Research and analysis

Interim overarching evaluation on the Know Your Neighbourhood Fund

Published 28 August 2025

Applies to England

Key Lessons

The Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) Fund is an up to £30 million package of funding designed to widen participation in volunteering and tackle loneliness in 27 disadvantaged areas across England. This includes up to £10m of funding delivered by The National Lottery Community Fund.

This interim evaluation report draws on preliminary baseline survey data collected from beneficiaries and volunteers of funded projects from September 2023 to January 2024 and interviews with projects and KYN Fund stakeholders (all collected between March 2023 and July 2024). It sets out preliminary lessons learned, that are summarised below.

• Increasing sustained volunteering and reducing chronic loneliness complement each other as target outcome areas when designing and delivering interventions. 

• Delivery partner support during the application stage was accessible to all KYN Fund applicants, but projects found support particularly easy to access when they had a pre-existing relationship with their delivery partner.

• Longer set up and application phases could have helped Cultural Partners and Community Foundations (CFs) to extend their reach to a wider variety of projects. This is, however, constrained by the need of Government to align with annual business planning cycles.

• Projects and partners valued and benefited from collaboration with each other as it gave them an opportunity to share learnings about delivery and the evaluation process. Further collaboration between KYN funded projects could help promote sustainable systems and processes that encourage volunteering and tackle loneliness.

This report analysed the survey data from the first wave of (baseline) questionnaires collected up to 29 January 2024 with responses from 1,853 respondents involved in UK Community Foundations (UKCF) funded projects to provide a snapshot of who the beneficiaries and volunteers are.^{[footnote 1][footnote 2]} As many projects are recruiting on a rolling basis, baseline survey collection will continue until the Fund ends in March 2025. This allows the evaluation to consider the extent to which the UKCF funding is reaching its intended audience. The report found that:

• Slightly more than half of respondents (56% of n=1,853) to the baseline survey up to January 2024 were volunteers. Of the volunteer respondents, half (51% of n=1,045) were new to volunteering, in line with KYN Fund objectives.

• Baseline responses appear to suggest that projects were reaching people who more frequently experience loneliness, compared with the general population. 15% (of n=1,835) of respondents reported feeling lonely often or always, a response usually associated with chronic loneliness. This suggests a higher prevalence than in the general population (7% of n=170,255).^{[footnote 3]} Furthermore, 45% (of n=1,835) of respondents reported feeling lonely either some of the time, often or always (compared to 26% of adults [n=170,255] who took part in the CLS 2023/24).^{[footnote 4]}

For the remainder of the KYN Fund, this report recommends that CFs and Cultural Partners should ensure that they have facilitated introductions between their projects. Projects operating in the same area should have introductions facilitated, regardless of funder.

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Background to the Know Your Neighbourhood Fund

The KYN Fund is investing up to £30 million to widen participation in volunteering and tackle loneliness in 27 disadvantaged areas across England. The objectives of the KYN Fund are, by March 2025:

1. To increase the proportion of people in targeted high-deprivation local authorities who volunteer at least once a month.

2. To reduce the proportion of chronically lonely people in targeted high-deprivation local authorities who lack a desired level of social connections.

3. To build the evidence to identify scalable and sustainable place-based interventions that work in increasing regular volunteering and reducing chronic loneliness.

4. To enable targeted high-deprivation local authorities, and the local voluntary and community sector in these places, to implement sustainable systems and processes that encourage volunteering and tackling loneliness.

The KYN Fund is split into three funding streams. Its structure is shown in Figure 1 below: 

• £5 million of government funding is being invested in supporting people to participate in volunteering and connect with others through expanding the existing offer of arts, culture and heritage activities across the 27 KYN target areas. This funding is being delivered by Arts Council England (ACE) and The National Lottery Heritage Fund, in partnership with Historic England.

• £15 million of the total £20 million government funding is being delivered by UKCF and a consortium of local CFs across 9 areas. 

• The National Lottery Community Fund is investing up to £10 million of their own funding to top up existing projects that support the KYN Fund objectives, working across the same 27 target areas.

Figure 1 – KYN Fund structure 

Diagram showing how the KYN funding is split into three funding streams: Arm’s length body (ALB) distributed funding, UKCF distributed funding and The National Lottery Community Fund distributed funding.

1.2 Purpose of the evaluation

Using HM Treasury Magenta Book guidance, this evaluation will assess the effectiveness of the KYN Fund in meeting its objectives, and provide opportunities for learning and accountability for grant funding. The evaluation will also recommend improvements to support delivery of the KYN Fund and future, similar funds. This evaluation will include process, impact and value for money (VfM) evaluation.

This interim report primarily focuses on process evaluation findings gathered from interviews with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), ACE, Historic England, UKCF, Cultural Partners, CFs and projects, as well as baseline data from participants taking part in UKCF funded projects. The final evaluation report, due 2025, will explore impact findings, using qualitative data collection and baseline, midpoint and endline survey data. The final report will also include a VfM assessment using the National Audit Office’s (NAO’s) 4Es framework.

1.3 Methodology

The findings and recommendations made in this report draw on the following sources:

• Impact evaluation baseline survey - A survey administered by ACE and UKCF funded projects, using either an online link or a paper-based survey. The baseline survey captures key demographic data of projects’ beneficiaries and volunteers and how they felt at baseline about their wellbeing, loneliness, volunteering, skills, confidence and pride in local area. This interim report uses data from 1,853 baseline survey responses collected from September 2023 up to the end of January 2024.^{[footnote 5]} These responses are from exclusively UKCF funded projects, as responses from ACE funded projects were not available at the interim reporting stage. Baseline survey data collection is ongoing until the Fund ends in March 2025.

• In depth interviews – 14 interviews were held with delivery partners in March 2023. ACE, UKCF, Historic England, 3 Cultural Partners, 9 CFs and 25 projects were interviewed between November 2023 – January 2024. DCMS were also interviewed in July 2024. These interviews primarily explored process related questions, though they also had a limited exploration of impact related questions.

This evaluation will aim to gather evidence and formulate findings against 22 research questions. Research questions with low levels of evidence available at this stage will be explored more comprehensively in the final evaluation report.

1.4 Key findings

This interim report identified the following key findings, split by research question area.

Process evaluation – Set up and implementation

• Cultural Partners, CFs and projects were strongly aligned with the objectives of the KYN Fund. Most projects interviewed were targeting both loneliness and volunteering outcomes.

• Projects had generally positive experiences with the application process. This was largely attributed to familiar application forms and having (in many cases) pre-existing relationships with the Cultural Partners/CFs. Whilst support and guidance from Cultural Partners and CFs was offered to all applicants, those which had pre-existing relationships with the funder found it particularly easy to access support.

• ACE had generally positive experiences with the grant distribution process, attributing this to early discussions with Cultural Partners before they accepted the grant. This allowed for immediate project delivery, without needing extra planning time.

• CFs reported a more challenging experience with grant distribution, citing lengthy timelines for receiving funding. This meant CFs had to use their own reserves or pass on lengthy payment timelines to projects, causing gaps in projects’ delivery. This was as a consequence of the multiple layers of scrutiny required from each organisation handling money (e.g. DCMS, UKCF and CFs) to ensure the effective management of public money.

Process evaluation – Delivery

• Projects delivered a range of activities, which were tailored to the needs of their local area. These were split between activities that were completely new and activities that built on projects’ previous activities.

• UKCF Test and Learn Phase funding was viewed as a key facilitator to set up for projects funded in both UKCF’s Test and Learn Phase and UKCF Phase 2. The short Test and Learn Phase enabled projects to demonstrate capability, gain learning insights and be well-prepared for longer term delivery. Projects were also able to consult with local stakeholders on the needs of their communities, which allowed them to design effective targeted activities that could be mobilised at pace in UKCF Phase 2.

• Projects found that using referral routes was effective in recruiting people who are at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness.

• Projects viewed collaboration with local Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprises (VCSEs) and the expertise of their internal staff as key facilitators to delivery.

• Cultural Partners, CFs and projects expressed mixed opinions on monitoring and evaluation requirements. Some found that both were in line with expectations, however, others found both to be excessive. Some projects encountered barriers in administering the survey, including the time required for participants to complete the survey and the projects’ burden for inputting paper-based responses on the survey link.

• Some CFs expressed disappointment in the change from using local level evaluators.^{[footnote 6]} This change was made to ensure that robust evaluation methods such as quasi-experimental methods could proceed and to reduce duplication between various evaluation activities.

Reach

• Slightly more than half of respondents (56% of n=1,853) to the baseline survey up to January 2024 were volunteers. Of the volunteer respondents, half (51% of n=1,045) were new to volunteering.

• Almost six out of ten volunteer respondents (58% of n=1,033) planned to volunteer for at least three months and two thirds (65% of n= 1,034) intended to volunteer weekly, either once or twice a week.

• Baseline responses appear to suggest that projects were reaching people who more frequently experienced loneliness, compared with the general population. For example, 45% (of n=1,835) of respondents reported feeling lonely either some of the time, often or always (compared to 26% of adults who took part in the CLS 2023/24 [n=170,255]).^{[footnote 7]} 15% (of n=1,835) of respondents reported feeling lonely often or always, a response usually associated with chronic loneliness, suggesting a higher prevalence than the general population (7% of n=170,255).^{[footnote 8]}

• DCMS identified ten groups of people that are at risk of experiencing loneliness. The baseline survey allows for a comparison of the proportion of KYN respondents who fall into three of these groups with the respective proportions in the general population. These three groups are: people who have a disability or condition lasting or expected to last more than 12 months, people who experience mental health problem, and people aged 16 to 34. Baseline responses suggest that projects were reaching people in these three groups at risk of chronic loneliness, compared with the general population:

• Slightly more than half of respondents (51%, n=1,834) to the baseline survey reported having any kind of disability or condition lasting or expected to last more than 12 months. In the population of England, 18% reported having any kind of disability or condition lasting or expected to last more than 12 months in the Census 2021.^{[footnote 9]}

• The proportion of KYN baseline survey respondents reporting that they experienced mental health problems was 31% (n=1,441). This was a higher proportion compared to the general population in 2023/24, where the proportion was 23% (n=5,327, NatCen’s Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey).^{[footnote 10]}

• A slightly higher proportion of baseline survey respondents were aged 16 to 34 (28%, n=1,844) compared to the estimated number of adults in England in the same age bracket in 2023 (24%).^{[footnote 11]}

• The baseline survey suggests a higher proportion of respondents have lower life satisfaction and happiness, and higher levels of anxiety than in the general population. 

• The baseline survey suggests a higher proportion of respondents have a lower sense of belonging to their neighbourhood and satisfaction with their local area than in the general population. 

• The above points suggest UKCF funded projects may be reaching the intended audience of the KYN Fund, although this is based on partial data up to January 2024. The final evaluation report will cover baseline data, impact data and VfM findings to explore this more comprehensively.

2. Introduction and Background

2.1 Introduction

The KYN Fund is investing up to £30 million to widen participation in volunteering and tackle loneliness in 27 disadvantaged areas across England. RSM UK Consulting LLP (RSM) and the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) were commissioned by DCMS to undertake an overarching evaluation of the KYN Fund in January 2023. RSM and NatCen are responsible for delivering an impact, process and Value for Money (VfM) evaluation at a Fund level. 

This interim report explores emerging findings related to Fund processes and the reach of UKCF funded projects. This interim report only explored findings from this UKCF baseline data, as responses from ACE funded projects were not available at the interim reporting stage. The findings inform lessons learned and recommendations for the Fund going forward and any future similar funds. The final evaluation report, due in Spring 2025, will build on these findings with further impact data and VfM analysis to provide an overall evaluation of the Fund. This section outlines the background to the Fund, including its structure.

2.2 Background to the KYN Fund

The objectives of the KYN Fund are, by March 2025:

• To increase the proportion of people in targeted high-deprivation local authorities who volunteer at least once a month.

• To reduce the proportion of chronically lonely people in targeted high-deprivation local authorities who lack desired level of social connections.

• To build the evidence to identify scalable and sustainable place-based interventions that work in increasing regular volunteering and reducing chronic loneliness.

• To enable targeted high-deprivation local authorities, and the local voluntary and community sector in these places, to implement sustainable systems and processes that encourage volunteering and tackling loneliness.

The KYN Fund is split into three funding streams as follows and shown in Figure 1.

• £5 million of government funding is being invested in supporting people to participate in volunteering and connect with others through expanding the existing offer of arts, culture and heritage activities across the 27 KYN target areas. This funding is being delivered through Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs), including, ACE and The National Lottery Heritage Fund, in partnership with Historic England.

• £15 million of the total £20 million government funding will be delivered by UKCF and a consortium of local CFs across 9 areas. 

• The National Lottery Community Fund will invest up to £10 million of their own funding to top up existing projects that support the KYN Fund objectives, working across the same 27 target areas.

The 27 target areas in scope for this Fund were identified as high-need areas based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation and the Community Needs Index. Eligible areas include; Barnsley, Barrow-in-Furness, Blackpool, Bolsover, Burnley, Cannock Chase, County Durham, Doncaster, Fenland, Great Yarmouth, Halton, Hartlepool, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, Kingston upon Hull, Knowsley, Middlesbrough, Rochdale, Sandwell, South Tyneside, Stoke-on-Trent, Sunderland, Tameside, Tendring, Thanet, Torridge, Wakefield and Wolverhampton.

The KYN Fund has the following evaluation structure to ensure lessons learned are captured across all funding streams.

Figure 2 – KYN Fund evaluation structure

The KYN Fund evaluation structure, which shows six evaluation activities: ACE funding stream evaluation, HE funding stream evaluation, UKCF funding stream evaluation, three place-based depth evaluations of UKCF funded projects, two quasi-experimental design (QED) evaluations of UKCF funded projects and a thematic evaluation of UKCF funded projects.

2.2.1. Arm’s Length Body Projects

Through the KYN Fund, DCMS is providing £5 million in grant funding to support people to participate in volunteering and connect with others in their communities through arts, culture and heritage activities. This funding is being delivered by ACE and The National Lottery Heritage Fund, in partnership with Historic England. It will build on existing local interventions and expertise in target disadvantaged areas to boost meaningful and impactful volunteering opportunities, to bring people together, and to maximise learning about what works.

The £5 million breaks down as follows. ACE is distributing £4.3 million across three schemes, using Cultural Partners to provide onward grants, that will draw on existing community assets like libraries and museums to bring people together, including through volunteering:

• Libraries Connected has received £2,450,000. This is being used to support libraries to engage additional volunteers and host activities such as craft groups or family sessions in the 27 target areas, through 26 library services. Libraries Connected have also contracted Economic Research Services Limited (ERS) to undertake an evaluation of all three ACE Cultural Partners. 

• Association for Independent Museums (AIM) has received £950,000. This is being used to support local museums to create new volunteering roles, help people to connect (for example through educational programmes aimed at widening participation through storytelling), and to strengthen local museums’ ability to run future programmes that tackle loneliness and support volunteering. AIM funded five projects in Round 1 and seven projects in Round 2 (see Table 2).

• Creative Lives has received £900,000. This is being used to support voluntary arts groups to deliver arts activities that help people to connect with others. This includes funding for community choirs, music and drama clubs, and intergenerational creative activities. Creative Lives funded 10 projects in the Pilot Round and 51 projects in Round 1 (see Table 2).

In addition, The National Lottery Heritage Fund, in partnership with Historic England, has received £550,000 to support existing projects being delivered through their High Street Heritage Action Zones programme in 11 eligible high streets. These are Barnsley, Blackpool, Barrow, Burnley, Hull, Middlesbrough, Stalybridge, Wednesbury, Stoke, Great Yarmouth and Ramsgate. There is a focus on additional activities that bring people together and create volunteering opportunities connected to their local high street. The funding will also support the delivery of cultural activities that help people feel proud of and connected to where they live and their local community.

2.2.2 UKCF Projects

£15 million of KYN funding is being delivered by UKCF and a consortium of local CFs across 9 areas. The funding is supporting activities that enable volunteering and tackle loneliness in nine targeted disadvantaged areas in England. The £15m is funding projects in the following areas: Wolverhampton, South Tyneside, Kingston-Upon-Hull, Blackpool, Stoke-On-Trent, Great Yarmouth, Fenland, County Durham, and Barrow-in-Furness. UKCF are using their existing networks and expertise to ensure that funding is tailored to the specific local communities it serves.

This funding aims to support people who have not had opportunities to volunteer before, or who may be at risk of loneliness, to access enriching opportunities to connect locally. This funding aims to help these people to improve their wellbeing, skills, confidence and social connections.

The UKCF funding will run until 31st March 2025, with various projects closing at different stages. The smaller first phase of the funding up until March 2023 focused on learning (UKCF Test and Learn Phase - 95 projects funded), before opening to a larger grant-making phase in April 2023 (UKCF Phase 2 - 115 projects funded).

