Experiences of Community Connectors Supporting Activities During COVID-19

ABSTRACT

During the COVID-19 pandemic, community connectors (CC’s) were key to continuing to offer opportunities for engagement in activities yet frequently this involved rapid reorientation of services and working through significant change and disruption for workers themselves. The aim of this research was to explore how CC’s from two Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organizations in the UK continued to engage people in activity during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. A qualitative design was developed with CC’s participating in three focus groups between May 2020 and August 2021. Data were analyzed thematically, with the final themes of “Disruption,” “Exploration” and “Rebuilding” mapped to the grief-construct of Kubler Ross (1969). The findings describe responses and coping strategies during COVID-19 and can support CC’s and organizations to reflect on wider periods of change and growth. Findings also emphasize the central role of VCSE workers during continued rebuilding of community activities following COVID-19.

KEYWORDS:

• community connector
• voluntary sector
• social prescribing
• COVID-19
• stages of loss

Introduction and literature review

Connecting people with community activities – often termed “Social Prescribing” - is a key feature of a personalized care agenda in the United Kingdom (UK) to address a range of health needs and help people to manage their own health and wellbeing (The NHS Long Term Plan, 2019). The concept of community referral initiatives to engage people in activities to address social needs is also recognized and gaining momentum internationally (Aggar et al., 2020; Bartholomaeus et al., 2019).

Social prescribing is designed to support people who are vulnerable to deteriorations in physical, social or emotional health to connect with community-based activities (Kings Fund, 2017). The activities are often provided by Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) organizations and examples include arts activities, volunteering, education, or a range of sport or exercise (Clements-Cortes & Yip, 2019).

Kimberlee (2015) describes four models of social prescribing: signposting people to relevant services or groups; direct referral from primary care to an activity or service; a connector or link-worker who receives referrals, conducts a needs-assessment and refers on to an activity or service; and the latter model with the addition of ongoing feedback and support between the person and the worker. Such workers are sometimes named as community connectors, link workers, navigators (among others), with people in these roles assessing needs and providing varying levels of signposting, education and support (Dowden, 2019).

Evidence supporting such non-medical interventions to improve a range of health outcomes is growing. A recent systematic review by Percival et al. (2022) highlights social prescribing can contribute to positive physical outcomes such as self-reported physical activity levels or reduction in frailty scores, alongside improvement in psychosocial outcomes such as increased confidence and social connection. Positive impact on mental health outcomes alongside reduction in use of other health and care services is also reported in a systematic review by Cooper et al. (2022). Matching people with activities and individualized support from staff have been highlighted as having an impact on positive outcomes (Rapo et al., 2023) highlighting the key influence of those in social prescribing roles. Despite promising findings, critics suggest the evidence base is limited by poor methodological quality, with studies being mainly descriptive in nature (Clements-Cortes & Yip, 2019).

There are many similarities between groups who may benefit from social prescribing and those who were identified as vulnerable during COVID-19 (Public Health England, 2020). And although public health measures disrupted the lives of populations on a global scale (Sangster Jokić & Jokić-Begić, 2022), the inability to access community resources, and extreme limitations in social contact and free movement left such groups at risk of immeasurable deteriorations (Whalley Hammell, 2020). Many activities that people relied on or could have been newly referred to during this time, were closed, operated at reduced capacity, or people may have decided not to access them (British Red Cross, 2020). Maintaining engagement in activities and social connections where possible was particularly significant for these vulnerable groups.

VCSE organizations played an essential role at different stages of the pandemic. Although some activities changed, many groups and organizations were instrumental in a range of key public health initiatives including information sharing, food and medication distribution, wellbeing checks, improving digital literacy and recruiting volunteers (McCabe et al., 2021). Alongside making changes to services to meet priority needs, many organizations also examined how to continue existing offers to engage people, with strategies such as video conferencing and telephone befriending (MacIntyre, 2020).

