Research and analysis

Know Your Neighbourhood Fund qualitative research: loneliness stigma and community cohesion

Published 18 June 2026

1. Executive summary

1.1. Background of the Know Your Neighbourhood Fund

1.1.1. Know Your Neighbourhood Fund 2025 to 2026

In April 2025 the UK government extended the Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) Fund until March 2026, with an additional up to £4.5 million of government funds being made available from an original allocation of up to £30 million. This funding built upon the original KYN Fund objectives and uplifted existing grant awards to organisations in the 27 eligible delivery areas that had previously received KYN funding between 2023 and 2025. In the extension period, KYN-funded projects have had a specific focus on delivering activities aimed at reducing loneliness stigma and building community cohesion.

The £4.5 million of government funding for the KYN extension year was split into the following tranches: 

• Up to £2.6 million was delivered by UK Community Foundations (UKCF) and a consortium of local Community Foundations (CFs) across 9 areas.

• Up to £1.5 million was delivered by Arts Council England (ACE) across 27 KYN Fund target areas via their three cultural partners - Association of Independent Museums (AIM); Creative Lives; and Libraries Connected.

• Up to £253,000 was delivered by Historic England across 11 areas.

1.1.2. Know Your Neighbourhood Fund 2023 to 2025

In January 2023 the previous government confirmed the launch of the KYN Fund, originally as an up to £30 million package of funding designed to widen participation in volunteering and tackle loneliness in 27 disadvantaged areas across England.

The objectives of the KYN Fund were:

• 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 levels 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 27 target areas in scope for the KYN Fund were identified as high-need areas based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation and the Community Needs Index. Eligible areas included; 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.

1.2. Purpose of this research 

The overall objective of the research summarised in this report was to better understand how the KYN Fund contributed to building community cohesion and reducing the stigma surrounding loneliness, specifically during the KYN Fund delivery period between April 2025 and March 2026. Projects focused on either reducing the stigma of loneliness or building community cohesion. DCMS and Fortia Insight agreed a set of research questions to meet this research objective, which are explored in section 1.4.1.

1.2.1. Evaluation activity

The research in this report builds on the previous evaluation conducted on the KYN Fund from 2022 to 2025. It examined the effectiveness of the KYN Fund in achieving its stated objectives, assessed its value for money (VfM), and identified opportunities to support learning and strengthen accountability in the use of grant funding. This was a standalone evaluation, which explored a different delivery period and evaluation themes compared with the research questions and delivery period explored in this report.

1.3. Data used in this report

This report draws on the following data sources:

• 29 interviews with projects funded by Arts Council England (10), Historic England (2), and UKCF (17).

• Interviews and focus groups with 14 participants of these projects. Five interviews were with participants in Arts Council England or Historic England funded projects, and nine with participants in UKCF funded projects.

• 3 qualitative online survey responses from participants.

• Project lists, including descriptions of funded activities and target participants.

1.4. Key findings

Below are the key findings relating to the research questions explored. These findings were used to inform a set of recommendations for funders and projects aiming to reduce the stigma of loneliness or build community cohesion through their activities (see section 6.2).

1.4.1. Reducing the stigma of loneliness

Which projects aim to increase the understanding of loneliness and isolation through KYN?

The KYN Fund supported arts, culture, and heritage-based projects aimed at deepening understanding of loneliness and reducing its stigma. Most projects interviewed continued to deliver similar activities to those they delivered during the initial KYN Fund. These projects felt that reducing the prevalence of loneliness and reducing the stigma of loneliness were related outcomes. This was because most projects aimed to reduce the stigma of loneliness by encouraging participants to form friendship groups (helping to reduce loneliness), in which they could discuss their experiences of loneliness, helping to reduce the stigma of loneliness.

Other projects adapted their original activity design, adding guided discussions about the stigma of loneliness, using arts, culture and heritage activities as a mechanism for this. This helped to grow participants’ understanding of how people experience loneliness and the impact loneliness can have on their lives.

What can we learn about these approaches that aim to increase awareness of loneliness and isolation in communities as something that everyone experiences?

Projects aiming to reduce the stigma of loneliness delivered a range of activities through arts and crafts groups (such as knitting, drawing and painting), performing art groups (such as choirs), gardening groups and board game groups. Most of these activities were delivered on a weekly basis in community venues. Projects typically worked to reduce the stigma of loneliness by creating opportunities for open conversation, aiming to normalise discussions about loneliness, reduce fear of judgement, and reinforce the ideas that loneliness can affect anyone, and people tend not to hold negative opinions about those experiencing loneliness. To do this, some projects incorporated facilitated discussions led by project staff, which were designed to focus on loneliness stigma, directly into their sessions. They found that grounding these conversations in creative activities helped participants feel more at ease when talking about loneliness stigma. Other projects did this by focussing on building strong, trusting relationships between participants first, as these projects felt that once participants felt comfortable with one another, conversations about loneliness emerged naturally. Many projects noted that holding weekly sessions with small, consistent groups of participants over a longer period was crucial for building the level of trust needed for participants to talk openly without fear of being judged.

What organisational skills, knowledge and understanding of loneliness and isolation are required to help build understanding of loneliness with participants?

Projects highlighted that having staff with lived experience relevant to the participant group (for example, people who have experienced bereavement, or people from the LGBTQ+ community) was an important enabler, as it helped participants feel more confident sharing their own experiences of loneliness and their perceptions of loneliness stigma, without fear of judgement. Projects said other ‘soft skills’ such as communication and empathy were essential for staff to have sensitive conversations about loneliness stigma. Projects also emphasised the value of trauma‑informed and safeguarding training, explaining that this gave staff greater confidence when navigating sensitive or emotionally complex discussions.

How can we reach a range of new audiences (for example, young people and young men), for example through creative campaigns and exhibitions?

Most projects engaged in this research targeted specific groups of people that they identified as more likely to experience loneliness and the negative impact of loneliness stigma. These groups included elderly people, recently bereaved people, people from the LGBTQ+ community, new parents and people with a physical or mental health condition. By working with specific groups, projects felt they could create environments where participants with shared experiences felt safer discussing loneliness and who were less worried about being judged.

Projects endeavoured to mitigate against the stigma of loneliness by not including the word ‘loneliness’ in their recruitment materials or initial communications. This was important as projects felt that participants did not want to attend a ‘support group’, due to participants’ preconceptions about what this would involve. Similarly, one project targeting men mentioned they had to be very deliberate in the wording they used to advertise their activities to avoid wording around mental wellbeing, due to the associated stigma of mental health for men in particular.

1.4.2. Increasing community cohesion

Which projects aim to support community cohesion through the KYN Fund?

Projects supported community cohesion through a mix of volunteering opportunities, community hub spaces, and outreach activities. Activities included arts and crafts, English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes, social outings (for example, visits to museums) and community events.

Projects made activities inclusive by using trusted and neutral venues such as community hubs, tailoring formats to different needs, and reducing practical barriers through local delivery, transport support, and multilingual assistance. Delivery also included youth social action, support for migrants and individuals who had recently arrived in England and inclusive provision for people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) through structured sessions and supported social opportunities. Alongside these core elements, projects used creative and cultural activities, food‑based sessions and family and parent groups, as additional ways to bring people together.

How are KYN Fund projects addressing potential barriers to participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)?

Projects typically focused on people who were least likely to mix socially without support. This included those experiencing isolation or loneliness, individuals facing transport availability or cost barriers, people with limited English language skills, or those affected by digital exclusion. These people tended to experience numerous barriers to participating in community cohesion activities. The main barriers to participation were transport and transport cost challenges, language and communication difficulties, and low confidence. Projects helped reduce these barriers by offering local, free activities, providing transport support where needed, and using multilingual volunteers to help facilitate communication.

What can we learn about the activities used by these projects to build trust and between people from different community groups?

Projects aimed to promote community cohesion by creating safe, neutral settings with clear ground rules and strong safeguarding where mixed‑group work could be sensitive to cultural differences between groups. Shared “side‑by‑side” tasks, such as collaborative art activities, helped reduce unease and made it easier for people with lower confidence or limited language skills to engage with others from their local area. Creative and cultural formats, including food‑based activities, also helped participants connect in low‑pressure ways, particularly when language differences might otherwise have been a barrier.

Are there specific KYN Fund projects that explicitly target inter-group relations (for example, between different ethnic, age, or socio-economic groups)? If so, what are their delivery models and what can they teach us about supporting community cohesion?

Projects also aimed to improve community cohesion between different community groups. These projects found that improving inter‑group relations worked best when projects mixed community groups together during activities from the outset. Projects said this allowed community groups to build common ground through shared goals and regular interaction. Where projects did this, they found that it was important to establish rules about contentious topics to avoid, helping to minimise disagreements and confrontations.

Some delivery models intentionally brought different groups together, for example through mixed ESOL groups, which helped people recognise shared experiences and challenge misconceptions.

What challenges have KYN Fund projects encountered in their efforts to build trust and mobility, and how have they adapted their strategies to overcome these challenges?

Projects said that inter-group sensitivities (including generational and national identity-linked differences) could undermine trust building. In response projects used safeguarding approaches and careful session planning where potentially sensitive topics could arise. Projects also highlighted capacity constraints and short-term funding pressures, which could reduce continuity and make it harder to sustain the routine contact needed for community cohesion to build at scale. 

What strategies are being used to encourage sustained interactions beyond initial project activities?

Projects helped sustain community cohesion by offering routine sessions, complemented by periodic larger events to keep participants connected. Projects also aimed to build participant independence so that inter-group relationships could continue beyond the period of the KYN Fund. Projects looked to do this by strengthening local capability through volunteering and training (including developing skills needed to support delivery), which helped create longer‑term, participant‑led connection.

2. Introduction

2.1. Background of the Know Your Neighbourhood Fund

2.1.1. Know Your Neighbourhood Fund 2025 to 2026

In April 2025 the UK Government extended the Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) Fund until March 2026, with an additional up to £4.5 million of government funds being made available from an original allocation of up to £30 million. This funding built upon the original KYN Fund objectives and uplifted existing grant awards to organisations in the 27 eligible delivery areas that had previously received KYN funding between 2023 and 2025. In the extension period, KYN-funded projects have had a specific focus on delivering activities aimed at reducing loneliness stigma and building community cohesion.

The £4.5 million of government funding for the KYN extension year was split into the following tranches: 

• Up to £2.6 million was delivered by UK Community Foundations (UKCF) and a consortium of local Community Foundations (CFs) across 9 areas.

• Up to £1.5 million was delivered by Arts Council England (ACE) across 27 KYN Fund target areas via their three cultural partners - Association of Independent Museums (AIM); Creative Lives; and Libraries Connected.

• Up to £253,000 was delivered by Historic England across 11 areas.

2.1.2. Know Your Neighbourhood Fund 2023 to 2025

In January, 2023 the previous government confirmed the launch of the Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) Fund, originally as an up to £30 million package of funding designed to widen participation in volunteering and tackle loneliness in 27 disadvantaged areas across England.

The objectives of the KYN Fund were:

• 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 levels 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 27 target areas in scope for the KYN Fund were identified as high-need areas based on the English Index of Multiple Deprivation and the Community Needs Index. Eligible areas included; 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.

2.2. ACE and Historic England projects

During the delivery year 2025 to 2026, DCMS provided around £1.75 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 was delivered by ACE and Historic England. It built 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. ACE and Historic England funded projects were asked to ensure their delivery also had an additional focus on reducing the stigma surrounding loneliness.

ACE distributed £1.5 million, which included around £1.25 million in onward grants across three schemes, using three Cultural Partner organisations (who they had worked with on KYN since its inception) to provide onward grants, that utilised existing community assets like libraries and museums to bring people together, including through volunteering:

• Libraries Connected distributed up to around £628,000 in grant funding. This was 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.

• Association for Independent Museums (AIM) distributed up to around £388,000 in grant funding. This was 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 nine projects.

• Creative Lives distributed up to around £242,000 in grant funding. This was used to support voluntary arts groups to deliver arts activities that help people to connect with others. This included funding for community choirs, music and drama clubs, and intergenerational creative activities. Creative Lives funded 31 projects.

In addition Historic England distributed £253,000 in grant funding to 11 projects that previously received KYN grants between 2023 to 2025. Historic England had a focus on additional activities that bring people together and create volunteering opportunities connected to their local high street. The funding also supported the delivery of cultural activities that help people feel proud of and connected to where they live and their local community.

2.3. UKCF projects

From UKCF’s up to £2.6 million of KYN funding in 2025 to 2026, around £2.35 million was delivered by UKCF and a consortium of local CFs across the same 9 areas. The funding supported activities that enabled volunteering and tackled loneliness in nine targeted disadvantaged areas in England. UKCF funded projects were asked to have an additional focus on building community cohesion. Projects which received grant funding were based in the following areas: Wolverhampton, South Tyneside, Kingston-Upon-Hull, Blackpool, Stoke-On-Trent, Great Yarmouth, Fenland, County Durham, and Barrow-in-Furness. 

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

UKCF and their consortium of CFs funded 75 projects in 2025 to 2026.

2.4. Research objectives

The overall objectives of this research were to understand how the KYN Fund contributed towards building community cohesion and reducing loneliness stigma via funding-based interventions in 2025 to 2026. This research explores the research questions (RQs) below:

Loneliness stigma

• Which projects aim to increase the understanding of loneliness and isolation through KYN?

• What can we learn about these approaches that aim to increase awareness of loneliness and isolation in communities as something that everyone experiences?

• What organisational skills, knowledge and understanding of loneliness and isolation are required to help build understanding of loneliness with participants?

• How can we reach a range of new audiences (for example, young people/young men), for example through creative campaigns and exhibitions?

Community cohesion

• Which projects aimed to support community cohesion through KYN? 

• How are KYN projects addressing potential barriers to participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)?

• What can we learn about the activities used by these projects to build trust between people from different community groups?  

• Are there specific projects that target inter-group relations (for example, between different ethnic, age, socio-economic groups?) if so, what are their delivery models and what can they teach us about supporting community cohesion?  

• What challenges have KYN projects encountered in their efforts to build trust and mobility, and how have they adapted their strategies to overcome these challenges?

• What strategies are being used to encourage sustained participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)? 

3. Methodology

3.1. Overview

This is a qualitative research study that draws on online interviews with projects and with project participants. This section provides an overview of the data collected, the data analysis conducted, and the limitations of the approach agreed with DCMS.

3.2. Data collection

Data collection consisted of the following:

• 29 interviews with projects funded by Arts Council England (10), Historic England (2), and UKCF (17);

• Interviews / focus groups with 14 participants of these projects. Five participant interviews were with participants in Arts Council England or Historic England funded projects, and nine with participants in UKCF funded projects;

• 3 qualitative, open text only, online survey responses from participants; and

• Project lists, including descriptions of funded activities and target participants.

