Pride in Place Impact Fund: methodology note
Published 25 September 2025
Applies to England, Scotland and Wales
© Crown copyright 2025
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pride-in-place-impact-fund-place-selection-methodology-note/pride-in-place-impact-fund-methodology-note
1. Overview of the programme
The Pride in Place Impact Fund (PiPIF) is a Great Britain-wide programme which aims to provide investment to restore pride in place, support community cohesion, and stimulate local economic activity through visible, short-term, community-led improvements.
PiPIF is a capital programme to be delivered over two years (2025/26 and 2026/27) across 95 local places in GB (£1.5million each). These 95 places will be identified by a combination of ‘need’ metrics such as deprivation, community infrastructure and Community Life Survey evidence relating to ‘pride’ or satisfaction in a place.
While each nation has tailored its methodology to reflect local needs and data availability, all share a commitment to a metrics-based approach with a focus on local pride.
For Northern Ireland, corresponding funding will be made available. MHCLG and the Northern Ireland Office will work in partnership with the NI Executive to determine the appropriate delivery approach. Further detail will follow in due course.
2. Methodological principles
Across England, Scotland, and Wales, the following features are consistent:
- Focus on need: All methodologies use a composite measure of deprivation and pride in local area or community need. Each nation considers two indicators: One indicator measures deprivation, drawing on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The other indicator measures local pride or community need, for example through Community Life Survey (CLS) data, Scottish Household Survey (SHS) data, and the Community Needs Index (CNI). The local authorities identified as most deprived, based on the composite metric, are then selected to receive funding.
- Level of geography: All allocations are at local authority level. Where necessary, data is translated to geographic boundaries using official lookups (e.g., Office for National Statistics, ONS, or other national statistics portals).
The following sections outline the respective selection methodologies by nation. The total programme of 95 places is apportioned in line with each nation’s share of 2025-26 UKSPF funding:
| Nation | Number of places funded |
|---|---|
| England | 64 |
| Scotland | 8 |
| Wales | 23 |
3. Nation-specific methodologies
3.1 England
England will receive funding for 64 Local Authority Districts (LAD). These are selected from the 296 LADs in England, using a combination of IMD and the percentage of people who are proud to live locally, as measured by the CLS.
Step 1: Translate data to 2025 geographic boundaries
- The IMD data (published in 2019) at 2011 Lower layer Super Output Area (LSOA) level is translated to 2021 LSOAs using an ONS exact-fit look-up.
- Four types of LSOA relationships are handled: direct, split, merged, and irregular.
| Relationship between 2011 and 2021 LSOA | Method of translating 2011 measure to 2021 geography |
|---|---|
| Direct – 2011 LSOA is the same as 2021 LSOA | The IMD scores from the 2011 LSOA are directly applied to the new 2021 LSOA. |
| Split – 2011 LSOA split into 2+ 2021 LSOAs | All the new 2021 LSOA are assigned the score of the 2011 LSOA that is split. |
| Merged – multiple 2011 LSOAs merged into one 2021 LSOA | Each 2021 LSOA is assigned a score based on the population-weighted average of the 2011 LSOAs that are merged to create it. |
| Irregular – fragmented relationship | For irregular and fragmented matches, constituent Output Areas (OAs) are examined using the 2011 OA to 2021 OA best-fit look up. Scores are assigned to 2021 LSOAs based on the proportion of 2011 OAs that comprised each new area. |
Step 2: Aggregate need measures to the LAD-level
- IMD scores are aggregated to the LAD-level using population-weighted averages of their constituent 2021 LSOAs to create an IMD metric.
- The percentage of people who agreed or strongly agreed with the question 10 of the CLS data is used as the pride metric. Specifically, the question asks: “How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements? - I am proud to live in my local area.” CLS data is already published at LAD-level so does not require further translation.
Step 3: Calculate combined need index and rank LADs
- IMD and pride metric are then standardised using z-scores:
Standardized IMD z-score for LAD = (LAD IMD score – Mean IMD) / Standard Deviation
Where:
Mean = Mean average IMD score across all LADs in England
Standard Deviation = Standard Deviation of IMD scores across all LADs in England
The same applies to calculations for CLS scores by LAD.
- Higher pride scores indicate greater pride, while higher IMD scores indicate greater deprivation. Therefore, the direction of the pride metric is reversed to ensure consistency.
- The single combined need metric is then calculated by averaging the two standardised scores for each LA.
Step 4: Select most in need LADs
- The 64 most in need LADs are selected in order of need (most to least) based on the combined need metric described in Step 3.
