This latest briefing from AYJ has cast a harsh spotlight on the failings of our justice system to address the racial disparities that have blighted many young people’s lives. From an early age, many Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young people find themselves associated with criminal stereotypes. Labelling young people in this way is incredibly damaging, eroding self-belief and making it harder to move towards a pro-social identity. Once Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic children enter the justice system, they are less likely to be diverted, more likely to receive harsher sentences, and more likely to be sent to custody, sentenced or on remand, compared to white children. 

“Guilty before proven innocent… you kind of learn authority figures don’t actually care.” – (Young person) 

This can create a huge gulf in understanding and trust between Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young adults and the professionals working in the system.  Sadly, these findings confirm what many of us working in the sector already expected. That’s why I welcome AYJ drilling down into the causes of this crisis, and what needs to change to deliver better outcomes. Too often, we focus solely on what’s not working and forget that we must create a roadmap for the future we wish to see. 

An over-stretched and under-resourced system

It’s clear that even with a diverse workforce, culturally competent training, and the best will in the world, the probation service is struggling to keep its head above water.  A professional quoted in the briefing had this to say: “Record levels of staff sickness, extended sick leave, people fleeing the service in droves – that then exacerbates every other issue we have. We can’t be ambitious, we can’t be progressive, we can’t make many changes if you’re barely able to keep the regime running.” There are many admirable professionals working in the system who want to do better for young adults, but they don’t have the time, resources, or support to implement creative approaches.  Without sufficient investment, the system can barely meet young adults’ basic needs – let alone support them to take steps towards a more positive future.  

Collaboration with the VCSE sector

In this depressing climate, the work of voluntary and community organisations has become even more vital.  Specialist Black and Ethnic Minority-led organisations have an intimate understanding of the communities Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic young people come from and how their experiences inform their behaviour and identity. As the research highlights, these grassroots organisations are well placed to provide nuanced support that recognises these young people’s overlapping needs – support that statutory services would struggle to provide. 

These organisations are also more likely to have lived experience embedded in their staff and support services, meaning they can provide peer mentoring and positive role models – both of which are essential components in facilitating the shift towards a pro-social identity.  

Ring-fenced funding to commission specialist organisations

I believe that we could take this further by developing a model where specialist Black and Minority-Ethnic led grassroots organisations are commissioned to operate services in their communities. Funding would be ring fenced for these local organisations who have the expertise to deliver the best outcomes.  This model could be supported by local roundtables where information and knowledge are shared regularly so that young adults can access support from multiple agencies. Meeting in this way will also help criminal justice agencies better understand how these organisations are well placed to support young adults. Having buy in from all partners will be vital to the success of this model. 

The Newham Transition to Adulthood Hub is a great example of how this approach can work in practice. They have a wide variety of services in one space, so staff can consult each other on individual cases and referrals to different services are much easier and more efficient. Regular spotlight sessions are held where different teams share their expertise and explain how their services can benefit young adults.  

Grassroots organisations excluded from funding opportunities

Unfortunately, the AYJ’s report found that organisations with strong community links and knowledge are effectively excluded from funding opportunities. They lack the resources to compete with larger organisations who can meet the excessive commissioning processes and compliance requirements demanded by the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS.  However, many of these larger organisations lack the knowledge and cultural competence to successfully deliver these services. Shockingly, they often sub-contract their services at a lower rate to the very grassroots organisations that have been denied a place at the table. 

It is crucial that the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS immediately reform VCS funding allocation so that specialist Black and Minority-Ethnic led grassroots organisations can build the capacity of their services – ensuring every young person receives age-appropriate, trauma-informed, culturally competent services that reflect their entire lived experience. 

Authority (FCA) is sending strong signals that it will tackle premium finance, with its Director of General Insurance Matthew Brewis effectively calling it a poverty premium this week:

“It is a tax on being poor. Those who are paying monthly are subsidising those who can afford to pay annually.”

It’s not the first time that Matthew Brewis has talked about the need for action on premium finance being used to charge people more for paying monthly. When we launched our latest report on insurance poverty premiums with the Social Market Foundation (SMF) last spring, Matthew said that the FCA had been engaging CEOs on premium finance. He said that the FCA expected the prices charged for paying monthly to be proportionate with the credit risk for the cost of providing that service. Matthew questioned why some consumers experienced such high rates, saying it was not “really apparent why’s it’s appropriate for APRs at 30% or above charged to consumers”. You can watch him here:

The Association of British Insurers, in turn, said they agreed on the need to collaborate with Treasury and the FCA on some of the issues identified in our report. 