2.2.3 The National Lottery Community Funding

The National Lottery Community Fund is investing up to £10 million to support their existing projects working across the same target areas and working to similar objectives as the KYN Fund. This funding is out of scope of this evaluation.

2.3 Research objectives and questions

This evaluation seeks to answer a variety of process and impact related research questions (RQs) at both the Fund and individual project level. These RQs were designed to assess the extent to which the Fund has met its objectives (detailed in section 2.2) and whether it has provided VfM. Process questions relate to Fund set up and implementation and project delivery. Impact questions relate to the outcomes that projects achieve and the impacts these outcomes lead to, for both funded projects and their participants. The full list of RQs is available in Annex A 8.1.1. This report focuses primarily on process related questions, as at the time of preparing the interim report, most projects were ongoing. Therefore, it is not possible to assess the impact of the KYN Fund at this interim stage. However, this will be explored in the final evaluation report.

3. Evaluation Methodology

3.1 Overview

This report draws on findings from interviews and an initial sample of beneficiary and volunteer baseline survey data. This section briefly describes these data collection activities and details notes on interpretation of the findings. Annex A (section 8.1) provides details on the methodology , including data collection and analysis and Annex B (section 8.2) provides further detail on the theoretical basis for the evaluation.

3.1.1 Impact evaluation surveys

The evaluation team, DCMS and the evaluation partners co-developed a survey that captures key demographic data, including ethnicity, biological sex, gender identity, and age and outcome data on volunteering, wellbeing, loneliness, skills, confidence, and pride in local area.^{[footnote 12]} For this evaluation, surveys are administered at baseline, midpoint, and endline of an individual’s participation in each project, as appropriate. The interim report analyses data from baseline survey questionnaires conducted between September 2023 and January 2024. As many projects are recruiting on a rolling basis, baseline survey collection will continue until the Fund ends in March 2025.

The survey data from the baseline collected up to 29 January 2024 included responses from n=1,853 respondents involved in UKCF funded projects. This represents a response rate of 18.5% from volunteers and beneficiaries of UKCF funded projects, up to 29 January 2024.^{[footnote 13]} 

Historic England does not use this survey because the activities delivered by their funded projects are not designed for longer term engagement by participants. At the time of this interim report, many ACE funded projects had not started delivering activities. Therefore, ACE funded project survey data is not included in this report. As the survey data has not been weighted, the analysis in the baseline survey findings section of the interim report is purely descriptive. Tests for statistical significance have not been conducted but may form part of the final evaluation report. The survey data in this report provides a snapshot of who the beneficiaries and volunteers are, up to January 2024. It allows the evaluation to consider the extent to which the Fund is reaching its intended audience based on this initial data.

3.1.2 Process evaluation interviews

The evaluation team conducted 14 interviews with UKCF, CFs, Historic England and Cultural Partners in March 2023 and 40 interviews across projects (n=25) and delivery and Cultural Partners (n=15) from November 2023 – January 2024. DCMS staff were interviewed in July 2024. The evaluation team used a purposive sampling approach to achieve a diverse sample of funded projects based on geography, the size of grant funding received and the number of targeted volunteers and beneficiaries. UKCF, ACE, Historic England, all nine involved CFs and the three Cultural Partners were interviewed.

3.2 Future evaluation synthesis

The evaluation team deemed it not necessary to conduct interviews with beneficiaries and volunteers for this evaluation. Such interviews are included within the methodologies of the two QED evaluations, placed-based evaluations, and ALB and UKCF evaluations conducted by RSM / NatCen, ERS, Forever Consulting (FC) and other evaluation partners. This means that this evaluation report does not include any qualitative insights into beneficiaries’ and volunteers’ experience of projects. This reduces burden on projects and their participants. The final evaluation report will synthesise the findings of the previously mentioned evaluations to ensure that beneficiaries’ and volunteers’ views are represented.

4. Process Evaluation Findings

4.1 Overview of data collection

This section draws on findings and insights from 14 interviews conducted in March 2023 with UKCF, CFs, Historic England and Cultural Partners, 40 interviews conducted November 2023 - January 2024, 15 of which were conducted with UKCF, ACE, the CFs, Historic England and Cultural Partners, and 25 with UKCF and ALB funded projects and one interview with DCMS staff in July 2024. These interviews focused on the process related RQs outlined in section 8.1.

4.2 Process findings

This section includes key findings and lessons learned, particularly pertaining to DCMS or future funders.

4.2.1 Set up and implementation

Selection of the Intermediary Grant Maker and Arm’s Length Bodies

Following extensive stakeholder testing, DCMS concluded the KYN Fund would be most effectively delivered through a mix of ALBs and an Intermediary Grant Maker (IGM), with the IGM focussing on place-based approaches. DCMS worked collaboratively with ALBs to identify ACE and the National Lottery Heritage Fund in partnership with Historic England as the best placed ALBs to deliver the funding stream relating to arts, culture and heritage. To select the most appropriate IGM, DCMS held an open competition. Following this competitive process, DCMS appointed UKCF as the IGM.

Selection of Cultural Partners and CFs

Key Finding: Cultural Partners were selected based on their strong alignment with the KYN Fund objectives, which worked effectively.

Following initial discussions with DCMS, ACE identified AIM, Creative Lives and Libraries Connected as suitable Cultural Partners to deliver the Fund’s objectives. ACE regularly works with the Cultural Partners and considers them to be “strategic partners” with which they have strong relationships. ACE selected the Cultural Partners based on their networks’ strong reach within target communities and their established systems to deliver similar kinds of projects. Cultural Partners said their strategic objectives strongly aligned with the objectives of the KYN Fund, in particular supporting people at risk of loneliness and building an evidence base around loneliness and social connections.

There was a really good match between KYN and one of [our organisation’s] strategic priorities which is about developing an evidence base for how our groups support social connectedness and combat feelings of loneliness. As an organisation which exists to promote and advocate for voluntary-led activity, the volunteering element was also a good match.

- Cultural Partner.

Key Finding: The selection process of CFs worked effectively and was based on strong alignment to KYN Fund objectives.

UKCF managed the process of selecting the nine CFs that would distribute funding from the KYN Fund. In their application, UKCF selected ten CFs from a pool of 12-13 eligible CFs, based on their alignment with DCMS’s Fund criteria. One of the ten proposed CFs was not included in the KYN Fund due to concerns regarding their capacity and lack of experience delivering similar programmes. Like ACE, UKCF also focused on CF’s capacity to generate lessons learned and evidence on supporting volunteering and those at risk of loneliness:

Over the next few years, we are keen to move towards more learning focused programmes… We wanted to ensure the CFs understood that a key output for the KYN Fund was learning, not just impact, so we had to assess their capacity to do that.

- UKCF.

The CFs’ interviewed said their strategic objectives were well aligned with the objectives of the KYN Fund. Some CFs said they had an existing organisational focus on addressing loneliness. Others were concentrated on increasing the availability of, and participation in, volunteering. Many CFs interviewed considered both areas to be of priority for them, showing strong strategic alignment with the KYN Fund.

Cultural Partners’ and CFs’ experience of the application and selection process of projects

Key Findings: The Cultural Partners used a variety of tailored application approaches to reach projects that support the KYN Fund’s objectives. CFs valued the opportunity to discuss applications with projects. UKCF funded projects benefited from two funding rounds which allowed them to test and improve their approaches over time to help meet KYN Fund objectives.

The Cultural Partners had predominantly positive opinions on the application and selection process. Their only major concerns were regarding the time it took to set up the fund and launch applications, which was longer than expected. This had a subsequent impact on projects’ delivery timelines.

Libraries Connected used a non-competitive grant process to ensure that all eligible library services could access the grant. They offered multi-year grants to provide certainty for library services. They also supported the library services in shaping a proposal that passed a review panel process with the twin aims of ensuring high quality projects and improving library services skills in developing and delivering successful bids.

Creative Lives used a competitive application approach with a pilot phase in five priority areas. Feedback from the pilot was used to refine the process, before opening up to all 27 priority areas. One of the key changes was to introduce an Expression of Interest (EOI) stage for larger awards.

AIM used a competitive application approach that included an EoI stage. AIM held two application rounds to allow projects to refine their applications. The EoI stages that Creative Lives and AIM used intended to narrow down applications to those most likely to achieve the Fund’s aims.

Historic England invited 13 eligible projects to apply for the funding.^{[footnote 14]} Historic England requested proposals for new activities that built on the High Street Action Zone’s existing cultural programmes and aligned with KYN Fund objectives. Historic England believed that their decision to take a focused approach by targeting existing High Street Action Zone delivery partners contributed to the success of their application process within the shorter timeframe. Historic England provided onward grants for a shorter period of time compared with other Cultural Partners, with their grants concluding in August 2024.

Creative Lives received a roughly even split of applications between arts organisations and community organisations. They found community organisations scored better in terms of demonstrating their ability to work with people who are at risk of loneliness and social isolation and arts organisations scored better in creative ideas for delivery. AIM identified and reached out to projects in priority geographical areas that did not apply for the first round of funding. AIM said this helped to encourage applications from smaller organisations and mitigated against the concern that small organisations could struggle to successfully express how their activities tackle loneliness.^{[footnote 15]}

During interviews, CFs noted that most of the projects they selected in the UKCF Test and Learn Phase were delivered by projects the CF had worked with in the past.^{[footnote 16]} CFs noted that a key contributing factor to this was that these projects were better able to demonstrate capability and capacity to deliver effectively in short timeframes in their applications. For UKCF Phase 2 funding, CFs held competitive, open calls for applications. Some CFs utilised a rolling application process. Others had a short application window. CFs often engaged in initial conversations with projects that expressed interest to ensure they had a thorough understanding of the Fund’s priority themes and delivery timelines. CFs also supported projects with any issues they experienced during their applications.

Lesson learned: Short set up and application phases reduce the ability of delivery partners to provide onward grants to a diverse range of organisations. A few Cultural Partners and CFs felt that having multiple application rounds helped them reach a variety of organisations, though this may be conflated with subsequent application rounds having greater time for setup.

Some of the Cultural Partners cited delays in launching their onward application processes. They highlighted various causes of this, including organisational capacity, finalisation of the evaluation framework and ongoing discussions on how they should structure their application phases. CFs also cited delays in launching their applications, which they attributed to the timeframe to finalise the evaluation framework.

CFs found that discussing the Fund’s aims and objectives with potential funded projects was valuable in ensuring projects had a comprehensive understanding of chronic loneliness and its framing for the KYN Fund. CFs encouraged projects to collaborate to reduce the number of applications delivering the same activities in the same area. Describing the process, one CF noted:

We held a workshop in [the local area] where we spoke about what the aims of the Fund are and to clarify their [projects’] understanding of chronic loneliness, how volunteering could be improved in the area and how people can collaborate. Also, because there are only so many volunteers in the area, organisations are often fighting for them, so from the outset we wanted groups to work together.

- CF.

CFs changed their application processes and selection criteria over time. For instance, they extended the time projects had for applications and conducted more promotional activity to raise awareness of the Fund. In the UKCF Test and Learn Phase, a few CFs found that partnership proposals worked well to achieve the Fund’s objectives and therefore preferred partnership-based applications in the second funding phase. Many CFs chose to provide onward grants in UKCF Phase 2 to projects that delivered well in the UKCF Test and Learn Phase. This allowed projects to test and refine their approaches before the longer funding phase.

Some groups really valued the opportunity to pilot or research something before going into a grant application for a longer period. It worked well for some groups.

- CF.

Most of the projects who participated in the UKCF Test and Learn Phase tested delivery approaches. These projects benefited from this experience, as it allowed them to “hit the ground running” in UKCF Phase 2. Many of the projects stated that they held some form of consultation, focus group, workshop or informal survey with their prospective participants to identify the area and community needs that could be addressed by their interventions.

Lesson learned: A short testing phase before committing to longer-term funding enables projects to demonstrate capability, gain learning insights and be well-prepared, before longer term delivery.

During interviews, CFs fed back that the KYN Fund could have benefitted from more clarity on its priority outcomes and a clearer distinction between its focus on volunteering on the one hand and (chronic) loneliness on the other hand.^{[footnote 17]} Understanding of chronic loneliness was not fully developed from the outset for projects and some Cultural Partners / CFs. DCMS recognised that the sector may benefit from discussion around the differences between loneliness, chronic loneliness and social isolation and held a ‘KYN Day’ in March 2023. This brought together all the programme, delivery, evaluation and learning partners in one place, set out the purpose of the KYN Fund and its evaluation, outlined the respective roles of RSM, NatCen and FC, and sought feedback on initial evaluation and data collection plans.

Lesson learned: Delivery partners should ensure that Fund objectives are clearly communicated to funded projects. In cases where there is one lead delivery partner who works with multiple other partners to deliver a fund, the lead delivery partner should take all steps necessary so that their partners also fully understand the objectives. Where there is a perceived lack of clarity around Fund objectives, delivery partners should seek to clarify their understanding with Funders as early as possible. 

Project experience of the application and selection process 

Most projects interviewed found that their CF’s application process was in line with their expectations. Projects that applied for UKCF’s Test and Learn Phase found UKCF Phase 2 application rounds easier to complete because they knew what to expect. Whilst projects said that the KYN application form was slightly different from typical CF application forms, most found that the additions made for the KYN Fund were not onerous.

Projects interviewed were positive about their interactions with CFs and Cultural Partners during the application process. Projects said that CFs and Cultural Partners made themselves available to answer questions and gave guidance on project design and application completion. Most UKCF funded projects that received support from their CF said that their pre-existing relationships helped facilitate this support. These projects had connections to access support, and the support could be more tailored as the CF staff had knowledge of the projects’ existing activities and expertise.

Lesson learned: CFs were able to utilise their local knowledge and connections to give support to prospective projects that were experiencing difficulties during their application.

Grant distribution

Key Findings: Early engagement between Cultural Partners enabled them to refine their onward grantmaking approach effectively. 

ACE felt their grantmaking with the Cultural Partners worked well. They partially attributed this to their ability to have early discussions with the three Cultural Partners in advance of accepting the grant from DCMS. This meant the Cultural Partners had a few months to prepare their project plans before they were awarded the grant. Once the grant was awarded, the Cultural Partners were able to start delivering the onward grant award programme with their projects rapidly Facilitating these early discussions with Cultural Partners is an approach ACE intends to replicate for future Funds. Cultural Partners agreed that this worked well.

Many CFs expressed frustrations with payment timelines. Some CFs had to disburse grants before receiving the funding, using their own reserves, whereas others delayed sending funding to their projects. The grant disbursement process involved multiple parties, with scrutiny required by each party to ensure public money was effectively managed. Therefore, CFs and projects interviewed felt the grant disbursement timelines were lengthy.

Our finance team didn’t want us releasing funding we hadn’t received yet, so we had to go through and choose the groups we thought might need paying more upfront so they could get more funding in the first tranche. We also thought some of the larger groups might be able to bankroll themselves, so we prioritised funding smaller groups. This caused a two-month delay for four or five of our groups.

- CF.

Lesson learned: Payment processes are lengthy, with multiple layers of scrutiny required from each organisation that handles the money (DCMS, UKCF and CFs) to ensure the effective management of public money. Government and delivery partners should work together to ensure adequate timelines are set out for funding to reach grantholders.

Delays in the launch of the FY 2023/24 application process impacted CFs’ grantmaking timelines and projects said that delays in the grantmaking process caused delays to their planned delivery. These delays were as a consequence of the significant time and resourcing that was required to set up a robust and complex evaluation across multiple delivery partners. As a result of the longer timelines, projects that had to postpone operations spent the extra time on project set-up and recruitment. A small number of projects were able to continue delivery of some of their activities in the interim using their own funding.

Lesson learned: Having sufficient time for grant set up enables early discussions with delivery partners, which can streamline project preparation, enabling immediate delivery upon grant award. However, capability to do this can be constrained by the need of Government to align with annual business planning cycles.

4.2.2 Delivery

This section discusses the characteristics of the KYN funded projects, and how the projects aim to address the objectives of the Fund. It also presents the experience of project delivery from the perspective of the funded projects, the CFs and Cultural Partners.

Interventions delivered by KYN Fund projects

Key Findings: Most projects interviewed are delivering activities that aim to both reduce loneliness for people at risk of or experiencing chronic loneliness and increase regular volunteering.

Most of the projects interviewed aimed to connect people to their local community through their project work. This led to funded projects offering a range of tailored activities that reduce the need of participants to spend money on socialising, particularly in areas of high deprivation. Projects interviewed also reflected on the impact of the cost-of-living crisis, which widened the pool of people seeking support. In response, projects provided varied advice and support for expenses such as clothing, energy bills, travel costs and food to participants.

