How was conflict managed in Big Local?

The Big Local programme was designed to ensure that residents’ time and energy was spent on making a lasting difference to people and communities. Each of the 150 areas was guided by a resident-led partnership which selected a locally trusted organisation (LTO) to hold and account for programme funding. The programme ethos included giving communities the time and opportunity to learn, make mistakes, resolve disagreements, and overcome challenges for themselves. Local Trust aimed to provide non-intrusive support, primarily acting as a facilitator and resource provider. 

In Big Local areas, disagreements were typically between partnership members and other partnership members, residents in the wider community, locally trusted organisations (LTOs), and Local Trust. Resident-led decision-making is a complex process. An accompanying article — what did conflict look like in Big Local? — describes how disagreements could be a healthy part of decision-making but also had the potential to disrupt delivery plans or even escalate into community conflict.

Additionally, conflict in a hyper-local and resident-led programme was likely to be personally felt, intense, and emotional – due both to the passion of many residents to create community, and because disputes were likely to be between neighbours, friends and family (McCabe et al, 2018).

Most challenges were settled well, and the process of overcoming conflict strengthened residents’ ability and confidence to make decisions in the future as a well-functioning group (Local Trust, 2020). In 2024, the biennial Local Trust partnership members survey found that 83 per cent of respondents agreed that ​“they were able to deal constructively with disagreements or conflicts”. However, Local Trust did intervene in areas where it felt that conflict was at risk of disrupting the programme, estimating that around 40 per cent of partnerships (62 areas) required some level of intervention at some point during the programme.

Local Trust’s initial approach was in keeping with its resident-led ethos: it focused less on solving conflict and more on supporting residents to manage and resolve it themselves. Local Trust learned that there was often a combination of factors leading to conflict, such as local histories and embedded patterns of community organisation that impacted on how people interacted. What conflict looked like in Big Local is explored in more detail in the accompanying article. In response, Local Trust developed a multi-pronged approach to supporting residents to resolve conflict as the programme progressed. This involved peer learning, facilitation and mediation, coaching and training, and legal and human resources support.

Local Trust started out with a relatively small programme staff team and, in keeping with its hands-off approach, primarily relied on written guidance, peer learning events, and Big Local reps to help manage difficult situations as they emerged within partnerships.

Local Trust created a complaints procedure early on, and from 2012–14 dealt with 32 complaints from 24 areas. These were mainly linked to local process such as about the membership of a partnership, the contents of a plan, and/​or an issue related to the selection of an LTO (NCVO, 2014). It also produced guidance for Big Local partnerships about dealing with conflict. Early documents stressed the need for partnerships to create their own rules and procedures around working together, and encouraged them to adopt terms of reference and a code of conduct when they formed. However, codes of conduct tended to only be reviewed following an issue and were not always pertinent to a specific situation. 

Local Trust guidance was updated during the programme, reiterating its ethos of community leadership and resident control, and that differences within the partnership were best handled by members themselves working with their Big Local rep. It did, however, also state that Local Trust could step in to provide external support if the dispute could not be resolved locally. While some areas were able to deal with conflict locally, in others it could cause significant disruption before Local Trust were aware and able to intervene. This relied upon Big Local reps, whose relationships and communication with Local Trust varied, and who mostly communicated only with partnership chairs rather than all members.

The role of Big Local reps was significant in the early days of the programme. Reps were involved in informal mediation and facilitation of conflict resolution, as well as personal support to help people deal with fallout and emotional issues. Partnership meetings were opportunities for reps to build relationships and to identify and respond to problems before they escalated. However, reps noted that conflict resolution often took a disproportionate amount of time; not all reps felt they had sufficient skills, and some felt that emotional support was not part of their contracted role. Local Trust also observed that while most reps maintained an appropriate distance in their work, some could get too emotionally involved. Reps’ involvement could even make some conflicts worse if they were perceived to be taking sides, or becoming involved as parties in the conflict themselves.

The role of reps in the Big Local programme is explored in detail in an upcoming article.