The Shadow City Minister Tulip Siddiqi MP spoke at the same launch event and agreed action was urgently needed. Tulip pledged to make the case for any incoming Labour Government to prioritise tackling how expensive it is for people on low incomes who pay monthly for their insurance: “Too often it’s just more expensive to be poor, which is not how we want the country to be run”.   

What is the impact of premium finance on people on low incomes?

Our latest research with the SMF shows that over half of people in poverty are finding it difficult to pay for their insurance during the cost-of-living crisis – leading some to give up insurance as they prioritise food and energy bills.  

This research described how paying monthly for car insurance can cost £160 more a year than paying everything upfront. These extra costs have a knock-on effect on take-up amongst people on low incomes. Zahada, who has lived experience of this issue, explains how she had to pay monthly for her daughter’s car insurance because they didn’t have all the money to pay upfront. That has cost them an extra 10%, or around £200. You can hear directly from her in this video: 

We want to see action 

We have an opportunity to end this poverty premium for good. There are strong signals from the regulator and, we believe, increasing willingness from industry to collaborate. In an election year, we are calling for political parties to make addressing the poverty premium part of their commitments. We want to see a UK where everyone pays a fair price for essential services and where it doesn’t cost more to be poor. 

A call for meaningful action on joint enterprise was made in the House of Lords some weeks ago, amid new evidence that current laws act in a discriminatory way and require a parliamentary response.  Parliamentarians from all three main political parties raised questions following Lord Woodley asking the government: 

“What steps they are taking to address concerns that joint enterprise case law operates in a harsh way against young black men.” 

New data 

The question followed new data on joint enterprise released by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) last month. The data is the first official research in over a decade about joint enterprise, the common term for the set of legal principles that allows more than one person to be prosecuted in relation to the same incident. 

The CPS monitoring pilot, which tracked homicide and attempted homicide in six CPS areas, found Black young men aged 18-25 were the largest demographic prosecuted. Referring to the findings, Lord Woodley said: 

“Black people are 16 times -I repeat, 16 times- more likely than white people to be prosecuted for homicide or attempted homicide under joint enterprise laws. It is absolutely shocking, as I am sure your Lordships all agree. Does the Minister therefore agree that this proves indisputably that joint enterprise is being used in a racist way by prosecutors, and basically as a dragnet to hoover up black urban youth?”  

The CPS findings confirm those of previous studies. Last year research from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, found these trends have been consistent over at least the last decade.  

Calls for the CPS to monitor joint enterprise prosecutions date back to a Justice Committee brief inquiry in 2014.  However, the CPS only agreed to monitor joint enterprise prosecutions earlier this year following legal action by the campaign group JENGbA. Their case drew on several Barrow Cadbury Trust funded research publications, including Dangerous Associations and the Usual Suspects.  

Next steps 

In Thursday’s debate, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames questioned the use of racialised ‘gang’ strategies in the prosecution of groups. Several peers also raised concerns about the high threshold for appeal faced by those convicted under controversial laws.   

Pressed about what the government is doing in response to the data, Lord Bellamy conceded: 

“It is an essential part of our criminal law to have a joint enterprise doctrine. The question is: where are the edges to the doctrine?” 

He set out plans for the CPS to extend its monitoring of joint enterprise across England and Wales and to review its guidance on ‘gangs’. Both are welcome. However, neither are new actions, having previously been agreed in the legal settlement reached with JENGbA.   

Helen Mills, Head of Programmes at the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, who are currently supported by Barrow Cadbury Trust on this issue, said: 

“We welcome the questions Lord Woodley and other peers are raising about young adults and joint enterprise. They demonstrate significant concerns, and questions about joint enterprise are a cross party issue. This requires the government to step up and commit to a comprehensive inquiry to address whether the current laws and practices underpinning them are fit for purpose, and what a fair, just approach to prosecuting groups looks like. They should not be to be dismissed by government as simply a legal matter to be left to the courts.” 

An innovative new project sought to answer that question by offering a group of UK citizens the opportunity to create their own fiscal policy recommendations addressing the challenges of soaring living costs.

The Citizens’ Economic Council on the Cost of Living saw 39 members of the public come together for a series of workshops over a three-week period, drawing on insight from leading economic experts to support their discussion. They worked through various policy scenarios on spending, taxation and public investment and developed principles that they felt were important for government to factor in to decision-making.

