City Leadership in Partnering with Local Communities for Social Cohesion: Ten Considerations for Mayors and Local Governments

Last updated:

03/02/2026

Publication Date:

10/12/2025

Content Type:

Introduction

Cities today sit at the front line of growing polarisation, social fragmentation and declining trust in public institutions. Global crises – ranging from conflict and migration to economic shocks, online misinformation, hate incidents and public health emergencies – are increasingly felt at the local level, often deepening existing inequalities and tensions between residents. At the same time, community-based organisations (CBOs), local leaders and everyday residents remain some of the most powerful drivers of cohesion, resilience and democratic participation. Trusted partnerships between local governments and local communities, including those that have been underserved or otherwise overlooked, are a prerequisite to being a Strong City.

How cities can strengthen existing and develop new community prevention partnerships has been a recurring theme across a number of Strong Cities city-level, national, regional, cross-regional and global engagements. Informed by lessons learned, good practices and challenges shared during these convenings and other interactions with cities, this policy brief outlines ten key considerations for mayors and local governments seeking to prevent hate and strengthen social cohesion in partnership with their communities. Rather than a prescriptive checklist, they offer a practical framework that cities of all sizes can adapt to their own contexts. Together, they highlight the importance of shared vision, inclusive engagement, clear communication, sustainable systems of collaboration and long-term investment in the relationships that help communities thrive – even in times of stress and uncertainty.

1. Model a shared language that reflects the values, motivations and goals that unite communities – and build engagement that reflects those values

Language has long been linked to cultural and political identities and is an important driver of dynamics within and across a municipality. While language has the power to unite a community, recent developments in the information space, particularly social media, have revealed the potential of divergences in shared language to increase polarisation in and among communities. Breakdowns in shared narratives often lead to miscommunication and misalignment of understanding that can further conflict and division, which in turn leads to greater segregation across shared experience and understanding. With this cycle in mind, it is imperative that local governments and city leaders acknowledge the significance and importance of language and imagery used in communications, both internally and externally, particularly when establishing trust and legitimacy with CBOs, new arrivals to the city or historically underserved communities.

In its guide to strengthening social cohesion, the UN Development Programme notes that [i]t is often critical to develop a new vocabulary to redefine shared destiny in a specific context […] The process calls for a focus on shared values and commonalities that bind the society across internal lines of division. Shared values and commonalities direct a city towards a common future, goal or destiny; an approach focusing on social cohesion can often include aspects of a municipality and community’s commitment to and values around human rights, inclusion, acceptance, access and freedom. For example, the City of Highland Park (Illinois, USA) has developed a Values Statement that highlights its commitment to making the city an inclusive and welcoming one and celebrates the diverse backgrounds and perspectives of the individuals that make up its community. The statement highlights Highland Park’s commitment to making the city an inclusive and welcoming one and celebrates the diverse backgrounds and perspectives of the individuals that make up its community.

When partnering with CBOs, maintaining clear, fair and consistent messaging is essential. This includes communications to organisations as well as with them and with residents, such as in the aftermath of hate-motivated or other harmful incidents that impact members of the community. Such coordination helps build reliability, minimise potential for harmful miscommunication and demonstrate a shared commitment to social cohesion across a city. Messaging also provides a platform for local leaders to model the very values and dialogue they are hoping to see more of in the communities they serve.

In one example, the City of Lisbon (Portugal) developed a programme named Somos os Direitos que temos, or We are our Rights. The campaign centred around re-writing the perception and understanding of what it meant to be a resident, including which identities were welcome in the city, and to counter prejudice. Somos os Direitos que temos sought to reimagine what citizenship and residency in Lisbon meant and who that term included, supported by programming around discrimination, health access and public awareness around human rights.

Similarly, Barcelona (Spain) launched the Barcelona Interculturality Plan 2021-2030, whereby the municipality committed to applying an intercultural perspective to the strategic lines and goals of its programmes, governance tools and other lines of action. The Plan requires the municipality to collaborate with other institutions and levels of government and with a set of civil society actors who have a key role to play in the goal of advancing towards a more intercultural city, reflecting and modelling its embedded values.

