The role of communities and the use of technology in mitigating loneliness during the Coronavirus pandemic - www.wcpp.org.uk
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The role of communities and the use of technology in mitigating loneliness during the Coronavirus pandemic www.wcpp.org.uk
Our Mission
The Wales Centre for Public Policy helps to improve policy making and public
services by supporting ministers and public service leaders to access and apply
rigorous independent evidence about what works. It works in partnership with
leading researchers and policy experts to synthesise and mobilise existing evidence
and identify gaps where there is a need to generate new knowledge.
The Centre is independent of government but works closely with policy makers
and practitioners to develop fresh thinking about how to address strategic
challenges in health and social care, education, housing, the economy and
other devolved responsibilities. It:
• Supports Welsh Government Ministers to identify, access and use authoritative
evidence and independent expertise that can help inform and improve policy;
• Works with public services to access, generate, evaluate and apply evidence
about what works in addressing key economic and societal challenges; and
• Draws on its work with Ministers and public services, to advance understanding
of how evidence can inform and improve policy making and public services and
contribute to theories of policy making and implementation.
Through secondments, PhD placements and its Research Apprenticeship programme,
the Centre also helps to build capacity among researchers to engage in policy relevant
research which has impact.
For further information please visit our website at www.wcpp.org.uk
Core Funders
Cardiff University was founded in 1883. Located in a thriving capital
city, Cardiff is an ambitious and innovative university, which is intent
on building strong international relationships while demonstrating its
commitment to Wales.
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is part of UK Research
and Innovation, a new organisation that brings together the UK’s seven
research councils, Innovate UK and Research England to maximise
the contribution of each council and create the best environment for
research and innovation to flourish.
Welsh Government is the devolved government of Wales, responsible
for key areas of public life, including health, education, local government,
and the environment.
• 2 •
Contents
Summary 4
Introduction 6
Loneliness and the role of place 8
Summary of research methods 12
Findings 18
Overview of the community action reported on 18
1. Steppingstones and purpose: addressing loneliness in communities 24
Summary and recommendations 31
2. Blended spaces: using online and offline technology to address loneliness 32
Summary and recommendations 39
3. Networked action: enabling, sustaining and enhancing community activity 40
Summary and recommendations 51
Recommendations 53
Conclusion 56
Appendix 1: Research methods 58
References 64
Report Authors
Rosie Havers – Research Assistant, Wales Centre for Public Policy
Dr Hannah Durrant – Senior Research Fellow, Wales Centre for Public Policy
Laura Bennett – Research Associate, Wales Centre for Public Policy
• 3 •
Summary
» Tackling loneliness was a priority for » In using technology to help
Welsh Government and public services address loneliness, findings
before the Coronavirus pandemic. emphasised the importance of
Much work focused on the role of blended approaches, where online
communities and their physical and interaction supported or enabled offline
digital infrastructures in building connection and activities. Fundamental
and maintaining social connections. to this, were inclusive digital and
The pandemic both increased the physical environments, shaped and
importance of exploring these, while maintained by participatory design
providing new opportunities to do so. processes.
» This report explores the experience of » For enabling, sustaining and
71 members and coordinators of over enhancing community action, the
50 community groups across Wales research identified the importance
during the pandemic. It identifies key of: collaboration based on ‘strength
lessons for: addressing loneliness; the in difference’; place-based skills,
use of online and offline technologies; networks and governance roles;
and enabling, sustaining and and funding and support structures
enhancing community action. accessible to informal and small-scale
community groups.
» Participants came from communities
within every Welsh local authority area. » Findings highlight the presence and
Using National Survey for Wales data, importance of the wider networks,
we ensured that these areas reflected infrastructures and governance
national variation in socioeconomic structures underpinning community
and geographic characteristics. action and connection. These have
The sample also focused on groups been both developed and decimated
identified to be at higher risk during the pandemic. Supporting,
of loneliness. sustaining, and strengthening these
will be key to promoting community
» Interviews adopted a storytelling connection through the pandemic
approach, allowing participants to recovery and beyond.
share their experience and expertise in
their own words, focusing on aspects of » Recommendations are provided based
community action that they considered on ‘what worked well’ for: addressing
important. loneliness in communities; blended
approaches to addressing loneliness
» The research found that, for both with technology; collaborating with
building community networks and community groups; and optimising
addressing loneliness directly, having community resources.
a sense of purpose was paramount.
This was enabled by meaningful
‘things to do’, and a broad spectrum
of opportunities and means to engage
with them (beyond ‘joining a club’).
• 4 •
• 5 •
Introduction
Tackling loneliness was a priority for The purpose of the research undertaken
Welsh Government and public services by the Wales Centre for Public Policy
across Wales before the Coronavirus (WCPP) was to identify key learning on
pandemic and has become a greater the role of communities and the use of
concern since. In February 2020, Welsh technology in addressing loneliness,
Government released their loneliness based on the experience of members
strategy ‘Connected Communities’, and coordinators of community groups
which raised the need for services and across Wales during the pandemic.
infrastructures that support and enable The research focused on: the effect
community connection. This reflected that community group activity had
an increased focus on the role of local on experiences of loneliness; the role
places, their communities and their that technology played in facilitating
physical and digital infrastructures in group functions and reaching those
the research on loneliness mitigation. most at risk of loneliness; and how
Lockdowns and social distancing such community action could be
policies imposed in response to the sustained, enabled and enhanced
Coronavirus pandemic have intensified into recovery. This research forms part
the impact of our physical and social of a wider WCPP programme of work
surroundings; contributed to a flourishing on loneliness in Wales, including our
of community connections in some recent report, Designing technology-
places; and increased the importance enabled services to tackle loneliness
of digital connections for some people. and podcasts, Tackling loneliness
The conditions created by the pandemic, and social isolation during lockdown,
and our response to it, have created and and Tackling loneliness in and
deepened inequalities, and challenged out of lockdown - the role of good
policy ambitions around tackling communication. More information
loneliness, while simultaneously creating can be found on our project page.
the conditions for new ways of achieving
them (e.g., Blundell et al 2020; British Red
Cross 2020a).