Studies which explore the experience of workers themselves are beginning to emerge although examples tend to rely on one-off points of data collection to gain descriptions or views (Morris et al., 2022; Westlake et al., 2022) or focus on links with specific activities or sectors (Tierney et al., 2022). Our research aimed to explore how people in community connector roles (CC) from two VSCE organizations continued to work with older people and people with long-term health conditions during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic to support engagement in activity. The word activity is an over-arching term for a range of individual and group-based engagement opportunities.

Materials and methods

Study design

This research examined the experiences of workers from two VCSE organizations in the North-East of England. One organization worked specifically with older adults and the second worked with adults and older adults living with a long-term health condition. A qualitative design, informed by principles of appreciative inquiry (AI) was developed. Qualitative research aims to develop understanding of social processes, experiences and behaviors (Barbour, 2014). Features of qualitative research, such as studying the meaning of experiences in real-world roles, authentically representing the views of participants and the ability to attend to contextual conditions (Yin, 2016) were all important elements to exploring how community connectors were enacting their roles. Furthermore, AI is an approach to understanding the social world by focussing on what is valuable, bringing people together to tell stories of positive development that can be built upon (Reed, 2007). Ethical approval was obtained from Northumbria University Faculty of Health and Life Sciences (Ref: 23855).

A research advisory group (consisting of service leads from both organizations, one CC from each organization and members of the University research team) met at various stages during the research process to shape the project and share decision-making. The two CC representatives on the advisory group also subsequently contributed data to the study through the focus groups.

The first meeting of this group helped to shape the methodological position and the aim of the research. CC’s, alongside people in leadership roles in both organizations, reflected on their practice, and worked together to explore how they continued to support engagement in activity. Dialogue within this group informed the use of AI, through a desire to explore strengths and assets and the positive potential of both individuals (CC’s) and organizations (Barrett & Fry, 2005). Whilst the oxymoron of being appreciative at the same time as experiencing unprecedented stress and disruption during a pandemic has been recognized, the counter-position that we “change best when we are strongest” resonated strongly with this research (Cooperrider & Fry, 2020, p. 270). Subsequent meetings informed the approach to data collection through focus groups, due to a desire that the organizations might learn together and share good practice with one another, and the verification of key themes in data analysis.

Participants and recruitment

The concept of information power guided the identification of an appropriate sample size (Malterud et al., 2016). Information power guides qualitative researchers to consider five dimensions: targeting a sample size which addresses the study aim; holds participants with specific experience of the phenomenon; makes a contribution to theory and knowledge development; emphasizes quality of dialogue between researcher and participants; and selects a data analysis strategy which aligns with the sample size. Service leads in both organizations initially contacted workers to ask for consent to be contacted by the research team. People were approached if they had a specific remit to connect people with activities, either facilitated by themselves or through offering support and signposting.

Six people were sent information about the project and all six gave written consent to be involved. There were equal numbers from each organization and also equal numbers of male and female participants. Although all participants had different job titles, all identified that their role involved one or more of the four approaches described by Kimberlee (2015). Drawing on the principles of information power, a sample of six participants, representing both VCSE organizations, enabled us to meet the exploratory aim, enabled a focus on information-rich cases and placed value on quality, participation and dialogue within the group.

Prior to the first data-collection focus group, all participants attended a preliminary online meeting to enable group introductions and to familiarize them with the online platform. This also included a warm-up discussion about what they would like to get out of working together, introduction to AI and opportunity to ask questions.

Data collection

Data was generated through three focus group meetings between May 2020 and August 2021. Three meetings were originally proposed as a realistic number to enable exploration of experiences at different stages, whilst setting boundaries and parameters that are needed in research (Marshall, Rossman & Blanco, 2022). Focus groups took place on a secure online conferencing platform and audio recordings were transcribed verbatim.

All six CC’s took part in the first focus group, with five taking part in the second and three taking part in the third. Reasons for not participating included short notice work commitments and one CC leaving their employment role. In line with AI, questions included examples that aimed to bring out the best of each organization, focusing on how people were continuing to support engagement in activities, how people were overcoming challenges and reflections on developments within teams and networks.