2. Map the ecosystem of existing community-based partners to identify gaps and opportunities across the city, as well as existing partnership programmes and other resources

Mapping can be a powerful tool to visualise dynamics in societies, such as sources of and drivers for resilience and social cohesion, through various lenses. Cities have identified different ways to map, understand and assess the wellbeing of their residents in Toronto (Ontario, Canada), community resilience in Kumanovo (North Macedonia), and equity in cities across the United States to guide their development of strategic engagement and implementation around hate and cohesion. For effective and sustainable partnerships with communities, mayors and local governments should seek to identify and engage important community leaders, organisations and other partners that can be activated to build cohesion, particularly those who have long histories of leadership in this area. In addition to more traditional stakeholder maps, consider including or exploring:

Actors who profit from social division across various sectors of society (such as businesses, foundations, hospitals and others) and their influences and interests;
Power and actor maps that look at mobilisers of polarising narratives (such as formal political actors, organised groups, influencers and networked online operators), shows their channels and incentives and helps cities target interventions and anticipate backlash that look at mobilisers of polarising narratives (such as formal political actors, organised groups, influencers and networked online operators), shows their channels and incentives and helps cities target interventions and anticipate backlash
Gaps in stakeholder engagement and resource allocation (e.g., under-resourced neighbourhoods or communities – including people with disabilities or ageing populations, imbalances in engagement strategies that favour groups who have historically had a strong relationship with local government);
Geographic trends in threats, incidents and opportunities to build protective factors for individuals and communities; and
Online risks and threats, including those related to global conflicts that may impact the local level

Cities like Tempe (Arizona, USA) have also used tools like story maps to represent a greater, holistic narrative of harms in their community – including how to identify and report a hate crime, examples of such crimes across the country and local data and trends available through an open data portal. Such examples provide pathways for how their map’s audience and local residents can interact with the content and engage in community initiatives and reporting around hate.

Mapping exercises can be supported by community and law enforcement data where available. However, cities should be mindful of collecting and responding to qualitative data around experiences and attitudes to supplement any available quantitative data, which may present an incomplete or biased picture of local trends or needs around social divisions or inequities. Similarly, cities should also consider quantitative data within a greater context of underreporting as well as other applicable datasets that can be advantageous to municipalities looking to build a more complete understanding of the local landscape. Local universities and foundations can be key partners for cities in partnering to collect quantitative and qualitative data and using that information as a base for meaningful action. In Birmingham (United Kingdom), for example, the local government and university partnered to manage the impacts of global crises and conflicts resulting in incidents and hate on campus. The University of Birmingham, the City of Birmingham, and the Department of Education came together to mediate rising tensions and open dialogue. The Clayoquot Biosphere Trust (CBT) in Tofino (British Columbia, Canada) is an example of a co-created, community-driven program that explores the connections between community and environmental health. CBT uses community data to inform its many local initiatives – from youth empowerment to food security.

3. Prioritise consistent systems and mechanisms for engagement with trusted local leaders to co-create, build and sustain social cohesion.

Local leaders who hold legitimacy and trust within their communities are linchpins of social cohesion efforts. Neighbourhood organisers, youth mentors, cultural advocates and faith leaders are just some examples of those who play key roles in communities and are often well-positioned to bridge gaps between local government agency and community-facing institutions and the diversity of residents they serve, helping to design and then translate visions and policies into locally relevant action. Empowering local leaders who have demonstrated a long-term commitment to working across lines of difference is critical for sustaining inclusive change. This is reinforced by research on building trust in government conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which highlights that meeting residents’ expectations requires giving all people a meaningful voice in decision-making and ensuring that governments respond to these voices. A more participatory approach to social cohesion centres the experiences and expertise of those who are most committed to the wellbeing and safety of their own communities, as well as model healthy, civic engagement leading to action and positive change.