The Council’s final recommendations included:

· Crisis-response spending packages should focus on outcomes for the most vulnerable first;

· Windfall taxes are an appropriate response to windfall profits, but investment and small businesses should be protected;

· Taxation should be made fairer by rewarding work and focusing the burden more on unearned income and wealth;

· Targets for national debt/deficit reduction should not stifle state investment strategy.

The study, designed to test the potential of deliberative democracy in UK economic policy, was led by King’s College London and Ipsos.

Dr Christopher Holmes, project director, said: “Economic policy decisions taken now will affect every UK citizen for years to come. That’s why it’s important to find new ways for citizens to be properly represented in the debate.

“In our current era of populism and political polarisation, it’s urgent that we try to rebuild trust in the policy-making process. The Citizens’ Economic Council showed how we might actually do this at a national level.”

Reema Patel, project manager, said: “The democratisation of economic policy is crucial if people are to feel part of the important decisions economists make. Deliberating about issues such as the cost of living, tax, spend and investment is central to creating a more inclusive and participatory future for economics.”

Deliberative democracy seeks to strengthen democracy by embedding ordinary citizens in decision-making processes, and the research team hopes that experiments such as the Citizens’ Economic Council will become a permanent feature of the political landscape in the UK. Experiments in other countries including Ireland and France have shown that such approaches can increase trust in democracy among citizens and foster greater openness to the views of others. The project has received funding from the Friends Provident Foundation and Barrow Cadbury Trust and is overseen by an advisory board which includes Sir Robert Chote, chair of the UK Statistics Authority; Lindsay Judge, research director at the Resolution Foundation; and Geoff Tily, senior economist at the Trades Union Congress. Find out more about the project.

The Economic Justice Action Network pulls focus on community wealth-building and how we might amplify this approach in our efforts to tackle the root causes of economic injustice.  

Introduction 

In our Action Network meeting on 4 October we adopted the lens of community wealth-building as a route to engage with the topic of economic justice. We began the session in small groups, orienting ourselves around how we might collectively define economic justice. These included:  

• Equality of opportunity and access to services and resources 
• Allowing people to function in a society regardless of their circumstances 
• The importance of treating people as of equal worth – everyone has value and insights 
• ‘Allocative efficiency’ – using resources fairly and wisely 
• Economic justice must link to other areas of justice  
• No matter who you are you should have dignity and a fair life 

(These contributions and definitions will be collated and shared publicly as part of our suite of Action Network resources).

We then moved onto the topic of community wealth-building, where I introduced this progressive approach and its potential to re-model the economy in the city of Birmingham. During the meeting, many questions surfaced about community wealth-building (CWB). I have tried to provide some answers to those questions in this blog. 

What is community wealth-building? 

Community wealth-building is a progressive approach to economic development which sets out to retain more wealth and opportunity for the benefit of local people. It is a system-changing approach that works to produce a greater sharing of economic prosperity by ensuring that a greater proportion of wealth is retained and re-circulated in the local economies so that everybody benefits (also known as the ‘Local Multiplier Effect’, see below).  

This approach is an alternative to simply letting money drain away into the pockets of distant shareholders and the vaults of off shore banks. It is also an approach that recognises that there is more to the economy than the private sector. Community wealth-building sees the public sector, voluntary sector, social care sector and all other ‘sectors’ as having equal importance to the private sector, in terms of both keeping the economy moving and creating economic opportunities we can all benefit from.  

Why community wealth-building? 

I would argue we need CWB because we live in a city with some of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the country, some of the highest levels of unemployment nationally, plus a multitude of other significant indicators of economic inequality. This is despite Birmingham experiencing almost uninterrupted economic growth for the past 20 years. In fact, if you could take Birmingham’s GDP (gross domestic product – read the previous blog for reference) and divide it amongst every working person in the city it would result in an average income over £58k per person whereas the real average income is more like £28k per person*! This suggests that about half the wealth created in Birmingham is then leaving it. Where does it go? Mainly to shareholders, profits for big businesses, people who work in Birmingham but live and spend their money elsewhere, and the inflated salaries of the already super rich. Or, to put it another way, the problem underpinning Birmingham’s economic injustice is not a problem of needing to create yet more wealth, but a problem of where that wealth flows. That is why we need Community Wealth Building. * *Economic Output in Birmingham 2020, Birmingham City Council. 

What is the ‘Local Multiplier Effect’? 

The local multiplier effect is the additional economic benefit generated for an area by increasing the amount of money spent, and is then recirculated, in that local economy. For example, it occurs when money is spent through local businesses and then those businesses, in turn, use that money to either buy locally themselves or pay wages to local people. In other words, a chain reaction in local economic activity.  