Data analysis

Data analysis started after the first focus group and was ongoing for 14 months. The analysis of each transcript began after each focus group and was revisited as part of an inductive analytical process. Three academic analysts were involved in data analysis using stages of reflexive thematic analysis outlined by Braun and Clarke (2020). One analyst (BA) carried out early stages including familiarization with data and generation of initial descriptive codes. All analysts (BA, GB, HA) then independently reviewed transcripts and codes and began questioning meaning and meaningfulness, individually and collaboratively through data analysis meetings. Following this organic and inductive analysis, the Kubler Ross model (outlined below) was identified as having resonance with the narrative of the data. Discussions in further data analysis meetings with all analysts interrogated and verified the connections between the data and the Kubler Ross model.

At the start of focus groups, principles of member-checking were used to share early themes with CC’s and to reflect whether the emergent ideas chimed with those involved (Thomas, 2017). This process helped to move toward naming of the overarching themes and shape questions for future discussions. Following completion of the focus groups, key stakeholders which included all members of the research advisory group and CC’s were invited to a final meeting to share interim findings, learning and action points, and reflect on the impact of taking part in the research on personal and organizational learning. Feedback that the early thematic analysis chimed with the experiences of participants suggested theoretical sufficiency and an adequate understanding to build theory (Braun & Clarke, 2021). A representation of the full research and data analysis process is provided in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 Research and data analysis process.

A two-section figure with two linear processes represented within the left and right sections. The left section contains a chronological representation of the research meetings, starting with an introductory meeting, followed by three focus group meetings, and ending with a final verification meeting. The right section represents the data analysis process that happened concurrently to research meetings.

Findings

The grief-construct of Kubler-Ross (1969) has been used in the world of business and organizational development to understand collective forms of loss and change (Jones et al., 2021) with original stages of loss and grief translated into emotional responses and coping mechanisms. During data analysis, examples emerged which linked to stages of “Disruption,” “Exploration,” and “Rebuilding” and with subsequent analysis through this lens, these stages are presented as three over-arching themes. Disruption is a stage which is characterized by realizations of significant change to people’s lives and the delivery of activities and services, something which, according to Kubler Ross, can often be traumatic, and associated with typical reactions of anger, fear and resistance. Moving beyond this, exploration is described as a stage where acceptance occurs, with people experiencing turning points and seeing opportunities to deliver activities and services differently. Finally, rebuilding represents a stage where responses show commitment to a changing CC role and an imagined future for the facilitation of community activities.

It is important to note that our analysis does not present these stages in a linear way or claim that they happened in a chronological sequence at particular points in time. In contrast, because all focus group discussions inevitably involved CC’s looking back and forwards at different points in time, extracts which typify experiences of disruption, exploration and rebuilding were found in all focus group discussions. Themes and subthemes are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Themes and Subthemes.

Theme	Subtheme	Summary
Disruption	Loss of control	Feelings of distress and discomfort during period of disruption such as feeling out of control and feeling alone. The identity of workers who valued proximity to groups and individuals was a challenge during periods of physical distancing, yet workers recognized their strength in working with isolated people prior to COVID-19. Implications: Insight into such challenges can support coping strategies such as opportunities for individual and collective agency, networking with others to reduce isolation, and building on strengths and familiarity, helping to affirm identity.
	Things take more time
	Feeling alone
	Disrupted identity
Exploration	Resourcefulness and flexibility – learning tips and tricks	CCs were able to see the best of what was happening, and this in turn acted as an enabler to exploration. Assets such as resourcefulness and flexibility helped to develop creative ways of working to promote engagement in activity. Breaking the seriousness was a way of coping with emotional labor and opportunity for reflection was helpful for peer support and developing insight. Sharing responsibility with group members, and with other community organizations, were also key strategies. Implications: Co-production approaches were important during this period of exploration and can help reduce feelings of being alone. Individuals and organizations can look for opportunities to make connections and then share useful connections with others. The reflective space was created in part by being involved in this research project, although can be created in other ways to support people during change.
	Getting people involved
	Signposting and sharing
	Breaking the seriousness
	Reflective researchers
Rebuilding	COVID-19 as a catalyst	COVID-19 was seen as a catalyst, and therefore an opportunity, for overdue changes. Restrictions such as physical distancing necessitated examination of what constituted worthwhile activities and interactions. Technology was an important part of an imagined future for community activities and seen as a way to increase reach. Implications: The optimum blended offer was seen as one which harnessed technology and partnerships with other people. CC’s have an important role in upskilling others to use technology. Risks to optimizing this blended offer include the risk of digital exclusion and the risks of insecure funding.
	Rethinking values
	A technology enabled future
	Partnerships and connections

