Research and analysis

Life Chances Fund evaluation: survey data release (wave 3)

Published 29 August 2025

Applies to England

Summary

This report presents final survey findings from the primary evaluation of the LCF. This report covers Wave 3 of the survey and aims to capture how implementation experiences have changed over time and how stakeholder insights as projects approach completion. It follows reports from two earlier waves: Wave 1 captured insights during the early stages of project mobilisation, and Wave 2 captured insights during early project implementation. 

Key findings from Wave 3 are outlined below: 

• Benefits and drawbacks: There was a significant increase - 15 percentage points - in benefits occurring in Wave 3, particularly among providers. The main drawback experienced in Wave 2 (diversion of resources) significantly reduced by 17 percentage points in Wave 3. · 

• Trust and collaboration: There is general agreement that stakeholders are trustworthy. After an initial increase in goal alignment between stakeholders, this alignment decreased from Wave 2 to Wave 3 and may be related to the emergence of different stakeholder goals at the end of the project. 

• Performance management: Performance information is frequently used across different functions. There is consensus that performance measurement brings benefits.

• Legacy: The top three reported accomplishments of the LCF include: (1) the scale-up of successful interventions; (2) securing additional funding; and (3) shift in focus to outcomes. This has influenced how commissioners and providers intend to take forward their future practice. A majority of commissioners intended to adopt long-term contracts (56%) and pre-defined outcome metrics (56%). A majority of providers intended to adopt all elements of the SOP approach, especially greater flexibility at the frontline (62%) and pre-defined outcome metrics (55%). Beyond the LCF most respondents expected the service to be retained, but without the SOP model. This could be due respondents’ preference for a non-SOP service form or indicative of the SOP’s value in demonstrating proof of concept.

1. Introduction

The Life Chances Fund (LCF) was a £70 million fund supporting the growth and development of 29 locally-commissioned social outcomes partnerships (SOPs), also known as social impact bonds (SIBs), in England. These outcomes-based projects were co-commissioned by central government and a range of local public sector organisations.

LCF projects aimed to tackle complex social problems across policy areas like child and family welfare, homelessness, health and wellbeing, employment and training, criminal justice, and education and early years. Following three application rounds, funding was made available for multi-year SOP projects to run within the LCF’s nine-year lifespan from July 2016 to March 2025. The first LCF projects began service delivery in 2018, with the bulk of projects launching between 2019 and 2020. LCF Projects were only able to claim payments for outcomes achieved up to the end of September 2024. Some projects continued to deliver services beyond the lifetime of the LCF.

The Fund had the following objectives:

• Increasing the number and scale of SOPs in England

• Making it easier and quicker to set up a SOP

• Generating public sector efficiencies by delivering better outcomes and using these successes to understand how and whether cashable savings could be achieved

• Increasing social innovation and building a clear evidence base of ‘what works’

• Increasing the amount of capital available to a wider range of voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector providers to enable them to compete for public sector contracts

• Providing better evidence of the effectiveness of the SOP mechanism and the savings that are being accrued

• Growing the scale of the social investment market.

The LCF was administered by The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF, formerly known as the Big Lottery Fund) on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

Focus of report

This report is the third of three reports from the LCF Primary Evaluation which seeks to provide descriptive information on all projects established from the LCF through a longitudinal survey. This report focuses on Wave 3, which explores implementation; benefits and drawbacks; collaboration and trust between stakeholder organisations; reflections on organisational and performance management practices; and the legacy of the LCF.

It follows two previous reports from earlier waves of the LCF Primary Evaluation Survey. The first report (Wave 1) focused on capturing insights from the early stages of project mobilisation.^{[footnote 1]} The second report (Wave 2) was a data release which focused on the implementation experiences of stakeholders.^{[footnote 2]} This report builds on this and seeks to capture how stakeholders’ experiences have changed across waves, while also focusing on insights specific to project completion.