When pursuing initiatives for social cohesion, municipalities should consider which of their staff and offices will be listening to and consistently engaging with local leaders around these issues, as well as ensuring there are mechanisms in place for doing so. Some cities have centralised these efforts in dedicated offices, such as Philadelphia’s (Pennsylvania, USA) Commission on Human Relations (PCHR), which promotes equality and conflict resolution by building strong relationships with and between communities. PCHR spearheads initiatives like Philadelphia’s Youth Ambassador Program, which upskills young people through a multi-pronged approach on conflict resolution, mediation and bias awareness and encourages them to become ambassadors among their peers before conflicts can turn violent. Dublin’s (Ireland) Social Inclusion Unit also works to reduce social exclusion and deepen understanding around inclusion and diversity through a multi-actor approach that spans various levels of government.

Others take a regional approach, like Battlefords Regional Community Coalition in Battleford and North Battleford (Saskatchewan, Canada), which guides collaboration around the region to promote social cohesion, awareness and growth and to strengthen Indigenous communities. Having a dedicated unit or liaison to develop a throughline of communication, strategy and relationships can also reduce anxieties and confusion around expectations, roles and responsibilities between local stakeholders and partners in cohesion efforts.

Cities should also consider the when and where of engagement. Engagement should ideally begin at the design phase for a local programme or project – initiatives such as collaborative interfaith dialogues and councils like the Interfaith Council of Monrovia(Liberia), or neighbourhood councils and local advisory bodies like Edmonton’s (Alberta, Canada) Anti-Racism Advisory Committee, can provide meaningful platforms for leaders to shape policy and outreach strategies and provide real-time feedback on cultural competence and accessibility of programmes before implementation. It is particularly important to consider intentional relationship-building with leaders from communities with histories of mistrust toward government institutions, as well as youth leaders who may be under-engaged and under-utilised, like with Elbasan’s (Albania) Youth Council.

The Nashville Youth Design Team (NYDT), in Nashville (Tennessee, USA), for example, engages youth in the municipal urban design and planning process. Structured as a paid, year-round internship for high school students, the NYDT created a ‘Dream City Workshop’ as part of a city-wide goal-setting process, and it included a two-hour design-thinking workshop where 620 young people across 14 sites shared their perspectives on their ideal city. The workshop design, since approved by Metro Nashville Public Schools, has been adapted into a lesson plan for use in classrooms, which other school districts can use and/or municipalities can employ directly to solicit more youth feedback. as part of a city-wide goal-setting process, and it included a two-hour design-thinking workshop where 620 young people across 14 sites shared their perspectives on their ideal city. The workshop design, since approved by Metro Nashville Public Schools, has been adapted into a lesson plan for use in classrooms, which other school districts can use and/or municipalities can employ directly to solicit more youth feedback.

Guided by a shared vision, goal and strategy, continued opportunities for meaningful partnership with local leaders can provide local governments and city councils with broader opportunities to hear underrepresented voices and to better understand and respond to community needs in a more grounded, holistic way. Municipalities should consider the when, where, and – importantly – how often for partnerships. Once initiatives are underway, partners can often neglect collaboration when other, more urgent priorities demand more immediate resources and attention. Consistent, productive touchpoints for regular and meaningful engagement help establish a secure foundation for collaboration before crisis can strike. Brampton (Ontario, Canada), for example, hosts an annual Faith Leaders Meeting and Workshop that brings together nearly 100 representatives from diverse religious communities. Launched in 2019, this initiative fosters dialogue among faith leaders, connects them with municipal resources, and encourages cross-community collaboration. Feedback from participants has underscored the value of ongoing engagement and highlighted the city’s role in supporting interfaith partnerships to strengthen social cohesion.

In eThekwini (Durban) (South Africa), the municipality partners with CBOs and cultural institutions to foster social cohesion and counter xenophobia. Through initiatives like city-wide art centres, expanded local museums, and cultural events celebrating refugee communities, the local government promotes dialogue, shared heritage, and mutual understanding. It also works with migrant leaders and civil society to co-develop inclusive, gender-informed policies, making the city a model for city-led integration and intercultural engagement.