Disruption

Loss of control

The extract below describes the reactive approach required in the first stages of the pandemic to sustain core services provided by the VCSEs. It identifies “what is” for community connectors reflecting the sudden nature of change and the rawness of their experiences:

We reacted to a situation that we had no control of, and it was more pulling together whatever resources we could and almost finding this new technology, learning about it and then actually having to teach our clients how to use it, so that we could have that connection. […] the technology stuff was not in our everyday lives before Covid, it was because we were thrown in to this situation where we had to do something, anything really to kind of keep in touch. (P5, FG3)

The acknowledgment that the use of technology was not “in our everyday lives before Covid” is reflective of how activities and services were disrupted during this time and words such as being “thrown in” and having “no control” reflect the uncertainty and understandable sense of chaos people felt.

Things take more time

Examples of disruption to how people were carrying out what had previously been routine parts of their role, were also expressed in terms of the increased time activities were taking, and the subsequent frustrations for those using services:

last week I spent 3 hours on a doorstep trying to get somebody enrolled onto an adult education course […] what would take me 10 minutes was just not possible in two hours and it’s incredibly frustrating for him. (P1, FG2)

Feeling alone

During this time of disruption, the vulnerability of the workers, whilst they themselves were supporting people, also came to the fore:

“It is quite intense, you’re on your own. I sometimes think some of the conversations I am having on my own with people, if you’re in group work or out in the community there’s the whole thing about keeping the formula, language all that kind of stuff that we know about having a phone call and … but equally, they can become very intense and […] you’re doing a much larger volume of them in a day. (P2, FG2)

The above extract, alongside many others, provides insight into the intensity and vulnerability people felt and particularly linked this to making telephone support calls, something they were doing in a “larger volume” than prior to the pandemic. The reflection that your head needs to be “in the right space” suggests that people were feeling pressures on their own mental health and wellbeing during this time, particularly linked to calls where people would be listening to other people’s needs and vulnerabilities. The quote highlights a feeling of being on your own with other people’s needs and how “intense” this can feel during a time of disruption for people using their services, and for themselves.

Disrupted identity

Alongside feelings of vulnerability, CC’s also expressed challenges to their own identity:

“it has personally affected me […] I’m a community worker, I should be out in the community and being home based, you know, for a lot of last year, you know has been a challenge and really I feel, you know, it is not the best way to do my job, you know, I really want to be out in the community, even if I am on people’s doorsteps, that’s where I was most comfortable […] I just want to be out doing my job properly, out in the community. (P1, FG3)

Reflecting back during the final focus group, this CC recognizes the personal effect this had on their identity. Expressing that they “should be” in the community’ and a desire to be “doing my job properly” suggests values that new ways of working are not fulfilling their own expectations about identity and role.

Yet despite feeling challenges to identity, there was an acknowledgment from CC’s that central parts of their role were familiar, and was suggestive of building on a position of familiarity and strength during disruption:

we deal with isolated people all the time. (P2, FG2)

Exploration

During the first theme of disruption, many extracts focussed on challenges and the associated negative emotional responses (such as loss of control, vulnerability) or negative implications for work (such as activities and support taking more time). However, the theme of exploration holds resonance with the discovery phase of the AI cycle, characterized by a sense of acceptance and action to appreciate the best of what is happening in the present moment.