Projects were sampled for interview using a purposive sampling approach, which considered project grant size and likely capacity to engage in the research (as suggested by Delivery Partners). Project interviews were conducted using MS Teams and lasted up to 45 minutes. 

Following project interviews, project staff were asked to invite their participants to take part in an interview. Originally, the study planned to conduct 15 interviews and five focus groups (of two to four participants each). However, initial interest from participants in taking part in interviews was lower than expected. To support recruitment, DCMS and the research team agreed to offer participants a £20 Love2shop voucher as an incentive to participate. This helped reduce the risk of insufficient interview participation and ensured the team could gather meaningful findings within the short data‑collection timeline. To further mitigate against this risk, participants were also offered the option to complete an online qualitative survey in lieu of taking part in an interview. The surveys were based on the questions asked in the topic guide, so covered the same topic areas. No incentive was offered for this option.

Participant interviews were conducted using both MS Teams, and telephone calls, and lasted up to 30 minutes.

Project interview topic guides, participant interview topic guides and participant survey scripts are available in the appendices.

3.3. Data analysis

With interviewees’ permission^{[footnote 1]}, interviews were transcribed and coded deductively using a thematic framework to draw out key themes against the agreed RQs. The qualitative framework was updated iteratively to identify emerging themes and address thematic gaps. Interviews explored either topics relating to the stigma of loneliness, or community cohesion, depending on whether the project was ALB or UKCF funded.

3.4. Limitations

This research has the following limitations:

• This is a depth piece of research rather than focused on breadth. Therefore, it is not designed to be representative of all KYN Fund projects. All findings in this report relate exclusively to projects and participants that participated in interviews.

• Interviews were slightly skewed towards projects and participants delivering / engaging in activities that aimed to increase community cohesion, rather than reduce the stigma surrounding loneliness.^{[footnote 2]} This imbalance did not have a material impact on the ability of this report to answer the research questions set out in section 2.4.

• Fewer interviews were completed with participants than originally scoped, due to challenges with recruitment. However, this did not have a material impact on the ability of this report to answer the research questions set out.

4. Tackling the stigma of loneliness

Key findings at a glance

Which projects aim to increase the understanding of loneliness and isolation through KYN? (see section 4.2)

• Projects funded by the KYN Fund used arts, culture, and heritage-based activities (such as choirs, arts and crafts, gardening, and board games) to reduce the stigma of loneliness and isolation. 

• Most projects maintained their original activity formats from the initial KYN Fund period, viewing the reduction of loneliness and its stigma as interconnected goals.

• Some projects adapted their activities to more directly address loneliness stigma, incorporating guided discussions and creative expressions (for example, songs about loneliness stigma) into their activities.

What can we learn about these approaches that aim to increase awareness of loneliness and isolation in communities as something that everyone experiences? (see section 4.3)

• Projects aimed to reduce the stigma of loneliness by encouraging and normalising discussions about loneliness, reduce fear of judgment, and increase understanding that anyone can experience loneliness.

• Some projects designed and delivered participant group discussions (facilitated by project staff) about loneliness stigma as part of their activities. These projects found that basing these discussions around art was a useful tool to help participants feel more comfortable discussing loneliness stigma.

• Other projects aimed to build trusted friendships between participants. These projects said that once participants felt comfortable together, discussions about loneliness stigma happened naturally.

• Projects found having weekly activities, with a small group of participants, over an extended period helped to build trust between participants. This trust helped participants discuss loneliness stigma without fear of judgement.

What organisational skills, knowledge and understanding of loneliness and isolation are required to help build understanding of loneliness with participants? (see section 4.4)

• Project staff and volunteers having lived experience relevant to the participant groups was cited by projects as a key facilitator, as projects felt it helped participants to share their own experiences of loneliness and their perceptions of loneliness stigma, without fear of judgement.

• Trauma informed and safeguarding training were also viewed as beneficial by projects as the training helped staff feel more confident having sensitive conversations about the stigma of loneliness.

How can we reach a range of new audiences (for example, young people/young men), for example through creative campaigns and exhibitions? (see section 4.5)

• Projects found that targeting specific groups of people was beneficial to encourage discussions about the stigma of loneliness as participants would be less likely to fear judgement from people with similar experiences.

• Using their experience gained from the original period of KYN Fund delivery, projects avoided using the word ‘loneliness’ in participant recruitment as projects felt this would deter participants from joining due to the stigma of loneliness.

• Projects tailored recruitment strategies to effectively engage target groups who experience loneliness stigma, such as conducting outreach in LGBTQ+ communities and using carefully considered language to reduce stigma when engaging men.

4.1. Introduction

This section presents findings about a proportion of the projects that aimed to increase understanding of loneliness, the stigma of loneliness, and isolation. It includes lessons about approaches that work to increase awareness of these topics and examines what organisations need to consider to help build this awareness among project participants and the wider community and general public. The section concludes with approaches that appear to work well to reach new participants and reduce the stigma of loneliness based on available evidence. The data used in this section consists of interviews with projects leads and delivery staff and with project participants.

4.2. Which projects aim to increase the understanding of loneliness and isolation through KYN?

Key findings: Through the KYN Fund, projects delivered a range of arts, culture and heritage based activities to reduce the stigma of loneliness. Many projects did not significantly change their activities compared with the initial KYN Fund period, as they viewed reducing the prevalence of loneliness and reducing the stigma of loneliness as closely intertwined. Some projects made slight adaptations to their activities to more closely align with the objective to reduce the stigma of loneliness.

Projects delivered a range of activities through arts and crafts groups (such as knitting, drawing and painting), performing art groups (such as choirs), gardening groups and board game groups. Most of these activities were delivered on a weekly basis from community venues. These activities were typically facilitated by a project staff member or commissioned facilitator (for example, local art teacher), and a volunteer, or team of volunteers.

Some projects delivered multiple different types of activities to help reach different participants and reduce the stigma of loneliness with these (see section 4.5) for further details).

Most projects interviewed delivered the same, or very similar activities to what they delivered during the initial KYN Fund period (2023 to 2025). These projects felt that tackling loneliness and tackling the stigma of loneliness were closely intertwined. This was because projects recognised that during the initial KYN Fund period they were able to recruit people at risk of experiencing loneliness. As these participants formed friendships and trust with each other, they would discuss their own experiences of loneliness, which helped to reduce the stigma surrounding loneliness, whilst also alleviating loneliness. These discussions about experiences with loneliness helped to reduce the perception that others associated a stigma with loneliness.

Some projects made adaptations to their activity design and delivery to ensure that they were meeting the requirements around reducing the stigma of loneliness. These adaptations included adding guided discussions with participants about the stigma of loneliness into project activities. One project had guided discussions around songs that explored the stigma of loneliness, which the participants would then learn and perform.

Many projects had volunteers who supported the delivery of projects’ KYN funded activities. Some projects aimed to reduce the stigma of loneliness experienced by their volunteers by engaging them in the participant discussions about loneliness stigma (see section 4.3 for further details). For other projects, volunteers were used as facilitators to help reduce the stigma of loneliness within the beneficiary group (see section 4.4 for further details).

Projects facilitated discussions between participants which allowed them to discuss personal experiences of loneliness. This helped to grow participants’ understanding of how people experience loneliness and the impact loneliness can have on their lives.

Projects also highlighted the importance of delivering their activities in disadvantaged areas. Aligned with the KYN Fund being delivered in 27 selected disadvantaged local authority areas, projects said that many of the people they reached were from disadvantaged backgrounds, who without their KYN Fund activities, would struggle to access arts, culture and heritage activities due to the associated cost. Activities such as going to the theatre or paying for an art tutor were highlighted examples. Projects said that this inability to access arts, culture and heritage activities contributed to their participants’ isolation and experience of loneliness. Additionally, projects said that this contributes to the stigma associated with loneliness, as people may be reluctant to express that part of the reason they experience loneliness is due to their financial situation.

We are working with groups who sit on the outside of [the local community]. It is difficult to engage these people in the project. A lot of them are in poverty and can’t access resources. Every day they are worn down by not having a lot of money…If you’re already challenged economically, you can feel lonely, even if there’s people around you. It’s the stresses and stigma.

- Project.

Lesson learned: Projects said that the perception of loneliness stigma was more pronounced in disadvantaged areas, and that financial situation (amongst other factors highlighted in section 5.5 can contribute to or exacerbate perceived loneliness stigma.

4.3. What can we learn about these approaches that aim to increase awareness of loneliness and isolation in communities as something that everyone experiences?

Key findings: Most projects interviewed aimed to reduce the stigma of loneliness by encouraging conversations about loneliness between participants. Some projects intentionally embedded discussions surrounding loneliness stigma into their activity design. In contrast, others said that these discussions naturally took place as participants formed friendships. Most projects noted the importance of reducing the stigma of  loneliness over a period of many months, as it requires a gradual process to help participants become more comfortable discussing loneliness.

Most projects interviewed decided to address loneliness stigma by encouraging discussions around experiences of loneliness. Projects felt that normalising conversations around loneliness helps to reduce the stigma of  it, as participants built an appreciation that everyone can experience loneliness, and it is not something that is unique to them as individuals, or something they should feel ashamed of.

Whilst projects delivered a range of activities to address the stigma of loneliness, these approaches could be split into two broad categories: activities that directly addressed the stigma of loneliness, and activities that indirectly addressed the stigma of loneliness. These two project types are discussed in turn below.

4.3.1. Activities that directly addressed the stigma of loneliness

Some projects decided to build discussions and explorations of loneliness stigma as a concept into their project design. This approach was more common among projects led by staff who had strong professional backgrounds in mental health and wellbeing, as it aligned closely with their previous work. 

These projects found that using arts, culture and heritage activities as a mechanism to explore loneliness and the associated stigma was particularly effective. During these activities, project staff could introduce a particular piece of media, or an art form to their participants (such as paintings, books or songs), which had strong links to loneliness stigma.  Project staff could then facilitate conversations around the meaning of the artwork, which encouraged participants to talk about loneliness stigma. Projects felt this was particularly effective as participants who felt more comfortable discussing the topic could talk about their own perceptions of loneliness stigma, whereas participants who felt less comfortable talking about their own perceptions could comment on the messages the artist was trying to convey, or what the artist may have felt. Projects said that this socialisation and normalisation of discussing loneliness as a topic area helped to reduce the stigma of loneliness within the participant group, as the conversations highlighted that loneliness is a feeling that everyone can experience, and that other participants did not hold negative opinions about those experiencing loneliness.

Lesson learned: Exploring the stigma of loneliness through art can help facilitate discussions around loneliness, which can help participants understand loneliness better. Some participants may find it easier to discuss loneliness stigma in respect to a piece of art, rather than their own personal experiences of loneliness stigma.

Projects said that discussing these sensitive topic areas could be potentially “triggering” to participants. Therefore, projects did not start their activities discussing loneliness stigma, instead gradually introducing these discussions to the group, over a period of many weeks. Additionally, projects said that early in the delivery timelines of their activities, they did not use the word ‘loneliness’, instead using neutral framing, such as ‘belonging’ and ‘connectedness’. Then as participants became more comfortable with these discussions, the word ‘loneliness’ could be used more commonly, as it was less likely to be upsetting to participants. This suggests that reducing the stigma of loneliness through these types of projects is a gradual process, that requires time and careful consideration of participants’ readiness to discuss loneliness and loneliness stigma.

As the project has gone on, we’ve done little bits of conversations with participants around [loneliness]. We have used the word ‘loneliness’ more explicitly over time.

- Project.

Lesson learned: ‘Loneliness’ as a word carries stigma and can be difficult for participants to talk about. Introducing ‘loneliness’ as a word over a period of time, can help participants feel more comfortable discussing loneliness stigma directly. Alternatively, using neutral framing, such as ‘belonging’ can help participants feel more comfortable discussing loneliness stigma indirectly.

Projects that more directly encouraged discussion around loneliness stigma tended to target specific demographic groups, including people who were recently bereaved, new parents and people from the LGBTQ+ community. Projects felt that it was easier for their participants to talk about loneliness stigma with a group of peers who were likely to have similar life experiences. According to projects interviewed, these shared experiences helped participants to feel less likely to be judged for sharing their experiences with / perceptions of loneliness stigma. Projects said that the sharing of similar experiences with loneliness helped to reduce the stigma of loneliness as participants realised there were many other people in similar situations to themselves.

Lesson learned: Different groups can experience loneliness stigma differently. Targeting projects at certain groups, with similar experiences may help participants feel more comfortable talking about loneliness stigma, as they feel it is less likely they will be judged.

4.3.2. Activities that indirectly addressed the stigma of loneliness

In contrast to the above, most projects interviewed took a less direct approach to addressing the stigma of loneliness. In these indirect approaches, projects formed groups based on shared interests of their community members. Examples cited in interviews included arts and crafts groups, board game groups and gardening groups. Projects used community engagement approaches to assess which groups may be popular in their community. These projects said that the flexibility of the KYN Fund was useful in allowing them to trial different activities to test community appetite for different types of groups.

I think it’s [reducing the stigma of loneliness] by stealth. That is the thing that works because people haven’t come along to join a group because they say, ‘I’m lonely’. They’ve come because they want to learn a skill.

- Project.

Projects said that these shared interest groups acted as a mechanism to regularly convene like-minded people with similar interests. Projects said that this naturally fostered a social environment, as initially people talked about the focus of the group (for example, art, board games). Projects then found that over multiple sessions participants developed friendships, which allowed them to talk about their personal lives more often. Projects said that these discussions naturally progressed to discussions about loneliness stigma, as participants reflected on their experiences of loneliness before the project, in comparison to their current experiences with loneliness after developing new friendships through the project. Again, projects felt that these discussions about loneliness helped to reduce the stigma of loneliness within their participants as an appreciation grew that others were also experiencing loneliness prior to the project, and that other participants did not hold negative opinions about those experiencing loneliness. 

 

You sort of model behaviour, don’t you? So when [project staff member] was leading some of the groups early on, being welcoming and being open, and having honest conversations with people, actually people did talk about loneliness without being prompted.

- Project.

This was echoed by participants interviewed, who recounted examples of when a participant in their group discussed their experiences of loneliness, which reduced the stigma of  loneliness, and allowed other participants to share their experiences of loneliness, without fear of judgement. Participants interviewed also shared that they met up with other participants outside of the project activities, which provided another environment to loneliness stigma. Some participants interviewed also shared that they were in contact with other participants using platforms such as WhatsApp. These participants felt that for some, it was easier to overcome the stigma of loneliness, to discuss their own experiences of loneliness online, rather than in person. 