• 6 •
This research involved in-depth In doing so it contributes to a breadth
interviews with 71 individuals from over of studies, and a significant body of grey
50 different community groups and literature, that have sought to understand
organisations, representing geographic this complex landscape from different
and socioeconomic diversity across angles (e.g., Borowska 2021; Coutts et al
every local authority area in Wales. 2020; Kaye and Morgan 2021; Lloyd-Jones
The groups involved were loosely divided and Holtom 2021; O’Dwyer 2020; Tiratelli
into Place-Based Groups/PBGs - those and Kaye 2020).
that were established primarily on the
basis of shared locality (e.g., a village This report begins with a brief introduction
COVID-19 response group), and Interest- to loneliness: how it is experienced; its
Based Groups/IBGs - those that were causes and consequences; approaches
established primarily on the basis of to tackling loneliness; and the role
shared interest, experience or identity of place. Following an outline of our
(e.g., a fishing group, or single parents’ research methods, we then present
group). These are collectively referred key findings and recommendations.
to as ‘community groups’. The majority
were informal groups (not legally
constituted) or small-scale formal 1 Most legally constituted participating groups
groups (legally constituted but working fell under the National Council for Voluntary
either at a sub-regional level, or with Organisations’ (2020) definition of a ‘micro’
voluntary organisation (income under £10,000),
specific communities across wider with some falling under the definition of ‘small’
areas, falling under the NCVO (2020)1 (income under £100,000). Two groups with
definition of ‘small’ or ‘micro’ voluntary higher incomes were included due to their
representation of specific minority communities
organisations). As such, the research
identified by research as being at higher risk of
reflects a specific set of experiences loneliness.
from one part of a complex and
multi-layered community response
to COVID-19 (e.g., Lloyd-Jones and
Holtom 2021).
• 7 •
Loneliness and the role of place
Can't see the video? Watch online at: youtu.be/NHlwxFXrFHc
• 8 •
What is Loneliness? Who is lonely?
Loneliness is defined as ‘a subjective While most people will likely experience
and unwelcome feeling which results loneliness at some point in their lives,
from a mismatch in the quality and the research suggests that certain
quantity of social relationships we have groups are at greater risk of loneliness
and those that we desire’ (Perlman than others. These include both older
& Peplau 1982, in Campaign to End people and young people. The National
Loneliness 2020a). It is a widespread Survey for Wales (2019-2020) showed
issue, complicated by stigma, that has that those aged 16-24 were twice as
been exacerbated by the Coronavirus likely to be lonely than those aged
pandemic (British Red Cross 2020a). 65+ (National Survey for Wales 2020a;
It can have severe mental and physical 2020b). Risk groups also include people
health implications, increasing risk of with long-term illness; disabled people;
a range of conditions from depression Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people;
and cognitive decline, to coronary people who are Lesbian Gay Bisexual
heart disease and high blood pressure Transgender and other sexualities or
(Campaign to End Loneliness, n.d.). gender identities; refugees; asylum
The literature on loneliness often seekers; carers; single parents; and
differentiates between emotional, many more (e.g., British Red Cross 2016).
social and existential loneliness.
Diverse definitions broadly describe
emotional loneliness as lacking close
relationships, social loneliness as
lacking a sense of belonging to a wider
group, and existential loneliness as a
sense of separation from other people,
even if they are there (commonly
associated with trauma, disability or
terminal illness) (Campaign to End
Loneliness 2020a).
• 9 •
Why do people get lonely? How is loneliness tackled?
A range of different factors can make Much of the research on how
someone become lonely or worsen loneliness is experienced, and by
feelings of loneliness. For example: whom, comes from social psychology,
trauma, illness, bereavement, life perceiving and addressing loneliness
transitions, unemployment, material at an individual level. This is often
deprivation, or social isolation reflected in responsive approaches
(describing a lack of social contact, to tackling loneliness that involve
which is just one possible cause, brokering connections between ‘lonely
and consequence, of loneliness). people’ and their wider communities
The experience of loneliness can be (supporting them to ‘get out’, join
transient (connected to a particular groups/clubs, take part in activities)
experience or phase of life), or it (e.g., Victor et al 2018; Campaign to
can be chronic and deep-rooted, End Loneliness 2020b). While critically
associated with a self-perpetuating important, there are people for whom
cycle, where the psychological these approaches may not work, such
impacts of feeling disconnected can as carers who are restricted in terms
further entrench that disconnection of when and for how long they can be
(Campaign to End Loneliness 2020a). away from those they care for, and
challenges that they may not address,
such as barriers to social interaction
that can both cause and result from
loneliness (Campaign to End Loneliness
2020a).
• 10 •What does ‘where’ have to do with it? Loneliness, place and COVID-19
Increased attention to how ‘place’ Disruptions to our experiences of space
relates to loneliness is reflected in brought by the COVID-19 pandemic
recent loneliness policy strategies have increased both the importance,
across the UK (Department for Digital, and the possibilities, of exploring the
Culture, Media and Sport 2018; Scottish role of place in addressing loneliness.