Resourcefulness and flexibility – learning tips and tricks

So I think we have kind of developed ways of presenting on Zoom and trying to interact with people on Zoom and these are people who we haven’t even met before […] and that’s been quite a learning curve as well as how we’ve … I don’t know how we have developed the skills, but I think we just have naturally and we are still learning those tips and tricks and ways of getting people to talk. (P5, FG2)

The extract above, whilst referring to “people we haven’t even met,” discusses “ways of presenting” and “trying to interact” as developments and opportunities whilst engaging people in new and evolving ways.

Alongside different approaches to working online, CC’s also illustrated positive examples of where they had increased and diversified other approaches to engaging people in activities:

We have been sending more, we’ve upped the amount of stuff we send out in the post topeople, including things like competitions and newsletters and encouraging people to write in, poetry competitions, lots. (P2, FG2)

In earlier extracts, the continuously changing guidance and restrictions were associated with “pulling the plug,” however CC’s suggested continuing to prepare resources, so activities could continue in the future in all eventualities:

So what we have got now in place is all the risk assessment if it [physical distancing restriction] was lifted again, you know, we know the venues, we know how to run them as safely as possible […] So basically it doesn’t matter what we put in place if the guidelines change, we have to alter it and I suppose that comes to the whole thing about managing people’s disappointment and expectations. (P2, FG2)

Getting people involved

Sharing responsibility and involvement with group members presented as being an important part of exploration:

We needed a way to keep the group momentum going and keep people connected. So we had a Facebook page from a previous group, I managed to get the members involved with that … not everyone admittedly and then we do … So now we do weekly video groups, video call groups and plan sessions. (P5, FG1)

Expressions in the extract above such as getting “members involved” and the use of the word “we” are noted to contrast with earlier extracts linked to disruption where CC’s discussed a sense of feeling alone.

Signposting and sharing

Alongside involvement with people who used services, connections with other organizations was another important way of supporting exploration:

“I didn’t realise until last week that say, for example, [name of UK supermarket chain] will, if somebody phones them, they can have their food delivered the next day. So that’s… now I know that […] now I know that I can tell a lot of people […] it’s just learning all the time about different things and signposting and sharing all that different stuff. (P2, FG2)

This CC discusses “learning all of the time” about the ways in which organizations can collaborate to support people and links this to their own positive actions of “signposting,” “sharing” and telling “a lot of people.” Breaking the seriousness

CC’s still referred to the impact and emotional labor during their attempts to engage people in activities. But in contrast to earlier extracts where people referred to the intensity and volume of such conversations, extracts instead referred to exploring new ways of facilitating sensitive conversations and strategies to deal with the emotional labor. In relation to facilitating psychoeducation on the topic of stress:

It was a really dodgy drawing on the whiteboard, but I think one of the things we found was kind of when we were discussing quite tricky subjects having a laugh almost broke kind of the seriousness or the … and actually got people talking. (P5, FG2)

Reflective researchers

A final note on the theme of exploration is that the experience of CC’s participating in the research focus groups may have acted as an enabler of evaluation and discovery:

it was particularly very useful to just, to reflect on, you know, I think about, well what’s good, what’s bad, what I would like to go … for the future and all those kind of questions that we’ve just done in the last half an hour that its good to … they are probably things that subconsciously move around in my brain, but I’ve never … I haven’t had to focus on them, so it’s been good to, to do that. (P4, FG3)

Rebuilding

COVID-19 as a catalyst

The first extract presented in this theme reflects a recognition of positive elements of change and a commitment to new ways of working to facilitate community activities as part of an improved imagined future:

Although there are the negatives to Covid, I think it was the kick up the bum that we needed as an organisation to move ourselves forward very rapidly and change the way we’re working, so that we will actually be able to reach a lot more people and work with a lot more external organisations to provide more opportunities and better support […] there’s been a lot more text messages, Messenger messages, Teams. (P5, FG3)

Reference to the “kick up the bum” suggests a recognition that change needed to happen irrespective of COVID-19 and there is emphasis on “more” and “better” when referring to people, partnerships with other agencies, and levels of support.