4. Adopt an inclusive engagement strategy that encourages intra- and intergroup dialogue and relationship-building

Municipalities should explore more inclusive intra- and intergroup/generational programming, resources and centres that welcome various participants. Relationships are built through repeated, meaningful interactions and investments over time. This reflects a foundational insight in social cohesion research: regular, positive contact between groups is one of the most effective ways to build interpersonal trust and reduce prejudice, a principle widely known as contact theory. Tours of the city offered through Diverse City Tours in Islamabad (Pakistan), for example, engage youth from different minority communities to promote understanding, discussion and openness among them and to provide opportunities for them to overcome biases and stereotypes. The work of organisations like InterAct International in cities like Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania, USA) and Bologna (Italy) to build peace and bridge divisions through dialogue underscores the power of personal interactions to effect change. Municipalities, as seen in Columbus (Ohio, USA), can play a crucial leadership role in amplifying opportunities to challenge existing stereotypes and break silos that exist across communities.

Rather than creating new forums from scratch, cities can often leverage existing events and civic activities as platforms for inclusive participation. For example, in Detroit (Michigan, USA) for example, Global Detroit works to strengthen social ties between long-standing African American residents and newer immigrant communities inthe city’s East Davison Village and Banglatown neighbourhoods, Through the Social Cohesion Project, neighbours collaborate on shared priorities – such as safety, housing, and small business development – by co-creating local projects that address these needs. Facilitated workshops using dialogue, arts and advocacy help build trust and mutual understanding. In response to the efforts of organisations like Global Detroit, the city government expanded its support for immigrant communities, investing in additional programmes and resources to foster inclusion and resilience across neighbourhoods., neighbours collaborate on shared priorities – such as safety, housing, and small business development – by co-creating local projects that address these needs. Facilitated workshops using dialogue, arts and advocacy help build trust and mutual understanding. In response to the efforts of organisations like Global Detroit, the local government expanded its support for immigrant communities, investing in additional programmes and resources to foster inclusion and resilience across neighbourhoods.

Providing safe, facilitated spaces for dialogue and co-creation also helps reduce barriers and foster mutual understanding. Over time, these consistent encounters can shape the trust that is crucial to a collective response to withstand and overcome crisis. These opportunities also gather momentum that can withstand turnover in leadership or other unexpected shocks over time, leading to more sustainable avenues for deep transformation. Monrovia (Liberia) is one illustration – the local government established a local Interfaith Council to foster sustained collaboration between Christian and Muslim communities following an outbreak of religious violence. In a climate of interreligious mistrust, the Council offers a consistent platform for dialogue, shared celebrations, and joint problem-solving. Recurring events, such as annual Ramadan and Easter gatherings, bring faith leaders together to share meals, honour one another’s traditions, and address sources of division. These ongoing efforts have helped rebuild trust and reinforced Monrovia’s commitment to being a safe and inclusive city for all faiths.

5. Invest in sustainable systems of collaboration with CBOs that offer intentional safeguards against fatigue, mismanagement and burnout.

Before initiating partnerships with CBOs, municipalities should first identify (and ask, rather than assume) the core motivations, values, benefits and organisational alignment for all partners. Consistent emphasis on a defined purpose and alignment for collaboration and related activities can help foster and maintain motivation, accountability and cooperation, as well as transparent platforms to consider and respond to feedback during the process. Reminders of these motivators through reinforcing activities – and opportunities to celebrate and share when accumulating successes and wins towards the goal – are helpful to embed throughout development and implementation of projects and programmes.

Local governments should be honest about and aware of the reality of limitations to collaboration, with challenges informing the structure and pace of engagement to ensure healthy, sustained partnerships. When identifying partners, it will be beneficial to consider previous histories of harm and politicised relationships with communities, siloed or competitive work amongst organisations, political resistance or inertia to supporting efforts, and/or lack of structural readiness (capacity, resources) to facilitate shared work. While not all of these factors can be remedied or meditated, municipalities should do their utmost to set expectations and reduce potential harms and impacts of these challenges to partners before embarking on a process of collaboration.

Opaque processes and structures – including inaccessible platforms for initial proposals, difficult processes for procurement and beyond – can also impede effective partnership from the onset. CBOs, particularly those with limited bandwidth, may encounter significant barriers at delicate early stages of collaboration that can fracture any existing trust, running counter to the original goal for any collaboration around social cohesion.