Some projects interviewed tackled wider problems faced by their local community, such as consequences of COVID-19, women’s health/safety, suicide and youth disengagement. In most cases, projects focused on issues that they identified as contributing to social, physical or financial isolation.

Interviews with projects suggested that most of the interventions delivered by ALB funded projects were based on existing projects, which they expanded using the grants they received. These projects focused on creative activities (such as gardening, cooking and textiles) and educational activities (such as workshops that help develop basic English language, IT and mathematical skills). 

The UKCF funded projects interviewed delivered an even mix of new and existing interventions. Activities included hosting food banks, providing hot meals, arts and crafts, wildlife work, social work groups, homeless hostels, employment / domestic skill development, mathematics / English classes, health and wellbeing services, networking and training. Some projects also signposted participants to other services within their organisation to ensure individuals have access to appropriate support.

Interviews with CFs indicated that the local areas targeted by the KYN Fund are well suited to the KYN Fund objectives. Most CFs said that their areas have low levels of infrastructure, were typically underfunded and have a high proportion of people at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness. Projects interviewed also expressed that their activities had strong alignment with the KYN Fund objectives.

Projects that received multi-year funding expressed that this added security to their work. These projects said that they expect that this will help them deliver longer-term activities that are better suited to alleviating chronic loneliness and increasing sustained volunteering.

This is the first time in about ten years that I have not had a redundancy notice in December. It does not mean I’m always worried about not having a job in January. It just means that within the voluntary sector, there is not that consistency and that can be quite difficult.

- Project.

Lessons learned: Increasing sustained volunteering and reducing chronic loneliness complement each other as target outcome areas when designing and delivering interventions. The KYN Fund objectives aligned well with the needs of the areas eligible for the KYN Fund.

Who are the projects targeting and reaching?

Key Findings: Most projects interviewed targeted their activities at specific demographics of people from their local area, in particular people at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness. Projects interviewed said they were generally successful in reaching their intended audience.^{[footnote 18]} Projects had a mixed understanding of social isolation, loneliness and chronic loneliness. 

A few projects interviewed chose to not target their activities at specific demographics, allowing them to be accessed by all members of their community, utilising a demand led approach. However, most projects clearly defined the demographics they were targeting with their activities. Many projects interviewed defined their audience using gender, sexuality, age, ethnicity, employment status and disability. Where these projects had a clearly defined target audience, if someone who did not fall into their target audience tried to access their activities, projects would often refer those people to other local organisations for support. For example, one project said:

We only work with over 18s. One of the projects that received [KYN] funding work with young people so that’s no problem. If we get anyone under 18, we are more than happy to refer on those young people.

- Project.

Lesson learned: Focussing funding in distinct geographic areas can allow funded organisations to refer beneficiaries to each other.

Most projects interviewed targeted people at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness, and were able to strongly articulate what chronic loneliness means. A few projects interviewed were either unsure how to define chronic loneliness or were unclear on how it differed from social isolation. Projects highlighted in interviews that anyone could experience chronic loneliness. Illustrating the differences between social isolation, loneliness, and chronic loneliness, one project explained:

Loneliness [is] when you have that feeling, that psychological kind of feeling, of being alone. Opposed to being isolated where you are physically alone. Some people who are struggling with loneliness can be in a room full of people and still not feel that connection. You can be isolated and lonely, or lonely, or just isolated and not feel alone. Whereas that chronic loneliness usually means it has gone on for a long period of time.

- Project.

Many projects interviewed found that the people who accessed their activities and volunteering opportunities were their intended audience. Projects highlighted numerous factors that contributed to this, including:

• Projects’ knowledge of the local area: Projects interviewed demonstrated a high level of understanding of the local area in which they are based. This local approach allowed them to target their activities at the people in the local area. For example, projects based in areas with large communities of refugees and asylum seekers would target these communities with their activities.

• Communities’ knowledge of the projects: Projects interviewed highlighted that their organisations were often well known within their local communities. As a result, their local community was aware of what services they offered and who these services were aimed at.

A few projects interviewed found that the demographic of participants they recruited differed from the demographic they initially intended to target. In some instances, projects were willing to recruit people who did not fall into their target demographic. These projects said that this allowed them to promote positive outcomes in a wider demographic than they originally intended.

Recruitment techniques used by projects

Key Findings: Referrals from other organisations such as GPs and social prescribers was one of the more prominent recruitment techniques projects used. Projects interviewed said these referrals were effective in identifying, reaching and recruiting people at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness.

Projects interviewed reported using multiple techniques to ensure they reached as many people in their target audience as possible. These techniques included using launch events, advertising in newsletters / mail lists, word of mouth, social media and ‘door knocking’.

Some projects interviewed said they structured their activities so that people would join as a beneficiary, engage in activities, and then progress into a volunteering role. Others found that beneficiaries were appreciative of the services they received and wanted to ‘give back’ to people in similar situations as themselves by becoming a volunteer.

The most common recruitment technique projects interviewed reported using was referrals from other organisations. Projects used their existing networks to gain referrals from GPs, social prescribers and local VCSEs. Projects interviewed said referral routes were an important method of recruiting people at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness, as they are often in regular contact with GPs and social prescribers. Projects explained that people who are chronically lonely can be hard to reach using other recruitment techniques and stressed that GPs, in particular, are well placed to identify chronic loneliness.

Those people who are struggling with loneliness, they are not going to go out to seek activities. It usually has to be organisations seeing a red flag and then going to them.

- Project.

A few projects interviewed offered services such as food banks, food parcels and community dinners. They said that they were an effective way to identify and recruit people at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness.

The good thing about the hot meals is because there are no referrals, no questions asked, anyone can come. We sometimes find we do manage to reach those really isolated people who do not fit into the other boxes; do not qualify for a referral, do not want to socialise.

-Project.

Interventions that focused on volunteering used a range of methods to target new volunteers including outsourcing recruitment through volunteering networks. These networks brought in new volunteers and engaged with existing volunteers. A few projects interviewed reported successfully relying on word of mouth and drop-in centres as their primary recruitment approach, while others relied on their own staff, including volunteer coordinators and community engagement workers to recruit volunteers. Some projects had to first recruit a volunteer coordinator, causing delays in onboarding volunteers.

Projects interviewed acknowledged a number of barriers which affected their ability to recruit volunteers. Most barriers were specific to individual projects, such as getting Disclosure and Barring Service checks, changing IT systems and lacking reputation in the local area. Some barriers were reported by multiple projects. The aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic was one of these barriers. Projects interviewed said that the pandemic made certain demographics, in particular older people, reluctant to engage in social activities.

A few projects highlighted that the quality or availability of transport links made it difficult for some volunteers and beneficiaries to travel to activities. This barrier was compounded by factors such as the rurality of areas, and volunteers and beneficiaries’ limited understanding of public transport systems. This particularly affected groups such as refugees and asylum seekers.

Facilitators and barriers to delivery

Key Findings: The most common delivery facilitators reported in interviews were collaboration with other local organisations and internal staff expertise.

Whilst few projects interviewed were involved in formal partnership bids for the KYN Fund, most projects collaborated with other organisations within their local area. Most of this collaboration was with other VCSE organisations, though some projects collaborated with schools, colleges and local authorities. A few projects said they collaborated with organisations they had not worked with before, but most collaborated with those they had worked with before.

Projects interviewed cited many benefits of their collaboration, with the main benefit being referrals. A few projects also cited knowledge and skills sharing which allowed them to offer activities they could not offer alone. Projects were able to discuss common barriers and issues they faced, which allowed them to tailor their offering to be more reflective of the needs of their community.

Projects interviewed said that a strong volunteer coordinator was a facilitator to their delivery. This was because a qualified individual overseeing volunteer experience and wellbeing, facilitated the recruitment and retention of volunteers. The design of some projects, who approached beneficiaries to become volunteers, was a facilitator for good quality volunteers. Participation in project activities familiarised volunteers with the organisation and helped make them feel comfortable.

Projects interviewed recruited some staff that were representative of their local community in terms of their demographic and lived experience. This included members of staff that speak multiple languages, who could assist with translation and communication.

A few projects said that delivery to certain cohorts proved more difficult than others, and this required adaptation to delivery in some cases. For instance, projects reduced the length of some activities for older people to make it easier for them to participate, as some of the beneficiaries struggled to physically engage with the original activity length. Another barrier was access to good quality internet for beneficiaries which meant some projects had to redesign their delivery approach, for example:

We’ve had to revise the plan for that, it wasn’t in the application, just our plan. We’ve booked a more central location which is in the actual town centre and we’ve got a programme of events in one venue. It’s a slightly different model to what we’ve planned…to me it [internet] is like a utility now really, it didn’t even to be honest cross my mind that [beneficiaries] wouldn’t have it.

- Project.

A minority of projects interviewed noted that not having their own physical space, or not enough space, was a barrier to delivery. For one project, this caused difficulties in scheduling year-round delivery as they have to hire out-sourced spaces.

Lesson learned: Funders should actively promote or encourage partners to take actions that facilitate collaboration among funded projects. This would provide an opportunity for projects to share learnings about delivery and the evaluation process.

CFs and Cultural Partners’ experience of grant monitoring

Key Findings: Some CFs and Cultural Partners interviewed found that monitoring and reporting requirements for the KYN Fund were more substantial than they are accustomed to. This was due to both the relatively large size of the grants (compared to other grants CFs and Cultural Partners have provided) and the focus of the Fund on learning and evidence building. Nonetheless, projects reported feeling sufficiently supported by their CF or Cultural Partner.

CFs reported that the monitoring and reporting requirements led the CFs to take a more stringent approach to grant management than usual. A few CFs and Cultural Partners noted that grantmaking of this scale was larger than the grantmaking they were accustomed to, both in terms of grant size and fund length. This required more frequent check-ins with projects, but they did not view this as a challenge. To support projects, a few CFs facilitated face-to-face workshops as an opportunity to share lessons learned on delivery and the grant monitoring process. One Cultural Partner assigned each project a mentor with skills and knowledge aligned with the projects’ objectives. These mentors provide advice, serve as a sounding board and signpost to other sources of support.

Most of the Cultural Partners expressed that ACE was highly supportive with their monitoring requirements and often helped to streamline the process for them. Some Cultural Partners and CFs felt the monitoring requirements were too high. Cultural Partners and CFs felt that there was insufficient clarity about the monitoring requirements in the early stages of delivery. This resulted in their funded projects being unable to integrate monitoring approaches into their delivery from the outset. As delivery progressed, CFs and Cultural Partners found it easier to manage and navigate monitoring requirements. 

It has been complex to get off the ground. Some monitoring we weren’t aware of when the process started so we have had to collect this retrospectively, which is always going to be tricky.

- Cultural Partner.

Most projects interviewed found that monitoring requirements and frequency were clear and appropriate. Whilst a few projects interviewed cited issues with frequency of monitoring and understanding requirements, these projects generally found that their experience with monitoring improved over time.

There’s the 3-monthly reporting that we do to the CF which is fairly standard… that’s absolutely fine.

- Project.

Most projects interviewed were positive about their interactions with CFs and Cultural Partners. Those that had interactions with their CF or Cultural Partner expressed that they were helpful and responsive. Most projects said that during delivery they had minimal contact with their CF or Cultural Partner as they did not need much support.

CFs and Cultural Partners’ experience of evaluation requirements

Key Findings: Cultural Partners expressed mixed experiences with the evaluation during interviews; some found evaluation clear and appropriate, whereas others felt it may confuse projects. This highlights the challenges in designing and implementing an evaluation of the complexity and scale required for the KYN Fund. 

Half of the Cultural Partners found the evaluation approach clear and understood its purpose. They appreciated the regular communication from the evaluation partners. One of the Cultural Partners believed their strong buy-in for the evaluation approach from the outset resulted in their projects’ having a clear understanding of its importance and subsequent buy-in. 

We are really pleased to be part of a programme which is being so extensively evaluated and that has got DCMS and ACE so involved. Everyone has worked through in detail what it will look like and there will be some valuable results.

- Cultural Partner.

However, other Cultural Partners interviewed disagreed and found the approach excessive and confusing for projects to navigate.

Numerous CFs and Cultural Partners cited confusion regarding the multiple evaluation partners involved at various levels of the Fund’s evaluation. This confusion meant they were unsure what data and information needed to be sent to whom, and how to explain this to the projects. The purpose of these different levels of evaluation was not clearly communicated, leading to a perceived “clunky” process that could have been more efficient.

It was set out in the application guidance for the IGM that the IGM should set out plans to ensure grantees are incentivised to conduct experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations. DCMS worked with UKCF to design an evaluation framework to deliver QED evaluations. Given the expense of this type of evaluation, it was not possible to fund local evaluations for all nine areas, however, through a competitive process three CFs are undertaking local research.

UKCF and some CFs highlighted in interviews that there was a missed opportunity for co-design of evaluation approaches with CFs and projects, which they perceived to be one of the benefits of a place-based approach. Co- development was implemented into some aspects of the evaluations, such as the ToC design. ToC development workshops were held in February 2023, with stakeholders from DCMS, UKCF, CFs, Historic England, ACE and Cultural Partners

During interviews, UKCF and several CFs conveyed disappointment regarding the absence of local evaluators in the final evaluation approach. CFs highlighted that a key reason for their interest in the Fund was the strong learning element. Many were particularly interested in the prospect of receiving designated funding for a local evaluator. Without the local level evaluators, UKCF and CFs said that the evaluation became increasingly centralised and expressed concern that this would lead to evidence and lessons learned being lost at a project and local level. Conversely, there were also concerns that the inclusion of local level evaluations would cause duplication of activity and potentially dilute the robustness of evaluation learnings.

Projects’ experience of evaluation 

Key Findings: Projects interviewed reported mixed experiences with evaluation requirements. In particular, projects interviewed reported difficulties with administering the survey.

A few projects interviewed were appreciative that the evaluation requirements were clear from the outset as this allowed them to set aside appropriate time and budget to fully engage in the evaluation. A few projects interviewed also had positive experiences with the survey. Those who said this stressed that the online link was easy to use, and that beneficiaries and volunteers were willing to complete the survey once its purpose was explained to them. 

However, the majority of projects interviewed had mixed or negative experiences with the survey. Their reasons are listed below.

Burden of using the paper-based survey: digital exclusion was acknowledged as a potential barrier to survey completion. To mitigate against this, the evaluation partners developed a paper-based version of the survey and issued guidance on its use, which projects interviewed felt was successful. Use of the paper-based survey was higher than expected. From November-December 2023, projects were asked to estimate the percentage of their surveys that were completed using the paper-based format. Of 57 projects, around half (50.9%) said over half of their respondents used the paper-based format. Whilst projects interviewed highlighted that using a paper-based version of the survey was effective in gathering responses from digitally excluded people, they also highlighted this had an administrative burden.

We have to keep putting these [surveys] in and we have no admin people. So, I’m going to have to take people off doing their work to start putting all this lot in

- Project.

DCMS has been working with partners to explore approaches to support projects to administer the survey. 

Time taken to complete the survey: a few projects said that there were too many questions in the survey, which intimidated recipients and led to long completion times. Some people struggled to understand the survey, which further increased the time taken to complete it. For instance, this affected people with learning disabilities or those for whom English is a second language.^{[footnote 19]} To aid accessibility, evaluation partners developed an Easy Read version of the survey.

Some of our people are taking an hour to go through [the survey].^{[footnote 20]}

- Project.

Delays in providing the survey: some projects started delivery before the survey link was available. When the link was made available, projects were asked to get volunteers and beneficiaries to complete the survey as if they were answering it at the start of their activities. Projects said this was a difficult concept to explain to their volunteers and beneficiaries.

A few projects also said that they were able to pursue their own evaluation activities, such as case studies and narrative stories, which they could use for their own means, and which complement the Fund level evaluation.

4.3 Summary

The selection of Cultural Partners and CFs was effective and led to strong alignment of delivery partners and subsequent projects with KYN Fund objectives. Projects interviewed generally had positive experiences with the application process. The application process could have been more effective if the Theory of Change and priority metrics were established prior to project launch to minimise delays in grantmaking timelines. However, this is not always possible given the constraints of Government annual business planning cycles.

ACE generally had positive experiences with the grant distribution process, attributing this to early discussions with Cultural Partners before they accepted the grant. This allowed for immediate project delivery without needing extra planning time. CFs reported a more negative experience with grant distribution, citing lengthy timelines for receiving funding, which meant some CFs had to use their own reserves or pass on lengthy payment timelines to projects, causing gaps in funding and delivery. The payment processes were lengthy given that multiple layers of scrutiny from organisations handling money (DCMS, UKCF and CFs) are required to ensure the effective management of public money.