How does community wealth-building work in practice? 

CWB works in practice by thinking a bit harder about the economic assets we have at our disposal and then working (‘sweating’) those assets harder to create greater local benefit. For example, the largest employment sector in the city is health with over 91,000 jobs* and yet we rarely look at the NHS as an economic asset. In addition, University Hospitals Trust Birmingham alone spends £1.5b a year on goods and services.  

A community wealth-building approach asks the questions: 

• How can we help these organisations become economic assets for the city?  
• How do we direct more jobs within these organisations to communities where they will make the biggest difference?  
• How do we direct more of these organisations’ spend to local businesses, thereby adding the greatest social value? 

*Workplace Employment in Birmingham 2021, Birmingham City Council 

What are the other benefits? 

As well as all the recognised wider social benefits of addressing poverty (improved health, reduced crime etc.) the CWB approach also aims to develop much stronger local economic ecosystems which, in turn, can help build stronger communities, and create greater social cohesion and stability. In addition, by actively working to source jobs and spend locally it reduces the carbon miles spent on travelling to work and increases the likelihood of participation in ‘active travel’ – both of which are good for the environment. 

How do we measure community wealth-building? 

The big picture for CWB is to measure how much money is being retained in the local economy. I currently estimate that about half the wealth created in Birmingham leaves the city, amounting to  approximately £15b a year. An increase in the wealth retained by the city of just 10% would mean an extra £1.5b for the Birmingham economy, which translates (very roughly!) to about 50,000 more jobs. A different way to measure is to look at the spend and recruitment patterns of large institutions (health trusts, local authority, universities, colleges, housing associations) to see what proportion is ‘staying local’ and whether this proportion is increasing.  

How do we monitor the social value of community wealth-building? 

I would advocate for a simple approach. So for jobs I would monitor whether recruitment rates are increasing in communities where people are traditionally seen as being trapped in low income and insecure employment. Then, we need a rebalancing in the workforce with more people in work from traditionally under-represented groups in terms of age, gender, disability, ethnicity etc. As for spend, I would track whether an increase in local spend is also being reflected in an increase in spend-through to businesses that represent greater social value by their very nature – i.e. small or micro businesses, social enterprises, co-operatives, etc. 

Which cities are doing community wealth-building well?  

CWB has been adopted as national policy by the devolved governments in Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland. In England it is being adopted at local authority level with two of the leading authorities being seen as Preston and Greater Manchester Council. In Europe I would recommend taking a look at Rotterdam in the Netherlands. But the real home of CWB is actually Cleveland, Ohio in the USA. Here is a link to Cleveland’s Evergreen initiative, where the aim is to create meaningful jobs, employee ownership and profit-sharing opportunities in the locality.  

How do new arrivals into areas impact community wealth-building? 

I cannot claim to be an expert on this issue but from my own experience I think new arrivals frequently add a real dynamism to a local economy by creating businesses that serve the specific needs of that community (food, fashion, legal services, etc.). They can also bring much needed skills. I was involved in a project that in just three years found 350 new arrivals in Birmingham with overseas health qualifications such as nurses, midwives, paediatricians and even an eye surgeon.  

Where in Birmingham feels ready for action and change on community wealth-building capacity? 

I have written about the need to look at the big institutions in the city (hospitals, universities, colleges etc) as economic assets. These are sometimes referred to as ‘anchor institutions’ because they are not going anywhere. However, to unlock these assets for a local community it is essential to also have ‘community anchor institutions’ that can act as the link between local people and opportunities that exist within big institutions. By ‘community anchor institution’ I mean the type of local organisation that has the reach and trust in local communities that big institutions do not have. Therefore, areas in Birmingham that are ready for CWB are those areas that are rich in local community anchor institutions. 

You can read more about community wealth-building here and you can contact Conrad if you’d like to discuss community wealth-building further via email. If any of this content piques your interest then you can join us at the next Action Network meeting, taking place on Wednesday 29 November, 11.30-2.30pm in Birmingham. Refreshments and lunch will be provided. Please sign up via this link if you would like to attend. 

“I’m less scared to discuss the economy in Birmingham and the local area.” Fiona

“Brilliant facilitation and complex ideas delivered in a simple and accessible way.” Emma

Shift Birmingham- a course for changemakers

On a sunny day in June, an inspiring group of changemakers from across Birmingham gathered at Soho House in Handsworth for the last session of People’s Economy’s Shift Birmingham. Over the last year this diverse group from across the city has met monthly to explore how power and resources in the city can be rebalanced to help their communities thrive. Apply now for the next Shift Birmingham, starting in January.