One study assessing approaches to developing funding processes, including requests for proposals in Los Angeles County and Orange County (California, USA) and New York City (New York, USA), highlighted the importance of community relationship-building and involvement for determining priorities, the application process, eligibility, review/selection and grant-making.

Municipalities can consider multiple approaches to procurement and procurement guidelines for fair access to and distribution of proposals and awards, training for their own municipal staff to prepare for ongoing support and communications with community partners, as provided by El Paso (Texas, USA), and navigating limits to bureaucracy that can delay processes and payments beyond reasonable timelines. Local governments should aim to simplify procurement pathways for small CBOs, while budgeting for core organisational support (not only project costs) and ring-fence contingency funding for crisis response. They can create accessible funding routes through, for example:

Microgrants through programs for cultural access and programming like Tacoma Creates in Tacoma (Washington, USA) or Knoxville’s (Tennessee, USA) On My Block Community Investment Grant for violence reduction purposes
Inclusive participatory budgeting, as done with Indigenous women in Cotacachi (Ecuador)
Open and regular training opportunities around submitting successful proposals, like those offered by Chicago (Illinois, USA), and
Advance payments, including upfront payments upon completion of onboarding as suggested by San Diego (California, USA)

Similarly, cities should consider the overarching historical and/or current pressures for formalised collaboration with organisations, For example, if CBOs have been asked in the past to pour staff and resources into more top-down initiatives that lack clear boundaries, these same organisations are more likely to experience high levels of burnout or fatigue, which can negatively impact ongoing engagement with government when called upon again for partnership. This risks having a negative impact on long-term sustainability, quality and longevity of any ensuing programming. Municipalities can and should invest in safeguards to alleviate pressures like burnout and mismanagement, which can include steps such as:

Risk assessments for partners (both digital and physical), with Local Government Association’s Cyber 360 Framework providing a good framework and practices around cybersecurity
Internal controls and governance boards
- Toronto (Ontario, Canada) offers some examples for establishing formal oversight for funded community partners or arms-length organisations in their document on Board Governance Structures; and
- Surrey (British Columbia, Canada) has released a Board Governance Manual that considers oversight of Governance and Community Partners and annual review processes.
Confidential reporting channels and psychosocial support, which is supported by a Making the Case for Peer Support report released by the Mental Health Commission of Canada that describes peer-support and referral pathways for community workers. Edmonton (Alberta, Canada), for example, also provides mental health and vicarious trauma support for CBOs under their Community Safety & Wellbeing Support programmes.

Lastly, even in the absence of formal processes, local governments can benefit from balanced dynamics with CBOs and leaders that honour consistent contributions and amplify community efforts. While ensuring fair financial compensation has significance and value, it is not the only marker of healthy or successful partnership. Mentorship and investment in future generations of leaders, for instance, is one example of investing in sustainable relationships and partnerships for the future. The LGU Fellowship Program on Social Cohesion and Resilience, for example, empowers municipal leaders from the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region (Philippines) to form a community of practice focused on inclusive, peace-driven local governance. Through a combination of in-depth workshops, practical site visits and structured mentorship, fellows collaborate to design and scale context-specific initiatives that advance social cohesion, participatory governance, and communal resilience. Importantly, the fellowship places local leaders and mayors in mentor roles to long alongside future leaders and to model successful practices for cohesion.

6. Identify ways to measure progress, successes and long-term impact towards shared goals in partnership with local communities

Cities embarking on partnerships with CBOs for work on social cohesion can be highly effective if they dedicate resources and time to identify goals and ways to share lessons and impact – not only with CBO partners, but with residents at large. For instance, before the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) in London (United Kingdom) launched its Shared Endeavor Fund (with Strong Cities guidance), which would support community-led extremism prevention efforts, it conducted a comprehensive listening exercise with thousands of community members, stakeholders and experts across the city to identify broad needs, concerns and priorities for proposed funding. The exercise empowered Londoners to imagine what resilience and success looks like, which constituents to engage and what kinds of protective factors and prosocial behaviours to prioritise through the work of the Fund. Partnering closely with local grassroots organisations, the consultative process established trust with the very groups that are often overlooked in extremism prevention efforts, then identified how the fund could provide grants to trusted CBOs to deliver on identified priorities. The co-identification of goals and priorities formed a blueprint for the work of the Fund and shaped the evaluation of findings and lessons learned from each cycle that informed the next iteration.