Government 2018; Welsh Government Lockdowns imposed in response to
2020). These shift emphasis from ‘the the pandemic made space feel more
individual’, towards the place-based absolute (or ‘stuck’) while, at the
structures enabling and strengthening same time, more fluid and relational
social connections, through community (for many), due to the increased
networks, infrastructures and public prevalence of digital communication.
services. They reflect a body of primary This seemingly conflicting combination
research focusing on the role of has sometimes caused and intensified
physical and digital infrastructures loneliness (British Red Cross 2020a;
(e.g., greenspace and broadband 2020b) while sometimes increasing the
connection) as well as social kind of ‘community cohesion’ described
infrastructures of place (e.g., community by policy approaches to tackling it
networks, services and hubs) (e.g., (Kaye and Morgan 2021). It has also
Bagnall et al 2018). In the above policy led to a new emphasis on the role of
strategies, rather than focusing on technology, raising opportunities and
these infrastructures as purely a challenges in terms of understanding
means for facilitating interventions how this plays into experiences of both
for ‘lonely people’, they become part isolation and connection.
of a preventative landscape of ‘social
connection’, opening potential for
more structural, holistic approaches
to tackling loneliness and improving
community wellbeing, alongside
responsive work. While an appealing
policy solution, identifying tangible
measures that might help to achieve
this in practice presents a key challenge.
• 11 •Summary of research methods
Sample Approach
This research involved 71 people (aged 18-85), with varying levels of involvement in We developed an informal, loosely structured, storytelling method for interviews,
community groups in Wales (from coordination, to occasional participation) between enabling participants to take control of the conversation, to focus and reflect on
March and December 2020. Each participant took part in a remote, in-depth interview what they considered important, and to communicate this by telling a story (rather
between December 2020 and February 2021, over video call or telephone (depending than having topics imposed through a typical, structured question format). Our aims
on preference), lasting approximately one hour. The participants represented over 50 of shifting emphasis onto the voice, experience and expertise of participants and
different community groups (either as coordinators or members) across every local ‘handing over’ control, also shaped the nature of our wider communications with
authority area in Wales. Many participants (particularly group members) were involved community groups. Our approach was personal and informal, avoiding any generic
in more than one group, and the distinction between ‘member’ and ‘coordinator’ was content (e.g., recruitment emails or ‘sign-up’ forms), and took place on participants’
sometimes arbitrary, given the size of some groups, and their often flexible, multiple own terms, including extensive, pre-interview communication through phone calls,
and shifting leadership structures. email, and Facebook messaging.
Scope Ethics
We ensured that the research sample reflected geographic and socioeconomic The research was subject to a full ethical review by Cardiff University and strong
diversity nationally, by using 2019-2020 National Survey for Wales data (NSfW) emphasis was placed on safeguarding and wellbeing throughout. Informed consent
to map groups and participants against demographic and geographic variables was provided by all participants, their contributions were anonymous, and their
at local authority (LA) and lower super output area (LSOA) levels. These variables data was stored according to GDPR regulations. An Equality Impact Assessment
included age, ethnicity, rurality, internet access, general health, Welsh speaking was also carried out, involving detailed consideration of potentially detrimental
and deprivation. Sampling involved a continuous process of reflection against impacts in relation to any protected characteristic of the Equalities Act (2014), and
this data (using an interactive heat-map developed on Tableau), and subsequent the development of specific measures to ensure equality in participation. Notably
focused recruitment where representation was lacking. Figure 1 below illustrates the however, we were not able to ensure equal opportunities for those without digital
geographical spread of participants, and various characteristics of their local areas. access, given the national restrictions at the time of research. Efforts were made
to reduce these barriers, wherever possible, such as by offering interviews and
Representation surveys over the phone. Most initial contact did however, require email access,
excluding a few cases of ‘snowballing’ where participants shared others’ phone
Rather than relying on ‘first to respond’, or a singular means of identifying and recruiting numbers, with their permission.
participants, we used a combination of approaches, including web searches and cold
contacting (over email and Facebook), ‘snowballing’ through existing contacts, and
a process of actor-network mapping. This enabled the purposive sampling of groups Full methodology can be found in Appendix 1.
identified by research and NSfW (2019-2020) data as more likely to be lonely (e.g., those
who are: aged 16-24; aged 65+; disabled; Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and other
sexualities or gender identities; and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people). The sample
also included group members as well as group coordinators, recognising this as key to
a comprehensive understanding of the breadth of community activity. Characteristics
of the groups involved in the research are illustrated by Figure 2 below.
• 12 • • 13 •Figure 1: Map of research participant locations, % Internet access % Aged 65+
and their demographic and geographic characteristics 94% 29%
This infographic was created using LA level data from the National Survey for Wales 2019-2020.
