help build communities with greater confidence in what they can do together – communities that are not simply involved in decisions but are genuinely part of shaping their own future.
Denise Butterell is Strategic Director at Kimberworth Park Community Partnership (KPCP) in Rotherham. Her work is rooted in working alongside communities and in the knowledge, relationships and experience that already exist within them.