We’ve played ‘GDP bingo’, and learned from each other about different ways to keep money local. We’ve puzzled over how to address Birmingham’s housing crisis, and marvelled over what other cities and countries are doing to provide better quality jobs to their citizens.

Learning, getting confident, and making connections

Learning about the economy can sound daunting, boring, or even pointless, but even participants who had their doubts at first, really enjoyed getting a general grounding on these crucial issues that affect them and their communities. They found the special focus on what’s going on in Birmingham very helpful, and they’ve told us that the approachable style of facilitation made it easy to engage.

They also found it invaluable to meet and share experiences with others from across the city with different backgrounds and experiences. Getting together in person in the few face-to-face sessions was definitely worth battling with Birmingham’s traffic! Chatting over a coffee and a cake meant there were plenty of opportunities to share ideas and experiences.

“It has been uplifting to meet others working toward a fairer society.” Clare

Crucially, participants’ understanding and confidence leapt up after the course. See below for a snapshot of this.

Individuals and communities in Birmingham are coalescing around the theme of economic justice and seeking to build a local economy that truly serves the people says Anna Garlands of Huddlecraft – the Network’s facilitator – in this cross-posted blog.

As summer drew to a close this year, a group of bold and curious individuals came together in a room in Birmingham to participate in a “Kick Off” session for the Economic Justice Action Network. This Network, initiated and curated by Barrow Cadbury Trust and facilitated by Huddlecraft, seeks to tackle the root causes of economic injustice in Birmingham and beyond, pulling focus on the systems that perpetuate and amplify inequality within the city. The room was packed out with folks with varying associations with the theme of economic justice, all eager for meaningful change, all ready for action and all keen to learn more about how the Action Network could facilitate the systemic shifts we want and need to see.

When we talk about economic justice within this space, we are referring to a sense of economic fairness. Everyone having enough money to live. Everyone having access to the essentials of life: clean air, good public services, suitable housing, positive health care experiences, access to green spaces and, ultimately, equal life chances. Economic justice is about changing our social and economic structures so that people aren’t disadvantaged by their position in society, for example gender, ethnicity, class or disability. Economic justice is ensuring that the decisions that are made by those with power and the money that is generated in Birmingham, benefit everyone, not just those with power. It is about protecting the environment for future generations and it is halting the trend of the growing gap between rich and poor.

The Action Network has emerged because we recognise that the way Birmingham’s economy is structured does not deliver economic justice. There are areas of persistent poverty, wide disparities between the most and least affluent sections of the population and, as in other areas, structural racism, sexism and other–isms prevent many people attaining a decent standard of living and others being ill-rewarded for the work they do. Statutory agencies recognise the long-standing problems of economic exclusion and their strategies reflect a desire for change. However, things are not moving far or fast enough, and new solutions are needed.

Because we are all part of the economy, we should have a say in how it works and be able to challenge those in power on their economic choices and values. But what do we actually mean when we talk about ‘the economy’?

In his presentation at the Kick Off event, Joe Earle from People’s Economy shared that the economy is a relatively modern invention. It gives value to items that fit into the gross domestic product (GDP) framework — a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a specific time period by a country or countries. Within this GDP framework, much essential work is ignored, for example unpaid care work, key workers and ‘low skilled’ workers. GDP also fails to provide a good measure of health, wellbeing or justice. It is crucial that we broaden our view and consider the economy as a system. It is about resources; money, buildings, land, food, energy, people’s time, it is about how they are used for different purposes, and how decisions about distribution of those resources are made.

It is also crucial for us to consider interconnected economic systems at different scales. How and where is the Birmingham economy impacted by broader UK economic systems? How do global economic systems affect the UK? We need to understand and examine how Birmingham’s economic system is shaped by government and corporate decisions, as well as by cultures and behaviours formed and developed outside of the city.

Birmingham’s economic system is like an iceberg. The unjust outcomes are visible but much of how the system operates and the conditions that uphold it, are hidden below the surface. In order to create the change we want to see, we first need to understand the system to explain why the system operates in a particular way and then develop interventions which can bring about change.

When thinking about the entrenched power and ideas which uphold Birmingham’s economic system, working for change can feel like a daunting and unlikely prospect. The good news is that systems are not static, they are changing all the time, and there are already many people doing important work to change our economic systems in all sorts of ways. We want to amplify and build upon this work.

The Action Network is a place for alliance-building, learning, developing ideas for change and action.