The different shades of blue on the map correspond to the percentage of people reporting feeling
lonely in each local authority area. Each spot on the map corresponds to the location from which
National average 21.9%
participants took part in an interview. The surrounding graphics show the extent to which these locations
differ from the Wales national average on a range of socioeconomic and geographic area characteristics. National average 88%
These are a selection of a wider set of variables used to ensure that our research involved diverse
communities across Wales. We are confident that we have a broad representation of communities,
which reflects the fact that higher percentages of Welsh speaking and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic
people are concentrated in a smaller number of local authority areas. 84%
14%
% Lonely % Rural
21%
% Lonely
90%
% reporting feeling lonely
through their response
to six statements indicating
loneliness- see National
Survey for Wales (2020b)
for more details National average 45%
National average 15.2% % Internet access
% of households
with internet access
12%
% Rural 0%
% living in settlements
of less than 10,000 people
% Community belonging % Community belonging
% Welsh speaking
% agreeing that they
belong to their community 62%
80%
Deprivation
Number of LSOAs from
a list of the 10% most
deprived LSOAs in Wales National average 52.6%
National average 30.4%
10% 38%
% Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic people Deprivation
21% 24%
National average 8.8%
National average 4.4%
% Lonely by Local
1% Authority Area 0%
12% 21%
• 14 • • 15 •Figure 2: Characteristics of community groups involved in the research
esponse
-19 r gr
ID ou
V
CO
ps
Place-Based
Groups
80% informal
20% formal
25
Interview participants
Coordinators
Gar
Bridge
g
d
lkin
enin
24 Members
Wa
Re
ng
g
lig
hi
St
io
Fis
or
n
yt
el ng
22 lin
g Si ng
i
Coordinators
Foo ing
tba mm
ll Swi
Interest-
based Groups
50% informal
h Bere
Yout 50% formal avem
ent
Re
le fug
op ee
pe s
nic
Eth
As
y
lit
rity
yl
bi
no
um
sa
i
s
Do
dM
es
Di
se
Care
n ma
m
a
illn
and other sexualities or gender identities
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender
s
t los
e
ian Sigh
es
ke
s
Trau
nic
r
,A
ti
s
rs
k
y
cv
lac
lit
ro
bi
B
ism
sa
iol
Ch
di
Aut
n-
en
Pa
ce
• 16 • • 17 •Findings
Overview of the community activity reported on
Communities’ pre-existing For example, participants in rural areas
networks often described strong social ties due
The groups involved in this research were to smaller, more static populations, while
loosely divided into Place-Based Groups/ in urban areas, infrastructures, services
PBGs - those that were established and cultural activity were identified as
primarily on the basis of shared locality promoting cohesion. Local connections
(e.g., a village COVID-19 response group), were also stronger or weaker, according
and Interest-Based Groups/IBGs - those to a range of wider factors, such as the
that were established primarily on the prevalence of commuting or moving
basis of shared interest, experience or for work (prior to the pandemic), the
identity (e.g., a fishing group, or single ability to work from home (during
parents’ group). The COVID-19 response the pandemic), and investment in
that we report on is just the tip of the community infrastructures (which
iceberg of community interaction. Key sometimes reflected greater affluence,
to our findings, was what this visible sometimes targeted initiatives in more
part revealed about communities’ base deprived areas). Further, the strength of
of pre-existing networks: the places pre-existing networks did not neatly map
where they are more or less established onto community group activity during
and why; how they might emerge in the pandemic. While often facilitating
the first place; and how they might be an organised COVID-19 response, strong
strengthened, expanded, or mobilised existing networks sometimes negated
elsewhere. This illuminated the role of the the need for it. Conversely, in a few cases,
broader systems that these community groups appeared precisely because of a
networks formed part of – involving lack of existing community relationships,
diverse sectors (voluntary, third, public, creating crucial new support networks.
private) across multiple scales (local, Notably, in contrast to examples of
regional, national and international). It community activity flourishing during
also indicated the varied and complex the pandemic, some participants
role of socioeconomic and geographic emphasised the opposite, as vital
factors, in shaping the extent to which networks, resources, and infrastructures
these ‘base’ networks were present or had been decimated by the impact
absent before the pandemic, and were of lockdowns and social distancing
enhanced or weakened throughout it. measures.
• 18 •Place-Based Groups
When this icon appears alongside the I had kids home and work
text in the sections below, it indicates decided actually they were
that the findings being discussed relate doing work, then it felt like
to data collected from PBGs. The PBGs a bit of a juggle and I
involved in this research were largely thought, “I don’t know what
‘COVID-19 Response Groups’, that were I’ve done. I’ve taken on too
established in geographically-based much. This is awful.” I guess
communities across Wales from March the challenge is about the
2020, in response to (or anticipation sudden expansion and
of) the first national lockdown. We use the unknown timescale
the general term ‘COVID-19 Response and the working in
Group’ (CRG) to include both those who constantly shifting sands.
identified with the concept of ‘mutual
aid’ and those who did not (see box PBG coordinator
below). While these CRGs were ‘new’
groups, many grew from existing groups,
networks or organisations, formed
around shared interests, experiences
or identities. As such, there was rarely a
clear line distinguishing PBGs from IBGs,
with many of the former often established
by concerned community members PBGs’ activities centred on meeting
from the latter, who were able to mobilise need in the local community, primarily
their existing networks in order to support by delivering food and prescriptions
people in the local area (e.g., members to those shielding, but also through
of a swimming club, who worried about activities directly targeting emotional
what the older leisure centre ‘regulars’ wellbeing, such as telephone support and
would do when lockdown began). CRGs befriending. Many groups also developed
were often described as ‘accidental’ a range of wider activities like delivering
creations, that ‘took on a life of their activity packs to young people or setting
own’, with the scale of need exceeding up bus stop bookshelves, as well as
expectations (and often capacity), in offering more targeted support like
its breadth, depth and longevity. emergency financial assistance.
• 19 •PBG’s activities changed (in nature,
intensity, and frequency) throughout Mutual Aid
the course of the pandemic. Demand
‘Mutual aid’ describes the
for shopping and prescription collection
concept that reciprocity/solidarity
fell significantly through June/July/
(as opposed to self-interest/
August 2020, as shops, pharmacies
competition) is the ‘innately
and individuals established delivery
human’ foundation of society,
systems and national lockdowns eased.
and an associated commitment
Around half of the groups in this research
to horizontal/non-hierarchical,
‘wound down’ or finished at this point
and community-led organisation
(most having already gone ‘above and
(Springer 2020). Coined by anarchist
beyond’ what they set out to do, and
philosopher and naturalist Peter
facing challenges such as returning to
Kropotkin (1902), ‘mutual aid’ has
work and securing longer-term funds).
been a foundational concept of
Groups that were able to continue,
much community organising for over
often shifted their activities towards
a century, championed, in particular,
addressing deepening emotional and
by Black and ‘multiply-marginalised’
financial challenges, e.g., through the
people (Zuri 2020- founder of UK
establishment of food banks or wider
Mutual Aid).