A widely-disseminated and publicly-available evaluation report shares the rationale and outcomes of the initiative and captures the scope and impact of the programming. These types of assessments provide clear examples of good, evidence-based practices and replicable models for other municipalities hoping to implement similar efforts, as well as provide ways for residents to remain engaged in work by their municipality around social cohesion and peacemaking.

Mapping, evaluation and funding are key steps identified and expanded further in Strong Cities’ 10-Step Roadmap for Enhancing City-Led Support for Community-Based Programmes to Address Hate and Extremism. The roadmap was developed in consultation with cities around the world and highlights ways to support community-based prevention work as part of a wider whole-of-city approach to addressing hate and extremism.

7. Harness opportunities in public spaces and third places for meaningful engagement.

Local leaders and governments must constantly make decisions about the meaning and use of space in their cities. For example, lighting and other structures in public areas have become tools in a greater movement of defensive architecture and design, aimed at restricting or deterring undesirable or harmful behaviours such as criminal activity. However, cities can benefit from exploring interdisciplinary, complementary ways to wield the potential benefits of space and impacts of design to build healthier social and civic life. While CBOs often lead the design and delivery of such programmes, municipalities can play a fundamental role by building, supporting, publicising and protecting peaceful encounters in public spaces. In cities like Rotterdam (Netherlands), local governments have sought to co-create and co-design spaces with residents to advance social cohesion through the physical, programmatic and organisational aspects of their neighbourhood. Rotterdam took an innovative approach to flood management through developing water squares that serve dual purposes as public gathering spaces and stormwater retention basins. This dual-purpose urban design allowed the City to use funds from the water management department and innovation subsidies to produce public assets that provide more than just flood protection. Engaging residents on these aspects builds cohesion and resilience that sets a foundation for collective growth, action and strength.

In conversations around sustained community engagement, third places welcome individuals to come together organically and engage with one another outside of the home or workplace; crucially, third spaces offer an avenue for residents to organically build connection and community, even in the absence of continued coordination by municipalities. One example is the Open Schools Program in Athens (Greece): it extends open hours for school buildings into late evenings during weekdays and throughout the weekend, repurposing school buildings for multiple uses and communities. Activities welcome all age groups so schools become gathering points for recreational, cultural, educational and sports activities and community. Another example is that of Freedom Park in Lagos (Nigeria), a former colonial-era prison that has been transformed into a space for cultural exchange, open discussions and artistic performances. Freedom Park is known for hosting dialogues and forums that engage different community groups, fostering conversations on topics like social justice history, and community development – the park illustrates the power of third places to help communities reinterpret the past while creating new shared experiences. The park’s design, with its amphitheatres and open-air spaces, supports public engagement activities, performances and debates, making it a hub for inclusive community dialogue.

Third places are critical pieces of public infrastructure and social life, contributing to broader feelings of cohesion and togetherness, yet many of these spaces – which can include cafés, libraries, barbershops, community centres, places of worship and more – are increasingly unavailable or have heightened costs for entry. As these spaces become more difficult to access or find, the loss of collective places to meet and generate goodwill at minimal cost begins to take its toll on public health, isolation and connectedness, particularly for individuals at the margins of society. Mexico City (Mexico)’s Community Programme for Neighbourhood Improvement, launched in 2007, empowers residents of informal and low-income areas to lead public space improvement projects. Funded directly by the city and supported by municipal training, communities take full responsibility for initiatives like street lighting, parks, drainage, and recreational facilities. To date, the programme has disbursed over US$40 million and supported hundreds of projects aimed at reducing marginalisation and social conflict.