This report is structured as follows. Section 2 describes the methodology and data sources. Sections 3 to 6 outline the results on perceived benefits and drawbacks of the SOP model; trust and collaboration; performance management; and legacy. Section 7 concludes.

2. Methodology and data sources

This analysis is based on data from a longitudinal survey conducted with SOP stakeholders, including local commissioners and service provider organisations involved in the delivery of LCF SOP projects. The survey was conducted over three waves:

• Wave 1 (W1) was conducted during mobilisation and early implementation. It was administered from August 2018 to December 2019. In W1, 142 invitations were sent and there were 87 respondents, of whom 82 completed the survey.

• Wave 2 (W2) was conducted during implementation in June to August 2021. In W2, 284 invitations were sent and there were 142 respondents of whom 95 completed the survey.

• Wave 3 (W3) was conducted as projects were nearing completion of service delivery or transitioning from the LCF to other funding sources, from November 2023 to July 2024. In W3, 247 invitations were sent and there were 94 respondents, all of whom completed the survey.

Figure 1: Survey sample by respondent role

Statistically significant results are at the 95% level or more unless otherwise stated.

Survey wave	Commissioner	Provider	Investor	Intermediary	Total
Wave 1	32	46	0	4	82
Wave 2	33	58	2	2	95
Wave 3	37	57	0	0	94

3. Perceived benefits and drawbacks of the SOP model

A number of potential benefits and drawbacks of a SOP model to implementing interventions have been hypothesised.^{[footnote 3]} SOPs are thought to encourage the combining of skills and expertise across multiple partners to design and deliver better public services.^{[footnote 4]} The focus on outcomes rather than process is thought to enable greater flexibility to serve service users’ needs.^{[footnote 5]} Drawbacks are thought to include a diversion of time and resources from service delivery to compliance and reporting, and tensions between partners due to their different roles and interests.^{[footnote 6]}

This section outlines respondents’ perception of benefits and drawbacks associated with the SOP during implementation and how they have evolved over the course of its delivery.

3.1. Benefits

In W2 and W3, the majority of benefits asked about in the survey were reported to have already occurred or were expected to occur (Table A1). Figure 2 shows that the top benefits occurring in W3 were an enhanced ability to serve service users (88%) and an enhanced ability to serve the community (85%). Relative to W2, in W3 there was a significant increase in benefits that had occurred, which included enhanced influence in the community (23 percentage point increase); enhanced ability to serve the community (20 percentage point increase); and enhanced ability to serve service users (14 percentage point increase).^{[footnote 7]} This result was driven by providers who generally perceived more benefits had occurred compared to commissioners in W3 (Table A2).

3.2. Drawbacks

There was no statistically significant difference in the occurrence of drawbacks from W2 to W3 (Figure 3). But within waves, significantly more drawbacks were experienced by providers. The main drawback that was reported to have occurred is the diversion of time resources. This was driven by providers, although by W3 its occurrence significantly reduced by 17 percentage points ^{[footnote 8]} which may be reflective of adaptation (Table A4). Commissioners experienced a significant increase by 11 percentage points ^{[footnote 9]} in the occurrence of insufficient credit given to organisations in W3 relative to W2 (Table A4). This may be related to contract uncertainty beyond the LCF, although the ability to further examine this is limited by the small sample size.

Figure 2: Benefits that have occurred in W2 and W3

Notes: This considers 107 respondents in W2 and 91 respondents in W3. All respondents were asked to ‘indicate whether the following possible benefits of your SIB have, in your opinion, already occurred, are expected to occur, or are not expected to occur.’ This follows an attitudinal measure of network involvement for perceived benefits (Provan et al. 2003). The figure plots the frequencies in the ‘already occurred’ category. Further details are provided in Table A1.