wellbeing support activities. Several of
these groups had plans to remain active While many of these PBGs/CRGs
beyond the pandemic, with a smaller were registered as ‘mutual aid
‘core’ of volunteers expressing a desire groups’ (e.g., on covidmutualaid.org),
to continue in the long-term (often 10- few groups or participants used
20, in contrast to 50-100 during the first the term ‘mutual aid’ to describe
national lockdown). Crucially however, their activity. Fewer still, identified
those groups that were unable to with mutual aid as a concept,
continue had not ‘disappeared’, with the which was often entirely absent
networks that they were created from, or from participants’ narratives and
that they created during the pandemic, the way groups were organised.
often remaining active in the community. Participants from only three groups
(in south-east and urban parts of
Wales) brought up the historical
context of mutual aid, and its role
in shaping the aims and structure
of their activities. The majority
of groups were deliberately and
outwardly ‘apolitical’, so association
with mutual aid was sometimes
considered controversial, and
sometimes explicitly rejected, due
to perceived political associations.
• 20 •Interest-Based Groups IBGs’ activities also changed throughout
the course of the pandemic, as groups
When this icon appears alongside the shifted from short-term approaches
text in the sections below, it indicates to ‘remote’ functioning, to the
that the findings being discussed relate development of more sophisticated
to data collected from IBGs. The IBGs approaches that many intended to
involved in this research were largely sustain in the long-term. The latter
existing groups (but some new) that often involved complex combinations
had shifted their focus to supporting of online and offline activities and
their interest/experience/identity-based opportunities for social connection,
communities through the pandemic with a range of digital technologies
(rather than forming dedicated CRGs). used to facilitate both action and
For example, a group established interaction. Further, as many of these
by members of a minority ethnic IBGs were run by, and/or for, minority
community to celebrate shared religious and marginalised groups, new or
festivals, invested in technologies to increased focus was often placed on
involve people remotely: from filming efforts to mitigate the deepening of
music, dance, cooking (then delivering inequalities and challenges faced by
the food), to offering online yoga, these communities, resulting from the
storytelling sessions, and emotional unequal impact of the pandemic and
support. Many IBGs also engaged in its likely long-term implications. This
activities like delivering shopping or involved a wide range of activities,
prescriptions, but their primary focus from direct support for individuals, to
was usually centred around sports, lobbying and campaigning to ensure
leisure, arts or culture – either as the that new and existing policies, services
focus that brought the group together and infrastructures recognised these
(e.g., a folk choir), or providing the basis challenges. However, IBGs’ future
for social interaction/support in groups plans were, like PBGs, often dictated
brought together by shared experience by questions of funding and capacity,
or identity (e.g., a pan-disability social albeit in slightly different ways. Many
group). Some were forced to entirely anticipated difficulties in sustaining
abandon their ‘normal’ activities, like their activities, due to concerns around
a football club that shifted to supporting the future availability of grants, and the
its community by running events wider financial impacts of the pandemic
and fundraising on team Facebook across the third and voluntary sectors,
groups. Others were able to adapt their sports, leisure, arts and culture.
activities, such as a youth group running
their creative arts sessions online.
• 21 •Figure 3: Black and
The intersectionality Minority
Ethnic
of loneliness people
Lesbian Gay
Bisexual
Transgender It’s being able
and other to speak freely,
sexual/gender not just being
Community activity and loneliness identities able to speak
the language
Separation
Many participants shared insight and from family/
Nobody
stories relating to the experience of expects older
home
loneliness, and how involvement with people to be
gay
LGBT life isn’t
Stuck
somewhere Refugees
seen as part Communication
community groups had addressed of Welsh
I can’t be and asylum is a constant
myself seekers struggle
this (or not) during the pandemic and culture
Services,
beyond. Fundamental here, and the infrastructures
and policies
focus of the findings below, was not just People
can be don’t recognise
group involvement, but the means by unwelcoming
my experience
Lockdown is
or abusive nothing new
which participants had been involved Can’t afford Trapped
in the
to do things
(the sorts of activities and interactions Welsh present
speaking
they took part in). Specifically, how
these means helped to address a
pervasive challenge - that the sense of Loneliness
is feeling
Things have
got much
Older
exclusion and disconnection that results excluded worse since
the pandemic Material
from loneliness is also often a cause
deprivation
of it. If barriers to ‘getting out’, ‘joining
a club’ or ‘joining in’ are at the roots of
loneliness, addressing it through these Loneliness Loneliness is
is feeling emptiness
means becomes difficult. Participants’ forgotten Exclusion
from
experiences highlighted some of the Loss of
routine/
Loneliness is
not about
Loneliness is
a trap- you
information
diverse and intersecting factors that structure being alone shrink into
yourself
might contribute to this ‘loneliness trap’ You fear
being a
for different groups identified as being Loneliness
‘I’m okay’
rarely means
burden to
Loneliness others
more at risk of loneliness. These are is feeling is failure I’m okay
illustrated in Figure 3 and emphasise, different
Loneliness is
Challenges
in particular, experiences of physical insidious-
are often Disabled
invisible
nobody talks
and emotional exclusion, as well as Single about it
the insidiousness of loneliness – the parents Loneliness It’s hard to People are
is feeling
stigma, shame and misunderstanding scared
communicate
how you feel
scared to ask
us
that create barriers to communicating
Isolation from
how it feels, and how people can help. other adults
The central, orange circles in Figure 3 Intensity
represent themes raised across the of care
relationships
groups involved, while the peripheral, It’s easier Social pressure
not to bother
blue circles represent themes specific won’t let you
admit it
to different groups, which also often
overlapped. This graphic does not Carers
intend to represent every dimension Young
or experience of loneliness, or all Nobody asks
groups at greater risk of being lonely. young people if
they’re lonely
It summarises key themes from the
experiences described by participants
Bereaved
in this research only.
