Since the Clore prize funding was announced, I have steadily worked my way around as many 'stakeholders' as possible to share the news that 20 More is on its way.
I start by stating the goal: working in one neighbourhood, making every household £20 a week better off. Then pause.

The responses so far are falling into to main camps.

The smaller camp, without much hesitation, say "wow" and proceed to enthuse about the possbilities and the potential of the project. Straight away, they get the challenges, but back the approach.
A much larger group ask "how?"
It's a reasonable question, and one to which we are determined to be honest in response. We don't yet know. There are 670 households, I explain, so there might be 670 different ways we might do it. This is not a satisfactory answer to some, who seem to get quite annoyed, as if the response is deliberately awkward or evasive. For them, our 20 More position of seeking solutions only as each individual's circumstances come to light, becomes a hang up, our vision of the potential positive outcomes for individuals and the community more derisory.
We know there are many practical responses to poverty, and many preventive measures, but we also know that these are not reaching everyone. They are often targeted, leaving people beyond their criteria with no support; many are specialised, addressing one aspect of the problem but leaving other aspects to continue to drag people down. This is why we want to take a 'whole neighbourhood', holistic approach.
Of course, we have ideas. We know we must knock on every door to build relationships and trust, as the foundation for moving forward.
We can guess that at household level, checking benefits, debt, utilities and energy consumption, and personal expenditure will be needed.
We can forecast that community-led groups for spending, saving and collective deal-making will be important. We would like to develop the potential for micro-enterprise, neighbour-provided services and community-managed assets.
It is practical and pragmatic.

Interestingly, no-one yet has asked why

There are many reasons, and here are a few:
* Countless services working in all aspects of social support, leave addressing poverty off their agenda. They 'refer on' or hand out food bank vouchers, without involving themselves in resolving the relentless stress of poverty. We want to show that improving income in a small way, long term, de-stresses, improves wellbeing and all aspects of self-care.
* Structural issues causing and exacerbating poverty need to be addressed - but we need not wait for - how many decades? - before acting directly with people in poverty on what matters to them right now. Which may first be to put food on the table, electricity in the meter, and shoes on the children's feet.

Why £20?

The cash goal has already been challenged by people who dismiss it as not 'evidence-based'.
But here is my evidence, based on direct experience of worrying about how me and my children would make it through the week: going through every pocket and bag, under every cushion in the house looking for loose change for dinner money; leaving bills unopened because of the unbearable cloud they would cast over every day; pinching toilet paper from public toilets when we ran out; in those circumstances, I would have given my right arm for an extra £20.
It is an amount that is meaningful against the day to day task of living without enough, and achievable for everyone - people on benefits, working poor, retired people, disabled people, new migrants. So, respectful as I am of all of the research and academic writing on poverty, I proffer some personal experience as the basis for this project, without shame. We will create our own evidence, with the people of Dumbiedykes, to show what difference 20 More makes.