You get to meet people through the [project] and form friendships. This helps to combat loneliness. People are able to say they feel lonely…and not be judged.

- Participant.

Lesson learned: Participants involved in arts, craft and heritage activities are likely to have varying levels of experience relating to the activity. This facilitates conversations as participants try to learn from each other, which helps them develop trust and friendships. This can naturally lead to participants discussing experiences of loneliness, which helps to reduce the stigma of loneliness.

Projects that took this indirect approach to addressing loneliness stigma found that having smaller groups, of usually between 2 to 20 people, was important to this approach. These projects felt that it was less intimidating for participants to join smaller groups, and in these smaller groups participants found it easier to form deeper, personal friendships with each other. The development of these personal friendships provided the foundation for participants to be able to share their experiences of loneliness, to help reduce the stigma of it within the participant group.

Lesson learned: Due to the associated stigma, discussing loneliness can be intimidating for participants. This can be exacerbated in large groups, as participants experience a greater fear of judgment. Projects that run activities in smaller groups may be better suited to encourage discussion surrounding loneliness, to help address the stigma of loneliness.

4.3.3. What works well in projects which aim to reduce the stigma of loneliness

Projects highlighted a range of factors that worked well, and helped them to effectively deliver activities to reduce the stigma of loneliness:

Facilities

Projects that were funded through Libraries Connected or AIM felt that basing activities that aim to reduce the stigma of loneliness in libraries and museums was beneficial as these venues are open to all members of the local community. Therefore, these projects said this allowed them to host a range of different activities for different parts of their local community, allowing them to reduce the stigma of loneliness for a range of participants.

Libraries are able to offer activities, support groups and social groups that when participants come in to use them, it’s not a big red sign on their head saying they’re lonely…it takes away the stigma and potential nervousness that somebody might have that makes them reluctant to reach out to other services.

- Project.

Lesson learned: Neutral and welcoming spaces can help people feel more comfortable engaging in activities, which can then lead them to accessing support on loneliness stigma.

Weekly sessions

Almost all projects interviewed held their activities at least weekly. Projects emphasised the importance of this, noting that regular interaction between the participants helped to become more comfortable with each other, and build friendships. Projects said that this familiarity built between the participants provided the platform for participants to feel comfortable discussing sensitive topics, such as loneliness stigma. Additionally, projects said that having weekly activities meant participants always knew when the activity was (for example, every Tuesday evening). Projects felt this helped participants who were particularly nervous about joining the activities, as it meant they did not have to reach out to the project beforehand to ask when the activity would be, which could be particularly daunting for someone who is nervous about the stigma of loneliness.

I like to move about the session [to talk to different people]. One person talked about [an issue in their personal life, which resulted in them experiencing loneliness], and what they have done since. The shared experiences we have through [the project] has accelerated the connection we have. I feel I belong when I’m [at the project], I don’t have to pretend.

- Participant.

Regular attendees

Most projects and participants interviewed said that there was a core group of participants who regularly attended the project. Interviewees said this was beneficial as it allowed participants to form trusting friendships, where topics such as loneliness stigma could be discussed freely. This emphasises that whilst the project activity type (for example, arts and crafts, board games) was an important factor to recruit participants, many of the positive benefits relating to reducing the stigma of loneliness were reportedly influenced by having sustained interactions with the same group of people over time. Whilst projects noted this, they also said that it was important that the core group of regular participants were accepting of new participants, to avoid “cliques” forming. Projects said that their participants were naturally accepting to new participants, whereas others used volunteers to facilitate the integration of new participants into the group. Some projects mitigated against the risk of participants becoming isolated in their activities by using volunteers to help integrate participants into the group by facilitating introductions.

Lesson learned: Activities that are delivered on a regular basis (weekly) with a small, consistent cohort of participants are well positioned to help reduce the stigma of loneliness.

To note, the experience of staff was also viewed as a key facilitator to project activities which reduced the stigma of loneliness. This is explored further in section 4.4.

4.3.4. Difficulties in delivering projects which aim to reduce the stigma of loneliness

Projects noted that it is a gradual process to reduce the stigma of loneliness. Many projects felt they benefited from having a multi-year project, where trust could be built, providing a platform to be able to discuss and reduce the stigma of loneliness. 

In the initial project [KYN Fund 2023 to 2025] people wouldn’t classify themselves as lonely. People are now a bit more reflective, and will say there are times they feel lonely, but they quantify it by saying ‘not all the time’. So, there is still a bit of stigma as they feel the need to quantify it. They [participants] don’t recognise it in their own lives until they have time to reflect.

- Project.

Finally, projects noted that their sphere of influence relating to the stigma of loneliness was limited to the participants they directly engaged. Activities were designed to help participants reflect and build trusting friendships between participants, which facilitated the discussion of sensitive topics, such as loneliness stigma. Some projects said that activities were designed to be with a small group of participants to help build these trusting environments, where loneliness could be destigmatised. Therefore, projects felt that whilst they could reduce the stigma of loneliness with the participants they directly engaged with, they could not influence the stigma of loneliness within the wider local community.

Lesson learned: Addressing the stigma of loneliness requires participants to have a long-term interaction with a project.

4.3.5. Legacy of KYN Fund projects on the stigma of loneliness

Projects who noted that their participants now regularly meet each other outside of their project activities were confident that their participants now have a supportive network, which they can continue to talk about loneliness and loneliness stigma with, following the conclusion of the project. These projects therefore expressed positivity about having reduced the stigma of loneliness in the long-term for their participants, as they now have a trusted social group which they feel comfortable talking about loneliness stigma with. However, some expressed concern that participants who struggle with the stigma of loneliness may not meet other participants outside of the project activities, so will continue to struggle with loneliness stigma following the conclusion of the KYN Fund.

4.4. What organisational skills, knowledge and understanding of loneliness and isolation are required to help build understanding of loneliness with participants?

Key findings: Projects identified a range of skills, knowledge and experience that were key to delivering activities that aimed to reduce loneliness. Soft skills, such as communication skills were highlighted as important, given that conversations about loneliness can be difficult. Training such as trauma-informed training and safeguarding training also helped project staff feel more confident having conversations about loneliness. Staff and volunteers with lived experience relevant to the participant group were also viewed by projects as a key facilitator to delivery.

Projects highlighted a range of skills and knowledge possessed by their staff and volunteers, which were identified as essential to delivering activities which aim to reduce the stigma of loneliness in disadvantaged areas. Most projects interviewed felt that interpersonal skills were vital, including communications skills and empathy. Projects said that these skills helped participants feel more comfortable to discuss topics such as loneliness stigma, without fear of judgement.

There has to be a level of humanity. [You have to understand] the idea of loneliness and isolation and not conform to that stigma. You have to understand that everyone will experience loneliness at some point in their life… You have to be able to talk to people.

- Project.

Projects also stressed the range of their staff members’ professional backgrounds, and training, which allowed them to effectively deliver activities that reduce the stigma of loneliness. Some projects said that their staff had backgrounds in mental wellbeing and community wellbeing. These projects felt that staff from these backgrounds were more comfortable using language and navigating conversations around loneliness stigma, as they were familiar with the subject through previous work. 

Trauma-informed training was raised by multiple projects as vital for staff delivering activities that reduce the stigma of loneliness. Projects said that staff who took part in this type of training felt more confident afterwards having conversations about loneliness with participants without causing distress. Similarly, projects suggested that safeguarding training was useful for staff and volunteers. In particular, projects said that potential safeguarding issues could be discussed during conversations about loneliness stigma. Taking part in safeguarding training gave project staff and volunteers the confidence to identify topics that should be reported as a safeguarding issue, and what should not be, helping to create trusting relationships with participants. Projects said they access these types of training through local VCSE networks but often have to find free courses due to limited professional training budgets.

Lesson learned: Trauma informed training and safeguarding training can help project staff feel better prepared to facilitate discussions about loneliness and loneliness stigma.

Projects felt where staff had lived experience relevant to the participant group, participants were less likely to feel judged when sharing their experiences. This helped to promote open discussions around loneliness and loneliness stigma. However, some projects noted that it is sometimes difficult to recruit staff with lived experience. These projects said that recruiting volunteers with lived experience can be as effective as recruiting staff with lived experience, as volunteers are also able to create an environment without fear of judgement.

I think a lot of our volunteers have got lived experience. That’s usually what brings them into volunteering, because they’ve experienced something themselves and they feel that they want to share those experiences with others, and that they can help people to get through difficult times.

- Project.

Lesson learned: Staff and volunteers with lived experience can help mitigate against participants’ fear of judgement. This can help facilitate open conversations about loneliness and loneliness stigma.

4.5. How can we reach a range of new audiences (for example, young people and young men), for example through creative campaigns and exhibitions?

Key Findings: Projects were cautious not to include the word ‘loneliness’ in their recruitment materials, as the stigma of loneliness could deter potential participants. Instead, projects emphasised the activity topic during recruitment. Projects found that word of mouth and collaboration with social prescribers were effective recruitment methods, helping to mitigate the stigma of loneliness.

Most projects were targeting particular demographics of people within their local area, which they recognised as having an increased risk of experiencing loneliness, and the stigma of loneliness. Projects identified these groups as having an increased risk of loneliness through their experience in the community, including lessons learned through the delivery of the initial KYN Fund period (2023 to 2025).

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

• Young people (aged 16 to 34)

• People who identify as LGBTQ+

• People in the lowest income quintile

• People who recently moved to their current address

• People who live alone

• People with a mental health condition

• People with a disability or long-term health condition

• New parents

• People who are widowed

• People who are unemployed

Projects targeted people from all ten of these groups, with young people, people from the LGBTQ+ community, people with a mental or physical health condition, new parents and people who are widowed being most commonly targeted by the group of projects interviewed. Projects said that these groups are also more likely to experience the stigma of loneliness, for example elderly widowed people may feel uncomfortable talking about loneliness due to a generational stigma about socialising personal feelings. In contrast, young people may fear judgement from their peers if they express they experience loneliness.

[Participants] talked about loneliness, carrying loneliness, carrying a shame. People feel [loneliness] as a personal failure, or something they don’t want to admit to. Especially in communities already carrying the stigma that we have with LGBT people, refugees, and people living in poverty.

- Project.

Lesson learned: Within the ten groups most at risk of experiencing chronic loneliness, projects targeted specific individual groups as they were likely to have shared experiences. This was partially informed by the fact that different groups may experience loneliness stigma in different ways.

Projects used a range of techniques to reach new participants. Firstly, all projects interviewed said that they did not use the word ‘loneliness’ when advertising their activities. This was to help mitigate against the stigma of loneliness as projects felt their prospective participants either would not recognise that they were experiencing loneliness, or would not want to say that they were experiencing loneliness. Some projects were keen to not be viewed by their participants as a “support group”, due to preconceptions about who support groups are for, and what type of activities they include.

It has been really tricky to navigate, because the last thing we want to do is say ‘hey, are you lonely?’. We haven’t used the word [loneliness] as explicitly as we thought we would in the beginning because we didn’t want to put people off because of that stigma [of loneliness].

- Project.

Due to this, projects emphasised the focus of the activity (for example, arts and crafts, chess, performing arts) during the participant recruitment process. To help increase the appeal of their activities, multiple projects had informal consultations with local people to ascertain what activities may be of interest. Projects felt that tailoring their activities to the interests of the local community helped to attract participants.

Projects identified word of mouth as an important facilitator to participant recruitment. Projects felt that having their activities recommended to someone by a friend of family member made it less intimidating for someone to join for their first session, as they could ask their friend and family member questions about the activity, reducing uncertainty. Additionally, projects valued connections with social prescribers, which were viewed as a key facilitator to recruitment. Projects felt that social prescribers were well placed to be in regular contact with, and identify people that were at risk of, or experiencing chronic loneliness, to refer to the project.

Some projects used specific recruitment techniques that were targeted at the groups of people that they were targeting with their activities. For example, one project targeting people from the LGBTQ+ community did target outreach work in areas where they knew there was a large LGBTQ+ presence. Similarly, one project targeting men mentioned they had to be very deliberate in the wording they used to advertise their activities to avoid wording around mental wellbeing, due to the associated stigma of mental health for men in particular.

5. Community cohesion

Key findings at a glance:

Which projects aimed to support community cohesion through KYN? (see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.4)

• Projects supported community cohesion through volunteering opportunities, community hub spaces, and mobile outreach.

• Projects designed activities to be inclusive by using trusted, neutral community venues, adapting formats to different cultural and accessibility needs, and reducing practical barriers to participation.

• Delivery also included youth social action, migrant and new arrival support, and SEND inclusion through structured sessions and supported social activities.

• Projects typically worked with people least likely to mix socially without support. This included those experiencing isolation and loneliness, transport barriers, limited English language skills, or digital exclusion.

How are KYN projects addressing potential barriers to participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)? (see section 5.3)

• Participation was most often constrained by transport availability and cost, language barriers, and lack of confidence.

• Projects reduced barriers by using local venues, offering transport support, and recruiting multilingual volunteers for translation support.

• Projects sustained engagement using low-commitment activities (such as drop-in sessions) to “test the water”, and flexible, participant-led delivery so participants kept returning.

What can we learn about the activities used by these projects to build trust between people from different community groups? (see section 5.4)

• Projects supported trust through safe and neutral settings, including clear ground rules and safeguarding and risk management where mixed-group work could be sensitive.

• Projects strengthened community cohesion through shared “side-by-side” activities and structured tasks, such as collaborative art activities. This reduced unfamiliarity between groups and made interaction easier for people with lower confidence or language barriers.

• Creative and cultural activities helped people connect in low-pressure ways.

Are there specific projects that target inter-group relations (for example, between different ethnic, age, socio-economic groups?) if so, what are their delivery models and what can they teach us about supporting community cohesion? (see section 5.5)

• Inter-group relations were strengthened when activities included mixing from the outset, and when projects created common ground through shared goals and everyday interaction between participants.

What challenges have KYN projects encountered in their efforts to build trust and mobility, and how have they adapted their strategies to overcome these challenges? (see section 5.6)

• Projects said they faced capacity constraints and short-term funding pressures, which limited continuity. This could reduce the repeated contact needed for trust and relationships to deepen over time.

• Projects also said that language barriers and siloed organisational working limited pathways for participants to mix across services.

What strategies are being used to encourage sustained participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)? (see section 5.7)

• Projects sustained interaction through routine and predictable sessions, supported by periodic larger events. Projects aimed to build participant independence so connections could continue beyond project led delivery.

• Projects strengthened local capability through volunteering and training, supporting longer-term participant-led connection.