Rethinking values

In the opening extract, and in the extract below, technology inevitably reoccurs as an important element of rebuilding, recognizing that elements of technology are enabling them to deliver activities in different ways:

pre-Covid there was an idea that we … the only valuable interaction we had with clients was face to face and over the telephone and we have realised that, you know, some clients benefit from […] emails and social media, and you know, so it’s a lot more person centred and recognising that people, you know, want different things. (P4, FG3)

This extract suggests that technology is helping to tailor and personalize how CC’s engage people in activities, recognizing that people “want different things”. But the insight that this has also involved challenging previously held values of what constitutes a worthwhile interaction presents as being important to moving forwards accepting and envisioning new ways of working.

A technology-enabled future

Part of delivering technology enabled activities in the future involved CC’s “upskilling” both volunteers and group members so that new ways of working could be accessible and sustainable:

It is kind of what I am going to be doing for the next year is, you know, empowering the volunteers and upskilling the volunteers so that they can do a lot of this digital work and can … so that the groups that are run by volunteers will employ a blended approach as well […] now it’s seeping down to the groups themselves […] we’re kind of passing those skills and experiences and knowledge onto the volunteers, who will then, you know, increase the reach of [Name of Organisation]. (P4, FG3)

The imagined future for the use of technology is linked to positive outcomes for the organization in terms of increasing “the reach” for the delivery of activities. CC’s were also considering their own roles more broadly than merely the facilitation of their own activities and evaluating their role in terms of helping the “seeping down” of knowledge and skills to groups and volunteers.

Whilst recognizing that technology had a central part in shaping future approaches to engaging people in community activities, CC’s also expressed challenges with this. Some CC’s voiced the challenge of digital exclusion and others, including the extract below, highlighted that a commitment to technology-enabled working needed to happen at a strategic and funding level:

I think moving forward when we look at commissioning and going back to commissioners and stuff. I think a lot of work will have to be put in to, to include the digital enablement stuff and look at the … we do, I mean it is like a buzzword now, like a blended offer. (P5, FG2)

Partnerships and connections

A blended future offer of community engagement and activities was not only linked to technology-enabled activities but also to partnerships with wider organizations:

There was always an element of social prescribing to the role and signposting to different organisations, but I think we just need to be clever about it now and find … to be able to increase the offer of what we can, what we can do or increase our offer within the service, we are going to have to work with more people and it be, I suppose, that’s a blended approach, isn’t it really. So it is not really doing everything ourselves, but it’s working with other organisations. (P5, FG3)

Working “with more” and “with other” people and organizations suggests an important emphasis on partnerships and connections in order to “increase the offer” and move beyond the status quo. The reflection that this will need individuals and organizations “to be clever” suggests that this may not always be straightforward and will require strategy and deliberate action.

An associated challenge with this element of rebuilding was the expression that such connections may be jeopardized if funding was not made available to community organizations to support activity:

clearly a lot of money is going into social prescribing through the NHS, but you need activities and you need things to do and you need organisations and those … that money isn’t necessarily going into the voluntary and community sector where these activities are being run, you know, for the people. So it’s how the circle gets squared. (P1, FG3)

The extract above questions the amount of funding going into community organizations who deliver activities and although money may be going into statutory services at the front end of a pathway, and to enable signposting to services, similar funding may not be reaching those organizations who are delivering activities. Discrepancies in funding between organizations who refer to, and organizations who deliver activities, was also mentioned by other CC’s.

