What did conflict look like in Big Local?

Conflict may be disruptive, but it need not be destructive – it can have benefits as well as costs. Groups and organisations typically go through a series of development stages, typified by Tuckman (1965) as forming, storming, norming and performing. In reality, community groups may find themselves in these phases several times over as new members join, people become more confident to speak out, or new challenges emerge. Conflict therefore can be a sign of healthy group development, while also being potentially upsetting and hurtful for those involved if not resolved.

150 Big Local areas across England were funded and supported by Local Trust. Each area was guided by a resident-led partnership who selected a locally trusted organisation (LTO) to hold and account for programme funding. The money could be spent in any way the partnership chose, provided residents were involved in the decision-making process. Within this framework, the 150 Big Local areas were all contextually distinct, and the nature of conflict was often area specific. In addition, Local Trust research highlighted how resident-led decision-making was in itself a complex process (Local Trust, 2020) and opened up thorny questions of influence, responsibility and blame when things were perceived to have gone awry (McCabe et al, 2018). 

Many Big Local partnerships experienced healthy disagreements from time to time as part of their development. Local Trust’s approach was to encourage and support residents to manage conflict themselves, and most conflict was ultimately resolved and non-threatening to the progress of Big Local. Over the 10–15 years of the programme, Local Trust staff estimated that around 40 per cent of partnerships (62 areas) faced disruptive, though usually temporary, conflict which required some level of intervention. Just seven of these areas suffered more destructive conflict that prevented continuation of the programme and were disbanded, with alternative arrangements put in place. 

Conflict in Big Local areas could be intense, emotional and personal. This signified residents’ passion about and emotional commitment to the local area, as well as the scale of expectations and responsibilities that played out as partnerships created and delivered their community plans (McCabe et al, 2017). The dedication that residents brought to Big Local could spill over into anger and frustration when things did not go to plan, as reflected by a Big Local worker:

As a resident-led programme, those involved in Big Local were more likely than in previous area-based initiatives to be directing their grievances at each other and their family, friends and neighbours than at a remote organisation. Such disputes therefore had potentially long-lasting consequences at community level.

When it occurred, conflict was experienced between partnership members, between the partnership and the LTO (including Big Local workers employed or contracted by the LTO), between the partnership and the broader community, and between the partnership and Local Trust. The conflict could be relationship-based (individuals not getting along with each other), and/​or it could be approach-based (people having different views on priorities and delivery). Local Trust surveyed partnerships about their main challenges every two years. A range of issues were reported, including: 

• individual behaviour and conduct, such as dominance by certain personalities
• governance, transparency and communication, such as conflicts of interests on the partnership 
• conflicting opinions about priorities, spending decisions, and approaches to delivery of plans
• the capacity and perceived quality of support from LTOs and paid workers 
• the involvement of new partnership members with different priorities to their predecessors
• tensions around power and control, incorporating issues of diversity, equality and inclusion.

Participation in meetings and decision-making processes was a new experience for many residents. These settings exposed local power relations, and in some areas participants had to jostle to be heard. Partnership chairs sometimes felt the brunt of this, with some women experiencing chauvinism from residents. Local Trust staff also observed some Big Local areas where community conflict was the historical norm, reflecting on one particular area in which residents were aligned to different groups within the community where decision-making regularly escalated into arguments. 

Disagreements often stemmed from differing opinions about what community needs to prioritise, and how to respond to them. Even where priorities were agreed, decisions about addressing them surfaced fundamental differences in approach – for example, whether actions around young people or drug use should be punitive or restorative. In most situations, such differences could be discussed and mediated; however, there were also examples of what one partnership member observed as bad behaviour:

In resident-led programmes, and especially in hyper-local areas like those involved in the Big Local programme, the potential for real or perceived conflicts of interest is heightened. At the start of Big Local, many of the residents who joined partnerships were involved in local community groups that could potentially benefit from decisions about the use of Big Local resources (IVAR, 2013). Biennial partnership surveys demonstrated that in some partnerships a few individuals dominated decision-making. Competition could emerge between residents (and non-voting local stakeholders), which needed managing if the partnership was to avoid disruption, as described by a partnership member:

Learning how to question without getting into an argument was a skill many partnership members developed during the programme, which helped them overcome disagreements. But regardless of this skill, conflict often became more serious when multiple stressors were at play. An early research report described a crisis point in one Big Local area that arose from several issues that had built up and become deeply entrenched. In this area, poor relationships between partnership members had led to difficult and unproductive meetings; there was perceived racism from some residents; and a lack of community involvement had put pressure on a small group of people. Relationships then further deteriorated within the partnership and with the Big Local worker, and eventually a very difficult meeting took place, leading to one member resigning from what was already a small group (NVCO, 2014, p128 ).

Big Local partnerships, as unincorporated bodies, each selected an LTO to administer and account for their funding, and to deliver activities and services on their behalf. In most cases, this included employing Big Local workers on behalf of the partnership (Dobson et al, 2022). However, there were instances of mistrust and conflict between some partnerships and their LTOs – often arising from differing understandings of roles and responsibilities – and some partnerships changed their LTO at least once.

LTOs held a grant agreement directly with Local Trust. Partnerships did not always understand this contractual relationship, and it could sometimes cause friction – both between the partnership and the LTO, and between the partnership and Local Trust. In turn, some LTOs did not fully understand the resident-led approach and tried to control decision-making and spend. In addition, organisational processes in some LTOs could appear cumbersome and overly bureaucratic to partnerships (Dobson et al, 2022). Conversely, some partnerships felt that their LTO was not doing enough to support them. In such situations, Big Local workers could find themselves pulled in different directions – employed by the LTO, but feeling accountable to the partnership. Tensions also sometimes arose around differing expectations of the worker’s role, and responsibility for directing it. 