5.1. Introduction

This section explores how KYN Fund projects looked to increase community cohesion, including approaches to build trust and inter-group relations. It presents what worked well whilst delivering activities and the barriers and challenges faced by projects. This section uses data from interviews with project leads and delivery staff and with project participants.

5.2. Which projects aimed to support community cohesion through KYN?

This section summarises the main activity types delivered, how projects described community cohesion and its benefits, the local barriers to cohesion in targeted areas, and the main groups of people projects aimed to reach.

Key findings: Projects supported community cohesion through volunteering-led models and regular activities designed to be inclusive. Most projects were delivered through community spaces and outreach. Projects said they made activities inclusive by using trusted neutral community venues, adapting formats to different cultural and accessibility needs, and reducing practical barriers to participation. Projects typically targeted participants facing barriers to participation in community activities, such as isolation, limited social opportunities, mobility and cost barriers, digital exclusion, and limited English language skills. 

5.2.1. What type of activities did the projects deliver?

Projects supported community cohesion through volunteering opportunities, community hub spaces, and mobile outreach in rural areas. Delivery also included youth engagement and social action, ESOL classes and integration support for migrants and new arrivals and SEND inclusion. Activities were often designed around the specific barriers and social dynamics in each local area, with projects tailoring delivery to the needs of particular groups and places. For example, some projects used trusted local spaces, outreach, or hub-based models to respond to rural isolation and transport barriers, while others created women-only or culturally appropriate spaces to help people feel safe and comfortable attending. Projects also used low-pressure shared activities such as food-based sessions, arts, sports, and group volunteering to encourage interaction between people who might not otherwise meet, helping to build confidence, familiarity and trust over time. Delivery was conducted through regular supported activities such as structured group sessions, and access to community spaces. Some projects delivered community cohesion through structured family programmes across multiple towns and branches, including cross-branch monthly events, shared coach trips and venue hire, and sports and arts sessions. Projects felt this model supported inter-group relations by connecting participants from different communities, using a shared focus on wellbeing to build familiarity and supportive networks. Alongside these activities, projects also used creative and cultural activities, family and parent networks, food-based activities, and women-only and men’s groups sessions as additional routes to bring people together and increase community cohesion.

Lesson learned: Offering a mix of activities, tailored to local barriers and the needs of different groups, helped create low-pressure environments for different groups of people to join, and regularly attend activities over time.

5.2.2. Community cohesion and its benefits

Projects defined community cohesion as integration and connection between local residents and different community groups. They said community cohesion helps people move beyond “silos” and meet others as individuals “rather than as a group or label”. Projects felt that community cohesion helps people to form networks and relationships. These relationships can increase people’s confidence to take part in everyday activities and engage with their wider community. 

[We want] to open up those trusted spaces for people to come together that feel welcoming, that feel like spaces for everybody, helping people in a very organic way to develop their friendships and their social networks… across rather than just within their own communities or people that they already know.

- Project.

5.2.3. Local barriers to community cohesion in targeted areas

Projects identified a range of barriers to community cohesion in their local areas, which highlighted the need for their activities. Barriers highlighted by projects included:

• Geographic isolation and transport constraints: In some KYN Fund areas, public transport was limited or unreliable. Long distances between villages and towns and activity venues made it difficult for some participants to attend activities or connect with others beyond their neighbourhood. This reduced opportunities for regular social interaction;

• Limited movement across neighbourhoods: Projects said that in their local area, residents tended to stay within their neighbourhood and were less likely to travel to unfamiliar or busier areas. This limited interactions between different groups and reduced the likelihood of cross-community connection;

• Disadvantaged areas: In some areas, projects highlighted pressures linked to financial insecurity, poor mental health, and high prevalence of loneliness. Projects felt these factors reduce people’s confidence or capacity to engage in community activity. In some cases, this meant people’s immediate health or financial needs took priority over forming social connections; and

• Diversity and migration-related tensions: In some areas, projects reported that community relationships were sometimes “strained”, particularly where there had been recent social unrest surrounding immigration. This reduced trust and discouraged interaction between community groups.

Lesson learned: Projects said their community cohesion activities were often shaped by local barriers, such as transport constraints and wider pressures linked to wellbeing and financial insecurity. A key learning was the importance of understanding these local-level factors and delivery accordingly, for example, using trusted local hubs in areas where people rarely travel outside their neighbourhood. This suggests that reducing these barriers can be important for enabling regular participation in community activities and shared spaces.

5.2.4. Target groups

Projects interviewed typically targeted people experiencing loneliness, isolation, or barriers to participation in community activities, including:

• Older people, generally aged 50+, who live alone, and are often isolated

• Young people generally between the ages of 11 to 17, who often have limited social opportunities and are at risk of loneliness

• Families of disabled children

• People with mobility issues and health conditions

• People facing digital exclusion

• People who are facing cost-of-living pressures

• Refugees, asylum seekers, and new arrivals who have limited English language skills

• LGBTQ+ individuals

These groups were less likely to have opportunities to mix socially, build supportive relationships, or feel confident accessing local spaces and services. 

Projects identified and reached these target groups through their existing local knowledge and referral routes, as well as through community-based outreach. Interviewees suggested that recruitment was most effective when projects used trusted, relational approaches. These approaches included referrals through local partners and services, word of mouth, outreach in community settings, etc. Projects interviewed mentioned that attending a first session with someone or simply inviting people for a “cup of tea” helped people become more comfortable in unfamiliar spaces. Furthermore, projects also highlighted the value of using multilingual staff or volunteers, working through trusted community organisations, and adapting recruitment around people’s practical needs, such as transport, timing, language, childcare, etc. Similarly to the stigma of loneliness projects, participants interviewed commonly cited wanting to learn a new skill and wanting to meet new people as their main motivations for wanting to join their projects.

I’m a very sociable person; I always have been. But I felt lonely and isolated, and I needed to meet new friends. That’s what motivated me to join [my project].

- Participant.

Projects generally found that recruitment worked better when activities were framed around accessible benefits such as learning, social connection, wellbeing, or practical support, rather than around abstract aim of ‘community cohesion’. In some cases, projects encouraged first engagement through food, community trips, and other incentives.

Lesson learned: Projects found that recruitment worked best when they framed activities around skills, interests and the social experience, rather than promoting “community cohesion” directly. 

5.3. How are KYN projects addressing potential barriers to participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)?

This section sets out the main barriers projects faced and the practical steps they took to reduce them. It then explores how projects encouraged regular attendance from participants.

Key findings: Projects said that participation barriers often related to transport, language barriers and lack of confidence. Projects sustained engagement with participants by using person-centred, flexible delivery so participants could keep returning and mix over time.

5.3.1. Common barriers and how projects worked to overcome them

Participants interviewed described multiple barriers they encountered to engaging with their local community, prior to joining their KYN Fund project. Cited barriers included language barriers, having recently moved to the area and the impact of bereavement.

When I first moved here, I felt like an outsider because I don’t speak the dialect.

- Participant.

Projects also cited a range of barriers to participation faced by their participants. These included transport availability and cost, communication challenges, cultural preferences, and lack of awareness of activities and opportunities.

Mobility and transport barriers were frequently reported by projects, particularly in geographically sparse areas and where public transport was limited or unreliable. These constraints affected both recruitment and retention as some participants could not reliably travel to activity venues and locations or join trips beyond their immediate area. Consequently, some projects sometimes provided transport to enable participation. Projects said that this barrier particularly affected participants who were not able to travel independently.

Projects also cited transport cost as a barrier for participants. In response, projects emphasised making provision “local, affordable, accessible… inclusive… [and] fun”, to reduce practical barriers that prevented participation.

Projects also highlighted that language and communication barriers influenced whether participants could understand what activities were available and whether participants felt comfortable in new spaces. Projects said that having multilingual staff and volunteers helped create trusted communication pathways, so participants could access information and support. This was particularly valuable where project staff and volunteers were from the same country as participants, as this helped participants to feel more comfortable joining the project. Projects said this helped reduce uncertainty about attending and supported participants to take part in shared activities alongside others.

We were very fortunate… we had volunteers who were multilingual. That was a real asset… [when] engaging people because it made the people coming in feel comfortable.

- Project.

Cultural expectations and preferences also influenced participation in projects. Some participants preferred women-only spaces due to cultural norms, while others were unfamiliar with the concept of volunteering. Projects responded by adapting sessions where possible, including having gender specific sessions.

Projects also felt that participants’ awareness and confidence to join activities was a barrier. These projects reported that some participants had not heard about their activities or did not know anyone already involved. In response, projects used community-based outreach and trusted local pathways, such as church magazines, posters, and local organisation networks. Projects also found that word of mouth was effective in overcoming this barrier (for example, social prescribers, parish clerks, churches and village outreach agents). 

Lesson learned: Removing practical barriers was often a pre-condition for participation. Including multilingual volunteers and culturally appropriate options, such as gendered sessions, helped reduce uncertainty and made participation feel safe for participants from different backgrounds.

5.3.2. Ensuring sustained participation

Projects said that participant retention was dependent on ongoing personal contact and relationship-building. Projects felt that participants were more likely to regularly attend activities when they had existing connections and trust with project staff, volunteers, or participants. For example, someone already involved in the project as a participant could reassure them about the value of taking part in these activities.

If people know someone that’s involved, then it builds that trust.

- Project.

This indicates that trust was not only important for initial engagement, but also for continued retention, as participants felt more comfortable returning to spaces that felt supportive.

Projects also used low commitment entry routes so participants could “test the water” before deciding whether to continue. Projects suggested this encouraged sustained participation as it reduced pressure to commit upfront, making it easier for participants to try a session, build familiarity gradually, and return if they enjoyed the activities.

Across interviews, projects consistently described retention as being supported by flexible, participant-led delivery. This included adapting timings to increase access, changing sessions in response to weather, and adjusting activity formats based on what participants said they wanted to do. Projects said this supported sustained participation as activities stayed relevant and accessible, increasing the likelihood that participants would continue attending over time.

Finally, projects used protective risk mitigation practices that helped participants feel safer returning over time. This included using checks in with participants in advance of some mixed-group activities to prevent avoidable tensions. Projects felt this supported community cohesion as participants were more likely to regularly attend mixed-group sessions when sessions felt safe, well-managed, and responsive to their needs.

Projects described the value of flexible and drop-in sessions, which allowed participants to “fall in and fall out of the programme because that’s life”. Projects felt this supported sustained participation as it accommodated changing circumstances, allowing participants to stay connected and re-engage when they were able to, rather than disengaging permanently if they missed sessions.

Lesson learned: Sustained participation was strongest where projects implemented relationship-based support, such as personal contact, reassurance, “test the water” entry routes, and flexible, participant-led delivery. Adapting activities to participant feedback and allowing drop-in engagement supported participant retention, creating the repeated contact needed for familiarity, trust, and ongoing mixing between community groups.

5.4. What can we learn about the activities used by these projects to build trust between people from different community groups?

This section explores how trust between different community groups developed through repeated contact, safe and well-managed settings, and shared activities through low-pressure interaction.

Key findings: Projects built trust through repeated, low-pressure social activities that normalised mixing over time; structured shared activity that gave participants a reason to interact; and safe, well-managed spaces that reduced fear of judgement or conflict. Trust between different community groups strengthened when participants felt ownership through volunteering and co-production and when delivery removed practical barriers that limited attendance.

5.4.1. Consistency, Familiarity and Repeated In Person Contact

Most projects said they developed trust through repeated, consistent, face-to-face contact between participants from different backgrounds and age groups. Projects felt that, as weekly sessions continued, participants from different backgrounds and age groups became more comfortable speaking and mixing with each other, to the point that mixed-group conversations became a normal part of sessions. Participants interviewed valued their project activities being weekly as the regular interactions allowed them to form a deeper connection to individuals, and their community. This was similar to the stigma of loneliness projects, which used weekly activities as a way to build trust between participants.

I’ve met people I would have never met. It’s made a big impact on my life. I really look forward to going, and I hate it if I can’t go.

- Participant.

Projects also said that participants were given time to settle in, some would “watch and observe and take their time”. Projects felt this reduced pressure to speak or take part in activities immediately, and made it easier for participants to keep coming back and gradually join in.

Projects described trust-building through small peer-to-peer signs of care, such as participants checking in on others, “has anyone seen so-and-so?”. Projects felt this promoted community cohesion because it showed participants started to look out for each other and see themselves as part of a shared group.

Projects also suggested that trust was supported by informal, welcoming sessions. Projects said these sessions allowed participants to mix comfortably and speak with others, which helped build familiarity between different community groups.

Everybody’s the same… even professionals just sit around the tables and have coffee and cake.

- Project.

Lesson learned: Projects built trust through regular participant attendance and “low-pressure” activities.  This created familiarity that made mixing feel normal and encouraged participants to look out for one another.

5.4.2. Trust through safe spaces, neutrality, and careful safeguarding

Projects felt they built trust by creating safe environments where participants expressed themselves, without fear of judgement. Projects described this as creating “safe spaces”. Projects explained they did this by setting clear ground rules such as avoiding topics like “politics, religion, sports”, so sessions were neutral and participants were not worried about disagreement or conflict.

Where activities involved potentially sensitive topics such as LGBTQ+ identity, projects said they talked with participants before the session to set expectations to reduce the risk of tensions arising and support respectful discussion. For example, one project did this by bringing LGBTQ+ young people to speak with older participants, challenge any potential misconceptions, and create a space for meaningful dialogue. Projects felt this helped build trust and community cohesion by making it easier for different community groups to spend positive time together.

Lesson learned: Projects said that trust building was supported by staff setting session expectations out upfront, agreeing clear ground rules, and using safeguarding and risk management processes where needed. Projects felt these steps reduced perceived risks, such as fear of conflict or judgement. This made participants more willing to attend, stay, and mix with other community groups, especially where identity-linked topics or mixed-group settings could otherwise deter participation.

5.4.3. Challenges to building trust in mixed-group settings and how projects managed them

Projects reported that inter-group sensitivities sometimes arose when participants from different backgrounds, ages, nationalities or identities came together and held different norms, languages, or levels of familiarity with identity-linked topics. Projects felt this could undermine trust and make some participants feel uncomfortable or reluctant to engage, particularly in intergenerational settings. 

To manage this, projects described using preparation and safeguarding techniques before inter-group contact. This included structured risk management and planning before activities to make sure that no one is negatively affected by the project. Projects generally felt well-equipped to do this because staff and volunteers already had access to safeguarding training, hate-crime awareness, community-engagement skills, etc. Projects interviewed noted that training around safeguarding was mandatory.

Staff and all our volunteers… go through safeguard[ing] and hate crime [training]. We bring in the police… everybody’s aware of anything around safeguarding.

- Project.

