Community resilience is a marker of how well communities can handle and recover from difficult events. It is referred to in various resilience framework policies; but how is it measured, and how can it be used to target support? Here, Christine Camacho and Dr Luke Munford outline their work in developing a new measure – a Community Resilience Index (CRI) – which highlights how resilience differs across England, and how policymakers can target support to communities that need it most.

• Before the development of the CRI, no published measure of community resilience in England existed, despite it being a key aim of national and local policymakers.
• The CRI shows that overall, coastal, rural, and Northern regions had lower resilience than urban areas – 12 of the 20 local authorities with the lowest resilience were in coastal areas.
• The CRI provides a framework within which decisions on funding allocation, interventions, and investment can be made, including in tackling spatial inequalities.

Community resilience is how well a place can cope with, and recover from, events like natural disasters, health emergencies, or economic crises. It’s influenced by the people living there, the resources they have, and the support systems in place, such as local institutions – including local government – and infrastructure like housing and transport links to key services. Places with high community resilience have the skills and resources needed to keep a community strong and vibrant. They are able to handle challenges, recover quickly, and become even stronger in the face of future difficulties.

Building community resilience has become a necessary goal for many policymakers, especially in response to natural disasters and in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it’s not just about dealing with immediate crises. Community resilience also ties into broader public health goals, focusing on creating strong, healthy communities. This includes making sure everyone has access to resources and support which can help reduce health inequalities.

Developing a new measurement of resilience in England

Measuring resilience helps meet policy goals to improve how communities respond to challenges and to address regional differences. Researchers at The University of Manchester adapted an existing method to create a new Community Resilience Index (CRI) specifically for England. It uses 44 indicators spread across five key areas to measure the resilience of local authorities in England.

While the average CRI score was 83.1, scores ranged from 53.3 in Tendring (East of England) to 108.9 in Elmbridge (South East). At a regional level, London had the highest average score (95.2), and Yorkshire and the Humber had the lowest (75.2). Overall, northern regions had lower average CRI scores compared to the Midlands and South. Coastal areas had a lower score than inland areas, while rural areas generally showed lower resilience compared to urban areas.

To create the CRI, 44 indicators were grouped into five sub-indices, each representing a different aspect of community resilience. Key findings across these sub-indices at a regional level are:

• Access and infrastructure: London and the North scored highest.
• Economic wellbeing and opportunity: The South East and London had the highest scores.
• Social capital and connectivity: London again scored highest, with no significant North-South divide.
• Diversity and inclusion: The North and rural areas scored higher, while coastal areas scored lower.
• Equity and stability: London scored highest, with the North East lowest.

The study found that areas with higher deprivation tended to have lower resilience. However, some areas differed in their CRI score from what may be expected based the level of deprivation. Of the top ten positive outliers, 9 were in London, suggesting a capital city effect where economic, political, and cultural advantages boost community resilience irrespective of deprivation.

These CRI scores reflect the state of communities during their recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, and a time when fiscal challenges have weakened public services. Other economic challenges like Brexit and the war in Ukraine have made things worse, leading to a cost-of-living crisis with rising prices and slower economic growth. Communities that are less resilient today may still be affected by past events like the decline of industries, which have reduced their ability to handle and recover from difficulties.

The CRI is the first evidence-based tool designed for this purpose, providing a framework for assessing resilience across different areas. By offering clear metrics, the CRI provides policymakers with a tool to track progress and make informed decisions on resource allocation.

Using the CRI to address place-based inequalities

The previous government set an objective to develop a measure of socio-economic resilience by 2025. In July 2024, the current government announced a resilience review in response to the first report of the COVID Inquiry. This ongoing emphasis on resilience by both the previous and current governments underscores its significance as a key pillar of national policy. The CRI is closely aligned with these objectives, offering a new measure of community resilience in England where none existed before. Improving community resilience requires both grassroots efforts – such as empowering local communities – and government strategies, including providing the necessary infrastructure and economic opportunities for these communities to prosper.

The CRI could be used to support decision-making on resource allocation across the five sub-indices outlined above, and to evaluate the impact of interventions designed to build community resilience. We have provided a detailed breakdown of CRI scores, sub-indices and indicators at local authority level and for geographical groupings such as Combined Authorities, regions and Local Resilience Forums (LRFs). Each community has its own unique pattern of assets and challenges. Local context is key, and a one-size-fits-all approach for resilience building is unlikely to succeed. Policymakers seeking to build community resilience could use the CRI to tailor interventions.

Crucially, to address place-based inequalities, funding should be allocated according to need, with the CRI used as a measure of this need. Previous research from The University of Manchester has shown that this has not always been the case. Policymakers at all levels – especially those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government – should focus on targeted interventions across the factors affecting resilience to address these disparities, particularly in coastal, rural, and northern communities where resilience is generally lower.

For instance, one of the missions of the new Labour government is to reduce health inequalities. There are strong interconnections between health and community resilience. Health disparities can reduce communities’ ability to respond to emergencies, and prolong recovery times following a shock. The CRI captures many of the social determinants of health (the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work, and age), so it could be used to guide investment and interventions in public health, such as tackling air pollution, improving access to green space, or reducing child poverty.

Beyond health, local government, Combined Authorities and LRFs can use the CRI as a tool to implement targeted interventions tailored to community needs. The CRI is a ‘top-down’ tool, using national datasets. However, CRI scores could be integrated with ‘bottom up’ data from local communities to provide a deeper understanding of local resilience. The UK Government’s Resilience Framework emphasises risk understanding, preparation, prevention, and community empowerment. The CRI aligns with these goals and could be used to guide resilience building efforts.

How resilient is your local area?

This interactive tool allows you to explore resilience data at the local authority level, as well as for larger geographies such as regions, LRFs, and police force areas. It provides a breakdown of CRI scores, sub-indices, and key indicators, enabling comparisons across different areas within a combined geography.