Many projects used referrals from other organisations, including GPs and social prescribers, to recruit beneficiaries and volunteers. Consequently, projects viewed collaboration and their local relationships as key facilitators to delivery.

Cultural Partners, CFs and projects had mixed and sometimes conflicting opinions on monitoring requirements. Some found that monitoring requirements were in line with expectations, but others found that they were excessive, too frequent, and were unclear at the outset. They similarly had mixed opinions on evaluation requirements. Many valued the focus on learning from the Fund, while others expressed disappointment in the lack of local evaluations. Given the expense required to implement robust evaluation methods, it was not possible to fund local evaluations for all nine areas, however, through a competitive process three CFs are undertaking local evaluations. This approach was taken to maximise the consistency and robustness of evidence needed to answer the Fund aims, whilst also reducing duplication in evaluation activity.

5. Baseline Impact Findings

5.1 Overview of data collection

This section draws on baseline survey responses from n=1,853 respondents from UKCF funded projects to provide a descriptive overview of the initial profile of beneficiaries and volunteers. In addition to survey data, this section presents emerging interview findings relating to outcomes. 

DCMS set out ten groups that were viewed as most at risk of chronic loneliness (see Annex B, 8.2.3). The baseline survey only captures data on three of the groups. Therefore, this section does not assess the extent to which these ten groups were reached. Instead, this section explores reported levels of loneliness from the baseline survey.

5.2 Baseline survey findings

5.2.1 Demographic characteristics of the sample

The baseline survey was completed by a portion (18.5%, n=1,853)^{[footnote 21]} of potential respondents up to January 2024, and it collected the basic demographic information described below. This has provided a snapshot profile of the beneficiaries and volunteers UKCF funded projects reached up to the end of January 2024. The full data tables for this initial profile of beneficiaries and volunteers are available in Annex C. A more comprehensive picture of the demographic characteristics of the sample will be available within the final evaluation report.

Age: Respondents were distributed across all age brackets. Most (90% of n=1,844) were between 16 and 74 years of age, and the two most represented age brackets were 55-64 and 35-44 (respectively 18% and 17% of respondents). Almost three respondents out of ten (28%) were between the ages of 16 and 34, a slightly higher proportion than the general population estimate for England (24%).^{[footnote 22]}

Disability: Approximately half of the respondents (51% of n=1,834) reported having a mental or physical health condition or illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or more. This is a higher proportion than the 18% observed in the general population in England.^{[footnote 23]} Of those who reported a mental or physical condition, more than eight out of ten (82% of n=914) described their condition as limiting their everyday life either a little (49%, or 24% of all 1,853 respondents) or a lot (34%, or 17% of all 1,853 respondents).^{[footnote 24]} Respondents were also asked if their health conditions and illnesses affected them in a variety of areas (such as dexterity, hearing, memory, mental health, mobility, and vision). More than a quarter of respondents (26% of all 1,853 respondents) reported mental health conditions, two out of ten (20%) reported mobility issues, and 15% reported issues with learning, understanding and concentrating.

Ethnicity: Seven respondents out of ten (72% of n=1,822) described themselves as White British, and the next largest ethnic group (10%) was represented by Asian and Asian British respondents. People from other ethnic groups also took part in the survey: White Irish and other White ethnic backgrounds (5%), Black and Black British (4%), mixed ethnic backgrounds (2%), and other ethnic backgrounds (5%).

Sex at birth and gender identity^{[footnote 25]}: Respondents were asked about the sex they were assigned at birth and then if this corresponded to their gender identity. Almost two-thirds of respondents (63% of n=1,843) reported being female against approximately a third (37%) male. Most respondents (97% of n=1,830) reported that their gender was the same as their sex assigned at birth. A small proportion of respondents preferred not to respond to the question on gender identity (2%). 

5.2.2 Volunteering

The main aims of the Fund with regard to volunteering are:

• To increase the number of volunteering opportunities in the 27 targeted disadvantaged areas in England;

• To increase the proportion of people who regularly volunteer in the 27 targeted disadvantaged areas in England; and

• To increase the evidence to identify scalable and/or sustainable place-based interventions that increase regular volunteering and reduce chronic loneliness (only for UKCF funded projects).

Part of the survey, therefore, focused on the experience of volunteers, who constituted more than half (56% of n=1,853) of the respondents. Half (51% of n=1,036) of the volunteers who participated in the survey were volunteering for the first time ever, and two out of ten (19%) of the volunteers were returning to volunteering after one or more years. Of those who had previous experiences with volunteering outside of the KYN Fund (n=500), almost four out of ten (37%) had already volunteered at least once in the month before the completion of the survey, two out of ten (18%) had volunteered at least once in the year before, 10% had volunteered between one and two years before completing the survey, and almost three out of ten (29%) respondents had volunteered at least once over two years before the survey (Figure 3).

Figure 3 – When was the respondents’ last experience of volunteering, before KYN.

In the past month	37%
Less than a year ago	18%
1-2 years ago	10%
More than 2 years ago	29%
Cannot remember or not sure	6%

Volunteers were also asked about their volunteering intentions regarding the duration and frequency of their volunteering experience. Given the preliminary nature of the baseline findings, it is not possible to draw any conclusion from the intentions expressed by the beneficiaries. However, at the time of the completion of the survey, more than two thirds (68% of n=1,033) of volunteers already had an idea of the desired duration of their volunteering experience (their intention ranged from more than six months [47%] to 3-6 months [11%], 1-2 months [5%], and less than a month [6%]), while nearly a third (32%) of volunteers did not know or were not sure how long they would volunteer. 

Regarding the frequency, at the time of completion of the survey, almost eight out of ten (77% of n=1,034) volunteers already had an idea of how frequently they wanted to volunteer (their intention ranged from twice a week or more [30%], to once a week [35%], to once a fortnight [5%], to less than every two months or ad hoc [1%]), while 12% of volunteers said that the frequency may vary over time, and 11% reported not knowing or being unsure.  Three quarters (75%) of volunteers would fall into the category of regular volunteer as defined by the ToC (i.e., volunteering at least once a month), if they volunteered as much as they intended to at the time of completing the survey.^{[footnote 26]}

5.2.3 Loneliness

With regard to loneliness the KYN Fund intends to: 

• Increase the number of opportunities for chronically lonely people in high deprivation areas to build social connections; and

• Increase the level of social connection for people at risk of or experiencing chronic loneliness.

The survey used the ONS Loneliness measures to assess how often the respondents experience feelings (directly and indirectly) linked to loneliness and being lonely. Further details on the ONS measures for loneliness are described in section 8.1

15% (of n=1,853) of volunteers and beneficiaries who took part in the survey reported feeling lonely often or always. This response to the question “How often do you feel lonely?” is used by government and the sector to define who is experiencing chronic loneliness (Figure 4). This finding would suggest that a larger proportion of the population involved in the funded projects experiences chronic loneliness compared to the general population, whose prevalence of chronic loneliness in 2023/24 was around 7% (of n= 170,255).^{[footnote 27][footnote 28]} Additionally, more than three respondents out of ten (31%) described feeling lonely some of the time in comparison to less than two out of ten (19%) adults in England.

Figure 4 – How frequently participants felt lonely (compared to data from the CLS 2023/24).

How often do you feel lonely?	KYN Fund baseline survey	CLS 2023/24
Never	13%	20%
Hardly ever	17%	30%
Occasionally	20%	24%
Some of the time	31%	19%
Often/Always	15%	7%

Nearly two out of ten respondents (19% of n=1,846) reported often lacking companionship. 17% (of n=1,833) of respondents reported feeling often left out and 18% (of n=1,831) reported feeling often isolated from others. The responses to these three questions on loneliness can be combined into a total score to give an overarching picture of how respondents generally scored in relation to their perception of being lonely.^{[footnote 29],[footnote 30]} 16% (of n= 1,648)^{[footnote 31]} of respondents reached a score of 8 or 9 (more frequent loneliness), compared to 10% (of n=159,897) of the general population who received a similar score (Figure 5).^{[footnote 32][footnote 33]} 

Figure 5 – Participants’ combined loneliness scores (compared to data from the CLS 2023/24).

Combined loneliness scores	KYN Fund baseline survey	CLS 2023/24
3 or 4 (less frequent loneliness)	36%	56%
5, 6 or 7	47%	34%
8 or 9 (more frequent loneliness)	16%	10%

5.2.4 Wellbeing

Beyond the main aims to increase regular volunteering and reduce chronic loneliness, the Fund is also interested in exploring its impact on secondary outcomes such as improving people’s wellbeing. The measures used to assess respondents’ wellbeing are those recommended by the ONS to measure personal wellbeing (also known as ONS4^{[footnote 34]}), and they have the purpose of measuring people’s wellbeing through four dimensions: life satisfaction, feeling things done in life are worthwhile, happiness the previous day, and feeling anxious the previous day.^{[footnote 35][footnote 36]} 

• Life satisfaction: More than half of respondents (55% of n=1,844) rated high or very high satisfaction with their lives. Almost two respondents out of ten (18%) reported their satisfaction as low: compared to the national average of 6% (of n=10,126).^{[footnote 37][footnote 38]}

• Feeling things done in life are worthwhile: Nearly six out of ten respondents (59% of n=1,819) reported a high or very high score when asked whether they felt that things done in their lives are worthwhile. Conversely, 16% of respondents rated as low in their feeling that the things they do in their lives are worthwhile, compared to an average of 4% (of n=10,126) at the national level.^{[footnote 39][footnote 40]}

• Happiness: When asked how happy they felt the day before completing the survey, more than half (55% of n=1,825) of respondents selected a high or very high score, while more than two out of ten (21%) reported a low score. Comparatively, 9% (of n=10,126) of UK adults rated their happiness the day before as low.^{[footnote 41][footnote 42]}

• Feeling anxious: Respondents were also asked how anxious they felt the day before completing the survey, and approximately four out of ten (41% of n=1,828) reported low or very low scores, while more than a third (35%) of respondents rated their anxiety the previous day as high: compared to the national average of 23.5% (of n=10,126).^{[footnote 43][footnote 44]} 

5.2.5 Pride in local area

The Fund also aims to increase social cohesion and pride in local area of beneficiaries and volunteers. For this purpose, the survey questionnaire incorporated three questions from the Community Life Survey (CLS).^{[footnote 45]}

Respondents were asked how strongly they felt they belonged to their immediate neighbourhood. More than half of the respondents (55% of n=1,833) felt they strongly belong to their immediate neighbourhood. This is made up of 38% of respondents who said they fairly strongly feel they belong to their immediate neighbourhood, and 17% who very strongly feel they belong. The Community Life Survey reported that at the national level, 61% (of n=169,644) of respondents felt they strongly belong to their immediate neighbourhood.^{[footnote 46][footnote 47]}

When asked if the people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood, the proportion of respondents who agree (50% of n=1,830, made up of respondents who tend to agree [36%] and who definitely agree [14%]) is also lower than the national proportion of people who agree (56% of n=165,841) with the same question asked for the Community Life Survey for 2023/24.^{[footnote 48][footnote 49]} 

Respondents were also asked how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with their local area as a place to live. Once more, the proportion of those who were satisfied with their area (63% of n=1,826) was lower than the proportion (74% of n=176,766) of those who provided the same answer in the context of the Community Life Survey for 2023/24.^{[footnote 50][footnote 51]} The group of those who said they were satisfied with their local area as a place to live comprises 37% (of n=1,826) of respondents who said they were fairly satisfied and 26% (of n=1,826) who said they were strongly satisfied. 

5.2.6 Skills and confidence

Enabling volunteers and beneficiaries to improve their skills and confidence through their participation in the funded projects is a further secondary outcome whose impact the Fund is interested in exploring. The evaluation team created Fund-specific questions to explore the dimensions of skills and confidence that are relevant for the Fund and how these skills change over time. There are no validated, existing questions that the evaluation could use for this purpose.

Skills

The baseline survey asks respondents what skills they expect to use during their experience with the project. They are presented with a list of skills linked to different areas (e.g., communication, problem-solving, creativity, etc.), which they can select if they expect to use those skills. 

Around two thirds (65%) of respondents (n=1,853) think that they will use their communication skills, nearly six out of ten (59%) anticipate they will use team-working skills or other skills essential to working with others, more than four out of ten think they will use creative skills and problem-solving skills (respectively 45% and 41%). Leadership skills and the residual category “Other” were respectively selected by 23% and 9% of the respondents. 

Confidence

The survey included questions on ability to work and communicate with others, ability to deal with problems, ability to use creativity and ability to take on responsibilities. For each of these dimensions, respondents were asked to rate their confidence from 0 (not at all) to 10 (completely). 

More than two respondents out of ten (22% of n=1,840) felt completely confident in their ability to work with other people and more than half rated their confidence in this area 8 or higher. When asked how confident they felt with their ability to deal with problems, 12% (of n=1,824) of respondents reported feeling completely confident and more than half respondents rated their confidence in this area 7 or higher. Nearly two respondents out of ten (19% of n=1,820) reported feeling completely confident in their ability to communicate with others, and at least 50% of the respondents rated their confidence in this ability 8 or higher. Regarding their ability to use creativity in their everyday life, approximately 15% (of n=1,818) of respondents reported feeling completely confident and half of all respondents rated their confidence 7 or higher. Lastly, nearly a quarter (23% of n=1,829) of all respondents said they felt completely confident in their ability to take on responsibility in their daily life, and more than half of the respondents rated their confidence 8 or higher.

5.2.7 Interview findings

A few projects interviewed reported outcomes for their organisations, the most common of which was capacity building through new staff, extra staff hours and staff training. The volunteers that projects recruited through the scheme also helped increase capacity, as these volunteers were able to work with beneficiaries directly. Some projects interviewed also reported increased financial security and sustainability. The length of the funding allowed some smaller projects to plan longer term and reduced the need to find short-term funding. Moreover, a few projects said that the funding has increased their profile in their local area. This helped them in activities such as collaboration with local organisations, which links to the Fund objective of promoting sustainable systems. 

A few projects interviewed indicated that they were beginning to see outcomes relating to loneliness and volunteering. However, most projects were in the early phases of delivery and unable to comment on beneficiary and volunteer outcomes yet. Outcomes will be explored more comprehensively within the final report.

5.3 Summary

The findings presented in the impact section are preliminary and based on a limited number of completed surveys. Nevertheless, as of 29 January 2024, most of those who responded to the baseline survey were between 16 and 74 years old (91% of n=1,844) – with the highest representation in the 55-64 (18%) and 35-44 (17%) age brackets. Of those who responded, half (51% of n=1,834) reported having a mental or physical health condition and four out of ten (41% of n=1,853) had a disability, which is a higher proportion compared to prevalence recorded in the general population of England (18%).^{[footnote 52]} The most common ethnic group was white British (72% of n=1,822), and more than half of the respondents were women (63% of n=1,843). 

From the demographic data collected in January 2024, it seems that UKCF funded projects are reaching some of the population groups identified as more at risk of chronic loneliness: people with at least one disability as illustrated in the paragraph above, people reporting experiencing mental health issues (31% in the age bracket 16-64, n=1,441, compared to 23% of the general population in the same age bracket, n=5,327^{[footnote 53]}), and people in the age bracket 16-34 (28% of n=1,844 compared to the population estimate for England of 24%).^{[footnote 54]} 

More than half of the respondents (56% of n=1,853) were volunteers. Half (51% of n=1,045) of these, in turn, were new to volunteering, and four out of ten (39% of n=500) of those with previous experiences of volunteering were returning to volunteering in the context of the KYN Fund after at least a year since their last experience. This matches with one of the main aims of the KYN Fund of attracting new volunteers and of encouraging more regular volunteering. Among all volunteers almost six out of ten (58% of n=1,033) planned to volunteer for at least three months. At present, two-thirds (65% of n=1,034) intended to volunteer weekly, either once or twice a week with one of the UKCF granted projects.

As of January 2024, it appears that UKCF funded projects are targeting people who more frequently experience loneliness, which is in line with the expectations of the KYN Fund. For example, 15% (of n=1,853) of respondents reported feeling lonely often or always, a response usually associated with chronic loneliness, suggesting a higher prevalence than the general population (7% of n= 170,255).^{[footnote 55]} Similarly, 16% (of n=1,648) of respondents scored 8 or 9 in the indirect loneliness composite measure, which represents those people who feel lonely most often, compared to a national prevalence of 10% (of n=159,897).^{[footnote 56]}

More than half (55% of n=1,844) of respondents rated high or very high in relation to their satisfaction with their lives. However, when compared to national averages, data suggests that respondents might have lower life satisfaction and happiness. Respondents also reported levels of anxiety that compared to the national average might suggest higher levels among respondents. When considering an individual’s sense of belonging and pride in local area, the survey found that more than half of respondents felt strongly that they belong to their immediate neighbourhood (55% of n=1,833) and satisfied with their local area (63% of n=1,826). However, when comparing with national averages, data suggests that respondents might have a lower sense of belonging to their neighbourhood and satisfaction with their local area. 