The Action Network is folk coming together to build a shared, working understanding of the economy - learning about how the current system perpetuates inequality; how adopting an intersectionality lens can widen our approach; how alternative economic models and systems can be imagined and implemented in Birmingham. The Action Network is people coming together to dissect, examine and map out the existing economic landscape in the city, identifying and engaging levers of change. The Action Network is seeding and cultivating an interconnected web of citizens, grassroots activists, change-makers and disruptors from across the city, all sharing a common view that change is possible and the need is urgent.

We recognise that no single sector  -  the public sector, private business or civil society  –  can change things alone, but that we need to work together, harnessing the ideas, experience and energy of individuals and organisations to make Birmingham a city that works for everyone.

The Action Network is open to anyone with an interest in making our economy work better for local people. What you will have in common is:

• a willingness to have conversations and work with a variety of people who you otherwise may never encounter;
• an energy and excitement for learning about the economy and how we can imagine design fairer, regenerative and distributive economic systems;
• an appetite for action and creating change within the spheres you are affiliated with;
• the ability to attend Action Network meetings every other month, where possible.

We have been delighted to see so many people from a broad range of sectors and backgrounds attend the Taster event (July) and the Kick Off meeting (August). There is clearly an appetite for spaces to connect, learn and explore these issues and we will be welcoming new members throughout the coming six months.

The next meeting will be taking place on Wednesday 4 October and we would be delighted to see you there. Refreshments and lunch will be provided. Please sign up via this link if you would like to join.

It sounds obvious, but everything around us is the result of design. Even the way we work in the social investment sector is ‘designed’ through a series of conscious and unconscious choices made under a framework of values. The most dominant influence of these design choices is of course the existing financial system. In many ways, the social investment sector has been created in the shadow of traditional finance. But this is a problem as the social investment market is not there to mirror the traditional financial market. It has the much broader, more imaginative (and more difficult to measure) goal of social value.

The mechanisms of traditional finance are designed for purely capitalist businesses — where the single axis is to make profit. Since the VCSE sector is designed to solve social and environmental challenges, it is well-equipped with ‘multi-axis’ thinking to address systematic inequalities. As such, the value of social innovation, charities and enterprise to support communities is becoming well-established in emergent design practice. The design of the supporting financial infrastructure, however, frequently uses the same traditional tools and framing. This results in a reproduction of the values coded into that system. So where does that leave us? The processes and tools we use need to be redesigned to suit the goals we are trying to achieve.

At the Connect Fund we are really interested in digging deeper into methods of participatory or community-led investing that unpick the design of traditional finance and reimagine investment for the benefit of communities first. That is, ‘the practice of investing with meaningful input, decision-making power, and ownership from grassroots stakeholders’.

In the same tradition of participatory action research and co-design, participatory investment essentially means including end-users in design and delivery of investment decisions in a meaningful way. It is important to differentiate here from processes which employ user-centred design, where the client or end-user is the subject of observation as a source for improvements. In the participatory or co-creation process, the end-user is understood as an equal partner and is actively involved throughout the creation process.

At Connect Fund we are really excited to announce funding the first of our projects in the Challenging Power with Participation strand:

Democratic Money

Barking and Dagenham Giving (B&D Giving) will work with The Curiosity Society (TCS) to give ordinary people more control over how money is generated, distributed, and used. B&D Giving will extend the work of their Community Steering Group — CSG, a group of residents that has led the design of their Investment Policy, by onboarding new members and creating an alumni community. It will create a dashboard to monitor the impact of the investments and a digital learning platform to increase community engagement and expand participation. Their long-term partner, Curiosity Society will support partners in different geographical areas to learn from this model and build their own versions of democratic money. This will include testing in three new locations and delivering shareable tools for those seeking to engage in re-imagining financial decision-making.

Impact Custodian Investment Committee

This pilot project from Shift Design will focus on the structure of social investment committees, which predominately favours ‘learned experience’ rather than the ‘lived experience’. The project will mitigate the potential for decision-making bias to misjudge the potential risks and returns and will form an Impact Custodian Investment Committee of individuals with relevant lived experience acting as stewards on behalf of their community. Working with Trust for London to trial using improved assessment criteria and insights that better balance ‘lived experience’ and the ‘learned experience’ of the investment team and due diligence process. Alongside this work, it will assemble a social investor Consortium of 5–7 organisations interested in changing how they make decisions.

If you are interested in applying to the Connect Fund’s Challenging Power with Participation strand take a look at our guidelines.