"What gets measured gets done. What gets valued gets measured." So how do we value (then measure) the quirky nature of community power? Should we even try?
Above is a fascinating comparator from a New Local blog, ‘Escaping the Community Power Evidence Paradox.’
On the left hand side is how the state (and market) currently measure how well money is spent in a socially-oriented project. On the right hand side is what they could be measuring, if they actually granted power and credibility to bottom-up community action, as we and many others have been charting it over the last few years.
As they make clear in the blog:
The nature of community power is almost diametrically opposed to the narrow scope for value our current system recognises.
By definition, community power initiatives are small scale and adaptive to particular sets of circumstances, so they are hard to replicate elsewhere.
They require a system that is comfortable with pluralism, rather than one which forces standardisation.
They may produce a range of benefits which impact on wellbeing and create resilience with less need for professional support.
But such potential to bring about a system-wide shift towards prevention isn’t captured by official metrics.
As a result, community power approaches operate on the margins of a system that demands uniformity, linearity and scale.
They are often fragile, led by uniquely determined individuals and so vulnerable to shifts in personnel.
They might take time to be nurtured and develop, beyond the immediacy of budget and election cycles.
They are certainly not incentivised through the hardwiring of the system financing, accountability or regulations, all of which reinforce the siloed, short-termist status quo.
Even when there is strong evidence of the failure of the current state-market model, the overriding system logic forces conclusions that the remedy is simply more of the same.
We welcome New Local’s attempt to suggest an alternative rationale for central government funding of local initiatives - while not holding out much hope that they will make a dent in “Whitehall”’s priorities, even though they have gathered huge amounts of evidence for community power.
Does the “paradox” - where “the value of community power is best captured qualitatively, yet the metrics are quantitative” - not imply as much emphasis on the idiosyncrasy and social anarchism of community projects, as it is convincing London bureaucrats to measure differently? Where the ask is “for forgiveness not permission”, and councils and philanthropists are actively involved in making scenes and initiatives, setting new practical and concrete precedents?