The analysis of the baseline survey available up to January 2024 data seems to suggest that – as intended – the Fund is reaching individuals experiencing loneliness and those new to volunteering. However, it is too early to say what impact the projects are having or are likely to have. This will be the focus of the final evaluation report.

6. Conclusions

6.1 Interim findings and lessons learned

The section outlines the KYN Fund objectives and the findings gathered against these objectives at this interim stage. Where relevant, these findings are then followed by relevant lessons learned that pertain to the associated KYN Fund objective. 

6.1.1 To increase the proportion of people in targeted high-deprivation local authorities who volunteer at least once a month.

More than half of the baseline survey respondents up to January 2024 (65%) were taking part in KYN funded projects as volunteers. Half of the volunteer respondents (51%) were new to volunteering and two out of ten (19%) had returned to volunteering in the context of KYN after one or more years since their last experience. Among all volunteers almost six out of ten (58%) planned to volunteer for at least three months. As of January 2024, two-thirds (65% of n=1,034) intended to volunteer weekly, either once or twice a week with one of the UKCF funded projects. This aligns with one of the main aims of the KYN Fund of attracting new volunteers and of encouraging more regular volunteering. However, this cannot be fully assessed until the final report, where this will be explored further, using findings from the endline surveys. The endline surveys can be used to assess whether the frequency of intention to volunteer was realised.

6.1.2 To reduce the proportion of chronically lonely people in targeted high-deprivation local authorities who lack desired level of social connections.

As of January 2024, the baseline outcomes data appears to show that UKCF funded projects are reaching people who more frequently experience loneliness, in line with the KYN Fund objectives. For example, 15% (of n=1,853) of respondents reported feeling lonely often or always, a response usually associated with chronic loneliness, suggesting a higher prevalence than the general population (7%).^{[footnote 57]}

Lesson learned: Increasing sustained volunteering and reducing chronic loneliness complement each other as target outcome areas when designing and delivering interventions.

6.1.3 To build the evidence to identify scalable and sustainable place-based interventions that work in increasing regular volunteering and reducing chronic loneliness.

At this interim reporting stage, there has been limited evidence collected relating to this KYN Fund objective. This will be explored more comprehensively in the final evaluation report, with the benefit of further qualitative interviews and findings from midpoint and endline surveys.

Emerging lesson learned: Designing a robust evaluation approach that works for a complex fund such as KYN is challenging. To lay the foundations for a purposeful evaluation, it is important that DCMS and other funders involve as many of the relevant design and delivery stakeholders as possible in the development of Theories of Change. Theory of Change development should take place at the earliest feasible point.

6.1.4 To enable targeted high-deprivation local authorities, and the local voluntary and community sector in these places, to implement sustainable systems and processes that encourage volunteering and tackling loneliness.

Projects delivered a variety of activities tailored to the specific needs of their local areas. Most projects effectively recruited volunteers and beneficiaries from their target audience. Projects used various methods of recruitment, with the most prevalent being referral routes. Projects noted that this approach was particularly effective in recruiting individuals experiencing or at risk of chronic loneliness, as referrers such as GPs and social prescribers had regular contact with these people and were trained to identify signs of chronic loneliness.

As referral routes were a key facilitator to recruitment, collaboration emerged as an important factor to delivery. Projects primarily collaborated with organisations they had pre-existing relationships with. Whilst some projects did collaborate with other KYN funded projects; such collaborations were limited. Staff expertise was commonly cited as a facilitator to effective delivery. Roles of particular added value included delivery facilitators and volunteer coordinators. However, a few projects noted difficulties in recruiting for these roles.

Lesson learned: DCMS should actively prompt or encourage partners to take actions that facilitate collaboration among projects that have been provided grants. This could help promote sustainable systems and processes that encourage volunteering and tackling loneliness.

6.1.5 Other lessons learned

• Having sufficient time for grant set up enables early discussions with delivery partners, which can streamline project preparation, enabling immediate delivery upon grant award. However, capability to do this can be constrained by the need of the government to align with annual business planning cycles. 

• Short set up and application phases reduce the ability of delivery partners to provide onward grants to a diverse range of organisations. Some Cultural Partners and CFs felt that having longer application and set up phases makes it easier for delivery partners to extend their reach to a wider variety of projects.

• Utilising a short testing phase before committing to longer-term funding can enable projects to demonstrate capability, gain learning insights and be well-prepared before longer term delivery.

• Whilst support was accessible to all KYN Fund applicants from the respective delivery partners, projects found support particularly easy to access when they had a pre-existing relationship with their delivery partner.

• The KYN Fund objectives aligned well with the needs of the areas eligible for the KYN Fund.

6.2 Interim recommendations

The following recommendations are aimed at the Fund going forward, and any future interventions of a similar nature or focus.

6.2.1 Recommendations for the KYN Fund going forward

Recommendation 1

Action: CFs and Cultural Partners should ensure that they have facilitated introductions between their projects. Projects operating in the same area should have introductions facilitated, regardless of funder.

Why it is important: Projects said that they benefit from collaboration with other KYN funded projects. Introductions and events facilitated by CFs and Cultural Partners could better facilitate this collaboration, allowing for effective and timely sharing of lessons learned. The format of collaboration can be flexible, from information sharing to webinars or other joint events. This type of collaboration could help promote the KYN Fund objective of building sustainable systems and processes that encourage volunteering and tackle loneliness.

6.2.2 Recommendations for future similar interventions

Recommendation 2

Action: When delivering interventions in-place, funders should commission grant managers that are knowledgeable of the needs of their local area, have strong connections with local VCSEs and have sufficient capacity and experience to provide onward grants to projects. 

Why it is important: Grant managers with these characteristics have the experience and knowledge required to effectively onward grant projects that have strong alignment to Fund objectives. Additionally, as local VCSEs have relationships with these types of organisations, they are familiar with their application processes and can access help and guidance with relative ease. 

Recommendation 3

Action: Participatory methods should be used when designing evaluations of funds, which reach a wide range of beneficiaries with varying needs.

Why it is important: Using participatory methods when co-designing evaluations helps ensure that the evaluation methods are suitable to the interventions that will be delivered. Additionally, using participatory methods promotes buy-in and better understanding of evaluation requirements from delivery partners, which will lead to better evidence building. Participatory methods can be used to help refine a pre-existing Theory of Change and to help develop research tools for use in an evaluation. Participatory methods should be used as early as possible in the evaluation to design to ensure the evaluation is suitable from the outset.

Recommendation 4

Action: Where possible, ensure that delivery partners have sufficient time for application and setup stages.

Why it is important: Having sufficient time for setup and application stages increases the ability of delivery partners to reach a wider range of organisations. Where this is not possible, multiple application rounds can be used to help delivery partners reach projects they did not reach in previous application rounds. Delivery partners are also well positioned to feed into whether a structure of one application round versus multiple application rounds would better meet their own, and their projects’ needs.

Recommendation 5

Action: When an intervention aims to reach a diverse audience, it is important that an easy read version of the survey is available from the outset and that stakeholders are prepared for high take-up of paper-based surveys versus online surveys. 

Why it is important: When an intervention targets a diverse audience, it is likely that they will have a diverse range of needs. Ensuring that easy read surveys and capacity to handle paper-based surveys are in place from the outset helps ensure that as many participants as possible are able to participate in the evaluation, which will lead to better evidence building. Strategies that reduce the time burden of using paper-based surveys should be explored (such as machine-readable response forms), to reduce the capacity requirements of engaging in evaluations.

Recommendation 6

Action: Where funding cycles allow, provide multi-year grant funding.

Why it is important: Long-term funding gives projects security and increases their ability to create sustainable systems and processes that can effect lasting change.  

7. Glossary

Table 1 - Glossary of KYN related terms used

Term	Explanation
ACE	Arts Council England (ACE). As part of the Know Your Neighbourhood Fund, ACE is delivering funding using three Cultural Partners.
AIM	Association of Independent Museums (AIM). As part of the KYN Fund, AIM is one of the Cultural Partners selected by Arts Council England (ACE) to distribute grants to support local museums to create new volunteering roles, help people to connect, and to strengthen local museums’ ability to run future programmes that tackle loneliness and support volunteering.
Arm’s Length Bodies (ALBs)	ALBs are a specific category of central government public bodies that are administratively classified by the Cabinet Office. DCMS’s ALBs have a wide range of policy and operational responsibilities and are all governed by their own independent boards. ALBs are responsible for delivering £5 million of the Know Your Neighbourhood Fund. This £5 million is being delivered by ACE and The National Lottery Heritage Fund, in partnership with Historic England.
Beneficiary	An individual who uses the services that Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) funded projects deliver using their KYN funding but does not volunteer for that KYN funded project.
CLS	Community Life Survey - a nationally representative annual survey of adults (16+) in England that aims to track the latest trends and developments across areas that are key to encouraging social action and empowering communities.
Community Foundations (CFs)	A CF is a charitable grant-making organisation focused on supporting a defined geographical area. It does this by building socially-focused endowments and generating funds to support individuals, voluntary groups and local organisations that make a difference. As part of the KYN Fund, they provide onward grants to projects in their local area.
Cultural Partners	Organisations selected by ACE that distribute grants to projects as part of the KYN Fund: Association of Independent Museums (AIM), Creative Lives and Libraries Connected.
DCMS	Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Delivery Partners	Organisations that provide onward grants to Cultural Partners, Community Foundations (CFs) or projects. KYN Fund delivery partners include: ACE, National Lottery Heritage Fund, Historic England, UK Community Foundations (UKCF) and nine CFs.
Economic Research Services Ltd (ERS)	Organisation appointed by Libraries Connected to evaluate ACE funded projects.
Forever Consulting (FC)	Organisation appointed by UKCF to evaluate their funded projects.
Fund level evaluation	Evaluation of the entire programme, including ALB and UKCF funded projects’ delivery. This is independent of the ALB and UKCF project evaluations.
IGM	Intermediary Grant Maker.
Impact evaluation	An impact evaluation provides information about the observed changes produced by an intervention. The KYN Fund impact evaluation assesses whether, and to what extent the funds have: 1) Supported an increase in regular volunteering; and 2) Reduced and/or alleviated chronic loneliness (amongst other outcomes) in areas of high deprivation.
KYN Fund	Know Your Neighbourhood Fund.
Magenta Book	HM Treasury guidance on what to consider when designing an evaluation.
NAO	National Audit Office
ONS4	Office for National Statistics personal wellbeing questions.
Participant	An individual who benefits from the activities that KYN funded projects deliver. This includes both volunteers and beneficiaries.
Process evaluation	Process evaluations aim to explain how interventions work. The KYN Fund process evaluation conducts primary research to understand the delivery and reach of the KYN Fund, as well as analyse and synthesise Fund monitoring information.
Projects	Organisations that received KYN Fund grants.
Qualitative data	Non-numerical data (e.g. data from interviews).
Quantitative data	Numerical data (e.g. age).
RQs	Research questions.
Survey	Surveys are administered at baseline (beginning), mid-point (during), and endline (end) of an individual’s participation in the project.
UCLA-LS	University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale.
UKCF	UK Community Foundations.
VCSE	Voluntary, community and social enterprise.
Volunteer	An individual who offers their time to work for a KYN funded project, without monetary remuneration.

Table 2 - Funding rounds

Funding round	Explanation
Libraries Connected grants	Libraries Connected provided onwards grants for one round of funding, which will be delivered from August 2023 - March 2025.
Creative Lives Pilot	The first round of Creative Lives’ onward grants, which was delivered from July 2023 - September 2024.
Creative Lives Round 1	The second round of Creative Lives’ onward grants, which was delivered from December 2023 - January 2025.
AIM Round 1	The first round of AIM onward grants, which was delivered from October 2023 - January 2025.
AIM Round 2	The second round of AIM onward grants, which was delivered from February 2024 - January 2025.
Historic England Grants	Historic England provided onward grants for one round of funding, which was delivered from April 2023 - August 2024.
UKCF Test and Learn Phase	The smaller, first phase of the UKCF funding delivered in March 2023, which focused on learning.
UKCF Phase 2	The larger UKCF grantmaking phase, which is being delivered from April 2023 - March 2025.

8. Annexes 

8.1 Annex A: Detailed Methodology

This Annex provides a detailed overview of the methodology of the KYN Fund evaluation with detail on the data collection and analyses that inform this interim report. 

8.1.1 Overview

The evaluation comprises of the stages detailed in the schematic overview below, covering an impact evaluation, a process evaluation and a Value for Money (VfM) strand.

The process evaluation will be a programme-level process evaluation, with primary research conducted to understand the delivery and reach of both ALB and UKCF funded projects. It will also draw on other evaluation activity from partners as available.

The impact evaluation advised evaluation partners on the design of a common survey, helping to ensure that designs were as robust as possible to support building the evidence to identify scalable and sustainable place-based interventions that work in increasing regular volunteering and reducing chronic loneliness. Ensuring impact evaluation designs are suitably robust in line with what is feasible with delivery design should help strengthen and add to the existing evidence base around what works. Part of this includes two QED studies that are also outlined below. The evaluation will synthesise the results of all impact assessments (from Forever Consulting and ERS), as long as timelines allow, to provide a coherent picture of performance at Fund level. This evaluation will also provide an overarching Value for Money assessment, utilising the NAO’s 4Es framework to assess the KYN fund’s economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity. The structure of the KYN Fund evaluation activities is detailed below.

Figure 6 – KYN Fund evaluation structure

The Fund evaluation structure, which shows six evaluation activities: ACE funding stream evaluation, HE funding stream evaluation, UKCF funding stream evaluation, three place-based depth evaluations of UKCF funded projects, two quasi-experimental design (QED) evaluations of UKCF funded projects and a thematic evaluation of UKCF funded projects.

This interim report includes process findings and some baseline findings from the impact surveys. 

Figure 7 - Evaluation methodology overview.

Diagram of the evaluation methodology. Initiation meeting. Part 1: Theory of Change review. Part 2: MI strategy, CMD development. Part 3: Project-level evaluation design support. Part 4: Evaluation design and analysis strategy. Part 5: Impact evaluation. Part 6: Process evaluation. Part 7: VfM Evaluation. Initial report. Interim report. Final Report.

Theory of Change (ToC)

Following an intensive scoping phase which involved consultation with various stakeholders, the evaluation team developed a ToC for the KYN Fund (detailed in Annex B). The ToC was produced in collaboration with DCMS, UKCF and CFs, Historic England, ACE and Cultural Partners. The ToC shows how the KYN Fund’s inputs and activities are expected to overcome barriers faced by projects, beneficiaries and volunteers to achieve the desired outcomes and impacts. The evaluation is designed to collect evidence for the ToC outcomes and impacts (impact evaluation) and to understand how these occur (process evaluation).

Research questions

Table 3 and Table 4 below present the list of RQs this evaluation is designed to answer. They also indicate the extent to which these RQs are addressed in this interim report and will be addressed in the final report.

Table 3 - Process evaluation research questions

Area	RQ	Interim report	Final report
Setup and implementation	How were the funds set up and how effectively was funding distributed (to delivery partners and onward grant recipients?)	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Setup and implementation	How did the different delivery/funding models of the ALB funding and the UKCF funding compare, and what worked well/ less well within both approaches?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Setup and implementation	What was the experience of organisations applying for funding?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Setup and implementation	What types of organisations were successful and unsuccessful in securing funding from the KYN funds?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	What interventions were delivered by KYN funded projects?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	What worked well/less well in how interventions were delivered, both within and across ALB and UKCF funded projects?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	Who did the funding/support reach, who did it fail to reach, and why? To what extent did it reach those organisations, communities and individuals that it was intended to?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	How was the fund/support experienced at different levels (e.g., by delivery partners, projects, local areas, and end beneficiaries), and how satisfied were these different projects with how the fund(s) operated?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	To what extent did the funds support the delivery of interventions that were tailored to the areas and communities that they were working in?	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	To what extent did the structure and delivery of these funds support impact?	Partial evidence base which is insufficient to form full interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	How did this funding model compare to other sources of funding delivery organisations receive?	Partial evidence base which is insufficient to form full interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	To what extent did local people help identify relevant skills, activities and resources locally through an asset-based community development (ABCD) approach?	Partial evidence base which is insufficient to form full interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Delivery	To what extent were existing local physical assets better utilised for community use?	Partial evidence base which is insufficient to form full interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.

Table 4 - Impact evaluation questions.