Furthermore, projects used experience staff, especially for sensitive sessions. They mentioned that “they do not just send anybody; they go with experienced ones” and that facilitators had the confidence to pre-check activities and content before bringing groups together. Where additional support was needed, projects interviewed highlighted that they drew on their wider networks- such as local partners, and police.

Projects felt this helped reduce the likelihood of tensions or conflict, making it easier for participants to stay in the same space, engage respectfully, and build trust over time, supporting community cohesion.

A robust risk management situation when we do those intergroup workings because of the very polar opposites that we’re facing.

- Project.

Lesson learned: Where inter-group work involved identity-linked or generational sensitivities, projects emphasised that cohesion did not “just happen” through contact alone. Preparation, clear safeguarding, and structured risk management were seen as necessary conditions for safe mixing-helping prevent tensions that could quickly undermine trust and participation.

5.4.4. Trust through shared purpose and practical “side-by-side” activity

Projects highlighted shared practical activities as a mechanism for building trust between participants. Projects said that participants working together helped to build trust between participants. Some activities cited by projects included making bird feeders, cleaning local areas, wrapping gifts, and gardening. Similarly to the stigma of loneliness projects, community cohesion projects said that whilst undertaking these activities, participants would naturally engage in conversations with each other. Topics of discussions would typically include where people are from, what they do, and their personal interests. Therefore, projects felt these shared activities provided participants with a mechanism to gain a shared understanding of each other, helping to build community cohesion. This was echoed by participants, who said that taking part in an activity provided a platform to talk with new people.

I’m part of the knitting group. There’s lots of humour that goes around the table whilst we’re knitting.

- Participant.

Projects also said they selected activities that were accessible and appealing to a wide range of participants, based on what had worked well previously and what participants engaged with. Projects chose structured tasks to avoid the uneasiness of unstructured “meet and talk” formats, and to provide a clear focus for interaction. Projects felt this helped participants who were less confident, had language barriers, or were wary of being judged on their language skills, because they could attend “to help” as part of a group activity rather than attend something framed as “support”. Projects also noted that these shared tasks often prompted peer-to-peer support, for example, participants helping newer participants during activities or stepping into volunteer roles when needed. Projects felt this helped build trust by showing participants they could rely on each other. 

Similarly, in family-focused activities, parents were also engaged in activities to break down barriers by working alongside each other.

We were working with parents… if they’re doing an art project, the parents would be engaged in the art project too.

- Project.

One project interviewed described inviting a settled asylum seeker to speak within a group setting. The project felt that hearing their personal story “opened up people’s eyes”, helping participants better understand the trauma, journeys, and resilience of asylum-seeking neighbours. Projects felt this reduced pressure and helped participants from different backgrounds mix more comfortably, softened attitudes, reduced stereotypes, and strengthened trust and community cohesion over time.

Lesson learned: “Side-by-side” tasks worked as a cohesion mechanism because they gave participants a shared purpose and a natural conversation route, rather than forced discussion. This reduced pressure and created space for understanding, peer support, and attitude change over repeated contact. Projects also said that using structured tasks, rather than unstructured “meet and talk” formats, helped reduce unease and gave participants a clear focus for interaction, making it easier for people to mix in low-pressure ways.

5.4.5. Trust through creative and cultural exchange (food, craft, murals, music)

Projects said creative and cultural activities helped build trust by providing participants with a shared, low-pressure opportunity to spend time together and share personal and cultural experiences. Food was described as a particularly effective way to start conversation and connection.

Using food as a conduit to have a conversation was really powerful.

- Project.

Projects also highlighted craft activities (for example, henna, knitting, wreath-making, and decorating) and creative work (for example, murals, theatre, and art sessions) as practical ways for participants to interact around a shared activity, rather than feeling pressure to talk about differences directly. As one project explained, “every culture has got its own arts and crafts”, which meant these activities gave participants a natural way to share something of their own background and learn about others through curiosity and exchange.

Where language was a barrier, projects said activities such as food, music, dance, and sport enabled participants to take part and connect without the need for fluent English language skills, supporting interaction and community cohesion.

Lesson learned: Creative and cultural activities helped build trust because they made interaction easy and inclusive, especially where language was limited. More specifically, they gave participants a way to express identity, share culture, and produce something together, which helped build recognition, pride and mutual curiosity across groups. This allowed participants to connect through doing and sharing-rather than needing confidence, strong English language skills, or “difficult” conversation upfront.

5.4.6. Trust through shared ownership, co-production, and participant-led culture

Projects felt that trust grew between participants when they were actively involved in shaping and delivering activities, including through volunteering. This created a sense of ownership and shared responsibility, helping participants feel valued and more connected to one another. Projects suggested that this worked best where participants were not treated as passive attendees but were given meaningful opportunities to shape what activities looked like. Projects used participant feedback to shape activities regularly by asking participants, “what would you like to do today”. 

Projects also described how this ownership could extend beyond the activity itself, with participants creating something together and then sharing it publicly with the wider community, such as a parade. Projects said these community events made people feel “a connection to each other” and “a responsibility for doing something good in the town”.

 

There was a great turnout [to the community event]. People came out in the street to watch it. It was amazing to see kids’ faces and shake people’s hands. It was a spectacle. It makes you feel good that you’re doing something the community is enjoying. Someone could be having a bad day, but it makes them feel better. If people have questions [about the event and project], it gets the community involved too.

- Participant.

Projects also indicated that co-production was most effective when it was supported rather than left entirely open-ended. For example, some found that young people responded well to having “full control” over certain projects, while other groups benefited more from an initial structure and then gradual opportunities to shape activities. Interview evidence therefore suggests that shared ownership was not simply about handing over responsibility, but about creating the right level of support, flexibility and responsiveness for different participants.

Projects noted that co-production required time, consistency, and relationship-building, as participants needed confidence before shaping activities. Despite these challenges, projects felt participant-led culture worked well overall, strengthening trust by giving people visible influence over the activities.

5.4.7. Benefits experienced from increased trust and community cohesion

Participants interviewed found that participating in KYN Fund projects helped them feel more connected to their local community. These participants cited multiple benefits of this increased community cohesion. The primary benefit cited was increased levels of social interactions and the development of friendships. Participants said this increased connection to their community helped them to feel less lonely, which had a positive impact on their mental wellbeing.

 

It helps my mental wellbeing, it gives me purpose. I know it also helps the community. The community has helped and supported me, so I want to give that back.

- Participant.

Participants that had recently moved to the local area found that being connected to the local community was vital to helping them settle in. This was because they had access to a support network, which could help them with questions about the area.  

I was a stranger to the area [before the project] … at [the project] I was told where certain places were, and how to get there. I didn’t even know where the supermarket was, and they told me and gave me directions… [One person from the project] told me about an arts group that I might be interested in.

- Participant.

Projects also reported the once participants felt settled and supported, they became more willing to stay involved in community life- joining groups, trying new activities, or volunteering. Some participants expanded into other sessions (such as moving from yoga and craft into ESOL or IT), created WhatsApp groups, organised their own meetups, or began attending activities independently after initially needing staff support.

5.5. Are there specific projects that target inter-group relations (for example, between different ethnic, age, socio-economic groups?) if so, what are their delivery models and what can they teach us about supporting community cohesion? 

This section summarises the delivery models projects used to encourage mixing across communities and how these models supported more positive relationships between groups over time.

Key findings: Projects built inter-group relations most effectively when delivery models created early “common ground”, made inter-group mixing the default rather than optional, and provided safe, low-pressure settings where participants could regularly interact. Inter-group gains were strengthened where projects combined mixed participation with light facilitation, such as structured activities, informal volunteering, and shared events. This supported positive contact, mutual support, and appreciation of different backgrounds.

5.5.1. Delivery models used to build inter-group relations and cohesion

Projects commonly described building inter-group relations through shared participation in practical, creative, cultural, or physical activities, rather than stand-alone sessions focused explicitly on “cohesion”. Projects said these shared formats created repeated opportunities for participants from different communities to mix, which over time helped address misconceptions between groups and made cross-group interaction feel more normal. Activities included creative arts, volunteering, food-based activities, and sport/physical activity. Projects emphasised the inter-group effect: shared participation in the same spaces increased familiarity across groups and supported more positive inter-group relationships over time. One project also described using routine group sessions as reliable touchpoints helping participants “get to know each other” and sustain relationships through repeated contact.

Some projects said their activities were designed to mix participants “from the outset”, so participants met people they “wouldn’t meet naturally” and built familiarity through everyday conversation. These projects suggested this helped participants recognise shared experiences and worries despite different backgrounds, which supported integration and reduced misconceptions between groups over time. 

I’ve always lived in this area. This is the area I grew up in. There’s a lot of people in our community that are from this area, but the people I’ve met through [this project] are people I’ve never met before. I’m meeting different people through different social activities and we’re getting to know each other. It’s making a bigger friendships group, but also trying to help the community.

- Participant.

Projects said this model attracted a wide mix of participants, including refugees, asylum seekers, people with disabilities, those at risk of loneliness and isolation, probation and police referrals, DWP referrals, LGBTQ+ groups, domestic violence survivors, and mental health service users. Projects felt that bringing these participants into shared physical spaces created regular opportunities for groups who may not normally engage to interact, cooperate, and develop positive perceptions of each other, supporting community cohesion. Projects also noted that informal volunteering within sessions strengthened inter-group relations by creating shared responsibility and mutual support across participants who may not otherwise have mixed. 

Some projects delivered large, inclusive events designed to bring communities that “keep in their own silos” into one shared space. This included multi-community celebration events and a parade-style approach intended to create cross-group interaction. Projects felt this supported inter-group relations by making first contact positive, open, and low-pressure, helping participants engage safely across group lines.

We did a parade through the middle of the estate. So that brought an awful lot of people together who wouldn’t normally have engaged together because people tend to keep in their own groups, their own silos.

- Project.

Where projects used community spaces, they brought together participants and created a welcoming environment where they felt comfortable spending time together. Projects felt this model supported inter-group relations through routine presence, informal chats, and mutual care (for example, participants looking out for one another, including checking-in when someone was missing). Together, these features helped develop relationships gradually and strengthen everyday trust within the community.

Participants engaging in activities which aimed to help increase their English language skills found their projects were helpful for building inter-group relations. These participants said that improving their ability to understand and speak English helped them to meet and become friends with people they would not have previously been able to talk with. This included people from different national backgrounds.

When I came here, I felt very alone and confused… I was stressed because I didn’t know the language. Now I am very confident and it has helped me with my mental health… I have met people through [the project], and I say, come to my house for some coffee and food.

- Participant.

Lesson learned: Delivery models that worked best for inter-group relations enabled mixed participation from the outset through shared events and combined low-pressure interaction with a clear shared purpose. This helped participants find common ground quickly, build familiarity over time, and develop more positive perceptions of others through repeated, safe contact.

5.6. What challenges have KYN projects encountered in their efforts to build trust and mobility, and how have they adapted their strategies to overcome these challenges?

This section sets out the main constraints projects described and how they managed these in practice, focusing on continuity and capacity, language barriers, and organisational constraints.

Key findings: Projects described that trust and mobility were most commonly undermined by capacity and short-term funding pressures that reduced continuity, language barriers that limited confidence and increased misunderstanding risks, and organisational constraints that restricted pathways for participants to mix across services. Projects mitigated these challenges through flexible and participant-led delivery, multilingual support, and partnership and volunteer approaches that kept participation possible and sustained repeated contact over time.

5.6.1. Capacity constraints, funding limits, pace of demand

Projects said that capacity constraints and short-term funding were barriers to sustaining delivery, as they felt long-term engagement was needed for participants to get to know others, and build trust over time. One project described peak demand stretching delivery capacity and another project noted that “when programmes come and go, it affects people’s trust in services”.

Projects raised concerns about their activities ending and services closing “when they have started to really make a difference”. These projects noted that without funding, they would struggle to maintain the bigger events that helped keep participants connected over time. 

Projects emphasised the importance of long-term funding for community cohesion activities as participants needed repeat contact and continuity to form familiarity, feel safe, and develop positive relationships across groups. 

Lesson learned: Projects linked community cohesion to continuity: when capacity or short-term funding disrupted routine delivery, it reduced the repeated contact needed for relationships to deepen across groups. This suggests sustaining community cohesion often depends on maintaining delivery “infrastructure” (for example, staffing, venues, coordination, transport, and periodic shared events) long enough for trust to consolidate and remain active.

5.6.2. Language barriers and misunderstanding

Projects reported that language barriers slowed relationship-building and make it harder for participants to engage confidently, which in turn limited opportunities to build trust across groups. Projects also noted that language barriers could increase the risk of misunderstandings in mixed group settings. To manage this, projects used interpreters or multilingual support ahead of some mixed-group activities to reduce the risk of unintended offence or discomfort. Evidence suggests that projects often implemented this through existing multilingual staff or volunteers, rather than through a single formal model. In some cases, having multilingual volunteers was described as “a real asset” because it helped people feel comfortable and supported engagement from the start. Others found translation more difficult to resource, noting that sessions could require many interpreters (“sometimes 17 people in the class because some are interpreters”). 

Lesson learned: Language support was not only about translation; projects described it as enabling confidence, comfort, and safer interaction in mixed settings-increasing the likelihood that participants would stay engaged long enough for trust and cohesion to form.

5.6.3. Organisational barriers: silo mentality, bureaucracy

Projects highlighted that the reluctance of some organisations to share participants due to “silo mentality”. This created challenges in bringing more people together, as it reduces collaboration and can keep individuals stuck within narrow service pathways.

Inter-group trust and community cohesion requires pathways that enable people to move between opportunities and mix with others. Where organisations did not collaborate, projects described fewer opportunities for connection and trust-building across groups. 

Lesson learned: Projects described that community cohesion was constrained when participants could not move easily between opportunities. Collaboration across local organisations, and practical workarounds where possible, helped widen “routes in” and reduce bottlenecks that limit mixing across groups.

5.7. What strategies are being used to encourage sustained participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)?

This section describes how projects supported ongoing connection beyond initial activities, including maintaining routine contact, building participant independence, strengthening local capability through volunteering, and encouraging participant-led peer networks.

Key findings: Projects plan to sustain interactions beyond initial activities by (1) building participant confidence and independence so relationships can continue without staff, (2) strengthening local capability through volunteering and training so activities and connections are less staff-dependent, and (3) supporting informal peer networks so trust and mutual support continue in the community. 

5.7.1. Maintaining routine, continuity, and “rhythm” to keep people connected

Several projects looked to sustain relationships between participants through weekly activities, alongside periodic larger events. They felt this consistency helped participants keep returning and maintain connections over time. Projects also described keeping sessions engaging through themed or structured activity and gradually integrating new participants into group dynamics.

