News & Events Event Reports

Transatlantic Dialogue Initiative: The Role of Local Authorities in Strengthening and Safeguarding Social Cohesion 

Publication Date:

30/06/2026

Content Type:

Event Reports

Share:

Tags:

Social CohesionTransatlantic Dialogue Initiative

Summary

On 30 June 2026, the Strong Cities Network hosted a transatlantic dialogue in London (United Kingdom) to explore the role of local authorities in strengthening and safeguarding social cohesion. The event convened more than 45 representatives of local authorities and civil society organisations (CSOs) in the UK and United States for peer-learning on how local governments – both at the leadership and practitioner levels – can build and maintain community cohesion amid consecutive global crises, from climate change to international conflicts.

The event also hosted the launch of the Strong Cities Network UK Prevention Academy, which is funded by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and is being delivered in partnership with the UK Local Government Association. The convening allowed local authorities in the UK to share their biggest concerns and challenges when it comes to maintaining cohesion in times of rising polarisation and hate, which will inform the design and delivery of a series of virtual training modules and accompanying toolkit as part of the Prevention Academy initiative.

Key Findings

• From creating pride in place to trust-building and inclusive, proactive community engagement, local authorities in the UK are already working to safeguard and strengthen cohesion, but there is much more they can do;
• Policy-making and budgetary processes must start considering cohesion as core to all local governance areas and mandates, rather than as a standalone, time-specific objective or responsibility;
• Similarly, local authorities should consider cohesion as a long-term investment, rather than a short-term goal;
• Key local authority capacity gaps in the UK include online threat monitoring; strategic communications; crisis management; implementing a truly whole-of-society and whole-of-city approach that considers a role for third spaces, the private sector and all departments within local government; and monitoring, evaluation and sustainability of local authority policies, programmes and partnerships;
• There is significant appetite for (transatlantic) peer learning, with UK local authorities commending the presence and opportunity to learn from their US counterparts at the event and requesting more opportunities for both domestic and transatlantic city-city exchange;
• Strong Cities’ UK Prevention Academy should focus on practical learnings and takeaways, drawing from its global network to consolidate relevant city-led efforts, while also ensuring that each module includes recommendations and other content relevant to both elected local leaders and local government staff and practitioners.

Key Threats to Social Cohesion

Participants identified a number of pressing threats to social cohesion in the UK. This includes rising levels of anti-migrant and xenophobic sentiment, e.g., a mainstreaming of such rhetoric in online public discourse, with participants observing that it appears to become increasingly acceptable to espouse hateful views towards immigrants and asylum seekers publicly.

Participants also observed rises in offline anti-migrant mobilisation, including large anti-migrant riots as well as protests at hotels thought to accommodate asylum seekers. In this context, participants also pointed to mis- and disinformation as key drivers of hate, with an official from Glasgow (Scotland) sharing that claims that a hotel was hosting asylum seekers led to hate-motivated protests outside that hotel.

Overall, the pace and scale at which (hateful) information can be shared online was identified as a challenge, with participants pointing to recent anti-immigrant riots in Belfast (Northern Ireland) as an example of how quickly people can be mobilised via social media. Discussions highlighted how anti-migrant rhetoric in the UK is generally driven by two misinformative claims intended to fuel fear: that a) immigrants are a strain on already limited public resources and employment opportunities and thus a threat to the livelihood of non-immigrant communities, and b) immigrants are a threat to local traditions and cultural norms.

In addition to rising levels of anti-migrant sentiment, participants pointed to increased prejudice and hate crimes targeting other minority communities, particularly Jewish and Muslim communities as a result of ongoing conflicts in the Middle East. One speaker pointed to the recent spate of antisemitic arson attacks in London (England) and anti-Muslim attacks in Edinburgh (Scotland) as examples of how pervasive this challenge remains.

Participants added that, in general, there is a decrease in offline inter-community interaction and that this is creating “fragmented” communities. In his presentation of the key findings of British Future’s The State of Us report, one participant shared that the rising cost of living, closure of community spaces and increased time spent online are all impeding offline interaction and exposure.

Meanwhile, officials working in local government said they are increasingly subject to threats and harassment, particularly if a) they are outspoken on topics related to cohesion and integration and b) they are women or identify as LGBTQ+. Participants shared that this threatens local democratic processes by creating obstacles for the safe participation of women and LGBTQ+ individuals in politics and by preventing existing local officials from carrying out their responsibilities.

Key Themes

1. City-Led Community Engagement and Partnerships

The meeting offered local authorities in the UK the opportunity to share existing efforts to strengthen cohesion, areas they felt were ‘untapped’ potential and to learn from and exchange with counterparts from North America.

One of the core practices discussed was that of local government-led engagement with communities, for which participants identified several good practices and areas for improvement. These include:

• Inclusivity and accessibility: while local authorities have notable existing efforts to engage communities, whether through town hall meetings or community-based events, there is more that can be done to engage isolated residents. For example, participants highlighted that programmes or activities that seek to bring communities together will often only attract residents that are already convinced of the benefits of cohesion and togetherness, and that more should be done to explicitly work with and convene isolated individuals or those that have limited interaction with people from other backgrounds and neighbourhoods.