Third places can also play significant role in supporting wider and greater accessibility of services for social impact and cohesion, particularly in cities that may have programmes concentrated at its geographic centre. Third places – like libraries – often invest in programming that expands access, connectedness (including digital connectedness) and belonging for residents who may not be actively engaging with other municipal arms. Seattle (Washington, USA) Public Library, for example, hosted regular Community Office Hours in 2025 for residents to connect with city government officials, taking government directly to communities to discuss their ideas and concerns. Toronto (Ontario, Canada) Public Library has actively sought to capture and measure the value of its library system’s initiatives in building connectedness, ensuring access and combating social isolation and has shown its impact as an inclusive environment that welcomes populations like youth.

Local governments can take a more active role in developing and discovering organic and facilitated opportunities for residents to engage in dialogue with one another, and underscores how local governments may help create the conditions for more grassroots social cohesion efforts to thrive.

8. Commit to initiatives that celebrate unique identities and perspectives and encourage understanding across differences

While third places offer valuable opportunities for organic engagement and learning, it is also important for municipalities and CBOs to consider more structured and intentional opportunities for learning across difference. This includes in spaces like the workplace, community or faith centres or schools. Initiatives like El Gran Malón in Santiago (Chile) have demonstrated the power of community-led public gatherings to build understanding and cohesion. These events — often centred around shared meals and cultural exchange — provide more structured spaces for neighbours to connect across differences and engage in dialogue with those with different worldviews and perspectives. For example, the City of Bellevue’s (Washington, USA) Cross-Cultural Center Without Walls pilot programme offers funding for local organisations to host events or workshops that bring people together around shared intercultural experiences. The experiences are designed around active intercultural engagement, learning and exchange, and occur in different locations around Bellevue. The goal is to create interactions between people and groups from different racial, ethnic, cultural and other backgrounds.

Similarly, media and art-based campaigns designed to share lived experiences and amplify unheard voices can be effective in building empathy and understanding in an accessible way. New York City’s (New York, USA) Commission for Human Rights, for instance, has organised several anti-discrimination and human-rights-affirming campaigns around gender (Being Seen in NYC), faith (such as Jewish New Yorkers Belong Here, #IAmMuslimNYC), and race (While Black in NYC). Such campaigns celebrate and seek to normalise difference and diversity of identities in across communities, not only in a municipality but around the world.

9. Enhance digital, information and media literacy of community partners and residents

In today’s information environment, digital spaces play a major role in shaping public attitudes and community relationships. False or biased information and other forms of harmful content can spread quickly online, fuelling fear, mistrust, and division. Polarisation and biased/misleading information often reinforce one another in a self-perpetuating cycle; thus, quickly disrupting the spread of false or misleading beliefs is an important strategy for overcoming these divides before they can take root and thereby strengthening social cohesion. As trusted points of contact and main sources of information, civil society leaders and core community messengers are therefore imperative to activate to resist these narratives, and local governments should seek to ensure, including by connected CBOs and local leaders with existing tools and programmes, they are equipped to navigate the common platforms, myths and conspiracies, and cultural nuances that can direct the path of change.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), which hosts Strong Cities, has developed one such tool, the Counter-Narrative Handbook, which focuses on how to design grassroots-led online campaigns for counter-narratives to violent extremism; counter-narratives uplift positive stories about democracy, shared values and freedom and undermine harmful extremism narratives or propaganda through various strategies and approaches.

To that end, cities should also invest in and facilitate access to media and information literacy programmes that help CBOs and residents of all ages critically evaluate online information, recognise and resist misinformation, and engage constructively in digital and civic spaces. Examples of such initiatives include ISD’s Be Internet Citizens (developed in partnership with YouTube and Google, builds the resilience of young people across the UK to a range of online harms, supporting them to become more literate, accountable and inclusive digital users),Business Council for Democracy (BC4D) (which, together with partner private companies, offers adults an 8-part training programme on digital citizenship during working hours) and its Young Digital Leaders initiative(a Europe-wide project designed to empower young people through digital citizenship education. The programme equips participants with the tools to critically evaluate information online and create their own impactful and inclusive digital content.