Lesson learned: Projects described routine as a practical mechanism for sustained cohesion-predictable sessions reduced uncertainty, supported habitual attendance, and created repeated opportunities for participants to keep seeing one another and maintain relationships over time. 

5.7.2. Strengthening participant independence so relationships continue without staff

Several projects said they have tried to build participant confidence and independence so participation and the relationships formed through the project could continue beyond staff-led sessions. Projects did this by supporting participants to take small steps towards doing things independently and navigating local opportunities without relying on the project. The aim was for participants to be able to “make that journey on their own” and have “the tools to be able to find other stuff in their community”. This was echoed by participants interviewed, who said that since joining their KYN Fund project, they have found and joined other community groups, such as community gardening groups. These participants cited the confidence gained through participation in their KYN Fund project as essential to taking this step.

Projects felt this supported community cohesion by helping participants stay connected to local activities and relationships over time, rather than only mixing within a single project setting. For participants from refugee and asylum seeker backgrounds, projects also described building confidence so participants could maintain connections beyond one organisation, helping sustain integration and relationships even if their circumstances changed or they moved away.

Lesson learned: Projects described confidence-building as a bridge from ‘project participation’ to ‘everyday connection’, supporting participants to engage independently meant relationships were more likely to continue through wider community activities, rather than ending when staff-led sessions stopped.

5.7.3. Building local capability through training, volunteering

Projects also aimed to strengthen local capability through training and volunteering, so participants could keep activities going and stay connected beyond staff-led delivery. These projects built volunteer training into their activities. This training developed participants’ transferable skills, such as basic session delivery / facilitation, and safeguarding. Projects also described models where volunteers increasingly led sessions with “staff dipping in and out”. Projects felt this supported community cohesion because it strengthened participant ownership and peer-to-peer connection, helping relationships and shared activities continue in the community over time.

5.7.4. Enabling participant-led peer networks and independent friendships

Projects encouraged peer networks by establishing regular group spaces and shared activities where participants could get to know each other, which then supported informal participant-led contact outside of funded sessions.

Projects saw this as significant because it showed that trust and mutual support were becoming self‑sustaining within the community. For example, participants offered practical help to one another, such as pooling money to pay for a meal for someone who couldn’t afford it. They also noted that, for some participants, these peer networks created pathways into wider community participation, where some participants “have gone on to get involved in catering business”, helping participants feel more connected and embedded locally.

Projects described several factors that enabled this environment to emerge. Regular weekly contact gave participants enough time to build familiarity and confidence, while low-pressure activities (such as crafts, food sessions, or volunteering) made it easy to talk and support one another naturally. Staff also created space for participants to take the lead-through co-design, which often involved asking participants, “what would you like to do”, training volunteers to facilitate sessions.

Furthermore, multilingual support and culturally appropriate spaces helped participants participate in fully, and practical enablers such as food, transportation support, trusted venues reduced barriers to staying involved. 

Over time, these conditions helped participants form friendships, create WhatsApp groups, organise independent meetups, and sustain contact independently of the project.

Lesson learned: Projects described sustained community cohesion as strongest when relationships became participant-led, where informal friendships and mutual support continued outside sessions, and where projects had created the conditions for this to happen through regular contact, confidence-building, practical support, and clear opportunities for participants to stay involved. In these circumstances, trust and connection were less dependent on formal delivery and more embedded in everyday community life.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

6.1. Conclusions

This section briefly sets out the key findings in relation to each research question within scope.

6.1.1. Which projects aim to increase the understanding of loneliness and isolation through KYN?

The KYN Fund supported a diverse range of projects that aimed to increase understanding of loneliness and reduce the stigma associated with it, particularly through arts, culture, and heritage-based activities. While many projects continued with their original project design from the initial funding period, they did so with the understanding that reducing loneliness and its stigma are deeply interconnected. By fostering social connections and creating safe spaces for participants to share their experiences, these projects naturally contributed to reducing the stigma of loneliness.

Some projects took further steps to explicitly address loneliness stigma, incorporating guided discussions and creative expressions that directly explored the theme of loneliness stigma. The involvement of volunteers (both as facilitators and as participants) also played a role in challenging stigma within communities, as they were able to contribute to discussions about loneliness. 

6.1.2. What can we learn about these approaches that aim to increase awareness of loneliness and isolation in communities as something that everyone experiences?

Most projects interviewed aimed to reduce the stigma of loneliness with their participants by encouraging discussions about loneliness. Projects felt that discussing loneliness openly helped to normalise conversations, reduce fear of judgment, increase understanding that anyone can experience loneliness, and increase understanding that people tend not to hold negative opinions about those experiencing loneliness.

Projects aimed to address the stigma of loneliness either directly or indirectly through their activities. Some projects designed and delivered participant group discussions (facilitated by project staff) about loneliness stigma as part of their activities. These projects found that using an arts-based activity was useful for this approach, as loneliness and loneliness stigma as a concept could be explored through others’ artwork. This made the topic of loneliness stigma easy to talk about for some participants. Projects that took an indirect approach said that they used creative and heritage activities to help build friendships between participants. As trust built over time between participants, they naturally discussed topics such as loneliness and the stigma of loneliness.

Projects found that having the activities run regularly (often weekly) with a small group of participants, over an extended period of time helped to build trust between participants. This trust created a safe environment to discuss loneliness and loneliness stigma.

6.1.3. What organisational skills, knowledge and understanding of loneliness and isolation are required to help build understanding of loneliness with participants?

Projects identified a range of skills and experience within their staff teams, which allowed them to deliver a project that aimed to reduce the stigma of loneliness. Relevant lived experience among project staff and volunteers to the participant group was cited by projects as a key facilitator as it helped participants feel more comfortable sharing their personal experiences relating to loneliness without fear of judgement. Where it was not possible to include staff with relevant lived experience in the delivery of activities, projects found that having volunteers with lived experience also had similar benefits. Projects found that having staff (and in some cases, volunteers) complete trauma-informed and safeguarding training was important to help project staff feel confident having sensitive conversations with participants about loneliness and loneliness stigma.

6.1.4. How can we reach a range of new audiences (for example, young people and young men), for example through creative campaigns and exhibitions?

Most projects interviewed targeted specific groups of people that projects identified as more likely to experience loneliness and the negative impact of loneliness stigma. These groups included elderly people, recently bereaved people, people from the LGBTQ+ community, new parents and people with a physical or mental health condition. Projects felt that targeting their activities at specific groups was beneficial as the participants were more likely to have similar experiences, which helped them to feel more comfortable discussing loneliness and loneliness stigma without the fear of being judged.

Whilst recruiting participants, projects endeavoured to mitigate against the stigma of loneliness by not including the word ‘loneliness’ in their recruitment materials or initial communications. This was important as projects felt that participants did not want to attend a ‘support group’, due to participants’ preconceptions about what this would involve. Instead, projects emphasised the arts, culture or heritage aspects of their activities during recruitment, so participants felt as though they were joining a common interest group, rather than a ‘support group’.

Projects tailored recruitment strategies to effectively engage target groups, such as conducting outreach in LGBTQ+ communities. Projects also used carefully considered language in their recruitment strategies, avoiding terminology associated with mental health, which may be subject to heightened stigma amongst men.

6.1.5. Which projects aim to support community cohesion through the KYN Fund?

Overall, projects supported community cohesion by creating regular, inclusive opportunities for people from different backgrounds to spend time together, most commonly through volunteering-led and community activity models delivered in neutral, welcoming community settings. Projects described cohesion as moving beyond local “silos” and enabling people to meet others as individuals, building networks that can increase confidence to participate in wider community life.

6.1.6. What can we learn about the activities used by these projects to build trust between people from different community groups?

Projects described trust-building as a gradual process rather than something achieved through one-off contact. Projects most often associated stronger trust with repeat, face-to-face interaction in informal spaces, where participants were given time to settle in and mixing became normal over time. Practical and structured activities also played a key role, with projects describing “side-by-side” tasks and creative/cultural formats (including food-based activities) as helping participants connect in low-pressure ways, particularly where confidence and language barriers might otherwise limit interaction. Trust was also supported where projects created safe and neutral environments, including the use of clear ground rules and safeguarding when activities involved sensitive inter-group dynamics.

6.1.7. Are there specific KYN Fund projects that explicitly target inter-group relations (for example, between different ethnic, age, or socio-economic groups)? If so, what are their delivery models and what can they teach us about supporting community cohesion?

Projects that explicitly targeted inter‑group relations did so by designing delivery models where mixing across communities was built into the structure of activities. These projects relied on shared practical, creative, cultural, and physical activities. Projects said these activities helped to create “common ground” and normalise interaction between people who might not otherwise meet. By mixing participants from the outset, projects created repeated, low‑pressure opportunities for everyday conversation, shared tasks, and mutual support. This routine contact helped reduce misconceptions, increase familiarity, and build positive perceptions between groups over time.

These projects highlighted the importance of staff facilitation to structure tasks, enable volunteering and ensure spaces felt “safe”. Community spaces that were welcoming and routinely used provided further opportunities for informal conversations, recognition, and mutual care between participants, which helped inter‑group relationships develop gradually.

6.1.8. How are KYN Fund projects addressing potential barriers to participation and mobility for individuals from different community groups (for example, language, cultural differences)?

Projects highlighted that participation was frequently constrained by practical and confidence-related barriers. Transport and affordability barriers could prevent participants from attending at all, while language and communication barriers could increase uncertainty and reduce comfort in mixed settings. Awareness and confidence barriers (for example, not knowing anyone involved, not feeling ready) also shaped engagement. In response, projects emphasised relationship-based recruitment and retention, including personal contact, low-commitment ways to “test the water”, and flexible delivery that could adapt to participant feedback and circumstances. This mattered for community cohesion because sustained participation created the repeated contact that projects associated with familiarity, trust, and ongoing mixing between groups.

6.1.9. What strategies are being used to encourage sustained interactions beyond initial project activities?

Projects said that predictable sessions created a familiar rhythm that made it easier for people to keep returning, while open, flexible spaces that were easily accessible to local people helped sustain attendance. Alongside this, projects focused on building participant confidence so individuals could navigate local opportunities independently, allowing relationships to continue outside staff‑led environments.

To strengthen longer‑term cohesion, projects also invested in local capability through volunteering and training, enabling participants to take on leadership roles and reduce reliance on staff. Over time, this supported the emergence of informal peer networks (for example, friendships, mutual support systems, and family‑led groups) that continued meeting outside formal sessions. These participant‑led connections were often the strongest indicator of sustained interaction, showing relationships becoming embedded in everyday community life rather than tied to project delivery.

6.1.10. What challenges have KYN Fund projects encountered in their efforts to build trust and mobility, and how have they adapted their strategies to overcome these challenges?

Projects described inter-group sensitivities (including generational and identity-linked differences) as risks that could undermine trust if not managed carefully, and they therefore relied on proactive planning and safeguarding. Projects also highlighted capacity constraints and short-term funding pressures, which could reduce continuity and make it harder to sustain the routine contact needed for community cohesion to build at scale. Organisational barriers, such as silo mentality and bureaucratic restrictions, could further limit pathways for participants to move between opportunities and mix more widely.

6.2. Recommendations

Building on the findings and lessons learned presented in this report, the following recommendations are provided for consideration. These aim to inform the design of future, similar interventions and delivery relating to reducing the stigma of loneliness and increasing community cohesion.

6.2.1. Reducing the stigma of loneliness

Recommendation 1

Audience: Funders.

Action: Funders to consider providing multi-year grant funding, for projects to deliver activities that aim to reduce the stigma of loneliness.

Why is it important: Reducing the stigma of loneliness is a gradual, incremental process, which requires trust to be built between project staff, volunteers and participants over a period of time. Projects benefited from the trusted relationships built during the initial KYN Fund delivery period, which provided a stronger basis for loneliness stigma to be addressed than would otherwise be possible in shorter funding periods.

Recommendation 2

Audience: Funders and projects aiming to reduce the stigma of loneliness through their activities.

Action: Commission and deliver projects that aim to reduce the stigma of loneliness with small (maximum 20 people) groups of participants per activity.

Why it is important: Due to the public perception of loneliness stigma, discussing loneliness can be challenging for many participants. This can be exacerbated in large groups, as participants experience a greater fear of judgment. Projects that run activities in smaller groups may be better suited to encourage discussion surrounding loneliness, to help address the stigma of loneliness.

Recommendation 3

Audience: Funders and projects that work in local communities.

Action: Conduct research into the wider community effects of activities that work in small groups.

Why it is important: Whilst this research found evidence of projects reducing the stigma of loneliness with participants directly engaged in the projects, little evidence was found of reducing the stigma of loneliness within wider communities. Exploring different types of wider community activities (for example, exhibitions and events) that can complement smaller group activities may help reduce the stigma of loneliness in wider communities.

6.2.2. Building community cohesion

Recommendation 4

Audience: Funders.

Action: Where spending review cycles allow for funders, provide multi-year grant funding, for projects to deliver activities that aim to build community cohesion.

Why it is important: Regular, sustained contact between community groups is needed to build trust in the long-term. One-off or irregular activities were viewed as less effective at building trust between community groups, with participants more likely to disengage. Multi year funding helps minimise these breaks in delivery, sustaining the repeated contact needed to maintain attendance, reduce drop out, and support ongoing mixing between communities.

Recommendation 5

Audience: Funders and projects aiming to build community cohesion.

Action: Commission and deliver projects that aim to build community cohesion through encouraging collaborative working between community groups.

Why it is important: Projects found that trust between community groups was more effectively built through activities that gave them, a shared purpose and a natural conversation route, rather than forced discussion. This reduced pressure and created space for understanding, peer support, and attitude change over repeated contact.

Recommendation 6

Audience: Projects aiming to build community cohesion.

Action: Ensure staff and volunteers receive safeguarding training.

Why it is important: Where inter-group work involved identity-linked or generational sensitivities, projects emphasised that cohesion did not “just happen” through contact alone. Preparation, clear safeguarding, and structured risk management were seen as necessary conditions for safe mixing, helping prevent tensions that could quickly undermine trust and participation.

7. Glossary

Term	Explanation

|————–|————–|

ACE	Arts Council England.

ALB

Arm’s Length Bodies (ALB) 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 were responsible for delivering up to £1.75 million of the total £4.5 million Know Your Neighbourhood extension funding available in the financial year 2025/26. Of this £1.75 million, £1.5 million was delivered by Arts Council England (ACE) and £253,000 by Historic England.

Beneficiary

An individual who uses the services that Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) funded projects deliver but does not volunteer for that KYN funded project.

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.