In 2015, Local Trust made training courses available to partnership members, which included sessions entitled ​‘leadership and team skills’, ​‘making meetings work’, and ​‘managing conflict and dealing with difficult behaviour’. These proved to be useful for individuals who wanted to build their confidence or improve facilitation skills, although Local Trust was concerned that they did not reach enough people, especially those experiencing conflict. Further training opportunities were offered throughout the programme; however, it was difficult to gauge whether this training was sufficient to overcome embedded ways of working that could cause conflict within communities. 

These early approaches were not about stopping conflict, but more about giving residents information and space to think about how to work better together. However, disagreements could spiral, and there were situations wherein the nature of the conflict meant that other approaches and more support were required.

In keeping with the programme ethos, Local Trust always aimed for local resolution of disputes. In most areas (88 of the 150), partnerships successfully resolved matters themselves, to the extent that these conflicts never registered on Local Trust’s radar. However, in some areas, additional approaches to managing conflict at the local level were necessary, often involving LTOs or a Big Local worker. 

Local Trust explores the Locally Trusted Organisation model in another article, and an upcoming article will discuss the role of paid workers in Big Local. 

For example, in one area, the partnership’s LTO supported them to follow a fair process in reviewing their code of conduct, identify what were acceptable and what were unacceptable behaviours, and make internal changes as a result. This support enabled tricky issues around roles and responsibilities to be worked through locally. Although partnership behaviours were the partnership’s responsibility, members tended to feel emotionally motivated whereas the LTO, as a professional body, was better able to enforce processes in a more objective and transparent way. Other difficult situations shifted when Big Local workers built on their local relationships to create non-judgemental spaces for reflection and resolution of tensions. Positive demonstrations of support provided by Big Local workers to partnerships led Local Trust to invest in a workforce development programme to build the skills that Big Local workers could apply in the future.

Recognition of the significance of a relational approach – the idea that people engage with and learn best from people they have a relationship with – led to a series of further initiatives. More support for the chairs of partnerships was introduced to address issues around the emotional side of community leadership, including a peer learning network, and workshops for chairs, LTOs, and workers to consider their relative roles and relationships. Local Trust hoped this would also lift some of the emotional burden of managing conflict from reps (Local Trust, 2018). 

Alongside this, Local Trust identified partnerships that needed additional input and offered them longer-term support through a pool of reps with the required conflict resolution and relational skills. This included face-to-face mentoring support for chairs and in some cases, a temporary independent chair to help partnerships move forward positively. These were longer-term interventions that helped build skills and confidence and created a space for members to work conflicts out while continuing to deliver their Big Local plans. 

In 2020, Local Trust launched the Community Leadership Academy (CLA), which provided partnership chairs and other active residents with opportunities for personal development, coaching, and skill building. The main motivation for participants applying to the CLA was a desire to improve a range of leadership skills, including conflict resolution. A CLA evaluation study reported outcomes including partnership dynamics changing, interactions between partnership members becoming more productive, and partnerships increasing their ability to manage conflict (Just Ideas, 2024).

A significant amount of Local Trust staff time went into responding to local grievances. The resident-led ethos of a funder committed to support as well as grant-giving cultivated a relatively informal relationship between Local Trust and programme participants. Local Trust staff reflected on how Big Local partnership members would directly contact senior people within Local Trust or a staff member they felt they knew. Local Trust had anticipated needing to be involved in some conflict mediation over the course of running the programme but had expected greater capacity to be in place at the local level to deal with it. In the first few years, staff found themselves travelling across the country as mediators and realised that logistically this was not a realistic approach. Local recruitment of Big Local workers helped with capacity, and Local Trust continued to rely on Big Local reps when disagreements surfaced (Local Trust, 2018a). However, the organisation also acknowledged needing additional support offers when disputes had the potential to disrupt the programme.