At the city-level, Singra Municipality (Bangladesh) has introduced regular digital literacy and fact-checking workshops for youth, civil society organisations and local police. These sessions are designed to help participants critically assess online content, recognise misinformation, and engage responsibly in digital spaces. By embedding these trainings into local governance efforts, Singra is building a more informed and resilient community equipped to navigate online harms and foster social cohesion. In another example, Nordic Safe Cities has designed a Safe Digital City programme aimed at supporting initiatives that protect and strengthen democracy in the digital age. Through the programme’s support, Odense (Denmark)’s City Council approved the development of outreach, digital safety teams, emergency preparedness efforts and parental training – likening the importance of local government engagement and presence on physical streets to the digital streets of Odense.

City programmes like these not only improve individual digital literacy and safety and media skills but also strengthen the overall resilience of communities against polarisation and harmful narratives. The Sens Critique pilot in Paris (France), for instance, sought to raise awareness in youth through a targeted programme about fake news, emotional manipulation, disinformation and counter-extremism.

More broadly, investing in these kinds of programmes for all ages, and residents who now spend a more substantial amount of time online, can be important points of local government collaboration with CBOs looking to build social cohesion.

10. Prepare integration strategies to welcome and include new residents in partnership with CBOs

Strong Cities’ global work highlights how challenges such as public health emergencies, international conflicts or economic shocks can inflame social tensions in cities. With migration and other demographic shifts on the rise, have increasingly seen anti-migrant or newcomer sentiment fuel or exacerbate division, intolerance and tensions in their cities. In response, a growing number of local governments have committed to cohesion efforts to more comprehensively engage both long-standing communities and newly arrived residents and are partnering with local CBOs who are leading the charge. This includes developing strategies like inclusive messaging that resonates across groups and regular opportunities for dialogue and shared participation or two-way integration plans like the one developed by Dublin (Ireland). Programmes such as Charlottetown’s (Prince Edward Island, Canada) Newcomer Orientation Sessions, Strasbourg’s (France) digital safety education and workshops and Brandon’s (Manitoba, Canada) intercultural storytelling initiatives can help bridge divides, foster empathy and build a shared sense of belonging.

Particularly in light of recent increases in migration, municipalities, community leaders and CBOs should be prepared for integration of new residents and communities with structured plans, both digital and physical, before such plans may even be needed. These should include training around cultural sensitivity and clarity on service provision and coordination among service providers. For instance, Mersin (Türkiye) developed a Local Social Cohesion Centre that facilitates access to services for migrants, including health and education services, and fosters adaptation and integration to their new municipality. Strong Cities’ December 2024 policy brief on Managing Migration: City-Led Approaches for Being an Inclusive, Welcoming and Socially-Cohesive City includes further examples of city-led practice in this area.

Growing Strong Neighbourhoods is an initiative by the Immigrant Services Association of Nova Scotia that centres community gardens as a third place for collaboration, connectivity and growth. Programming and events bring together newcomers to the community and long-term residents of all ages. The multi-site community gardens also provide a welcoming space to farm and share produce, particularly with families or new immigrants who are in need. The gardens also host community gatherings, workshops and other outdoor activities, fostering greater community.

Conclusion

With growing polarisation around world continuing to undermine social cohesion and connection, municipalities and community leaders have become increasingly creative and collaborative in collaborating on whole-of-society responses to these difficult issues. Together, they have invested in partnerships to deliver inclusive programming in third places, accessible services and on- and offline resources to equip residents – whether long-time ones or new arrivals — with the skills they need to build greater community. These practices are increasingly being surfaced in Strong Cities engagements with its members and other cities and shared during Strong Cities convenings. Drawing from these practices, this policy brief enumerates 10 considerations for those cities wishing to strengthen existing or develop new collaborations with community-based partners as they develop a local prevention ecosystem that is the foundation of a Strong City. These considerations will inform Strong Cities guidance to mayors and local governments seeking support on how best to engage community leaders and CBOs, as cities look to reduce polarisation and create more resilient, cohesive and welcoming environments for all residents.