Community Needs Index

The Community Needs Index is an index produced by Local Trust and Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion, which measures the relative community need of geographical areas in England. It was used to help determine which local authority areas would be eligible for KYN funding.[footnote 3]

Cultural partners

Organisations selected by ACE that distribute grants on their behalf to projects as part of the Know Your Neighbourhood 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, Historic England, UK Community Foundations (UKCF) and nine CFs.

English Index of Multiple Deprivation

The English Index of Multiple Deprivation is an index produced by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in 2019, which measures the relative deprivation of geographical areas in England. It was used to help determine which local authority areas would be eligible for KYN funding.[footnote 4]

ESOL	English for Speakers of Other Languages.

KYN Fund

Know Your Neighbourhood Fund.

Loneliness

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 a person has and those they desire. This is the definition used by the UK Government’s Loneliness Strategy. The Loneliness strategy draws on Perlman an Peplau (1981) to define loneliness.[footnote 5]

Participant

An individual who benefits from the activities that KYN funded projects deliver, either as a ‘beneficiary’ or ‘volunteer’.

Projects

Organisations that received KYN Fund grants.

Qualitative data

Non-numerical data (for example, data from interviews).

SEND	Special educational needs and disabilities.

Stigma of loneliness

The stigma of loneliness refers to the negative attitudes and beliefs that individuals with feelings of loneliness may hold towards themselves or others. A perceived stigma of loneliness can also exist, which is when people who experience loneliness perceive that others hold negative opinions about loneliness.

UKCF	UK Community Foundations.

VCSE	Voluntary, community and social enterprise.

Volunteer

An individual who offers their time to work for a KYN Fund project, without monetary remuneration. A volunteer can also engage with and benefit from KYN Fund projects in a non-voluntary capacity.

8. Appendix

8.1. Stigma of loneliness project topic guide

Project Topic Guide

Introduction (5 minutes)

Introduce:

• Yourself

• Fortia Insight (Formerly RSM)

Introduce the study:

• Fortia Insight have been appointed by the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) to conduct a qualitative research project which explores how KYN Fund projects build or strengthen community cohesion and reduce loneliness stigma.

• Role of Fortia Insight – independent of DCMS.

This discussion will last up to 45 minutes.

• This interview will cover: 

• If/how your project explores and addresses the stigma of loneliness.

Participation is voluntary:

• Don’t have to answer anything if you do not wish to do so.

• Can decide not to continue at any point without giving a reason.

• Can take a break at any point.

Confidentiality:

• We will not tell DCMS – or anyone outside of the Fortia Insight research team – that you have taken part in the interview.

• We will not tell your Libraries Connected / AIM (Association of Independent Museums) / Creative Lives / Historic England [interviewer to mention as appropriate] whether you participated or not.

How we’ll report findings:

• Explain anonymity – we will not use your name or organisation name in any reports. 

• We will summarise what people have said across the interviews. 

• With your consent, we might want to quote you (use some of your exact words) in the summary report produced for DCMS but we will not include your name or anyone else’s name, or any place names that could identify you.  

• Final reports will be published on gov.uk   

• Details on how we will use, store, process and report responses are included in the privacy notice shared with the invitation to this interview

• If you wish to withdraw your interview from this study, please contact us up to the time of reporting (March 2026)

We would like to audio and video record and transcribe the discussion, so we have an accurate record of what is said:

• Files stored securely in line with UK General Data Protection Regulation (UKGDPR), a law on data protection and privacy, and deleted after two years. 

• Only the research team will have access.      

Information sheet and consent:

• Check whether the participant has received and read the information in the invitation email and privacy notice.

• Any questions/concerns.

• Ask for consent to proceed with the interview.

START RECORDING

• Confirm that you have explained the purpose of the interview, participation is voluntary and confirm participant(s) are happy for the discussion to be recorded.  

Questions

Project design

1) Project details

Prompts:

• Whether the project is different from that delivered originally as part of KYN and if so, in what ways. [Interviewer note: New staff may be unaware.]

• Intended outcomes of the project

• How the project aligns with KYN Fund objectives (for example, reducing loneliness and strengthening community cohesion)

Loneliness and stigma

2) Understanding of loneliness

Prompts:

• Definitions of loneliness stigma according to the project

• Why their project is targeting the stigma of loneliness

• Probe on the particular importance of this topic to their local community

• Who is their target group for this project

• Probe on why they chose to target this group (particularly in relation to the stigma of loneliness)

• Methods of recruitment and strategies they used to identify and recruit those who are either experiencing or are at risk of experiencing chronic loneliness

• Success factors and lessons learned for participant recruitment

• What role (if any) does stigma play in being a barrier to people accessing their project

• Whether recruitment is successful in targeting new groups (for example, young people and young men)

• Probe on using creative activities to recruit new audiences

• How the stigma of loneliness is mitigated against during participant recruitment [Interviewer note: If the interviewee is struggling to answer, give ‘not using the word “loneliness” during recruitment’ as an example, which was a finding from the KYN Fund evaluation]

• Are there any groups of people that they struggled to recruit and why

• Probe on any role the stigma of loneliness plays in this

3) Approach and activities

Prompts:

• Details of the project design and activities they deliver to raise awareness of (meaning, that loneliness affects everybody) and reduce the stigma of loneliness 

• What impact did they think the project’s design would have on loneliness stigma

• Probe on details of specific activity design

• How often are participants engaging in the activities (for example, weekly)

• Does this include online and in person participation

• How (if at all) do these factors impact on loneliness stigma and understanding

• How activities work in practice including elements of success, difficulties and lessons learned

• Probe on whether it is the act of attending a group regularly that results in positive benefits (regardless of who this is with) relating to the stigma of loneliness

• Probe on the importance of participants engaging with the same individuals regularly (regardless of activity) to breaking down the stigma of loneliness 

• How (if at all) do your activities increase confidence, wellbeing and aspirations.

• Probe on how (if at all) this relates to loneliness stigma and understanding.

• Advice to be given to others designing a project which aims to increase the understanding of and address the stigma of loneliness.

4) Skills and capacity

Prompts:

• Current organisational skills and knowledge of project staff in delivering sessions relating to increasing awareness of and addressing the stigma of loneliness

• How staff skills and knowledge influences activities and the effectiveness of activities

• Knowledge and training needs required to support participants understanding of the stigma of loneliness and address the stigma of loneliness

• Gaps or challenges in delivery in relation to awareness and understanding of the stigma of loneliness

• Probe for examples for illustration throughout where possible and relevant

5) Impact and learning

Prompts:

• Reflections on what has worked well, and less well, in helping participants (and potentially the wider public) to understand and address loneliness stigma within their project

• Likely legacy of the project in relation to loneliness stigma

• What impact the project has had on tackling loneliness stigma in their local area

• Any changes made based on participant feedback

6) Sustained engagement

Prompts:

• Strategies and delivery models to reduce the stigma of loneliness (with participants and in the local area) beyond the project and activity delivery period

• What has gone well and less well in making sure outcomes surrounding the stigma of loneliness are sustainable

Reflections and recommendations

7) Project legacy

Prompts:

• Whether there is a way for projects to interlink community cohesion and loneliness interventions

• Whether the project’s outcomes are expected to be sustained

• Support systems needed to continue impact

• Probe in relation to both projects and participants

Next steps

8) Follow-up interviews

• As set out in the invite emails we would be keen to interview other project staff and / or some of your participants about some of the topics we’ve just discussed

• Would it be possible to introduce us and the research to them, so that we can schedule an interview with them if they would be happy to take part

• Note the timelines for the research, ie data collection concluding in early January

• [If yes, interviewer follow-up via email after the call]

• Would the project staff and participant(s) be able to use project IT equipment for the interview, or would we have to interview them using their own contact details, IT equipment and telephone

• Are there any sensitivities we should be aware of before any potential interview

• For example, do participants know the project is about reducing loneliness stigma

• Are words like ‘loneliness’ used with participants. If not, what language is used

Closing the interview

• Final closing comments

• Anything to add

• Any questions

• Reassure participant about anonymity in our reports, in light of limits to anonymity – check if there was anything in the discussion that they would prefer wasn’t quoted.

• Say that we will share an aftercare leaflet with them, which has relevant contact details if they want support on any of the topics we discussed today.

8.2. Community cohesion project topic guide

Project Topic Guide

Introduction (5 minutes)

Introduce:

• Yourself

• Fortia Insight (Formerly RSM)

Introduce the study:

• Fortia Insight have been appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to conduct a qualitative research project which explores how KYN Fund projects build or strengthen community cohesion and reduce loneliness stigma.

• Role of Fortia Insight – independent of DCMS.

• This discussion will last up to 45 minutes.

• This interview will cover: 

• If/how your project explores and promotes community cohesion.

• What works well/less well in delivering activities that promote community cohesion.

Participation is voluntary:

• Don’t have to answer anything if you do not wish to do so.

• Can decide not to continue at any point without giving a reason.

• Can take a break at any point.

Confidentiality:

• We will not tell DCMS – or anyone outside of the Fortia Insight research team – that you have taken part in the interview.

• We will not tell your Community Foundation whether you participated or not.

• How we’ll report findings:

• Explain anonymity – we will not use your name or organisation name in any reports. 

• We will summarise what people have said across the interviews. 

• With your consent, we might want to quote you (use some of your exact words) in the summary report produced for DCMS but we will not include your name or anyone else’s name, or any place names that could identify you.  

• Final reports will be published on gov.uk   

• Details on how we will use, store, process and report responses are included in the privacy notice shared with the invitation to this interview

• If you wish to withdraw your interview from this study, please contact us up to the time or reporting (March 2026).

We would like to audio and video record and transcribe the discussion, so we have an accurate record of what is said:

• Files stored securely in line with UK General Data Protection Regulation (UKGDPR), a law on data protection and privacy, and deleted after two years. 

• Only the research team will have access.      

• Information sheet and consent:

• Check whether the participant has received and read the information in the invitation email and privacy notice.

• Any questions and concerns.

• Ask for consent to proceed with the interview.

START RECORDING

• Confirm that you have explained the purpose of the interview, participation is voluntary and confirm participant(s) are happy for the discussion to be recorded.

Questions

Project design

1) Project details

Prompts:

• Whether the project is different from that delivered originally as part of KYN and if so, in what ways. [Interviewer note: New staff may be unaware.]

• Intended outcomes of the project

• How the project aligns with KYN Fund objectives (for example, reducing loneliness and strengthening community cohesion)

Community cohesion

2) Understanding of community cohesion

• Understanding of community cohesion to the project

• Landscape of community cohesion within their local area

• Challenges and barriers to community cohesion within their local area

• Their target audience for this project

• Probe on why this group is being targeted for a project that aims to improve community cohesion

• Methods for recruiting this target group

• Probe on what went well, less well and lessons learned

• Identification of barriers to recruitment and participation (for example, transport, cultural norms, language)

3) Activities and interactions

Prompts:

• Activities which are designed to build connection between groups (for example, an arts group that brings together young people and elderly people)

• How these activities lend themselves to improving community cohesion

• How often are participants engaging in the activities (for example, weekly)

• Does this include online and/or in person participation

• How (if at all) do these factors impact on building community cohesion

• What has gone well and less well in delivering activities, and what can be learned

• Probe on any barriers for reaching certain people and groups.

• How these activities promote interaction between different age, ethnicity, religious and faith groups, socioeconomic groups (including what has gone well and less well in building these connections and trust)

• Delivery models for building trust and mobility between such groups

• Advice to be given to other organisations designing a project to increase community cohesion

4) Inclusion

Prompts:

• What has worked well to ensure recruitment and project activities are inclusive to different social groups

• What challenges have been encountered in efforts to build trust and mobility amongst groups

• [Where relevant] Whether and how working in an inter-group fashion presents additional unforeseen challenges (for example, language barriers and cultural differences) including ways to overcome these

• How engagement strategies and activities have been adapted to overcome such challenges

• Adaptation of the project to overcome such barriers

• Further support needed to help in overcoming any outstanding barriers

5) Skills and capacity

Prompts:

• Current organisational skills and knowledge of project staff in delivering sessions relating to community cohesion

• How staff skills and knowledge influences activities and the effectiveness of activities

• Knowledge and training needs required to support participants in building community cohesion

• Gaps or challenges in delivery in relation to community cohesion

6) Sustained engagement

Prompts:

• Strategies and delivery models to promote ongoing connections beyond the project and its activities

• What has gone well and less well in relation to the formation of networks and relationship which may continue independently

7) Impact and learning

• Reflections on what has worked well, and less well, in building community cohesion

• Any changes made based on participant feedback

Reflections and recommendations

8) Project legacy

Prompts:

• Whether there is a way for projects to interlink community cohesion and loneliness interventions

• Whether the project’s outcomes are expected to be sustained

• Probe on what factors contribute and inhibit the sustainability of community cohesion outcomes

• Support systems needed to continue impact

• Probe in relation to both projects and participants

Next steps

9) Follow-up interviews

• As set out in the invite emails we would be keen to interview other project staff and some of your participants about some of the topics we’ve just discussed

• Would it be possible to introduce us and the research to them, so that we can schedule an interview with them if they would be happy to take part

• Note the timelines for the research, ie data collection concluding in early January

• [If yes, interviewer follow-up via email after the call]

• Would the project staff/participant(s) be able to use project IT equipment for the interview, or would we have to interview them using their own contact details, IT equipment and telephone

• Are there any sensitivities we should be aware of before any potential interview

• For example, do participants know the project is about increasing community cohesion

Closing the interview

Final closing comments

• Anything to add

• Any questions

• Reassure participant about anonymity in our reports, in light of limits to anonymity – check if there was anything in the discussion that they would prefer wasn’t quoted.

• Say that we will share an aftercare leaflet with them, which has relevant contact details if they want support on any of the topics we discussed today.

8.3. Stigma of loneliness participant topic guide

Participant Topic Guide

Introduction (5 minutes)

Introduce:

• Yourself

• Fortia Insight

Introduce the study:

• Fortia Insight have been appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to conduct a qualitative research project which explores how KYN Fund projects contribute to building community cohesion and feelings of belonging and connection.

• Role of Fortia Insight – independent of DCMS.

This discussion will last up to 30 minutes.

• This interview will cover the following: 

• Whether the project you take part in helps people understand more about feelings of belonging, and whether it helps them to feel more connected to others.

Participation is voluntary:

• Don’t have to answer anything if you do not wish to do so.

• Can decide not to continue at any point without giving a reason.

• Can take a break at any point.

Confidentiality:

• We will not tell DCMS – or anyone outside of the Fortia Insight research team – that you have taken part in the interview.

• We have received your contact information from [Insert project name], with your consent, and they have helped facilitate setting up this interview. Your contact details will not be used for any other purpose and will be deleted at the end of the project.

• How we’ll report findings:

• Explain anonymity – we will not use your name in any reports. 