Figure 3: Drawbacks that have occurred in W2 and W3 

Notes: This considers 107 respondents in W2 and 93 respondents in W3. All respondents were asked to ‘indicate whether the following possible drawbacks of your SIB have, in your opinion, already occurred, are expected to occur, or are not expected to occur.’ This follows an attitudinal measure of network involvement for perceived drawbacks (Lasker, Weiss, and Miller 2001). The figure plots the frequencies in the ‘already occurred’ category. Further details are provided in Table A3.

4. Trust and collaboration

Collaboration is at the core of the SOP contractual relationship, with a major focus on aligning outcomes across stakeholders. Trust is an important component of collaboration. Linking payment to outcome achievement has been reported to enable clarity and alignment around goals.^{[footnote 10]} This section analyses reported levels of trust and goal alignment between stakeholders.

4.1. Trust

Trust between SOP stakeholders is considered along five dimensions:^{[footnote 11]}

1. Agreement trust: parties generally live up to the agreements made with each other;
2. Benefit of the doubt: parties give one another the benefit of the doubt;
3.  Reliability: parties keep in mind the intention of other parties;
4. Absence of opportunistic behaviour: parties do not use the contribution of other actors for their own advantage; and
5. Goodwill trust: parties can assume that the intentions of the other parties are good in principle.

Overall, there was general agreement amongst respondents that stakeholders are trustworthy along all five dimensions. In W2, providers had significantly lower levels of trust than commissioners,^{[footnote 12]} but by W3 there was no significant difference (Figure 4).

There was a small reduction in trust from W2 and W3, with trust reducing across each of the five dimensions, which is significant for agreement trust; benefit of the doubt trust and reliability trust (Figure 5).^{[footnote 13]} This may be related to the SOP’s legacy beyond the LCF, with those reporting SOP continuation/desire for continuation having greater levels of trust (mean rating 4.1) than those reporting the SOP would cease (mean rating 3.8). However, the ability to investigate this further was limited by the small sample size.

Figure 4: Overall trust rating - by stakeholder type

Notes: This considers 113 respondents (44 commissioners and 69 providers) in W2 and 92 respondents (comprising 36 commissioners and 56 providers) in W3. All respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with five different 5-scale Likert statements related to network involvement and trust (Klijn et al., 2010), with results pooled to derive a single overall trust measure. This figure plots the means for these responses. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 5: Perceptions of trust, W2-W3

Notes: This considers 117 respondents in W2 and 94 respondents in W3. All respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with five different 5-scale Likert statements related to network involvement and trust (Klijn et al., 2010). This figure plots the means for these responses. Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.

4.2. Goal alignment 

Overall, there was an increase in goal alignment from W1 to W2 (Figure 6), indicating that shared objectives through the SOP’s outcomes framework may help to align interests in the early stages. However, this was followed by a general decrease in alignment from W2 to W3. This was particularly apparent for the statistically significant decrease in alignment with the special purpose vehicle (SPV) ^{[footnote 14]}, which is driven by commissioners (Panel A). Potential reasons for the decrease in alignment include the emergence of different goals at the end of the project and uncertainty beyond the LCF funding period. The exception is the significant increase in goal alignment with central government reported by providers from W2 to W3 (Panel B).^{[footnote 15]}

Figure 6: Ranking of goal alignment from 1 (low alignment) to 6 (high alignment), W1-W3

A) Difference in commissioners’ goals with other stakeholders

B) Difference in providers’ goals with other stakeholders

Notes: In W1, respondents were asked: ‘During the planning phase of your SIB, to what extent did you feel there were differences in philosophy and goals between your organisation and the following list of stakeholders that hindered collaboration?’. In W2 and W3, the question was: ‘Since the start of service delivery, to what extent are there differences in organisational philosophies and goals between your organisation and listed stakeholders that have hindered collaboration?’. Differences were rated on a scale of 1 (large differences / low alignment) to 6 (no differences / high alignment). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals. (A) is based on 171 observations in W1, 180 observations in W2 and 111 observations in W3. (B) is based on 292 observations in W1, 263 observations in W2 and 209 observations in W3.