Discussions also highlighted how city-led community engagement should not be limited to taking place at city hall or other city-owned/city-associated venues. Instead, local authorities should organise consultations, meetings and opportunities for engagement outdoors, within communities, leveraging credible local partners to identify accessible venues and mobilise residents to engage. In this context, participants welcomed an example from New York City (New York, USA), where a city official shared that the local government, under recently elected Mayor Zohran Mamdani, has just kicked off what it calls listening tours, which involve local government practitioners going to schools and community centres to hear directly from residents about what they need to feel safe in and part of the social fabric of the city.

• ‘Pride in place’: participants agreed that fostering ‘pride in place’ should also be a core objective of community engagement. Importantly, they observed that this is also a dominant, cross-cutting theme of the MHCLG’s new cohesion strategy, Protecting What Matters, which complements a separate Pride in Place Strategy, both of which recognise that “people who feel proud of where they live are more likely to invest in their communities, to build relationships with their neighbours…” and ultimately feel like they are part of and connected to a larger community.

Participants shared a number of ways local authorities can engage communities to foster ‘pride in place’. This includes through:

• Arts, sports and cultural activities: festivals, theatre, sporting activities, arts exhibitions and other creative and cultural events that celebrate (local) artists all provide opportunities to bring communities together, fostering interaction around a shared place and identity (i.e., as residents of the same city).

• Place maintenance and place-making: working with residents to maintain neighbourhoods – for example, through litter-picking initiatives or efforts to beautify public spaces like parks – was raised by participants as a way to create pride and a sense of belonging amongst residents. One participant shared, for instance, that one of the findings of a commission to better understand drivers of division in Newham (England) was that negative perceptions of how much others care for and “respect the place they live in” can drive tension.

He added that local authorities can play a role in creating a culture of care and shared action, encouraging and convening residents to help maintain their neighbourhoods, while also offering opportunities for participatory governance, including to co-design new public spaces and reinvigorate existing ones.

An official from Glasgow shared how her city does just that through its Communities Fund, which has two priority objectives: to improve neighbourhoods and build resilient communities through empowering communities to “improve their lives” and “identify and deliver solutions that meet their needs”.

• Positive engagement and stories rather than just solutions/issue-focused engagement: participants also shared that more could be done to share positive stories with communities, particularly stories showcasing local resilience and togetherness. One participant pointed to a powerful story from Southport (England), sharing that after an anti-Muslim attack against a mosque – catalysed by misinformation that followed the murder of three young girls, which claimed a Muslim immigrant was behind the attack – residents of various faiths and backgrounds convened at the mosque to work together to repair damage from the attack. Participants agreed that stories of inter-community solidarity and collaboration like these can help create a positive city ‘identity’ and, in turn, foster ‘pride in place’ amongst residents.

A councilmember from Cincinnati (Ohio, USA) reiterated the importance of positive stories in strengthening community resilience against hate and social polarisation. She stressed that city leaders need to actively share good news and “lift up and celebrate” local organisations. She also recommended that city governments amplify community-based volunteer opportunities, noting that volunteerism can help residents feel connected to the city and part of its social fabric.

• Community engagement as a means to build trust: participants also stressed that accessible and consistent community engagement can help build and maintain trust between the local authority and the residents it serves, noting the importance of this in a national (and international) context of declining trust in government institutions.

2. City-Led Data-Driven Delivery, Monitoring & Evaluation and Sustainability

Discussions also highlighted city-led practices around data collection and M&E, both of which are relevant to the design, implementation and sustainability of city-led efforts to safeguard and strengthen cohesion.

Participants shared various examples of how their cities are collecting data to understand residents’ needs and concerns.

For example, the City of Houston (Texas, USA)launched a Your Voice Matters survey, which asks residents about how effectively they feel the local government is addressing crime and other safety and cohesion issues and whether residents feel heard. The City also commits to publishing the findings – whether or not they are positive – as a means of building trust with residents and promoting a culture of transparent governance. Further, the City’s Office for Policing Reform and Accountability, which was launched to rebuild trust in and improve Houston’s policing infrastructure, has a Community Inputs survey to gauge community perceptions on policing.

In Newark (New Jersey, USA), data around hate and other crimes, as well as residents’ needs, are collected through vetted community partners, each of which is given a license to a secure platform into which they are expected to input this data. This includes information about referrals they receive about vulnerable individuals and communities, whether interventions have been delivered and what the outcomes of such interventions were. An official from Newark shared that this data is also used by the local government to allocate resources based on need: if a specific ward of the city is showing high levels of vulnerability, the government will “shift services” to the area as needed.

In the UK, under the leadership of its mayor, the London Borough of Newham commissioned a mapping of local threats and challenges to cohesion, leveraging community-based and external experts to deliver a borough-wide consultation and survey to gauge residents’ perspectives on inclusion and belonging. In Middlesbrough (England), the local government has focused on asset-mapping, engaging community members to identify credible local organisations it can partner with to strengthen cohesion and can leverage in moments of heightened tension.