• We will summarise what people have said across the interviews. 

• With your consent, we might want to quote you (use some of your exact words) in the summary report produced for DCMS but we will not include your name or anyone else’s name, or any place names that could identify you.  

• With your consent, we may use this interview into a short case study, to be included in our final report. This will be completely anonymous, and will not include any potentially identifiable information.

• Final reports will be published on gov.uk   

• Details on how we will use, store, process and report responses are included in the privacy notice shared with the invitation to this interview

• If you wish to withdraw your interview from this study, please contact us up to the time or reporting (March 2026).

We would like to audio and video record the discussion (audio if via telephone, audio and video if via MS Teams), so we have an accurate record of what is said:

• Files stored securely in line with UK General Data Protection Regulation (UKGDPR), a law on data protection and privacy, and deleted at the end of the project. 

• Only the research team will have access.  

Information sheet and consent:

• Check whether participant has received and read the information in the invitation email, including the privacy notice.

• Any questions/concerns.

• Ask for consent to proceed with the interview.

START RECORDING

• Confirm that you have explained purpose of interview, participation is voluntary and confirm participant(s) happy for the discussion to be recorded.  

Questions

[Interviewer note: review project interview notes beforehand to account for any potential sensitivities raised by projects]

Introduction (5 minutes)

1) About the person

Prompts:

• Name, what they do (for example, occupation, interests), etc.

2) About the project

Prompts:

• Brief description of project and what it involves

• How participant first became aware of the project and motivation for getting involved (including how they were recruited)

• How they are involved in the project (ie what do they do, what do they take part in)

Feelings of belonging and the stigma of loneliness (15 minutes)

3) Personal experience of belonging

Prompts:

• What belonging and connectedness mean to the individual

• How commonly talked about belonging and connectedness are among their peers

• Were there any barriers to taking part in the project (for example, transport, time, fear of judgement [stigma])

• What support (if any, and aside from their project), is available to help people feel a greater sense of belonging / connectedness

[Interviewer note, definition of stigma if needed: Stigma is the negative attitudes or beliefs towards an individual or group, based on experiences or characteristics which are seen to distinguish them from other people.]

4) Influence of project on loneliness stigma

Prompts:

• Specific project activities delivered

• How regular are activities (for example, weekly)

• Are activities in-person and/or online

• Do these factors have an impact on feeling of belonging / connection

• Ways in which project activities help people feel more connected to others

• Probe on ways in which project activities could help people feel more connected to others, above what is currently been done

• Project’s impact on understanding of loneliness, and the stigma of loneliness

• Probe on what project activities discuss understanding of loneliness and the stigma of loneliness

• Probe on how these activities help understanding of loneliness and the stigma of loneliness

• Probe on the participants’ own experiences with loneliness stigma

• Probe on whether the participants’ own opinions on loneliness stigma have changed as a result of the project

• Whether the project increases confidence, aspirations and wellbeing

• Does this have an impact on understanding of loneliness and loneliness stigma

• Impact of the project on their own belonging, understanding of loneliness and the stigma of loneliness (including specific activities for example, creative activities) 

• [If relevant] Whether belonging to a group (for example, crafts group) helps them feel a sense of belonging/ breakdown stigma of loneliness

• [If relevant] Whether seeing the same people on a regular basis helps them feel a sense of belonging/ breakdown stigma of loneliness

• Perception on being able to discuss loneliness with others

5) Opinions on support for loneliness stigma still needed, personally or locally (for example, not addressed through the project)

Prompts:

• Who is best placed to offer and deliver such support

• What other support could be offered (for example, the place for creative activities within this)

• Frequency of support offered

• Ways of broadening reach of support

• How projects should recruit participants whilst mitigating against any judgement surrounding loneliness

Reflections and suggestions (5 mins)

6) Overall experience

Prompts:

• Reflections on overall experience with the project

• Most valuable or meaningful element or result of project

7) Improvements and ideas

Prompts:

• What could be improved in future projects

• Suggestions for how projects could better support people to better understand loneliness and the stigma of loneliness 

Closing the interview

Final closing comments

• Anything to add

• Any questions

• Reassure participant about anonymity in our reports, in light of limits to anonymity – check if there was anything in the discussion that they would prefer wasn’t quoted.

• Say that we will share an aftercare leaflet with them, which has relevant contact details if they want support on any of the topics we discussed today.

8.4. Community cohesion participant topic guide

Participant Topic Guide

Introduction (5 minutes)

Introduce:

• Yourself

• Fortia Insight

Introduce the study:

• Fortia Insight have been appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to conduct a qualitative research project which explores how KYN Fund projects contribute to building community cohesion and feelings of belonging/connection’.

• Stigma is the negative attitudes or beliefs towards an individual or group, based on experiences or characteristics which are seen to distinguish them from other people.

• Role of Fortia Insight – independent of DCMS.

This discussion will last up to 30 minutes.

• This interview will cover the following: 

• Whether the project you take part in helps improve or strengthen community cohesion.

Participation is voluntary:

• Don’t have to answer anything if you do not wish to do so.

• Can decide not to continue at any point without giving a reason.

• Can take a break at any point.

Confidentiality:

• We will not tell DCMS – or anyone outside of the Fortia Insight research team – that you have taken part in the interview.

• We have received your contact information from [Insert project name], with your consent, and they have helped facilitate setting up this interview. Your contact details will not be used for any other purpose and will be deleted at the end of the project.

How we’ll report findings:

• Explain anonymity – we will not use your name in any reports. 

• We will summarise what people have said across the interviews. 

• With your consent, we might want to quote you (use some of your exact words) in the summary report produced for DCMS but we will not include your name or anyone else’s name, or any place names that could identify you.  

• With your consent, we may use this interview into a short case study, to be included in our final report. This will be completely anonymous, and will not include any potentially identifiable information.

• Final reports will be published on gov.uk   

• Details on how we will use, store, process and report responses are included in the privacy notice shared with the invitation to this interview

• If you wish to withdraw your interview from this study, please contact us up to the time or reporting (March 2026).

We would like to audio and video record the discussion (audio if via telephone, audio and video if via MS Teams), so we have an accurate record of what is said:

• Files stored securely in line with UK General Data Protection Regulation (UKGDPR), a law on data protection and privacy, and deleted at the end of the project. 

• Only the research team will have access.      

Information sheet and consent:

• Check whether participant has received and read the information in the invitation email, including the privacy notice.

• Any questions/concerns.

• Ask for consent to proceed with the interview.

START RECORDING

• Confirm that you have explained purpose of interview, participation is voluntary and confirm participant(s) happy for the discussion to be recorded.  

Questions

Introduction (5 minutes)

1) About the person

Prompts:

• Name, what they do (for example, occupation, interests), etc.

• Region and community context (meaning whether participants’ local community feels cohesive or disjointed and whether subgroups exist within)

2) About the project

Prompts:

• Brief description of project and what it involves

• How participant first became aware of the project and motivation for getting involved (including how they were recruited)

Community cohesion (15 minutes)

3) Sense of belonging

Prompts:

• Whether participant felt part of their community prior to joining the project

• What would/does feeling a part of their community look like or mean to the individual (probe for specific examples where possible)

• Whether the participant wants to feel a sense of belonging to their community

• Factors which contribute to participants’ feelings of connectedness to community

4) Impact of project

Prompts:

• Whether a sense of greater belonging to one’s community is felt as a result of project

• Probe on specific project activities that made them feel more connected to their community

• What was it about these activities that made them feel more connected to their community

• Whether the project caused them to meet people they would not normally meet

• Probe on how this went

• Probe on how (if at all) this helped build a feeling of community

• Whether trust has been built between groups from different backgrounds

• Probe on what project activities helped build this trust

• Probe on why / how these activities worked to build this trust

5) Benefits and challenges [Interviewer note: use example benefits or challenges if participant struggles to answer]

Prompts:

• Benefits experienced from increased community interaction (for example, increased wellbeing, pride in local area, sense of purpose, social connections, trust etc.)

• Extent to which they feel like they’d be willing to do more to support their local community

• Probe on what they would like to do, for example, be involved in other similar projects/activities, volunteering 

• Probe on why

• Extent to which they feel like they trust other people in their local community and why

• Challenges faced in participating or connecting with others (for example, languages and cultural differences, and how these have been addressed – including successes and lessons learned)

6) Sustainability of connections

Prompts:

• Whether they expect to stay connected with others after the project ends

• Why they expect this, and how they will facilitate or manage this

• What external factors may influence this

• What strategies may support in sustaining these relationships

7) Loneliness and community cohesion (where relevant)

Prompts:

• Can feeling more connected to your community help people feel less lonely

• If so, how. If not, why.

Reflections and suggestions (5 mins)

8) Overall experience

Prompts:

• Reflections on overall experience with the project

• Most valuable or meaningful element or result of project

9) Improvements and ideas

Prompts:

• What could be improved in future projects

• Suggestions for how projects could better support people experiencing loneliness or build stronger communities

Closing the interview

Final closing comments

• Anything to add

• Any questions

• Reassure participant about anonymity in our reports, in light of limits to anonymity – check if there was anything in the discussion that they would prefer wasn’t quoted.

• Say that we will share an aftercare leaflet with them, which has relevant contact details if they want support on any of the topics we discussed today.

8.5. Stigma of loneliness participant survey

Introduction and Consent

Welcome, and thank you for participating in this survey. 

Background

We (Fortia Insight) have been appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to conduct a qualitative research project which explores how KYN Fund projects contribute to feelings of belonging / connection.

We are independent of DCMS.

We are going to ask you some questions about your experience with your local Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) funded project. Answers to these questions should be brief (maximum of 100 words).

Taking part in this survey is entirely voluntary. You don’t have to answer anything you don’t want to. If there is a question you do not wish to answer, please leave this blank.

Confidentiality and anonymity

We will not tell DCMS – or anyone outside of the Fortia Insight research team – that you have taken part in this survey.

We will preserve your anonymity through our research and reporting:

• We won’t use any names in our reporting, even if you include any in your responses;

• We will summarise what people have said across the interviews and surveys;

• We might want to quote you (use some of your exact words) in the summary report produced for DCMS but we will not include your name or anyone else’s name, or any place names that could identify you;

• We may use this survey into a short case study, to be included in our final report. This will be completely anonymous, and will not include any potentially identifiable information.

Details on how we will use, store, process and report responses are included in the privacy notice, linked here [Insert link]

Please complete this survey by 13 February. If you have any queries or concerns about this research, please contact [evaluation team contact email].

By completing this survey, I consent to take part in this study. I understand that my data will be held securely and in line with relevant data protection legislation. I understand that when this information is no longer required for the purpose of this study, official Fortia Insight procedures will be followed to dispose of my data. Please refer to the privacy notice for this survey for further detail - Privacy Notice. Given we do not ask you for personal data, we will not be able to identify your response. Consequently, you will be unable to withdraw your data following submission. 

Yes, I consent to part

No, I do not wish to take part

What does ‘belonging’ mean to you? Do you discuss this topic with your friends/family?

Please could you tell us how you found out about the project you take part in? Why did you want to join?

Please could you tell us about your involvement with the project you take part in? What type of activities do you do? How often do you engage with the project?

Has taking part in the project helped you to feel more connected to others? If so, how has it done this?

Through the project have you talked about belonging/lack of belonging with other people, including what belonging/lack of belonging means?

Having taken part in this project, do you feel like you have a better understanding of what belonging/lack of belonging means? Please explain your answer.

Thank you for engaging with this survey. Please feel free to close the window. For support on any of the subjects covered in this survey, please see Aftercare Leaflet.

8.6. Community cohesion participant survey

Introduction and Consent

Welcome, and thank you for participating in this survey. 

Background

We (Fortia Insight) have been appointed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) to conduct a qualitative research project which explores how KYN Fund projects contribute to building community cohesion. We are independent of DCMS.

We are independent of DCMS.

We are going to ask you some questions about your experience with your local Know Your Neighbourhood (KYN) funded project. Answers to these questions should be brief (maximum of 100 words).

Taking part in this survey is entirely voluntary. You don’t have to answer anything you don’t want to. If there is a question you do not wish to answer, please leave this blank.

Confidentiality and anonymity

We will not tell DCMS – or anyone outside of the Fortia Insight research team – that you have taken part in this survey.

We will preserve your anonymity through our research and reporting:

• We won’t use any names in our reporting, even if you include any in your responses;

• We will summarise what people have said across the interviews and surveys;

• We might want to quote you (use some of your exact words) in the summary report produced for DCMS but we will not include your name or anyone else’s name, or any place names that could identify you;

• We may use this survey into a short case study, to be included in our final report. This will be completely anonymous, and will not include any potentially identifiable information.

Details on how we will use, store, process and report responses are included in the privacy notice, linked here [Insert link]

Please complete this survey by 13 February. If you have any queries or concerns about this research, please contact [evaluation team contact email].

By completing this survey, I consent to take part in this study. I understand that my data will be held securely and in line with relevant data protection legislation. I understand that when this information is no longer required for the purpose of this study, official Fortia Insight procedures will be followed to dispose of my data. Please refer to the privacy notice for this survey for further detail - Privacy Notice. Given we do not ask you for personal data, we will not be able to identify your response. Consequently, you will be unable to withdraw your data following submission. 

Yes, I consent to part

No, I do not wish to take part

When you think about your local community, do you feel a sense of belonging? How would you describe this sense of belonging?

Please could you tell us how you found out about the project you take part in? Why did you want to join?

Please could you tell us about your involvement with the project you take part in? What type of activities do you do? How often do you engage with the project?

Has the project you take part in made you feel more connected to your local community? If so, how has it done this?

Through the project, have you made connections / built trust with people you wouldn’t normally have met? If so, please explain what this has involved.

Do you engage with your local community outside of the project? Did taking part in the project impact this? Would you like to be more involved in your local community? 

Thank you for engaging with this survey. Please feel free to close the window. For support on any of the subjects covered in this survey, please see Aftercare Leaflet.

1. Where interviewees did not give permission for interviews to be transcribed, detailed notes were taken during the interviews instead. ↩

2. Initially, the research team aimed to recruit a roughly even split of projects aiming to reduce the stigma of loneliness, and build community cohesion. ↩

3. Local Trust, (2023). Community Needs Index. Available from: https://localtrust.org.uk/evidence-insights/community-needs-index-cni-2023/ ↩

4. English Indices of Multiple Deprivation, (2019). Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-indices-of-deprivation-2019 ↩

5. Perlman, D. & Peplau, L. A. (1981) Toward a Social Psychology of Loneliness. In R. Gilmour & S. Duck (Eds.), Personal Relationships: 3. Relationships in Disorder (pp. 31-56). London: Academic Press. ↩