5. Performance management

Performance management is a central part of a SOP. It can be used to monitor performance and to adapt implementation and delivery to ensure that outcomes will be achieved. This section considers the frequency of performance information use; information sharing; and the impact of performance measurement.

5.1. Frequency of performance information use 

Systematically collected performance information is being used frequently (Figure 7). It plays an important role in making day-to-day decisions and allocating resources across all waves. Initially performance information was used more frequently (weekly or less) in making personnel decisions; strategic decisions; services more efficient; and advocating to stakeholders, with this moving to monthly as projects were implemented. These results are consistent regardless of organisation type or SOP role.

In W3, performance information was used on a weekly or less basis to make day-to-day decisions (88%) and allocate resources (53%). It was used on a monthly basis to make services more efficient (62%) and make strategic decisions (61%).

Figure 7: Frequency of performance information use (%), W1-W3

Notes: This is based on 408 observations in W1, 651 observations in W2 and 329 observations in W3. Respondents were asked “across all activities, to what extent does your organisation currently use performance information to: make personnel decisions; make strategic decisions; make day-to-day decisions; advocate to stakeholders; allocate resources; and make services more efficient.”

6. Perceptions of the impact of performance measurement

There is consensus amongst providers that performance measurement has brought more advantages than disadvantages. There is general agreement that accountability, performance and decision-making improved mainly because of performance measurement in the SOP (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Provider’s perceptions of the impact of performance measurement, W3 (%)

Impact	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total
Improved performance measurement	41	51	0	7	0	100
Improved accountability	26	61	0	13	0	100
Improved performance	20	57	0	20	3	100
Improved decision making	23	53	0	20	3	100

Notes: This is based on 132 observations from providers in W3. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with the statements on performance measurement impacts on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

7. Legacy

The legacy of the LCF is considered in terms of accomplishments; future practice; and public value creation.

7.1. Accomplishments

The top three accomplishments of the LCF reported by respondents in W3 include the scale-up of successful interventions; securing additional funding; and a shift in focus to outcomes (Figure 9). However, these were ranked as less important in W1. In W1 the top three expected accomplishments were introduce market discipline, transfer risk away and increase flexibility. This indicates some divergence between expected and actual accomplishments in W1 and W3. In W3, providers and commissioners similarly ranked most actual accomplishments, but shifting spending to prevention is ranked significantly higher by commissioners, and increase flexibility is ranked significantly higher by providers (Table A5). This may be reflective of these stakeholders’ roles and interests.

Figure 9: Expected accomplishments (W1) vs actual accomplishments (W3) - ranking from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important)

Notes: This is based on 124 respondents in W1 and 83 respondents in W3. In W1, respondents were asked “what do you hope to accomplish by using a SIB” and in W3, respondents were asked “what have you accomplished by using a SIB”. Respondents were asked to rank the accomplishments from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.

7.2. Future practice

The LCF has influenced how commissioners and providers intend to take forward their future practice (Figure 10). When commissioners were asked about which elements of the SOP approach they planned to take forward, most planned to adopt commissioning for long-term contracts (56%); commissioning for outcomes with pre-defined metrics and evidence requirements (56%); and reducing or collaboratively producing service specifications (47%) (Panel A). Elements that commissioners were not planning to take forward include resourcing a network coordinator (8%) and implementing a central data management system (8%). Some projects implemented data management systems as part of the LCF, so this result may reflect that sufficient systems have been put into place.

When providers were asked which elements of the SOP approach they planned to take forward in their management and delivery of future services, most intended to adopt all elements, including enhancing flexibility for service delivery at the frontline (62%); engagement in regular meetings with other service providers to increase the sharing of best practice and/or co-delivery of services; and introducing pre-defined outcomes and performance metrics to enhance the service’s accountability (55%) (Panel B). 