However, although there are promising practices for collecting data through surveys and public consultations, discussions highlighted how local authorities would benefit from support to improve the following:

• Complement data collected directly from communities with online threat monitoring: participants shared that local authorities would benefit from greater in-house open-source investigation (OSINT) skills to be able to better monitor online challenges without relying solely on external partners for such information;
• Overcome siloes between departments: participants noted that data collected by different departments within local government often remains siloed, despite the importance of various governance mandates – from housing to urban design – in creating cohesive communities. In this context, participants were interested in a practice shared by an official from Houston: a public-facing Policing Analytics and Transparency (PATH) dashboard that residents can use to understand crime levels, types and locations as well as broader policing activity and diversity within the police force. Participants noted that a single dashboard-style platform that compiles crime data with data related to cohesion and broader public service delivery efforts could help local governments (and residents, if the platform is public) better understand how different issues feed into each other and to help create informed inter-departmental decisions about resource allocation and programme delivery.

Participants also welcomed examples of overcoming inter-departmental siloes through dedicated coordination structures, as shared by officials from Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA) and New York City: Philadelphia’s Interagency Civil Rights Task Force, for example, brings together various local government departments with state and federal law enforcement, as well as local CSOs, for a multi-actor approach to safeguarding human rights and cohesion across the city, while New York City’s new Office of Community Safety coordinates various city cohesion and safety-related departments.

• M&E: there was consensus amongst participants that M&E of city- and community-led programmes could be strengthened and better communicated publicly. Participants shared that current monitoring and evaluation practices often rely heavily on anecdotes provided by programme beneficiaries and that there is generally a lack of more holistic quantitative and qualitative approaches to monitoring impact and using collected data to adapt programming as needed.

3. Supporting Cities: UK Prevention Academy Priorities

The event also gave local authorities in the UK the opportunity to share their biggest priorities in terms of building their capacity to strengthen and safeguard social cohesion. They identified the following areas:

• Creating a whole-of-city prevention ecosystem: there is also interest for practice exchange and learning on how to implement a truly whole-of-government and whole-of-city approach to strengthening cohesion, with participants seeking guidance on the role of different government departments, civil society and the third sector, public spaces like libraries and parks, and the private sector, particularly local businesses.
• Leadership responsibilities: participants additionally shared there would be value in a module on the role of locally elected leaders in promoting cohesion, as well as how ‘public faces’ of local government can stay safe amidst rising levels of threats and harassment.
• Crisis management: participants would like practical steps for better preparing for and managing crises, with a focus on coordinating a crisis response, crisis communications and how best to consider both immediate and long-term recovery.
• Strategic communications: participants would also like training on how communications – using various media – can foster cohesion and togetherness.
• Online threat monitoring: as mentioned above, local authorities in the UK seek to improve their in-house capacity to do basic online threat monitoring, as participants shared that they currently have to rely too heavily on external partners (who often carry a fee and/or may not be as familiar with local contexts).
• M&E and sustainability: finally, there is appetite for peer exchange and learning on M&E and how to sustain policies and programmes focused on cohesion, with participants observing that – despite cohesion being a long-term investment – related work is often short-term, delivered in moments of heightened tension, and then “deprioritised” when tensions lower.

Next Steps 

Strong Cities will create a series of virtual training modules on the capacity gaps identified above, which will be developed with insights from Strong Cities’ global network of cities and subject matter experts. Given the desire for transatlantic exchange, Strong Cities will ensure modules include case studies from North American and other European cities and will provide local authorities in the UK with virtual opportunities for transatlantic exchange through the remainder of 2026. The UK Prevention Academy will also feature ‘peer dialogues’, complementing the virtual training modules with in-depth peer exchange on implementing lessons learned, as well as a virtual ‘help desk’ to respond to queries from local authorities in the UK on an as-needed basis.

Finally, the Prevention Academy will culminate in a toolkit that will be disseminated to local authorities across the UK via the LGA and which will be showcased at Strong Cities Network Seventh Global Summit, which takes place in Rabat (Morocco) in early 2027.

Contact Information

For more information on this event and the Strong Cities’ UK Prevention Academy, please email Charlotte Moeyens, Chief of Staff, Strong Cities Network at [email protected].

Additional Resources

• A Guide for Mayors: Preventing and Responding to Hate, Extremism & Polarisation, Strong Cities Network 
• A Guide For City-Led Response, Strong Cities Network 
• A Guide For Cities: Preventing Hate, Extremism & Polarisation, Strong Cities Network 
• Global Crises, Local Impacts Initiative
• National-Local Cooperation Initiative
• Sixth Global Summit
• Transatlantic Dialogue Initiative

News & EVENTS

Stay up to date with recent news, articles and event reports

News & Events

Looking for something in our Resource Hub?

Or explore all resources

Nominated for Best Animated Short at Cannes

Watch now

Join US

Looking to become a Strong City?

Get in touch