Discussion

This study explored how CC’s continued to engage people in a range of activities during different phases of the COVID-19 pandemic and this understanding has utility in a number of important ways. Firstly, the stages of “disruption,” “exploration” and “rebuilding” provide a novel way to organize and describe the accounts of workers within VCSE organizations during periods of change. Secondly, accounts illuminate strategies which will help workers and VCSE organizations build resilience and capacity during other phases of change. Finally, we propose that extracts particularly presented in the rebuilding theme offer a vision of the future potential of VSCE’s, voiced by those with lived experience of what works well.

Whilst almost the entire global population experienced abrupt changes to the way they engaged in activity, it is unsurprising that disruption was a key part of working within a VCSE organization during the pandemic. Reports of changing service provision, with associated frustrations and challenges are echoed elsewhere (Naughton-Doe et al., 2021), with the early period described as “weathering the storm” for those in similar roles (Fixsen et al., 2021). There were multiple layers to this traumatic disruption experienced by CC’s, including their own responses of frustration to increasing vulnerabilities of people accessing services, the rapid need to re-orientate service provision, and the challenge to relevance and identity of organizations trying to connect people during a time of physical distancing. Yet even in this theme of disruption, coping strategies and growth were present, illustrated by the regenerative examples of pulling together resources, working with new technologies and simple yet significant acts such as being out on doorsteps, demonstrating the inherent commitment and compassion of CC’s. This theme emphasizes the importance of adopting positive attitudes to problems, building on existing personal and organizational strengths, and developing social networks and peer support during early stages of disruption, were all strategies which helped to facilitate growth from distress and discomfort (Finstad et al., 2021).

The extracts presented in the exploration theme illustrate stories of innovation, creativity and adaptation which highlight not only the assets of individual workers, but of organizations and the sector as a whole. Returning to the principles of AI, the range of ways adopted by workers and organizations to continue to offer engagement opportunities must be celebrated and examples from CC’s echo those in other studies (McCabe et al., 2021; Morris et al., 2022).

Extracts also suggested there was a widening of involvement and responsibility linked to exploration of different ways of working, both at the level of involving individuals and groups in designing and delivering activities and services, to partnerships with wider organizations and networks. Other commentators have recognized that successes were achieved during the pandemic from adopting co-production principles (Cepiku et al., 2021; Steen & Brandsen, 2020) highlighting important lessons and principles of collaboration and a commitment to shared working across organizations and communities during periods of trauma and change. This is in contrast to the recognized limitations of top-down approaches to develop holistic understanding of complex issues (Polzer & Goncharenko, 2021). Indeed, the loosening of “command-and-control” leadership to enable capacity for improvisation at all levels has been associated with developing organizational resilience to respond to crisis situations (Lloyd-Smith, 2020). In this study, co-production with people and communities seemed to coincide with lessening feelings of vulnerability of workers; innovative, responsive, and local solutions where responsibility was shared; and feelings of small wins (such as the partnership with the supermarket chain to get a shopping delivery) all contributing to incremental changes and moving away from feelings of disruption during the immediate crisis response.

Aided by questions focussed on what was working well, partnerships with other organizations received further emphasis in the rebuilding theme, with CC’s reflecting the future cannot involve doing everything themselves. As CC’s looked to the future, and with resources in the sector to deliver activities likely to be under severe pressure, new partnerships, movement away from competition between services and trusting community-led solutions were seen as integral to successes during the pandemic and essential to future ways of working (Locality, 2020).

Connecting people with social and community activities is a key component of a personalized care agenda (NHS, 2019) and it is interesting that CC’s reflected how changes accelerated during COVID-19 – particularly technology-enabled changes were perhaps overdue in developing more tailored and person-centered community activities. However, highlighted by CC’s discussion of the requirement of training for staff and volunteers and of the need for funding to deliver blended offers, there was perhaps an implicit recognition that some people and communities may be left behind. Digital exclusion has been highlighted as an additional risk for community groups, particularly older people and those with complex health needs, which are already amongst the most marginalized or vulnerable in society (Watts, 2020). Whilst recognizing CCs can contribute partially to this by upskilling individuals, groups and volunteers, part of the imagined future includes a call to action for commissioners to support meaningful funding to sustain inclusive and technology-enabled activities.