Figure 11 considers the form the service is expected to take beyond the LCF SOP. Most commissioners responded that they would retain the intervention or parts of it, but without the SOP contracting arrangements (41%). This may reflect the SOP’s value in demonstrating proof of concept of an intervention. Some commissioners also indicated some expectation and preference for a SOP; 24% responded that services would continue as they are or with another SOP, and 29%responded that a SOP is desired but conditional upon funding. Those who were undecided (21%) were currently reviewing contracts.

Figure 10: Impact of the LCF on future practice, W3

A) Commissioners

SOP elements	percentage
Commissioning for outcomes	56%
Commissioning for long-term contracts	53%
Reducing/collaboratively producing service specifications	47%
Enhancing performance management	31%
Central data management system	8%
Resourcing a network coordinator	8%

B) Providers

SOP elements	percentage
Enhancing flexibility for service delivery at frontline	62%
Regular engagement with other service providers	56%
Introducing pre-defined outcomes/performance metrics	55%
Data-driven service delivery	51%
Increasing performance management	42%

Notes: (A) Based on 36 respondents (commissioners). Respondents were asked “which, if any, elements of the SIB approach do you plan to take forward in your future commissioning practice”. (B) Based on 55 respondents (providers). Respondents were asked “which, if any, elements of the SIB have led to changes in the way that you intend to manage and deliver other services in the future?”.

Figure 11: Services beyond the LCF, W3

Service	percentage
Retaining some/all of intervention without SOP	41%
SOP desired but conditional on funding	29%
SOP	24%
Interest in widening local partnerships beyond LCF SOP	21%
Undecided	21%
Service will end	9%
Not thought about it	3%

Notes: Based on 34 respondents (commissioners). Respondents were asked “following your LCF SIB project, what form will the service take? Please select all that apply”.

8. Value to service users

The extent to which service users’ experiences, needs, and expectations are considered are key conditions for achieving high performing outcomes, effective service delivery and creating public value.^{[footnote 16]} Figure 12 illustrates the extent to which the SOP created public value across four key elements: co-experience, co-production, co-design, and co-construction.^{[footnote 17]} There is general agreement of public value creation across all measures. Commissioners and providers had similar ratings across all measures, with no significant differences (Table A6).

Figure 12: Value to service users, W3 (%)

Collaborative impact	Strongly agree	Agree	Neither agree nor disagree	Disagree	Strongly disagree	Total
Co-experience: positively affects service users’ needs and expectations as service is delivered	39	50	9	1	1	100
Co-production: considers service users’ experience in service delivery use	39	47	10	3	1	100
Co-construction: considers service users’ prior experiences as a source to design services	33	43	17	7	0	100
Co-design: engages service users in service delivery management	14	40	26	15	4	100

Notes: Based on 92 respondents. Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which they agree that the SIB created public value across the four measures on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (dos Reis and Gomes 2023).

9. Conclusions

Benefits and drawbacks of the SOP model: By W3, there was a significant increase in benefits occurring, with providers generally experiencing most of these benefits. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of drawbacks, although within waves significantly more drawbacks were experienced by providers. However, the major drawback identified in W2 (diversion of time and resources) had a significant reduction in occurrence by W3.

Trust and collaboration: There is general agreement that stakeholders are trustworthy. However, there was a small reduction in trust over time which may be related to uncertainty beyond the LCF. While there was an increase in goal alignment from W1 to W2, this decreased from W2 to W3 and may be related to the emergence of different stakeholder goals at the end of the project.

Performance management: Performance information is being used frequently across a range of functions. There is a consensus that performance measurement has brought more advantages than disadvantages.

Legacy: In W3, respondents’ top three accomplishments of the LCF were the scale-up of successful interventions; securing additional funding; and a shift in focus to outcomes. The LCF has also influenced how commissioners and providers intend to take forward their future practice, particularly in terms of long-term contracts, pre-defined outcome metrics, and greater flexibility. Beyond the LCF most respondents expected the service to be retained without the SOP. This may be due respondents’ preference for a non-SOP service form, or it may indicate the SOP’s value in demonstrating proof of concept. There was also some expectation and preference for continuation of the SOP.