Consequently, in 2017, Local Trust commissioned national support partners to provide human resources and mediation support in areas where conflict had escalated. However, Local Trust reflected that this type of top-down intervention lacked the necessary traction, for a number of reasons: the programme structure meant that Local Trust did not really have a role in disputes involving Big Local workers, as LTOs held employment responsibilities; resident participation was low or imbalanced; the intervention often disrupted partnership decision-making and delivery as partnership processes were put on hold during the period of intervention. Furthermore, both internal and external investigation and analysis showed the roots of complaints were more likely to be relational than procedural, and therefore required a different type of intervention. Local Trust realised that programme knowledge and understanding of local dynamics was vitally important, and more so that mediation required relationship building and was often long-term. 

In 2020, a revised specification for contracting support partners reflected greater clarity on the part of Local Trust about inherent tensions in the Big Local system, and their impact on relationships at the local level. It had become apparent, for example, that relationships between partnerships, Big Local workers and LTOs (in their employment role) could deteriorate as workers who had been recruited for their community development skills were later required to take on project management roles by partnerships entering their delivery phase. Both human resources and relationship support was therefore required to balance the needs of partnerships with the capacity of workers. New partners also offered support that would prevent potential relationship breakdowns later on, such as legal and technical support around asset management, and the creation of incorporated legacy bodies. These new partners often had pre-existing relationships with areas and were able to work with conflict as it arose while delivering other services.

Local Trust, as the funder and support provider, had responsibilities and opportunities to respond to local disputes. It was contractually able to hold partnerships to account through the LTO funding agreement. Where partnership relations threatened to destabilise Big Local in an area, conditions could be set before the release of further payments to the LTO. Local Trust used this approach, alongside support to partnerships to guide improvements, and found it to be effective.

Local Trust responded to complaints from the wider community around use of the funds or transparency of decision-making and partnership processes, and occasionally arranged additional support from Big Local reps (who later become known as area advisors). For example, when Local Trust dissolved two partnerships based on membership composition, funding decisions that had been made, and behaviours deemed not in the spirit of the programme, reps helped to establish new partnerships and rebuild Big Local in these areas. In other areas, Local Trust recruited reps to act as independent partnership chairs, calm tensions, and help the partnerships refocus on their plans. Such intensive input was rare but proved the value of face-to-face long-term (around 18 months) support in resolving community conflict. 

As the programme progressed and the timeframe for delivery shortened, Local Trust further assessed the risks to delivery by partnerships and took some radical decisions with regard to partnerships that were in continuing conflict and were consequently unable to deliver their Big Local plans. In 2023, discussions focused on how much support had already been invested in such areas and its effectiveness, and the limited time left to rebuild partnerships in those places. By 2024, seven (of 150) areas no longer had an operating partnership, and alternative arrangements had been put in place to ensure ongoing community benefit from Big Local funds, including grants distribution by a reputable organisation, or the LTO delivering previously agreed plans.

In its first 11 years, Local Trust relied on Big Local reps to be its eyes and ears on the ground. The reps were initially contracted and managed by a third-party organisation, before being directly contracted by Local Trust in 2019. However, this arrangement was still arms-length, and Local Trust felt that it lacked a direct relationship with (some of) the Big Local areas, and that some areas lacked access to the specialist skills they required as a result. 

A big shift in Local Trust’s support function was introduced in 2022 when it took the decision to rely less on contracted reps and provide more in-house support. Area coordinator posts were created as part of the Local Trust staff team to oversee what was happening in Big Local areas, provide general guidance, advice and challenge, and work with the pool of reps/​area advisors who remained in place to ensure continuity of support to areas. Area coordinators gave Local Trust closer relationships with Big Local areas and were able to highlight to colleagues any tensions and potential conflicts in a partnership or wider community. Where intensive work was required, Local Trust could assign it to the area advisor, or (more often) bring in an additional area advisor with recognised mediation skills. Depending on the specialist requirements, Local Trust could also request advice from a national support partner on technical and delivery issues that had the potential for conflict. 

Ultimately, Big Local provided the time and opportunity for both Local Trust and communities to learn about dealing with conflict. Local Trust developed a range of support mechanisms and targeted interventions, and communities were given space and support to navigate conflict and disagree well – as well as the confidence to resist others who sought to obstruct positive local change (Local Trust, 2024).