Funding was also raised by CCs more generally in relation to meeting demand for the provision of community activities arising from the pandemic and particularly as social prescribing and signposting to activities gains momentum (NHS, 2019). Whilst there is no shortage of government pledges to support communities and VCSE’s (Arts Council England, 2022; Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, 2021; Department of Health and Social Care, 2022), critical voices from CC’s, questioned whether funding will reach individuals and organizations who need it. These critiques are understandable when viewed in the context of historically disjointed health and care funding and stories of complex workarounds to access monies or meet criteria (Local Government Association, 2022). Furthermore, VCSE’s may face difficult decisions about in-person, online and blended activities and such decisions may inadvertently compromise personalized and inclusive practices in the longer term if some activities are prioritized at the expense of others.

Strengths and limitations

Capturing accounts over the course of 14 months, during fluctuating restrictions and changing guidelines, is a particular strength of this research, seeking understanding at different periods of time and as participants experienced different contextual influences (Burr, 2003). A further strength was a commitment to working together across community organizations, enabling shared ownership of the research process and opportunities to learn together.

The small sample size is a limitation of the research, particularly the limited representation at the final focus group. By nature, participants who left employed roles during the research or participants who could not attend focus groups due to other priorities would unarguably have additional insights to share. However, the small number of participants did represent two VCSE organizations connecting older people and people with long-term health conditions with activities during the pandemic and will have relevance to many VCSE organizations in the UK, and internationally, who deliver similar support.

People who were using services were not included in this study and would have provided an additional perspective on how people experienced working alongside CC’s and the experience of engaging in the activities themselves.

Implications

This study has important implications for individuals, organizations, funders and policymakers. Partnerships and co-production approaches were visible at a grassroots level within the two organizations during the pandemic and presented as being integral to building resilience and sustainable change. VCSE’s should be acknowledged as leaders in such approaches and be at the center of supporting decision-making and priority-setting within communities.

Importantly, and to paraphrase from the CC’s in the study, workers and organizations “cannot do everything themselves” and have called for their own strengths and innovation to be matched with realistic and integrated funding to ensure they can continue to develop personalized approaches and meet the rising demand for community activities.

Finally, we suggest that creating reflective spaces for CC’s to share tacit reasoning and local knowledge will be an important feature of organizations who are continuing to learn through change. This study has highlighted the CC role to be so much more than delivering or connecting people to activities and people in these roles have developed a responsive skill set in areas such as networking, partnership-working and teaching others which will be important to harness and develop. Specifically linked to this study, the experience of positively re-appraising events through the lens of AI enabled reflection on individual and organizational learning and developing ideas for change.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to explore the experience of CC’s who were continuing to support older adults, and adults with long-term conditions, to engage in activity during the pandemic. This focus emerged because of the central value CC’s and the research advisory group placed on engaging people in activity, and that this in turn could positively influence wellbeing in terms of physical health, social connectedness, self-worth, pleasure, routine and distraction from stressors during a time when the risk of harm was unprecedented (Whalley Hammell, 2020). The opportunity to illuminate the authentic and real-time accounts of the people enabling and enacting such values tells an important, less readily told story of the pandemic, and one which highlights strategies which will help individuals and organizations continue this important work moving out of the pandemic and during other periods of change.

Statement of Contributorship

GB, HA, SL and AM conceived the study. GB and HA led the development of the protocol, ethical approval process and facilitated research focus groups. GB, HA, SL and AM facilitated research steering group meetings. GB, HA and BA contributed to the data analysis. GB and HA wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript and approved the final version.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Community Connectors and the members of the research advisory group who participated in all stages of this research. The authors would like to thank the two voluntary sector organisations and the Community Connectors who took part in this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).