References

Albertson, Kevin, C Fox, C O’Leary, and G Painter. 2020. “Towards a Theoretical Framework for Social Impact Bonds.” Nonprofit Policy Forum 11 (2):20190056.

Cabinet Office, and UK Department for Culture, Media & Sport. 2023. Social Outcomes Partnerships and the Life Chances Fund.

Carter, E, C FitzGerald, R Dixon, C Economy, T Hameed, and M Airoldi. 2018. Building the tools for public services to secure better outcomes: Collaboration, Prevention, Innovation. Accessed 1 May 2023.

Dayson, Chris, Alec Fraser, and Toby Lowe. 2020. “A Comparative Analysis of Social Impact Bond and Conventional Financing Approaches to Health Service Commissioning in England: The Case of Social Prescribing.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 22 (2):153-169. doi: 10.1080/13876988.2019.1643614.

Dixon, R. 2020. “Performance management in social impact bonds: how an outcomes-based approach shapes hybrid partnerships.” International Journal of Public Sector Management 34 (3):356-376.

dos Reis, Claudio José Oliveira, and Ricardo Corrêa Gomes. 2023. “Public value creation and appropriation mechanisms in public–private partnerships: How does it play a role?” Public Administration 101 (2):693-715.

FitzGerald, C., T. Hameed, F. Rosenbach, JR. Macdonald, J. Outes Velarde, and R. Dixon. 2021. An Introduction to Life Chances Fund projects and their early adaptations to Covid-19: Life Chances Fund Evaluation Interim Report. UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport.

Fraser, Alec, Stefanie Tan, Mylene Lagarde, and Nicholas Mays. 2018. “Narratives of Promise, Narratives of Caution: A Review of the Literature on Social Impact Bonds.” Social Policy Administration 52 (1):4-28.

French, M, J Kimmitt, R Wilson, D Jamieson, and T Lowe. 2023. “Social impact bonds and public service reform: back to the future of New Public Management.” International Public Management Journal 26 (3):376-395.

Joy, Meghan, and John Shields. 2013. “Social Impact Bonds: The Next Phase of Third Sector Marketization?” Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research 4 (2):39-55.

Klijn EH., J Edelenbos, and B Steijn. 2010. “Trust in Governance Networks: Its Impacts on Outcomes.” Administration and Society 42 (2):193-221.

Lasker, Roz D., Elisa S. Weiss, and Rebecca Miller. 2001. “Partnership Synergy: A Practical Framework for Studying and Strengthening the Collaborative Advantage.” The Milbank Quarterly 79 (2):179-205.

Lazzarini, Sergio G. 2020. “The Nature of the Social Firm: Alternative Organizational Forms for Social Value Creation and Appropriation.” Academy of Management Review 45 (3):620-645. doi: 10.5465/amr.2018.0015.

Osborne, SP. 2021. Public service logic: creating value for public service users, citizens, and society through public service delivery. New York: Routledge.

Provan, KG, L Nakama, MA Veazie, NI Teufel-Shone, and C Huddleston. 2003. “Building community capacity around chronic disease services through a collaborative interorganizational network.” Health Educ Behav 30 (6):646-62. doi: 10.1177/1090198103255366. PMID: 14655861.

Department for Culture, Media & Sport. 2023. Life Chances Fund intermediate evaluation: data release.