The emptiness People can
is compounded make you
when they’ve lonelier
gone
• 22 • • 23 •1. Steppingstones and purpose:
addressing loneliness
in communities
Can't see the video? Watch online at: youtu.be/bxFnDDeh5fg
• 24 •Providing a Way In
If you try to contrive social
As outlined above, none of the PBGs interaction because you think
in this research set out specifically to that person isn’t getting any, the
tackle loneliness – most set up with the likelihood is that they will just be
first national Coronavirus lockdown in shy or run a mile. If you’ve got
March 2020, to meet emergency need some other practical purpose,
by delivering food and prescriptions to which means you’ve got to have
those shielding. Alongside this, many a chat, and you’ve got to chat for
groups carried out wider activities, from some time about when they need
dog walking to doorstep yoga, and a their prescription picking up, how
majority developed dedicated wellbeing many items there are, what’s
support systems, such as ‘buddy calls’ their date of birth in case the
and befriending services. While the latter surgery ask and you’re forced
were considered important in tackling by practical circumstances to
loneliness, overwhelming emphasis was have broader chats, then you’re
placed on the impact of practical, task- much, much more likely to be
based activities (particularly delivering successful in drawing that
shopping and prescriptions). These person out a bit and creating a
provided a simple, accessible ‘way in’ to meaningful social interaction.
social interaction, by shifting focus away
from it – key, given that people who feel PBG coordinator
lonely can find social interaction difficult,
both as a cause or a consequence
of that loneliness (Campaign to End
Loneliness 2020a): “We found people
generally didn’t want shopping. They
just wanted to speak to somebody,
you know, and the shopping was not
a lie, but it was their way of starting
a conversation” (PBG coordinator).
Phoning a helpline about shopping or
prescriptions provided an opportunity
for a low pressure, transactional
interaction, with the option to engage
socially, but not the obligation. This
practical focus also reduced the stigma
surrounding loneliness and wider mental
health issues, and associated barriers
to both asking for, and offering, help:
“I guess it’s a different thing to say,
“I need some help with my shopping
because I’m not physically allowed
out,” than it is to say, “I’m really lonely
and I feel really depressed and fed up.””
(PBG member).
• 25 •Building Community Networks Many participants emphasised that these
relationships and networks remained,
In many cases, as practical interactions even where groups that initiated them
around shopping or prescription had wound down or finished.
delivery were repeated, they shifted
from transactional to more emotional.
This process built new connections
and relationships around people,
rather than requiring them to fit into I made some quite deep
existing, often inaccessible, networks connections with some of
(like joining a club or group which, for those families, especially
some, was physically or emotionally elderly people that we were
challenging, worsening the experience helping, and I help them
of loneliness as a result). Participants now on a weekly basis not
highlighted the benefits of focusing necessarily… I don’t see
on the tangible ‘means’ of relationship myself as a volunteer for
and network building – physical things that, I’m just doing it
and a mobilising sense of purpose – because they’re now my
rather than the elusive ends of social friends, you know.
connection itself (echoing research PBG coordinator
finding that focusing on well-being,
or being happy, is not necessarily an
effective way to achieve well-being, or
happiness (Fritz and Sonja Lyubomirsky
2017)). Many described logistical tasks,
like delivering furniture, finding hot cross A key and widespread question is for
buns at Christmas, or some yellow roses how long these networks might sustain
on a shopping list, leading to genuine themselves, and how they might be
friendships: helping someone get a job, enhanced, or replicated elsewhere,
sharing a cancer all-clear, supporting now that the shared emergency
someone through bereavement. purpose that was mobilising them has
Rather than isolated, ‘helper-helped’ largely diminished. Findings from IBGs
relationships, these interactions built highlighted possibilities for addressing
(and built on) wider networks, or ‘a this challenge, illustrating how the same
sense of community’ – the feeling, not model of network building (physical
just among the ‘vulnerable’, of having a things + mobilising sense of purpose
support structure and being thought of, = connections) works outside of a
or known about. crisis context, with a different (more
sustainable) mobilising purpose, based
on meaningful ‘things to do’.
I learnt that I’m not on my own.
I know I felt like I was on my
own….but now I feel like we have
a community. It just needed
somebody to say, “Hello, I’m here”
PBG coordinator
• 26 •Meaningful things to do These were still networks built around
and the power of purpose physical things and a mobilising sense
of purpose but, rather than coming
As outlined above, IBGs’ activities from a collective need to respond to
were primarily centred around sports, an emergency, this purpose came
leisure, arts and culture, either as the from shared interests, experiences or
focus that brought the group together, passions. For groups in this research,
or as providing the basis for social the networks built as a result were
interaction/support in groups brought often considered better at tackling
together by shared experience or loneliness, due to their sustainability,
identity. These kinds of activities – and a greater sense of mutuality, not
meaningful ‘things to do’ – and the being premised on a helper-helped
physical and digital infrastructures divide: “It is not a case of I am this
that facilitate them (e.g., community healthy, well superman and how can
buildings, transport, sports and arts I help you? It is a real, yes, camaraderie
facilities, broadband connection, or or connection” (IBG member).
a community Facebook page), were
emphasised as key in building the base A strong theme in this research was
community networks that, in many the power of ‘purpose’, not only for
cases, provided the foundations for activating community connection,
effective response to crisis. but for addressing loneliness more
directly: the importance of feeling part
of something ‘bigger’, of not feeling
bored or empty, rather than a need for
social interaction per-se. While this,
I would say that the social for some, was temporarily provided
networks were already by the pandemic response, it was also
well entrenched in the town. achieved through diverse IBG activities.