Area	RQ	Interim report	Final report
Fund level	To what extent did the funds meet their respective objectives?	Partial evidence base which is insufficient to form full interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Fund level	What difference did the funds make to the target areas in which they were delivered?	Insufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Fund level	For the ALB funded projects, how effective were arts, culture, and heritage interventions in delivering intended outcomes?	Insufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Fund level	To what extent were hyperlocal community initiatives better able to access local infrastructure and funding support?	Insufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Fund level	To what extent did the Fund support development of social and physical infrastructure to support volunteering and/or loneliness focused activities in identified high deprivation areas? E.g., through building links between voluntary and community organisations and the health system to enable social prescribing.	Insufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Project level	To what extent did the projects meet their intended impact objectives (i.e., increasing volunteering and/or reducing loneliness through targeting those at risk of/experiencing chronic loneliness) among those engaged by the projects?	Partial evidence base which is insufficient to form full interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Project level	What were the benefits for individuals of involvement in volunteering, particularly looking beyond the initial period of participation?	Insufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Project level	To what extent did the projects have spillover impacts to the wider community including on well-being and pride in local area?	Insufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.
Project level	How far are the different initiatives: a) cost effective – i.e., are benefits commensurate to costs? b) scalable – i.e., would it be feasible to use them in the next spending review cycle to reach enough project participants to meaningfully contribute to Levelling Up objectives? c) transferable – i.e., would they work in other settings? d) sustainable – i.e., would benefits persist?	Insufficient evidence base to form interim findings.	Sufficient evidence base to form interim findings.

8.1.2 Key evaluation activities (April 2023 – March 2024)

This section provides detail on the evaluation activities for the interim report. It also includes the approach taken to sampling, data management and analysis for each of these activities.

Impact evaluation surveys

To understand the outcomes that beneficiaries and volunteers experience as a result of KYN funded activities, and the impacts that these contribute to, the evaluation team co-developed an impact survey with DCMS and the evaluation partners. For this evaluation, surveys are administered at baseline, mid-point, and endline of an individual’s participation in the project. The interim report analyses data from baseline survey questionnaires conducted up to January 2024.

The survey questions covered loneliness, well-being, pride in local area, and confidence and skills, as well as data on type of participation (if beneficiary or volunteer) and demographics (age, sex and gender identity, ethnicity, disability, and types of health conditions). Full name, surname and date of birth of respondents were also collected for data linkage purposes, but this information was not shared with DCMS, RSM or NatCen to guarantee respondents’ confidentiality and anonymity. A summary of the types of questions asked and the rationale for their inclusion is listed below, while a full list of questions is included in Annex D.

ACE and UKCF funded projects have used this survey since September 2023. Projects administer it directly with beneficiaries and volunteers. Survey data is collected online by ERS for ACE funded projects and by UKCF for projects they fund through CFs. HE does not use this survey because the activities delivered by their funded projects are not designed for longer term engagement by participants. As of January 2024, many ACE funded projects had not started delivering activities. Therefore, their survey data is not included in this report.

The questions to cover each area of interest for the impact evaluation were developed as follows: 

• ONS recommended measures for Loneliness: The recommended questionnaire includes four items.^{[footnote 58]} The first three questions are from the University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale (UCLA-LS) and aim to indirectly measure loneliness by asking the beneficiary how frequently they experience feelings of lack of companionship, being left out, and being isolated from others. This is an established and tested scale, widely used in the UK context, whose reliability and validity has been assessed and confirmed, that measures loneliness as a subjective, self-reported measure. As suggested by the ONS, the survey includes a fourth question to the three included in the short version of the UCLA-LS. This question has the purpose of measuring loneliness in a more direct way by asking how often participants feel lonely. However, there are some limitations to using this short question set, including the fact that the UCLA-LS’ aim is to measure loneliness as a subjective experience which means that all the other dimensions that may be influenced by loneliness itself are not directly considered. However, scales that measure all (or most) loneliness dimensions are usually quite long and would be impractical to apply. A further limitation is regarding the measurement of chronic loneliness, a key outcome area for this fund. There are currently no established measures that can be used to determine chronic loneliness. It has been suggested scales such as the UCLA-LS measure the frequency of loneliness, but it is unclear after how long this becomes chronic (some suggest one year). The Campaign to End Loneliness uses the responses “often/always” to the fourth question (“How often do you feel lonely?”) as a way to determine who is experiencing chronic loneliness.^{[footnote 59]} This evaluation has followed the same approach; therefore, when the expression “chronic loneliness” is used in the report it refers to the experience of those who responded reported feeling lonely often or always.

• ONS Personal well-being questions (ONS4): This four-items questionnaire has been developed to measure personal well-being and has a tracked record of use in longitudinal studies to explore changes over time.^{[footnote 60]} The first two items intend to measure the general life satisfaction of the respondent and how worthwhile they perceive their daily activities. The two other items intend to measure happiness and anxiety in the day before the completion of the questionnaire. Two new measures of personal well-being (“Hope for the future” and “Fair treatment”) were introduced by the ONS at the end of a review process which culminated in March 2023.^{[footnote 61]} The new measures, however, were still under review when the survey was designed for this evaluation (Summer/Autumn 2023) and therefore, it was not possible to include them in the survey.

• Neighbourhood and local area perception from the Community Life Survey (CLS): The CLS provides information on behaviours and attitudes within communities (including volunteering, charitable giving, community engagement, well-being, and loneliness).^{[footnote 62]} Three questions from the survey questionnaire were included which intend to measure the strength of the respondent’s feeling of belonging to their immediate area, their satisfaction with this area, and their perception of the neighbourhood involvement in the improvement of this area. 

• Skills and confidence: There are several challenges to the measurement of skill and confidence improvement. The first of these challenges is that these concepts have very general definitions which usually apply to a wide range of different contexts.^{[footnote 63]} From a review of existing literature, the two concepts have not been operationalised into a small number of measurable variables (the same way well-being has, e.g., the ONS4). For example, the concept of skill can refer to life skills, soft skills, manual dexterity, cognitive skills, and so on. Each one of these examples of “skills in context” often presents a variable number of dimensions that need to be further operationalised to be measured. 

• Skills: As a possible partial solution to quantitatively “measure” this outcome the survey uses a general question (“Which of the following skills do you think you will use during the project?”) followed by a short list of broad skill categories (e.g., communication skills) to record the respondents’ expectations about the skills they will use as part of funded projects and – from the second and third wave of the survey – whether they feel there has been any change in their skills. However, this scale has not been tested, which is a major limitation. 

• Confidence: This also refers to several dimensions, such as self-esteem (regard or respect a person has for oneself), self-efficacy (trust in your own abilities to complete a task or achieve a goal), self-concept (the way we think about ourselves, evaluate our appearance, thoughts, and behaviours), trust in people, and so on.^{[footnote 64]} Most of these concepts have been operationalised and measured using scales with at least ten items. However, a possible approach to measure participant’s confidence and its changes over time may benefit from the use of a more contextualised definition (state-like confidence, which refers to one’s confidence in their capacities in specific circumstances and moments).^{[footnote 65]} This would help by providing a temporal frame focused on their more recent activities. Therefore a set of five questions were developed and included with a clearer definition of the type of confidence the projects are likely to help develop and that are central to the purposes of the Fund. However, and similarly to the question on skills, it should be considered that this approach has its own limitations mainly due to its lack of previous testing and validation.

• Participation and demographic characteristics: The survey collected data on some of the main demographic characteristics of the respondents: age (grouped in brackets), sex at birth, gender identity, ethnic group, disability, and types of health conditions.^{[footnote 66]} These questions followed the harmonised standards suggested by the Government Statistical Service and Statistician Group (GSS).^{[footnote 67]} Respondents were also asked when they joined the funded project and whether they were taking part in it as a beneficiary or a volunteer. Those who selected the volunteer option were then asked to respond to four additional questions on their experience with volunteering. The first of them asked whether the respondent’s experience with the funded project was their first time volunteering, and in case of affirmative response it was followed by a further question asking how long ago they last volunteered. The remaining two questions were asked to all volunteers and explored the respondents’ expectations in terms of length of the current volunteering experience and its frequency.

Data collection

The data for the quantitative analysis was collected by UKCF using a Salesforce survey administered by projects to participants, either online or via a printed form. Participants were sent up to three email reminders to fill in the surveys if they had provided an email address to the organisation. Participants without an email address were offered to fill in a paper survey, which were subsequently entered into Salesforce by the organisation.

The survey was administered at baseline point, when participants joined the project,^{[footnote 68]} and will be administered at mid-point and endline of their participation in the project. Respondents are asked consistent (or nearly consistent) questions at each wave to compare outcomes at different points in their journey. Baseline, mid-point and endline survey collection will continue up to 13 April 2025.

The available survey data from the first wave of questionnaires (baseline) were gathered on 29 January 2024 and included responses from n=1,853 respondents^{[footnote 69]} involved in UKCF funded projects (this represents 18.5% of volunteers and beneficiaries from UKCF funded projects). As stated, this date does not represent the end of data collection for the baseline, and all new participants will be offered to fill in the baseline survey when they join projects. 

Data management

The completed anonymised survey data was gathered by UKCF and transferred to Forever Consulting (FC) who shared them with NatCen and RSM for data management and analysis using Excel and SPSS. 

• Duplicate data identified by FC was removed from the compiled survey answers.

• The questions on skills and on areas affected by health conditions and illnesses provided a ‘select all that apply’ answer format – the answers were disaggregated to allow for analysis of each answer provided.

• String answers were converted to numerical values for easier analysis in SPSS and were assigned value labels.

• The wellbeing answer variables were re-coded in SPSS in accordance with the ONS thresholds.

• A loneliness total variable was derived in SPSS combining the three-item UCLA-LS. The combined scores were determined by using the ONS’ recommendations for this scale. However, this required the removal of all the cases (n=27) who did not respond to all three UCLA-LS questions given that it was impossible to calculate the correct score for them.

• A new ethnicity variable (grouping ethnic group at the main category level) was derived in SPSS to avoid disclosure as some ethnic groups had very small samples.

• A frequencies procedure was run in SPSS to produce descriptive summary tables.

• Cross-tabulation tables were also produced in SPSS to illustrate the relationship between a variety of demographics and types of participation and outcomes.

Data analysis

As the survey data only included a portion of the responses expected, it was decided not to determine statistical significance and confidence intervals for the analysis for the interim report. Determining statistical significance and confidence intervals would likely not be informative since at this stage it cannot be ascertained whether the remaining baseline data will or will not show different characteristics. For this reason, the available data was not weighted, and the analysis in the interim report is purely descriptive. Therefore, it should be noted that any outcome differences between different groups should be considered as provisional and used with caution. Moreover, given the lack of testing and validation of the questions on skills and confidence, it was decided not to crosstab the responses given to these questions. A different approach will be considered for the final report once data from all three waves will be available. Frequency and cross-tabulation (illustrating the relationship between outcomes and demographics or participation type) tables can be found in full in Annex C (section 8.3).

Process evaluation interviews

The evaluation team conducted 40 interviews to inform the interim process evaluation across projects (n=25) and delivery and Cultural Partners (n=15) from November 2023 – January 2024. An additional interview was held with DCMS in July 2024. These are outlined in the table below.

Table 5 - Process evaluation interviews.

Stakeholder type	Number of interviews	Themes covered in interviews
Community Foundations	9	- Experience of selecting projects and lessons learned - Who was and was not funded (organisation and project type) and why, including any types of organisations that didn’t apply - Appropriateness of the fund to achieving outcomes compared to other funding approaches - Whether the activities funded, and support provided supported the development of social and physical infrastructure to support volunteering and/or loneliness focused activities in identified high deprivation areas? - Impact of the funding at area level - Experience of monitoring and evaluation approach and setup and difference in experience between the UKCF Test and Learn Phase and UKCF Phase 2
Delivery partners (ACE, HE, UKCF, AIM, Libraries Connected, Creative Lives)	6	- All of the above for CFs, plus:- Experience of setting up the programme - Experience with funding ‘place based’ and creative approaches
Projects	25	- Experience of application and receiving funding - What interventions were designed, delivered, and how including use of collaborative methods (e.g., other partners, local communities, etc) - Experience of setting up and delivering the projects (challenges and lessons learned) - Who was reached by the activities and how did this compare to the intended participant - Appropriateness of the activities to the areas and communities they are working in and how the fund supported this - Whether the funding helped build longer term capacity/capability of the organisation and how, including access to local infrastructure and funding support
DCMS	1	- Delivery partner selection process - Experience of grant application phases - Experience of grant disbursement - Process of setting up a robust and complex evaluation

The team used a purposive sampling approach to achieve a sample of funded projects. Sampling criteria included:

• different geographies reached; 

• the size of grant funding;

• the number of targeted volunteers; and 

• the number of beneficiaries. 

In addition, UKCF, ACE, Historic England, all nine involved CFs, the three ACE Cultural Partners and DCMS were interviewed.

Interviews were conducted online over MS Teams and lasted between 45 minutes to 1 hour depending on the stakeholder group. These were recorded for transcription purposes. Interview recordings were transcribed directly into the analysis framework with relevant sections from the interviews transcribed to corresponding sections in the framework. The data was then coded deductively using an analysis framework with separate spreadsheets dedicated to each stakeholder group. This framework was structured around the interview guides for each stakeholder group which were driven by the KYN research questions and objectives. Themes and trends were identified for each section of the framework for different stakeholder groups with keyword search employed to draw out evidence against specific outcomes. The qualitative framework will be updated iteratively as interviews are conducted and find new themes that will stimulate targeted discussions in forthcoming interviews.

8.1.3 Limitations

This report draws on UKCF survey data, not on ACE survey data. This means that survey findings do not represent the whole KYN Fund. Instead, the demographic data and data on profile of beneficiaries and volunteers only represent UKCF funded projects. Findings in section 5 Baseline Impact findings should therefore not be read as a description of the whole KYN Fund.

In addition, as the projects are still ongoing, the data collected represent baseline survey responses before 29 January 2024 and could possibly not be representative of the entire sample. As only baseline data was available for analysis, the report does not include in-depth findings about the outcomes and impacts achieved to date. Instead, it provides a baseline assessment of the responses beneficiaries and volunteers gave to questions about loneliness, wellbeing, pride in local area, skills and confidence and volunteering activity.

The data is not weighted and not tested for confidence; therefore, any analysis is purely descriptive and comparisons between groups or with other datasets should be viewed with caution.

There is the possibility of human error in handling data, either when organisations entered paper survey data to Salesforce or in the data management process, as some data had to be managed manually. Action has been taken to minimise this risk, but this risk cannot be entirely eliminated.

The evaluation team agreed not to conduct any interviews with beneficiaries and volunteers for this evaluation. Instead, such interviews will be part of two quasi-experimental (QED) evaluations, placed-based evaluations, ALB and UKCF evaluations conducted by RSM / NatCen, ERS and other evaluation partners. This means that this evaluation report does not include any qualitative insights into beneficiaries’ and volunteers’ experience of projects. The final report (due in March 2025) will use findings from QEDs, ALB and UKCF evaluations and place-based evaluations to provide context for quantitative beneficiary and volunteer survey data.

ONS and other public bodies tested, used and validated most of the survey questions in the KYN survey in various previous evaluations and research activities. However, the evaluation team developed skills questions specifically for this evaluation and these have not been validated. Furthermore, this report draws on descriptive statistics and does not include tests for statistical significance. Such tests will be applied in the final report when mid-point and endline survey data is available. At this stage, any such test would risk identifying misleading findings and have therefore not been conducted. 

8.2 Annex B: ToC diagram and development

This section presents the ToC for the KYN Fund. It discusses the steps taken to develop the ToC followed by a detailed breakdown of each of its component parts. 

8.2.1 Introduction

The KYN Fund Theory of Change (ToC) was developed following a consultative process with delivery partners and DCMS through a 5-stage process.

1. Initial review: An initial review of the pre-existing Fund ToC was conducted for both UKCF and ALB funded projects alongside other Fund documentation provided by DCMS and delivery partners to establish a clear understanding of objectives and target outcomes. 

2. Introductory calls: The evaluation team followed-up individually with delivery partners through a series of 1-hour virtual meetings. These calls were intended to introduce RSM and NatCen to each stakeholder and covered in detail the process and timelines for project selection, plans for project level evaluation via any other appointed evaluator, and ways of working.

3. ToC Workshops: Following the desk review and introductory calls, the initial ToCs were developed further and outlined key areas where input was needed from ALBs and UKCF. These draft ToCs were presented in two ToC Workshops across February 2023. The workshops involved attendees reviewing each stage of the draft ToC followed by a discussion to highlight areas of agreement and any gaps. The workshops also prompted a discussion on what is realistic to measure for delivery partners. 

4. DCMS Workshop: A draft ToC was developed following the ALB and UKCF workshops which was presented to DCMS over 2 1-hour workshops. As with the ALB and UKCF workshops, each element of the ToC was discussed and feedback from delivery partners was shared with DCMS along with the rationale for any changes to the original ToC. The draft ToC was developed further following this meeting into a final draft that was shared with DCMS for feedback.