Appendix A

Table A1: Benefits

Benefit	Already occurred				Expected to occur				Not expected to occur
	W2	W3	Diff	p-value	W2	W3	Diff	p-value	W2	W3	Diff	p-value
Enhanced influence in the community	32%	55%	23%	0.001	42%	20%	-22%	0.001	26%	25%	-1%	0.816
Heightened public profile of organisation	39%	53%	13%	0.057	37%	17%	-20%	0.002	23%	30%	7%	0.281
Increased ability to shift resources	39%	41%	1%	0.840	31%	32%	1%	0.877	30%	27%	-2%	0.706
Acquisition of additional funding	54%	58%	4%	0.535	26%	19%	-7%	0.269	20%	23%	2%	0.703
Increased utilisation of organisation’s services	57%	63%	6%	0.387	32%	21%	-11%	0.077	11%	16%	5%	0.296
Enhanced ability to serve the community	65%	85%	20%	0.002	27%	6%	-21%	0.000	7%	9%	1%	0.770
Acquisition of new knowledge and skills	71%	78%	7%	0.227	23%	11%	-13%	0.019	6%	11%	5%	0.181
Enhanced ability to serve service users	74%	88%	14%	0.011	24%	8%	-17%	0.002	2%	4%	2%	0.309
Development of new, valuable relationships	81%	75%	-5%	0.366	16%	15%	-1%	0.893	4%	10%	6%	0.086

Notes: This considers 107 respondents in W2 and 91 respondents in W3. All respondents were asked to ‘indicate whether the following possible benefits of your SIB have, in your opinion, already occurred, are expected to occur, or are not expected to occur.’ This follows an attitudinal measure of network involvement for perceived benefits (Provan et al. 2003). ‘Diff’ represents the difference between W3 and W2.

Table A2: Percentage of benefits that have already occurred (W2-W3)

	(1) W2	(2) W3	(3) Difference	(4) p-value
Commissioners	65%	73%	8%	0.451
Providers	66%	82%	17%	0.041
All	64%	78%	15%	0.023

Notes: The percentage of benefits that have already occurred is taken as the mean across the nine benefits.

Table A3: Drawbacks

Drawback	Already occurred				Expected to occur				Not expected to occur
	W2	W3	Diff	p-value	W2	W3	Diff	p-value	W2	W3	Diff	p-value
Insufficient credit given to organisations	12%	21%	9%	0.081	6%	11%	5%	0.189	82%	68%	-14%	0.020
Strained relations within organisation	19%	16%	-3%	0.589	3%	5%	2%	0.370	78%	79%	0%	0.942
Loss of control or autonomy	22%	22%	0%	0.984	2%	6%	5%	0.099	76%	71%	-5%	0.454
Frustration in dealing with partners	30%	37%	6%	0.344	12%	3%	-9%	0.023	58%	60%	2%	0.728
Diversion of time and resources	54%	40%	-14%	0.049	3%	9%	6%	0.070	44%	52%	8%	0.252

Notes: This considers 107 respondents in W2 and 93 respondents in W3. All respondents were asked to ‘indicate whether the following possible drawbacks of your SIB have, in your opinion, already occurred, are expected to occur, or are not expected to occur.’ This follows an attitudinal measure of network involvement for perceived drawbacks (Lasker, Weiss, and Miller 2001). ‘Diff’ represents the difference between W3 and W2.

Table A4: Percentage of drawbacks that have already occurred (W2-W3) – by stakeholder

	(1) W2	(2) W3	(3) Difference	(4) p-value
Commissioners
Insufficient credit given to organisations	3%	14%	11%	0.072
Strained relations within organisation	10%	8%	-2%	0.773
Loss of control or autonomy	8%	11%	3%	0.614
Frustration in dealing with partners	18%	24%	7%	0.461
Diversion of time and resources	40%	33%	-7%	0.548
Providers
Insufficient credit given to organisations	17%	26%	9%	0.240
Strained relations within organisation	23%	21%	-2%	0.840
Loss of control or autonomy	27%	30%	3%	0.987
Frustration in dealing with partners	37%	45%	8%	0.388
Diversion of time and resources	61%	44%	-17%	0.060

Notes: This considers 107 respondents in W2 and 93 respondents in W3. All respondents were asked to ‘indicate whether the following possible drawbacks of your SIB have, in your opinion, already occurred, are expected to occur, or are not expected to occur.’ This follows an attitudinal measure of network involvement for perceived drawbacks (Lasker, Weiss, and Miller 2001). This table outlines the frequency of responses in the ‘already occurred’ category. ‘Diff’ represents the difference between W3 and W2.