Not just as a result of things Participants highlighted the critical
like obviously the [community importance of meaningful things to do,
action plan]. They were like campaigning, activism, or activities
entrenched as a result (whether writing, swimming or sewing)
of strong cultural activity connected to a wider goal. This, in
in the town… There is a lot turn, highlights the critical importance
going on in this place. of attention to the dimensions of
They all contribute to inequality surrounding the presence, or
creating a network that absence, of community activities and
makes us stronger. infrastructures, and the extent to which
these infrastructures and inequalities
IBG and PBG coordinator
have been impacted by the pandemic
(as outlined in the ‘overview’ section on
page 18).
• 27 •Accessible steps to engagement These may (or may not) be longer term
goals but, as suggested by findings
Many participants discussed loneliness from PBGs, there is a need for more
as a sense of disconnection, separation accessible ‘steps’ to engagement and
and emptiness (existential loneliness), connection. This was echoed by many
that could not be addressed by participants across IBGs, who described
social contact alone (and, in some difficulties associated with joining
circumstances, could be intensified groups or clubs, bound in complex
by it). This was a recurring theme ways to experiences of loneliness, both
across diverse groups, from someone prior to, and during, the pandemic:
with a physical disability to someone “When you’re in a good place you don’t
experiencing bereavement, but realise how hard it is to come in, do
was particularly emphasised by you? You know, the amount of mental
young people: “I’m probably one and physical energy it takes to brace
of the busiest people ever and I’m yourself to just join in and be part of
surrounded by people but yet there something” (IBG member). A sense
is still that loneliness because it’s of isolation was often intensified by
not about the fact that I’m physically expectations to ‘fit’ into networks which
isolated, it’s the fact that there’s were (or felt) inaccessible, the contrast
kind of a disconnection between of returning to being alone after group
stuff” (IBG coordinator). This feeling interaction, and the deep, negative
was addressed by opportunities to impacts of challenging interactions:
connect with a cause, rather than to “I suddenly felt terrible afterwards
simply connect with people. It not only and I was like, “I don’t want to do that
highlights the need for opportunities again, it was awful.” It made me feel
to do things that feel significant so lonely” (IBG member). In addressing
(which might be gardening for some, such challenges, participants outlined
or activism for others), but also the the potential of meaningful, practical
potential for approaches to addressing activities (such as writing, or making,
loneliness that do not necessarily something purposeful) with the option,
require ‘getting out’, joining a club and but not the requirement, of social
socialising. interaction.
• 28 •For example, activities coordinated
online, offering the possibility of taking
part without leaving home or even I think that being
switching on a camera or microphone: proactive and giving
“To walk into a space, like a youth club people the pathway to
or something, is terrifying when you how to be involved, and
don’t know anybody, doing that online not leaving it to them.
can be a bit easier” (IBG member). Not hectoring them, not
Key alongside this purposeful action, pestering them, but just
was having structured spaces for social having practical things
interaction (digital or ‘in-person’), so that it’s clear how to
in order to lessen social anxieties be involved and it doesn’t
and break down barriers to getting take much effort.
involved or speaking openly (while
simultaneously respecting these by IBG member
removing any expectation to take part):
“You know, it’s a thing to log in but
you don’t have to be prepared to give
anything so it’s nice.…it doesn’t take
much to be part of it” (IBG member).
This involved setting routine structures
and norms for open discussion,
‘bringing people in’ by providing
a clear framework for engagement,
both within and beyond the session.
• 29 •Looking forwards Many more were very active in the
community prior to the pandemic, and
The pandemic responses of the different felt frustrated at being asked or expected
groups involved in this research have to come up with something new: “What
provided an insight into the building are you doing? What are you going to do
blocks of community relationships next?” I thought, “Well hang on. We are
and networks, revealing lessons for already doing so much in this town. Do we
tackling loneliness, and for supporting now need to come up…?” I found myself a
community connection more broadly. bit defensive about that” (PBG coordinator).
They highlight the potential of focusing
on the means of connection (practical Our research suggests that essential to
activities and a mobilising sense of moving forwards, will be celebrating the
purpose), rather than the ends (the pandemic response, but letting it melt
connection itself), as a tangible basis away. Crucially, ensuring that, as it does
for building and sustaining relationships so, it reinforces communities’ existing
and networks. They also emphasise the networks with the new ones that have
importance that these ‘means’ present been generated, and by learning from their
a range of accessible opportunities for experience: the potential of meaningful
engagement, in light of diverse barriers ‘things to do’ and a sense of purpose
to participation. In terms of sustaining in facilitating relationship and network
and promoting community connection, building, and the benefits of providing
these findings suggest the need, and accessible steppingstones to ensure
opportunity, to shift attention from the that these networks are inclusive. The
pandemic response, to communities’ recommendations made below are based
‘base’ networks- and their foundations: on what worked well for the community
community infrastructures, clubs, groups in this research, relating to these
culture, religion, sports, activism. key areas of learning. Ultimately, these
These ‘things to do, and the ‘places findings emphasise the importance of both
to do them’, have sometimes been responsive and preventative approaches
decimated by the pandemic, yet have to addressing loneliness working alongside
also been highlighted as essential one another: infrastructures that promote/
to building the community networks facilitate connection, and more directed
outlined as key to both past response approaches that provide a ‘way in’ for
and future recovery. Many of the CRGs those who, for diverse, complex, often
in this research have wound down or structural reasons, might be, or feel,
finished (having done what they set disconnected (as illustrated in Figure 3).
out to do, and much more). Those that
remain have already shifted their focus
towards longer-term purpose – libraries
on wheels, community gardens, food
banks – becoming part of communities’
base networks.