5. Finalise ToC: Following DCMS’ review of the final draft of the ToC, a final version was developed and shared back with DCMS and all KYN Fund implementation partners (section 8.2.2 below). 

The finalised ToC diagram below is combined for both ALB and UKCF grants. Initially there were separate ToCs for each, however following the initial desk review it was ascertained that there is enough alignment between the overall objectives of each that it would be prudent to combine the ToCs into one overarching Fund-level ToC. This chapter explores each of the component sections of the ToC, highlighting the rationale behind each element and specifying where an element is specific to ALB or UKCF grants. 

8.2.2 ToC diagram

Figure 8 - Theory of Change diagram

Diagram showing the KYN Fund level Theory of Change.

8.2.3 Beneficiaries

Following discussions during ToC workshops, the beneficiaries for the Fund areas were agreed as the following: 

Table 6 – Beneficiaries

Group	Description	Beneficiaries
Primary beneficiaries	The main groups the KYN Fund seeks to target. They experience direct results from being engaged by funded projects either via project activities or through volunteering opportunities created.	- People experiencing chronic loneliness - People at risk of chronic loneliness - Volunteers (including new and existing volunteers)
Secondary beneficiaries	The groups that benefit from the outcomes experienced by direct beneficiaries.	- People living in identified areas of high deprivation, including those helped by volunteers in KYN funded projects - Onward grantholder organisations (local level VCSEs, community groups, etc.) - Wider culture and arts sector (ALB grant specific)

Loneliness is a subjective, unwelcome feeling of lack or loss of companionship, which happens when there is a mismatch between the quantity and quality of the social relationships that we have, and those that we want. It is normal to feel lonely sometimes, but it is a problem when someone feels lonely always or often. We call this chronic loneliness.

- DCMS Tackling Loneliness Team

DCMS identify the following ten groups as being most at risk of chronic loneliness:

• Young people (aged 16-34);

• People who identify as LGBT;

• People who recently moved to their current address;

• People who live alone;

• People in the lowest income quintile;

• People with a mental health condition;

• People with a disability or long-term health condition;

• New parents;

• People who are widowed; and

• People who are unemployed.

This does not exclude other groups that may also be known to be at risk of chronic loneliness that are identified by projects as a key group to work with. 

8.2.4 Intermediate Outcomes

Intermediate outcomes represent the short-term changes that projects are likely to influence. They are a representation of the immediate consequences of the outputs for the beneficiary groups in the target project areas. Progress towards intermediate outcomes should be measured through data collected as part of monitoring and triangulated with data collected as part of the individual project-level evaluations which feed into the overall Fund-level evaluation. Indicators for intermediate outcomes are likely to be drawn from the outputs listed above (Figure 8). Intermediate outcomes are listed below with detail behind the rationale for each. 

1. Increased number of volunteering opportunities in high deprivation local authorities: This intermediate outcome refers to the volunteering opportunities created as a direct result of the funded projects. These may be new volunteering opportunities or existing opportunities that have been expanded.

2. Increased number of opportunities for chronically lonely people in high deprivation areas to build social connections: This intermediate outcome refers to the number of opportunities created via project activities aimed at tackling loneliness. There may be overlap with the previous intermediate outcome if projects are focused on volunteering and tackling loneliness. 

3. Increase in proportion of people who regularly volunteer in the identified local authority areas: This intermediate outcome refers to the overall number of people who volunteer at least once a month in the identified areas. The distinction between this and intermediate outcome 1 is to track progress towards a KYN Fund objective of sustained and systematic changes, represented in this case not just by the overall number of volunteers but by the regularity of volunteering in target areas. 

4. Increase in evidence on how, and to what extent, interventions in the arts, culture and heritage sectors in areas of high deprivation increase regular volunteering and reduce chronic loneliness (ALB funded projects): This is an ALB funded projects specific intermediate outcome linked to the learning and evidence around how interventions in the arts, culture and heritage sectors can increase regular volunteering and reduce chronic loneliness. Progress towards this outcome refers to individual project-level evaluations and any learning events via convening grantholders or encouraging networked learning. 

5. Increase in evidence to identify scalable and/or sustainable place-based interventions that increase regular volunteering and reduce chronic loneliness (UKCF funded projects): As with the previous intermediate outcome, this focuses on the evidence from UKCF funded projects around the effectiveness of place-based interventions intended to increase regular volunteering and reduce chronic loneliness. Progress towards this outcome refers to individual project-level evaluations and any learning events via convening grantholders or encouraging networked learning.

8.2.5 Outcomes

Outcomes are the medium to long-term changes in behaviours and circumstances that the KYN Fund seeks to achieve through its funded projects. These are expected to be measurable within the Fund period, however a potential limitation is that some outcomes may take longer to achieve, particularly around increased social cohesion and pride in local area.

1. People at risk of or experiencing chronic loneliness have increased levels of social connection: This outcome is linked directly to the overall KYN Fund objective of tackling loneliness. Increased opportunities for chronically lonely people to build social connections is expected to increase their level of social connection. This refers to the quality of social connections as well as the overall number. A key assumption to be tested, linked to this outcome, is that providing chronically lonely people with opportunities to connect will result in them forming meaningful connections. The outcome is framed as an increase in social connection rather than as a reduction in loneliness as increasing social connection is a more measurable indicator which is likely to be realised during the Fund period. A change in loneliness levels may take longer to realise and is reflected at the impact-level.

2. Increased social cohesion and pride in local area of beneficiaries and volunteers: The nature of the funded activities (arts, culture and heritage, and place-based interventions) is expected to contribute to increasing levels of social cohesion and pride in local area of beneficiaries and volunteers. Linked to ‘Outcome 1’ above, funded activities that increase levels of social connection provide opportunities for increased social interaction of people with others in their communities. Furthermore, funded projects in high deprivation areas took an asset-based community development approach, utilising or enhancing existing social infrastructure as part of their interventions, e.g., via High Street Heritage Action Zones. This is expected to result in participants gaining a greater appreciation of existing physical and social assets in their local area. It is acknowledged however that increasing pride in local area as currently defined by existing measures may not be realistic for all types of projects. 

3. Beneficiaries and volunteers improve their skills and / or confidence: Volunteering opportunities from funded projects are expected to increase volunteers’ skills and confidence in their ability to carry out activities, including those that support their communities. Interventions tackling loneliness are expected to support participants at risk of who are chronically lonely to have increased confidence in building and maintaining social connections with the aim of eventually reducing loneliness levels in the long-term. 

4. Beneficiaries and volunteers have improved wellbeing: There is evidence to indicate that volunteering improves the wellbeing of those who participate.^{[footnote 70]} A key assumption that will be tested around this outcome is that increased opportunities for volunteering are expected to result in improved levels of wellbeing for volunteers and beneficiaries. Participants engaged in projects aimed at tackling loneliness are also expected to improve their wellbeing through increased opportunities for social interaction.

5. Local authorities and community organisations in high deprivation areas have access to evidence and lessons learned on approaches to increase regular volunteering and reduce chronic loneliness: A key outcome for the KYN Fund is that local authorities and community organisations can benefit from and utilise the learning and best practices drawn from the individual project-level evaluations and learning activities. The metric for this outcome is the extent to which outputs from learning activities and project-level evaluations are accessible to the key stakeholders involved in reducing chronic loneliness in high deprivation areas. 

8.2.6 Impact

Impacts refer to the long-term changes an intervention aims to achieve. The impact evaluation will gather evidence to indicate progress against these impacts as well as the contribution of KYN funded projects to the overarching impacts. For the KYN Fund, the impacts are as follows:

Reduced loneliness for people at risk of or experiencing chronic loneliness in identified high deprivation target areas

This impact reflects the overarching objective of the KYN Fund to reduce the proportion of chronically lonely people in the target areas of high deprivation. Reduction in loneliness is a long-term change that may take place beyond the timeframe of the Fund. The evaluation will gather evidence around progress towards reduction in overall loneliness based on collated evidence from project-level evaluations and the Fund-level impact evaluation and progress towards the outcome around increased levels of social connection for people at risk of or experiencing chronic loneliness. 

Development of social and physical infrastructure to support volunteering in identified high deprivation areas

This impact reflects the longer-term changes to the social and physical infrastructure that supports volunteering because of KYN funded activities aimed at increasing volunteering opportunities in high deprivation areas. This includes overall strengthening of the local VCSE sector, increased access to local infrastructure and funding support for local community initiatives and greater linkages between voluntary and community organisations and other systems of support such as the health system. Progress towards this impact should reflect the systemic and sustainable nature of funded projects.

Scalable and sustainable approaches identified for high-deprivation local authorities to:

• Encourage volunteering

• Tackle loneliness

• Increase pride in local area

This impact is the expected result of the evidence-base gathered around scalable and sustainable interventions that work in increasing regular volunteering, reducing chronic loneliness and increasing pride in local area in the identified high deprivation areas. It follows from Outcome 5 around local authorities and community organisations being able to access the learning and best practices from project-level evaluations and learning activities and reflects the longer-term aim of these stakeholders practically implementing changes as a result of this learning. 

8.3 Annex C: Data tables

Table 7 - Demographic of participants 

Age	%	n
16-24	12.7	235
25-34	15.9	293
35-44	17.4	320
45-54	14.4	266
55-64	17.7	327
65-74	13.1	241
75-84	7.1	131
85+	1.1	21
Prefer not to say	0.5	10
	100	1844
Sex[footnote 71]	%	n
Female	62.5	1152
Male	36.7	677
Prefer not to say	0.8	14
	100	1843
Whether the gender they identify with is the same as the sex registered at birth[footnote 72]	%	n
Yes	96.8	1772
No	1.1	20
Prefer not to say	2.1	38
	100	1830
Ethnicity	%	n
Asian and Asian British	9.7	176
Black and Black British	4.3	78
Mixed ethnic background	2.1	38
White British	71.7	1307
White other (including Irish)	5.3	96
Any other ethnic group	5.0	91
Prefer not to say	2.0	36
	100	1822
Disability and health conditions	%	n
Yes	50.6	929
No	43.4	796
Prefer not to say	6.0	110
	100	1834
Impact on carrying out day-to-day activities	%	n
Yes, a lot	33.7	308
Yes, a little	48.6	444
No	13.7	125
Prefer not to say	4.0	37
	100	914
Types of disabilities and health conditions[footnote 73]	%	n
Dexterity (for example lifting and carrying objects, using a keyboard)	10.7	199
Hearing (for example deafness or partial hearing)	7.8	144
Learning or understanding or concentrating	15.5	287
Memory	12.3	227
Mental health	26.1	484
Mobility (for example walking short distances or climbing stairs)	20.0	370
Stamina or breathing or fatigue	13.9	258
Socially or behaviourally (for example associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) which includes Asperger’s, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD))	8.4	155
Vision (for example blindness or partial sight)	7.7	142
Other	6.6	123
None of the above	30.8	570
Prefer not to say	6.6	122
		1853

Table 8 - Volunteering activity of participants 

Volunteer	%	n
Yes	56.4	1045
No	43.6	808
	100	1853
First time volunteer	%	n
Yes	51.2	530
No	48.8	506
	100	1036
Last volunteering	%	n
In the past month	36.6	183
Less than a year ago	18.4	92
1-2 years ago	10.0	50
More than 2 years ago	29.0	145
Can’t remember/Not sure	6.0	30
	100	500
Planned duration	%	n
Less than a month	6.3	65
1-2 months	4.8	50
3-6 months	10.6	110
More than 6 months	46.6	481
Don’t know/Not sure	31.7	327
	100	1033
Frequency	%	n
Twice a week or more	29.9	309
Once a week	35.1	363
Once every fortnight	4.7	49
Once a month	5.6	58
Every two months	0.9	9
Less frequently than every two months, or ad hoc	1.1	11
Depends or varies	11.8	122
Don’t know / Not sure	10.9	113
	100	1034

Table 9 - Wellbeing scores of participants 

Life satisfaction	%	n
Low	18.3	338
Medium	24.2	447
High	34.4	634
Very High	20.8	383
Prefer not to say	2.3	42
	100	1844

Worthwhile	%	n
Low	15.8	288
Medium	22.7	413
High	32.9	598
Very High	26.0	473
Prefer not to say	2.6	47
	100	1819

Happiness	%	n
Low	21.5	397
Medium	21.6	395
High	31.2	570
Very High	24.0	438
Prefer not to say	1.6	29
	100	1825

Anxiety	%	n
Low	22.0	402
Medium	19.1	350
High	20.6	377
Very High	35.3	645
Prefer not to say	3.0	54
	100	1828

Table 10 - Loneliness scores of participants 

Lacking companionship	%	n
Hardly ever or never	31.5	582
Some of the time	44.0	812
Often	18.6	343
Prefer not to say	5.9	109
	100	1846
Feeling left out	%	n
Hardly ever or never	37.2	681
Some of the time	40.9	749
Often	16.6	305
Prefer not to say	5.3	98
	100	1833
Feeling isolated from others	%	n
Hardly ever or never	39.2	718
Some of the time	37.6	689
Often	18.4	336
Prefer not to say	4.8	88
	100	1831
Feeling lonely	%	n
Never	12.9	236
Hardly ever	17.3	317
Occasionally	20.4	375
Some of the time	30.7	563
Often / Always	14.6	267
Prefer not to say	4.2	77
	100	1835

Table 11 - Skills and confidence scores of participants

Skills[footnote 74]	%	n
Communication skills	65.2	1208
Leadership skills	23.3	432
Problem solving	40.6	752
Using your creativity	45.2	838
Working with others OR team-working skills	59.4	1101
Other	8.9	165
Prefer not to say	4.3	80
	100	1853
Confidence to work with other people	%	n
0 (Not at all)	1.3	24
1	1.4	26
2	2.5	46
3	4.5	83
4	4.2	77
5	11.0	202
6	10.0	184
7	14.3	264
8	16.8	309
9	11.0	202
10 (Completely)	21.5	396
Prefer not to say	1.5	27
	100	1840
Confidence to deal with problems	%	n
0 (Not at all)	1.4	26
1	1.7	31
2	3.1	57
3	4.8	87
4	7.2	132
5	13.2	241
6	11.1	203
7	15.0	273
8	19.0	346
9	10.6	193
10 (Completely)	11.6	212
Prefer not to say	1.3	23
	100	1824
Confidence to communicate with others	%	n
0 (Not at all)	1.4	25
1	1.7	31
2	2.4	43
3	4.2	76
4	5.5	100
5	10.3	187
6	10.3	188
7	12.6	229
8	19.1	348
9	11.9	217
10 (Completely)	19.5	354
Prefer not to say	1.2	22
	100	1820
Confidence to use your creativity	%	n
0 (Not at all)	1.9	35
1	1.3	24
2	3.5	63
3	4.6	84
4	6.3	115
5	14.1	257
6	12.7	231
7	14.0	255
8	15.6	284
9	8.9	161
10 (Completely)	15.0	272
Prefer not to say	2.0	37
	100	1818
Confidence to take responsibility	%	n
0 (Not at all)	1.3	23
1	1.1	21
2	2.1	39
3	3.7	68
4	4.9	89
5	10.9	200
6	9.2	169
7	13.1	239
8	15.8	289
9	13.0	238
10 (Completely)	23.3	426
Prefer not to say	1.5	28
	100	1829

Table 12 - Pride in local area scores of participants

Feeling of belonging to neighbourhood	%	n
Not at all strongly	12.9	236
Not very strongly	26.1	479
Fairly strongly	37.7	691
Very strongly	17.2	315
Prefer not to say	6.1	112
	100	1833
People in the neighbourhood pull together to improve it	%	n
Definitely agree	14.3	261
Tend to agree	35.5	649
Nothing needs improving	3.1	56
Tend to disagree	22.1	404
Definitely disagree	11.6	213
Prefer not to say	13.5	247
	100	1830
Satisfaction with the local area as a place to live	%	n
Very satisfied	25.7	470
Fairly satisfied	37.2	680
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied	18.6	340
Fairly dissatisfied	7.1	130
Very dissatisfied	5.0	91
Prefer not to say	6.3	115
	100	1826

7.4 Annex D: Data collection tools

7.4.1 UKCF baseline survey ^{[footnote 75]}

Thank you for agreeing to take part in the Know Your Neighbourhood evaluation by completing this short survey.

We want to understand if your feelings change during your time on the project, and so we would like to ask you questions again at the end – and maybe in the middle too.

These first questions are only included to help us link your answers from the start, middle and end surveys. They will be stored separately from the rest of your responses and will not be used to identify you.