Table A5: Ranking of actual accomplishments (W3) – by stakeholder type

Accomplishment	(1) Commissioners (mean ranking)	(2) Providers (mean ranking)	(3) Difference	(4) p-value
Shift focus to outcomes	3.9	3.3	-0.6	0.159
Transfer risk away	6.3	6.4	0.2	0.707
Shift spending to prevention	4.4	5.3	1.0	0.030
Introduce market discipline	6.7	6.1	-0.6	0.092
Scale up successful interventions	3.0	2.9	-0.1	0.748
Increase flexibility	5.2	4.1	-1.0	0.013
Sustain collaborative efforts	3.7	3.9	0.2	0.636
Secure additional funding	2.9	4.0	1.1	0.051
Observations	31	52

Notes: Respondents were asked “what have you accomplished by using a SIB”. Respondents were asked to rank the accomplishments from 1 (most important) to 8 (least important). (3) represents the difference between column (2) and (1).

Table A6: Public value creation – by stakeholder type, W3

Public value creation	(1) Commissioners (mean ranking)	(2) Providers (mean ranking)	(3) Difference	(4) p-value
Co-construction: considers service users’ prior experiences as a source to design services	4.0	4.0	0.1	0.734
Co-design: engages service users in service delivery management	3.3	3.5	0.2	0.468
Co-production: considers service users’ experience in service delivery use	4.1	4.2	0.2	0.381
Co-experience: positively affects service users’ needs and expectations as service is delivered	4.2	4.2	0.0	0.909
Co-construction: considers service users’ prior experiences as a source to design services	3.8	4.1	0.3	0.175
Observations	37	55

Notes: Respondents are asked to rate the extent to which they agree that the SIB created public value across the four measures on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Measures based on dos Reis and Gomes (2023).

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The authors also acknowledge the National Lottery Community Fund, which administered the Life Chances Fund.

Contribution statement

Dr Elaine De Gruyter authored this report. She contributed to the research design, developed the conceptual report design and led the data collection and analysis. Elaine reviewed and co-edited the report. 

Franziska Rosenbach administered the survey and collected data.

Madhu Chauhan administered the survey and collected data.

Dr Eleanor Carter designed the overall research approach, and oversaw data collection and analysis.

Jessica Reedy co-edited this report, supported final formatting, and quality assurance processes.

Michael Gibson co-edited this report.

1. FitzGerald et al. (2021). ↩

2. UK Department for Culture (2023).  ↩

3. Fraser et al. (2018). ↩

4. Fraser et al. (2018), Joy and Shields (2013) and Dixon (2020). ↩

5. Joy and Shields (2013), Carter et al. (2018) and Albertson et al. (2020). ↩

6. Joy and Shields (2013), Dixon (2020), Dayson, Fraser, and Lowe (2020) and French et al. (2023). ↩

7. These results are statistically significant. ↩

8. These results are statistically significant. ↩

9. These results are statistically significant. ↩

10. Dixon (2020). ↩

11. Klijn EH., Edelenbos, and Steijn (2010). ↩

12. This is significant at the 10% level. ↩

13. The reduction from W2 to W3 for ‘live up to agreements’ and ‘give one another the benefit of the doubt’ is significant at the 10% level. ↩

14. A SPV is defined as a legal entity (usually a limited company) that is created solely for a financial transaction or to fulfil a specific contractual objective. ↩

15. This is statistically significant at the 10% level. ↩

16. Lazzarini (2020) and Osborne (2021). ↩

17. dos Reis and Gomes (2023). ↩