• 30 •Recommendations:
Addressing loneliness in communities
These recommendations are based on ‘what worked well’ for the informal and
small-scale formal community groups involved in our research, and are relevant
to policy, public services, local authorities, third and voluntary sector organisations,
and community groups.
Utilising the power of practical tasks
• Providing a ‘way in’ to social interaction through transactional activities
(e.g., shopping delivery), and supporting and sustaining opportunities to
engage in such activities beyond the pandemic context, e.g., through
neighbourhood ‘odd jobs’, micro volunteering, delivery services, etc.
Utilising the power of purpose
• Mobilising social interaction and addressing feelings of emptiness and boredom
associated with loneliness by creating opportunities to ‘find’ a sense of purpose,
e.g., through investment in meaningful ‘things to do’ in communities, and the
physical infrastructures that facilitate them.
Accessible steps to engagement
• Providing a spectrum of opportunities to engage in these meaningful ‘things to
do’, from joining a club, to more accessible steps, such as activities that can be
done alone or online (with no expectation of using cameras or microphones).
• Providing structured frameworks for optional degrees of social interaction
alongside this activity (e.g., discussion with clear norms and expectations set
around format and content).
• 31 •2. Blended spaces:
using online and offline
technology to address loneliness
Can't see the video? Watch online at: youtu.be/UdU9l8xdvkg
• 32 •Digital equality Groups addressed this gap, not simply
by offering alternative, offline, forms
Throughout the pandemic, many
of engagement, but by using offline
different technologies have been
technologies to ground online networks.
used by different groups, for different
They ensured that these were not
coordination purposes. Most participants
separate or exclusive, but that those
emphasised these as ‘low tech’: primarily
offline felt part of them and could benefit
leaflets, telephone, email, Facebook and
from them. For example, by collating
WhatsApp groups; sometimes Google
information from social media and
Drive features and video conferencing
posting it through doors, or bringing
platforms; and, occasionally, specifically
a laptop to someone’s window to
designed websites or applications.
do a yoga class.
Consistently, the internet was considered
essential to facilitating group functions
through the pandemic – something
that could not have been done without.
What has happened, that
However, for PBGs, reaching those
I think has been very noticeable,
most at risk of loneliness (often older
is that social media usage has
people), overwhelmingly involved offline
increased very dramatically,
technologies: leaflets, phone calls, and
particularly for the shops and
door knocking. Leafletting, in particular,
restaurants, cafés and things like
was fundamental to groups’ success
that, also by the county council
in ‘bringing in’ those not part of existing
and all of the quasi-government
networks or engaged with services. This
organisations. What we became
important role of offline technology was
very aware of from feedback and
not paradoxical to the simultaneous
just talking to people is that a
importance of online technology
large proportion of the population
throughout the pandemic, but a direct
are still disenfranchised by that…
reflection of it. Many participants
A lot of my time for this is simply
emphasised the amplified scale and
getting on to all of the social
impact of digital exclusion through
media feeds from as many people
lockdown, and the consequent criticality
as I can, and then harvesting,
of digital equality as well as access:
cutting and pasting and editing
reducing the exclusion of those who
stuff from that to go into the
cannot (or choose not to) go online, from
news, so that activity has
information, services, support, and social
increased considerably.
connection. Exclusion from information,
in particular, was thought to contribute PBG coordinator
significantly to a sense of loneliness and
alienation and raised wider questions
around rights and responsibilities: “How
are they finding out information? Who is
telling them? It is me and their families,
they are passing over the information.
They pay rent, they pay their council tax,
why are they not being informed like
everyone else is?” (PBG coordinator).
• 33 •Inclusive digital environments
Bridging the online and offline world had
the additional impact of breaking down I think what is important is
a key barrier to online engagement by that there is that local
making the internet feel safer, more connection. This building
familiar and appealing. This relates to a resilient communities idea
particularly strong theme that emerged again, you know, it’s got to
from discussions around digital access. feel very different from, I don’t
Aside from the prerequisites of devices, know, switching on Netflix and
data and connection, participants watching a broadcast, you
emphasised a need to look beyond what know, on the BBC or whatever.
skills and confidence individuals need to It’s got to feel different, to feel
gain to access digital spaces, towards connected with something that
how the online spaces themselves you normally would be doing
can be changed to become more whether it’s going to the pub
accommodating and inclusive. For older or going to a local theatre
people, safe, trusted, navigable online to see something.
spaces were considered critical to
PBG coordinator
enabling (and motivating) access, as well
as to addressing loneliness. Yet the need
to focus on the environment not just the
individual was emphasised, in particular,
by younger groups in the research, where
the nature of an online space could
cause those with certain disabilities,
experiences or identities to feel alienated
or overwhelmed, regardless of their The functionality of Facebook was widely
level of skills and confidence. Factors considered to be important in facilitating
considered key in creating accessible, this kind of ‘grounded’ online connection,
welcoming online environments, were often accompanied by a sense of conflict
peer/user-led design and moderation and surprise: “I know it is a bit of demon
and, crucially, connecting people that and a bit of a multi-headed monster,
were known (or could become known), but I do think that actually social media
and places that were familiar (or could and Facebook in particular has been
become familiar), in the ‘real’ world. a huge help” (IBG coordinator). While a
The digital space had to feel connected perhaps biased sample, given the use of
in some way to a physical space that Facebook to recruit some participants,
participants could recognise, picture, many commented that they did not use
and feasibly visit in real life. For example, Facebook at all prior to the pandemic,
the local bridge club moved onto a self- and/or had held negative attitudes
designed online platform, a peer-led towards it, which they still felt conflicted by.
network for disabled young people who
met regularly in the local community
centre, or the football club fundraising
event on Facebook.
• 34 •You can also read