1. What is your first name?

2. What is your surname?

3. What is your date of birth?

4. Roughly when did you join the project? Please use your best guess if you can’t remember exactly.

5. Some people may be taking part in the project as a volunteer. By ‘volunteer’ we mean someone who willingly offers their time for free to carry out tasks that will benefit others. Are you taking part in this project as a volunteer? Please select one

Yes - Please go to Q6.

No 0 Please go to Q10.

These questions are about volunteering

6. Is this your first time volunteering? Please select one.

Yes - Please go to Q8.

No - Please go to Q7.

7. When did you last volunteer? Please select one.

In the past month

Less than a year ago

1-2 years ago

More than 2 years ago

Can’t remember / Not sure

8. How long do you think you will volunteer on this project? Please select one.

Less than a month

1-2 months

3-6 months

More than 6 months

Don’t know / Not sure

9. How often do you think you will volunteer with this project? Please select one.

Twice a week or more

Once a week

Once every fortnight

Once a month

Every two months

Less frequently than every two months, or ad hoc

Depends or varies

Don’t know / Not sure

The next questions are about how you feel about different aspects of your life and your experiences on the project.

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is ‘not at all’ and 10 is ‘completely’, overall…

10. How satisfied are you with your life nowadays? Please circle one.

0 Not at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Completely

Prefer not to say

11. To what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile? Please circle one.

0 Not at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Completely

Prefer not to say

12. How happy did you feel yesterday? Please circle one.

0 Not at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Completely

Prefer not to say

13. How anxious did you feel yesterday? Please circle one.

0 Not at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Completely

Prefer not to say

14. How often do you feel you lack companionship? Please select one.

Hardly ever or never

Some of the time

Often

Prefer not to say

15. How often do you feel left out? Please select one.

Hardly ever or never

Some of the time

Often

Prefer not to say

16. How often do you feel isolated from others? Please select one.

Hardly ever or never

Some of the time

Often

Prefer not to say

17. How often do you feel lonely? Please select one.

Often / always

Some of the time

Occasionally

Hardly ever

Never

Prefer not to say

18. Which of the following skills do you think you will use during the project? Please select all that apply to you.

Communication skills

Leadership skills

Problem solving

Using your creativity

Working with others OR Team-working skills

Other

Prefer not to say

On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is ‘not confident at all’ and 10 is ‘extremely confident’, these days, how confident do you feel about your ability to…

19. Work with other people Please circle one.

0 Not confident at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely confident

Prefer not to say

20. Deal with problems Please circle one.

0 Not confident at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely confident

Prefer not to say

21. Communicate with others Please circle one.

0 Not confident at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely confident

Prefer not to say

22. Use your creativity in daily life Please circle one.

0 Not confident at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely confident

Prefer not to say

23. Take on responsibility in your daily life Please circle one.

0 Not confident at all

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10 Extremely confident

Prefer not to say

24. How strongly do you feel you belong to your immediate neighbourhood? Please think of the area within a few minutes walking distance from your home. Please select one.

Very strongly

Fairly strongly

Not very strongly

Not at all strongly

Prefer not to say

25. To what extent would you agree or disagree that people in your neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood? Please select one. 

Definitely agree

Tend to agree

Tend to disagree

Definitely disagree

Nothing needs improving

Prefer not to say

26. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your local area as a place to live? Please think of the area within 15-20 minutes walking distance from your home. Please select one.

Very satisfied

Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied or dissatisfied

Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

Prefer not to say

27. Please let us know why you joined the project, and how you hope you will benefit from being involved

I joined the project because…

I hope to benefit from being involved by…

About you

We want to understand whether feelings and experiences vary between different types of people. Therefore, these last few questions are about you. Completing these questions is really important to help us understand which projects work best for different types of people. Therefore, we hope you will answer them all, but please select the ‘prefer not to say’ option if you do not want to respond.

28. How old are you? Please select one.

0-15

16-24

25-34

35-44

45-54

55-64

65-74

75-84

85+

Prefer not to say

29. What is your sex? Please select one. A question about gender identity follows next.

Female

Male

Prefer not to say

30. Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth? Please select one.

Yes - Please go to Q32.

No - Please go to Q31.

Prefer not to say

31.If the gender you identify with is not the same as your sex registered at birth, please let us know your gender identity:

32. What is your ethnic group? Please select one.

Asian/ Asian British: Bangladeshi

Asian/ Asian British: Chinese

Asian/ Asian British: Indian

Asian/ Asian British: Pakistani

Asian/ Asian British: Any other background

Black/black British: African

Black/black British: Caribbean

Black/black British: Any other black background

Mixed race: white and Asian

Mixed race: white and black African

Mixed race: white and black Caribbean

Mixed race: Any other mixed background

White British

White Irish

White: Any other background

Any other ethnic group

Prefer not to say

33. Do you have any physical or mental health conditions or illnesses lasting or expecting to last 12 months or more? Please select one.

Yes - Please go to Q34.

No - Please go to Q35.

Prefer not to say - Please go to Q35.

34. Does your condition(s) or illness(es) reduce your ability to carry out day-to-day activities? Please select one.

Yes, a lot

Yes, a little

No

Prefer not to say

Not applicable

35. Do any of these conditions or illnesses affect you in any of the following areas? Please select all that apply.

Vision (for example blindness or partial sight)

Hearing (for example deafness or partial hearing)

Mobility (for example walking short distances or climbing stairs)

Dexterity (for example lifting and carrying objects, using a keyboard)

Learning or understanding or concentrating

Memory

Mental health

Stamina or breathing or fatigue

Socially or behaviourally (for example associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) which includes Asperger’s, or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD))

Other

None of the above

Prefer not to say

Thank you so much for answering these questions, we really appreciate your time. Please place your survey in an envelope named ‘KYN evaluation survey’ and give it to a member of the project team.

We have created a list of wellbeing and financial support services – these are being provided to everyone taking part in the project. We hope you, or someone you know, may find them useful. Please ask a member of staff if you would like a copy of them.

1. The responses include 70 duplicates, where one person completed the survey twice. Because the evaluation team does not have access to identifying information in the survey responses, this was not noticed during data cleaning and preparation for analysis. However, due to the small number of duplicates in the dataset, they do not alter the findings or the interpretation of data in this report. ↩

2. As of January 2024, many Arm’s Length Body (ALB) funded projects had not started delivering activities. Therefore, ALB funded project survey data is not included in this report. ↩

3. DCMS (2024) Community Life Survey 2023/24: annual publication. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-202324-annual-publication  ↩

4. Ibid. ↩

5. The responses include 70 duplicates, where one person completed the survey twice. Because the evaluation team does not have access to identifying information in the survey responses, this was not noticed during data cleaning and preparation for analysis. However, due to the small number of duplicates in the dataset, they do not alter the findings or the interpretation of data in this report. ↩

6. Three CFs will have local level evaluations. Interviews with CFs were conducted prior to the commissioning of these local level evaluations. ↩

7. DCMS (2024) Community Life Survey 2023/24: annual publication. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-202324-annual-publication  ↩

8. Ibid. ↩

9. Office for National Statistics (2023) Disability, England and Wales: Census 2021. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/disabilityenglandandwales/census2021 ↩

10. NatCen Social Research (2025) Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey 2023/4. Available from: https://natcen.ac.uk/publications/adult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey-20234. This survey included those aged 16 to 64. The proportion of KYN respondents cited here relates to those aged 16 to 64 to ensure comparability. ↩

11. Office for National Statistics (2024) Estimates of the population for the UK, England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland  ↩

12. All measures, including those for sex and gender, were discussed and agreed between March and November 2023. Therefore, the measures for sex and gender do not fully match with the current GSS Harmonisation workplan which was lastly updated on 11 December 2024, when our survey was already underway and not modifiable.  ↩

13. The response rate was calculated based on the monthly report shared by FC which included the number of volunteers and beneficiaries recruited by the UKCF funded projects up to 29 January 2024. This response rate is based on 1,813 responses, as the remaining responses are from projects where the number of beneficiaries and volunteers at the point in time when this report was drafted was unknown. ↩

14. Eligible projects were part of HE’s High Street Heritage Action Zones programme and were delivering in one of the 27 areas selected to be part of the KYN Fund. ↩

15. This is a finding from March 2023 process interviews: RSM conducted 14 depth interviews with the Cultural Partners, UKCF and all nine participating CFs. These interviews focussed on the application processes, the formulation and understanding of Fund aims and objectives, and a forward look at how they will provide onward grants in future rounds.  ↩

16. This is a finding from March 2023 process interviews. ↩

17. This is a finding from interviews held in March 2023. ↩

18. The final report will be better able to explore this through quantitative data. This finding is based on anecdotal feedback from interviews with projects. ↩

19. DCMS and the evaluation partners encouraged projects to share specific translation requests where they were needed. At the point of publication, only one translation request was received.  ↩

20. It was estimated that the survey would take approximately 5 minutes to complete. ↩

21. Respondents had the chance to skip questions which was recorded as a missing response. These were not counted in the calculation of responses’ proportions. We have included the population size (n) in the beginning of each sub-section next to the first reported percentage. Where not specified, the population size of reference is the one reported at the beginning of the same sub-section. ↩

22. Office for National Statistics (2024), cit. ↩

23. Office for National Statistics (2023), cit. ↩

24. People are considered as having a disability if a condition or an illness lasting or expected to last 12 months or more reduces either a little or a lot their ability to carry out daily activities. Source: https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/policy-store/measuring-disability-for-the-equality-act-2010/  ↩

25. Based on a previous version of the GSS Harmonisation workplan no longer in use, as described in note 7. ↩

26. This proportion of regular volunteering is likely a function of the nature of KYN funded projects where participants have access to opportunities that are designed to allow and encourage them to volunteer regularly. The evaluation’s final report will explore whether this proportion was maintained for those leaving their projects. ↩

27. DCMS (2024) Community Life Survey 2023/24: annual publication. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-202324-annual-publication  ↩

28. The comparison with the general population only has an illustrative purpose; however, this comparison is not to be considered statistically significant given the use of unweighted data from the KYN Fund survey. ↩

29. Respondents’ responses were associated to scores from 1 to 3 (respectively “hardly ever or never”, “some of the time”, and “often”) and then combined in a total score from 3 to 9, where 3 (respondent answered “hardly ever or never” to all three questions) indicates less frequent loneliness and 9 (respondent answered “often” to all three questions) indicates more frequent loneliness. ↩

30. Office for National Statistics (2018a) Measuring loneliness: guidance for use of the national indicators on surveys. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/measuringlonelinessguidanceforuseofthenationalindicatorsonsurveys  ↩

31. This composite measure can be calculated only by using the responses to all three indirect loneliness questions; therefore, we considered as missing all those cases where a respondent had answered to only one or two questions out of three. ↩

32. DCMS (2024) cit.  ↩

33. Only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

34. Office for National Statistics (2025) Personal well-being user guidance. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/personalwellbeingsurveyuserguide ↩

35. Each of the first three dimensions (life satisfaction, feeling things done in life are worthwhile and happiness) is rated with a score from 0 to 10 and then interpreted as low (scores 0-4), medium (scores 5-6), high (scores 7-8), and very high (scores 9-10); the scoring for feeling anxious is interpreted as very low (scores 0-1), low (scores 2-3), medium (scores 4-5), high (scores 6 to 10). For more details on interpretation and scoring system, please see: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/personalwellbeingsurveyuserguide ↩

36. Two new measures of personal well-being were introduced by the ONS but were still under review when the survey for this evaluation was designed (Summer/Autumn 2023), and we were therefore unable to include them in the questionnaire. ↩

37. UK Measures of National Well-being Dashboard, 9^th May 2024 (period: October-December 2023). Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/ukmeasuresofnationalwellbeing/dashboard ↩

38. The national average for life satisfaction is only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

39. UK Measures of National Well-being Dashboard, 9^th May 2024 (period: October-December 2023). Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/ukmeasuresofnationalwellbeing/dashboard  ↩

40. The national average for feeling that things done in life are worthwhile is only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

41. UK Measures of National Well-being Dashboard, 9^th May 2024 (period: October-December 2023). Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/ukmeasuresofnationalwellbeing/dashboard  ↩

42. The national average for people reporting a low score for happiness the day before is only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

43. UK Measures of National Well-being Dashboard, 9^th May 2024 (period: October-December 2023). Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/ukmeasuresofnationalwellbeing/dashboard   ↩

44. The national average for people reporting a high score for feeling anxious the day before is only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

45. DCMS (2024), cit. ↩

46. Ibid.  ↩

47. The percentage of respondents at the national level who felt they strongly belong to their immediate neighbourhood is only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

48. DCMS (2024), cit. ↩

49. The percentage of respondents at the national level who agree that the people in the neighbourhood pull together to improve the neighbourhood is only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

50. DCMS (2024), cit.  ↩

51. The proportion of respondents at the national level who said that they were satisfied with their local area as a place to live is only for illustrative purposes, as explained in note 20. ↩

52. Office for National Statistics (2021). Disability, England and Wales: Census 2021. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/disabilityenglandandwales/census2021. ↩

53. NatCen Social Research (2025), cit. This survey included those aged 16 to 64. The proportion of KYN respondents cited here relates to those aged 16 to 64 to ensure comparability. ↩

54. Office for National Statistics (2024), cit. ↩

55. DCMS (2024), cit. ↩

56. Ibid. ↩

57. DCMS (2024), cit. ↩

58. Office for National Statistics (2018a) Measuring loneliness: guidance for use of the national indicators on surveys. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/measuringlonelinessguidanceforuseofthenationalindicatorsonsurveys  ↩

59. Campaign to End Loneliness (2023) The State of Loneliness 2023: ONS data on loneliness in Britain June 2023. Available from: https://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/wp-content/uploads/The-State-of-Loneliness-2023-ONS-data-on-loneliness-in-Britain.pdf  ↩

60. Office for National Statistics (2018b) Personal well-being user guidance. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/methodologies/personalwellbeingsurveyuserguide  ↩

61. Office for National Statistics (2023) Review of the UK Measures of National Well-being, October 2022 to March 2023. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/reviewoftheukmeasuresofnationalwellbeingoctober2022tomarch2023/2023-07-05 ↩

62. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2023) Community Life Survey. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/community-life-survey--2  ↩

63. Allen, J. & van der Velden, R. (2005) The Role of Self-Assessment in Measuring Skills. REFLEX Working paper 2, March 2005. ↩

64. Burns KM, Burns NR, Ward L (2016) Confidence—More a Personality or Ability Trait? It Depends on How It Is Measured: A Comparison of Young and Older Adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 7. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00518. ↩

65. Stajkovic, A.D. (2006) Development of a Core Confidence–Higher Order Construct. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6): 1208–1224 ↩

66. Based on a previous version of the GSS Harmonisation workplan no longer in use, as described in note 7. ↩

67. Government Statistical Service and Statistician Group, Harmonised standards and guidance. Available from: https://analysisfunction.civilservice.gov.uk/government-statistical-service-and-statistician-group/gss-support/gss-harmonisation-support/harmonised-standards-and-guidance/#demographic-information  ↩

68. Some participants received the questionnaire only some time after having already joined funded projects. They were asked to think about the time right before joining the project and respond to the questionnaire as if they were completing it at that time.  ↩

69. The initial dataset actually included n=1,872 valid cases. However, during the analysis phase it emerged that n=19 respondents were under the age of 16; therefore, they should have not completed the questionnaire. This was discussed with RSM, FC and DCMS and it was agreed to remove these cases from the dataset and the analysis. The response rate is based on 1,813 responses. The remaining responses are from projects where the number of beneficiaries and volunteers at the point in time when this report was drafted was unknown. ↩

70. The Impacts of Volunteering on the Subjective Wellbeing of Volunteers: A Rapid Evidence Assessment Volunteer-wellbeing-technical-report-Oct2020-a-1.pdf (spiritof2012.org.uk) ↩

71. Based on a previous version of the GSS Harmonisation workplan no longer in use, as described in note 12. ↩

72. When looking at the third gender question (how people self-identify), not all respondents who reported identifying with a gender different from the sex assigned at birth provided an answer. Those who provided an answer identified as trans woman (n=5), trans man (n=4) and other options such as gender neutral, genderqueer, and non-binary (n=4). More granular details are not reported in the main table to minimise the risk of de-anonymisation. ↩

73. Percentages here do not add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select more than one type of disability – the percentages represent how many people out of 1,853 selected each, but as it was a ‘select all that apply’ question, they are not mutually exclusive. ↩

74. Percentages here do not add up to 100% because respondents were allowed to select more than one type of skill – the percentages represent how many people out of 1,853 selected each, but as it was a ‘select all that apply’ question, they are not mutually exclusive. ↩

75. To note, this is the survey script used for UKCF funded projects. ACE funded projects receive a different survey script, designed by ERS. ↩