Although in many areas LTOs liberated residents from organisational and financial responsibilities (as evidenced by the LTO research), there were examples of the opposite, with partnerships spending substantial amounts of time discussing the relationship and trying to extricate themselves from it. In one area, for example, the partnership felt its LTO was micromanaging financial decisions while at the same time failing to provide timely financial reports. This partnership felt powerless in the face of their LTO, a larger established organisation, and described how their energy was diverted into the conflict and a state of negativity that lasted several years. 

Local Trust has explored the Locally Trusted Organisation model more broadly in another article.

Disagreements between partnerships and the wider community were more likely to escalate into conflict and come to the attention of Local Trust. Examples included situations in which some residents disagreed with a partnership’s priorities and how the money was being used, or that a partnership was a closed organisation with vested interests rather than a diverse reflection of the community seeking community-wide outcomes. Occasionally, allegations such as misappropriation of funds were expressed, which necessitated investigation by Local Trust as the funder. However, scrutiny by Local Trust found that such complaints were more likely to be grievances about decisions made by a partnership and the outcomes of those decisions; for example (and particularly towards the end of the programme when the funds had been allocated), some complaints came from residents who could not see how the money had been used, or felt that a specific development project was not what the community wanted. 

There were also examples of existing community-based organisations, such as parish or town councils, feeling undermined by partnerships making decisions about their locality. Issues of power and control could continue for several years, and the constant criticism could be uncomfortable for partnership members who lived alongside their detractors. In 2016, a Big Local rep noted that:

In London and other inner cities, there were also examples of cultural conflict – for example, in places where the partnership did not reflect the area’s diversity. Tensions between people with different backgrounds were exacerbated by casual use of discriminatory language, occasionally expressed in offensive terms. In most cases, these tensions were already embedded between communities and became aggravated when people were expected to work together in a Big Local partnership.

The nature of conflict with Local Trust changed over the programme’s timeline. At the start, complaints from partnerships tended to be about the programme’s ethos, principles, and approach. Concerns were raised by some partnerships about the level of direction provided to residents in the start-up phase, with some believing there was too much and others feeling there was not enough. Emboldened by the resident-led ethos, some partnerships also questioned strategic decisions made by Local Trust; for example, around how it was investing the programme endowment funds and whether this would provide the best return on investment. In the middle of the programme, disquiet surfaced from some active (and ex) partnership members around local decision-making processes in relation to use of the money or the role of the LTO. Later in the programme, complaints tended to be around delivery issues, such as Local Trust pushing back on partnerships’ aspirations (especially in relation to physical assets) due to the lack of remaining time in the programme. Such challenges were potentially disruptive, or were disruptive for a short time, but could often be mediated through discussion and guidance.

Throughout the programme, local stakeholders (such as local authorities or members of parliament) sometimes questioned Local Trust about the way that the programme was set up and run. They challenged the ethos of resident-led decision-making and whether partnerships had the required skills to manage the money, or raised concerns about how the money had been used. Local Trust asserted that it could not overrule partnership decisions, but was aware that this did not always satisfy the complainant.

Conflict could have major repercussions for Big Local partnerships, and more broadly surfaced critical issues around the concept of community control. Through the programme, questions emerged about whether the creation of new groups with access to funding and support (such as Big Local partnerships) can create situations of competition and faction in some communities. 

For example, partnership members could find themselves in difficult positions within their communities. As a resident-led programme, when disputes arose in Big Local areas, members were not between residents and some distant authority, but between neighbours, friends and family. There was therefore a lot at stake in Big Local, including the potential for detrimental impact on individuals, the partnership, and the wider community. Conflict could lead to:

• delays or derailment in decision-making and plan delivery
• reputational damage (to the partnership, the Big Local brand or stakeholders)
• hurt, stress and anxiety amongst residents
• members leaving or disengaging from the partnership
• reinforcement of unequal power dynamics, control and dominance
• poorer working relationships within the partnership and with stakeholders
• complete breakdown of the partnership group.

(Wilson et al, 2024, p.30).

However, while conflict had the potential to disrupt decision-making and delivery of Big Local plans, very little was destructive to the point of partnership breakdown. Big Local programme research and staff reflections demonstrated that challenges could be overcome, that partnerships could develop the confidence to navigate conflict and disagree well. In the 2024 survey of partnership members, 86 per cent of respondents (of 516 partnership members from 137 areas) felt their partnership valued different perspectives and points of view on priorities and 83 per cent of respondents agreed that their partnerships were “… able to deal constructively with disagreements or conflicts” within their partnership.

Local Trust invested in a range of support mechanisms to help residents resolve disagreements and manage conflict themselves, and only intervened more directly where conflict had the potential to become a crisis. It provided written guidance, relational support (coaching, mentoring and training opportunities), and legal and human resources advice. Big Local partnerships that successfully navigated their way through disagreements went on to develop skills and capacity in conflict management and problem-solving, building stronger partnerships and relationships, and establishing new forms of governance and support. The long-term nature of the programme was key to building strong relationships within and external to the community because it gave them the time needed to work through conflict and was particularly important in areas where there was a history of friction (Local Trust, 2024). A separate article, ​‘How was conflict managed in Big Local?’, explores in detail how approaches to resolving conflict developed over the life of the programme.