As we move outward from the relational core of individuals and voluntary associations, we encounter the structural infrastructure of our neighbourhoods. This brings us to the third core ingredient of community well-being: local institutions. These are the formal, professionalised entities that inhabit our geographic spaces, including schools, libraries, clinics, community centres, parks, local authorities and businesses.

While we often view these entities purely as places where we go to consume a service or buy a product, an asset-based lens reveals them as massive repositories of raw resources. The challenge of active citizenship is to move past being passive clients of these institutions and instead learn how to anchor their structural assets into the self-determined life of the neighbourhood.

The nature of institutional assets

To effectively source this ingredient, we must recognise that institutions possess a different kind of wealth to individuals and associations. While associations are resource-poor but relationship-rich, institutions are exactly the reverse: they are relationship-poor but highly resource-rich. They hold formal budgets, physical buildings, specialised equipment, professional staff and significant purchasing power.

From an asset-based perspective, these resources do not belong exclusively to the institution’s internal management; they are part of the collective wealth of the locality. A school is not just a place where children are educated during fixed hours: it is a complex of classrooms, computers, kitchens and sports fields. A local library is not simply a repository for books: it is a heated public space, a node of internet connectivity and a trusted community anchor. When we map institutions, we are tracking these tangible, structural assets so they can be leveraged for wider civic benefit.

The gap between service and partnership

The historical tragedy of modern community development is that institutions have systematically separated themselves from the organic life of the streets around them. They tend to operate as silos, viewing the surrounding neighbourhood not as a partner but as a catchment area of needs and deficiencies. A local clinic might see a sea of health statistics to be managed, while a school might see a population of socio-economically disadvantaged families to be served.

This professionalised distance creates a deep transactional divide. It trains citizens to look at institutions as vending machines: we insert our taxes or our attention, and we expect a service to be dropped out. This relationship erodes civic capacity because it positions the institution as the sole producer of outcomes and the citizen as a mere consumer. To unlock the true power of this third ingredient, we must bridge this gap, moving from a culture of institutions doing things for or to a community, to institutions doing things with a community.

Turning institutions inside out

Flipping this relationship requires the deliberate practice of turning institutions inside out. This means finding ways to liberate institutional assets from their bureaucratic silos and make them accessible to local associations and residents. It is an act of creative repurposing that maximises the public value of existing infrastructure.

The practical possibilities are significant when an institution opens its boundaries. A school kitchen that sits dark during evenings and weekends can become the incubator for a local catering collective or a community cooking class. A corporate office park with a manicured courtyard can open its spaces for an association’s weekend market. A public library can become the physical home where informal knit and natter groups or history societies meet without paying prohibitive commercial rent. When we turn institutions inside out, we ensure that public and private infrastructure serves to amplify, rather than replace, local associational life.

The citizen-led institutional relationship

This integration never happens automatically because the natural momentum of an institution is always toward control, risk aversion and internal focus. Left to their own devices, professional systems will continue to design programmes from the top down, unaware of the local assets they are bypassing. The relationship must therefore be negotiated and led by organised citizens.

Active citizens do not wait for institutions to design the perfect community outreach strategy. Organised associations must approach local institutions with clear, self-determined proposals. When a community group approaches a school headteacher or a library manager not with a list of complaints, but with a clear plan of how a specific institutional asset can support a local initiative, true partnership becomes possible. This rebalances the scales of power, ensuring that the structural weight of the institution serves to back the organic capacity of the neighbourhood.

Questions for reflection

What are the prominent local institutions in your immediate neighbourhood or organisation that currently operate as isolated silos?

Look at a nearby public or private building. What raw assets such as kitchens, meeting rooms, tools or land does it possess that sit empty or underutilised outside of business hours?

Think of a service you currently receive from an institution. How could that transactional service be reshaped into a co-produced partnership between professionals and local residents?

What is one practical proposal your team or association could present to a local institution this month to unlock a specific structural asset for the common good?

Inspired by: Russell, C. and McKnight, J. (2022) The connected community: discovering the health, wealth, and power of neighborhoods. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.