The Government’s new Social Cohesion Action Plan is both timely and welcome. Against a backdrop of rising social, racial and religious tensions; declining trust in leaders, key institutions and politicians; and growing political, and cultural polarisation, the publication of Protecting What Matters is important. It acknowledges that the strength of our social fabric is at best fraying – and that social cohesion must be urgently and actively nurtured to repair it. 

Social cohesion is not an abstract ideology. It underpins democracy, shapes people’s sense of happiness and belonging, reduces loneliness, combats extremism and religious hate, and determines whether communities are resilient (or fractured) in the face of change or crisis.  

For concrete examples of the need for this now, consider the rise in hate-based crime; the platforming of extreme views and incitement of violence on social media; misogyny and its latest articulation through the digital ‘manosphere’; and widening wealth gap. In this context, the Government’s commitments, set out in the plan, to tackle hate crime and extremism, support school-linking and shared civic experiences, and invest in communities, are meaningful steps forward. 

But if this action plan is to succeed where others have fallen short, it must go further.  

Social cohesion must be community-led 

Too often, national cohesion strategies are designed centrally and delivered locally, with limited input from the very communities they aim to bring together. This approach risks missing the nuances and opportunities that shape social relationships on the ground. 

Cohesion cannot be imposed from above. It is built through everyday interactions, shared experiences, and local trust. That means working with community groups, social enterprises, youth organisations, and neighbourhood networks not as delivery partners, but as co-designers. We know this works from the success of programmes such as the Greater London Authority’s strategy to reduce gun crime in the 2000s.  

At the same time, the government’s Pride in Place funding – through which 379 places will receive up to £20m each to invest in local priorities – could be equally transformative, but only if communities genuinely shape those priorities and decisions. This requires investment in community-led research, local participation, community leadership, and neighbourhood-level experimentation. It demands a shift in mindset from consultation to collaboration, in which decisions are made with (and not for) communities. We can also draw on learnings from the Community Ownership Fund evaluation, around the need for flexible timelines tailored to the realities of projects; ongoing, hands-on support (not just funding); targeted help where community capacity is lower; and a strong focus on long-term outcomes that matter to communities. 

A growing body of practice demonstrates what this can look like: from citizen assemblies to grassroots innovation labs, and infrastructure designed to connect deliberation and action. Embedding these approaches within strategies to achieve  greater social cohesion is essential for it to feel relevant, legitimate to the people it seeks to serve, and sustained over political cycles. 

Social cohesion cannot be separated from inequality 

The Government’s plan rightly acknowledges pressures such as economic shocks and demographic change, but it stops short of fully acknowledging that social division is often rooted in inequality. 

Economic insecurity; declining local services; place-based disadvantage; and reduced investment in libraries, community centres, local pubs and other spaces for people to come together, do not just affect wellbeing – they erode trust, limit opportunities for connection, and fuel perceptions of unfairness. Communities that feel ‘left behind’ are less likely to feel invested in a shared local or national story, and change will only go deeper than surface-level if it tackles these underlying challenges. This means aligning the social cohesion plan with broader economic and social strategies on regional inequality, public service provision, and access to opportunity. We cannot build stronger relationships in communities where the foundations are weakening. Addressing inequality is not separate from cohesion; it is fundamental to it. 

The Social Cohesion Action Plan must deliver tangible change in people’s everyday lives 

Protecting What Matters outlines the need to develop a Social Cohesion Measurement Framework, which is a positive development. It recognises the need for clearer, consistent metrics to measure local cohesion – around tracking people’s sense of belonging and trust, their civic participation, and youth engagement. That noted, most people will not experience social cohesion through metrics or frameworks, but in daily life: whether they feel safe walking home, whether they can share a cup of tea with their neighbours, whether they have a say in local decisions, whether their children can look ahead to a decent job and a healthy planet. 

There are some really interesting evaluations and frameworks we can take inspiration from – such as The Young Foundation’s GoZero Index, and Civic Strength Index – that assess which outcomes might be worth tracking in order to measure social cohesion, recognising the different starting points of different communities and places across these metrics. Social cohesion indicators could include things like: 

• belonging, and trust – in each other, between communities of place and interest, institutions, and decision-making actors 

• civic participation – formal and informal civic participation, such as voting turnout and volunteering 

• youth engagement and future prospects – and the capability to act and reach those future prospects, having the knowledge, skills, resources and opportunities 

• political engagement and influence – whether people feel that they have the power and opportunities to influence decision-making 

• equity in all of these – diverse experiences, voices and backgrounds 

A stronger focus on young people and intergenerational connection is critical. Programmes such as Age UK’s befriending, and the work of the inCommon charity, that bring people from different backgrounds together – through schools, youth services, and shared activities – are effective ways to build lasting bonds. Furthermore, ensuring that young people can connect with trusted adults, have meaningful opportunities for civic participation, and pathways into good employment are important to building social cohesion. 

How can we achieve better social cohesion? 

Innovative community-led pilots, neighbourhood testbeds, and participatory policymaking programmes could all help identify what works in different contexts, and could be scaled up, or valuable learnings could be shared to inform different contexts. A willingness to experiment, learn, and adapt will be key. But ultimately, the success of the new Social Cohesion Action Plan will depend on collaboration; genuine partnership between government and local authorities, civil society, and – most importantly – communities themselves. 

The government has taken an important first step in recognising the urgency of the challenge, but to truly strengthen the social fabric across the UK, it must go further: shifting power to communities, tackling the inequalities that divide us, and focusing relentlessly on the everyday experiences that shape people’s sense of belonging – and even pride. 

Without that, social cohesion will remain an aspiration. With it, we can rebuild trust and connection in communities across the country. 

Community Inequality Social innovation Posted on: 9 June 2026 Authors: Isabella Pereira, Sue Griffiths,