3.2 Scotland
Scotland will receive funding for 8 local authorities. These are selected from the 32 local authorities in Scotland using a combined Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD) and pride in place score (from the SHS).
Step 1: Calculate combined need index and rank local authorities
- Identify the number of Data Zones (DZ) in the top quintile of SIMD across Scotland.
- Count the number of DZs in the top quintile of SIMD score in each local authority and divide this by the total number of DZs in the top quintile across Scotland. Local authorities are then ranked in descending order, from those with the highest share of top-quintile DZs to those with the lowest.
- Calculate the percentage of adults in each local authority that responded to the SHS Question 2 of their “Rating of neighbourhood as a place to live” with either “very good” or “fairly good”. The average of the latest three survey waves (2022, 2023, 2024) is then used to rank local authorities in ascending order, from those with the lowest local satisfaction to the highest.
- To produce the final rankings, the two individual rankings are averaged (mean) with equal weighting (50:50) to generate a needs-based ranking of Scottish local authorities.
Step 2: Select local authorities in order of need
- Local authorities are selected in order of need (most to least) based on the combined need index, as described in Step 1, until Scotland’s national entitlement (8) is exhausted.
3.3 Wales
Wales will receive funding for 23 allocations. All 22 local authorities in Wales are given funding. The allocation methodology below outlines the selection process for which local authority receives an additional allocation:
Step 1: Aggregate the Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation (WIMD) and WCNI need measures to local authority-level and rank
- The 2019 WIMD is published at 2011 LSOA level. Local authority-level WIMD scores are calculated as population- weighted averages of the 2011 LSOAs. 2011 LSOAs align fully with 2021 local authority boundaries.
- The WCNI is published at 2021 MSOA level. Local authority-level WCNI scores are calculated as population-weighted averages of their MSOAs, with MSOA populations derived by summing LSOA populations.
- Once the WIMD and WCNI have been aggregated up to local authority-level, each metric is ranked in descending order, with higher scores indicating greater need.
Step 2: Identify the share of deprived neighbourhoods in each local authority
- Calculate the WIMD score for each MSOA, by taking a population-weighted average using the 2011 LSOAs.
- Rank the WIMD from most deprived to least deprived MSOAs and find the top quintile of MSOAs. Count the number of MSOAs in the top quintile of WIMD score per local authority and divide this by the total number of MSOAs in the top quintile (82). Local authorities are then ranked in descending order, from those with the highest share of top-quintile MSOAs to those with the lowest.
Step 3: Calculate combined need index and rank local authorities accordingly
- The three metrics are combined into a weighted average: the WIMD rank, WCNI rank and the rank of the share of top-quintile MSOAs per local authority (derived in Step 2). This is formed using weightings of 25:25:50 respectively. Based on this final score, local authorities are then ranked in descending order, from most in need to least in need.
Step 4: Remove local authorities funded in Pride in Place Programme (PiPP) Phase 1 and Phase 2
- All local authorities are excluded from receiving any PiPIF funding if they received any PiPP funding previously in either Phase 1 or Phase 2.
Step 5: Select the most in need local authority
- From the remaining pool of local authorities, the single local authority with the greatest need is selected, based on the combined need rank described in Step 3, without any additional regional caps. This local authority is allocated extra funding.
4. Final allocations
The full list of local authorities selected is listed below.
| England | Scotland | Wales |
|---|---|---|
| Blackpool | Glasgow City | Blaenau Gwent |
| Barking and Dagenham | West Dunbartonshire | Bridgend (x2) |
| Middlesbrough | North Ayrshire | Caerphilly |
| Kingston upon Hull, City of | Dundee City | Cardiff |
| Knowsley | North Lanarkshire | Carmarthenshire |
| Sandwell | Inverclyde | Ceredigion |
| Manchester | East Ayrshire | Conwy |
| Birmingham | Falkirk | Denbighshire |
| Stoke-on-Trent | Flintshire | |
| Hyndburn | Gwynedd | |
| Oldham | Isle of Anglesey | |
| Burnley | Merthyr Tydfil | |
| Newham | Monmouthshire | |
| Slough | Neath Port Talbot | |
| Liverpool | Newport | |
| Tameside | Pembrokeshire | |
| Nottingham | Powys | |
| Walsall | Rhondda Cynon Taf | |
| Blackburn with Darwen | Swansea | |
| Salford | The Vale of Glamorgan | |
| Ashfield | Torfaen | |
| Rochdale | Wrexham | |
| Wolverhampton | ||
| Southampton | ||
| Hastings | ||
| Hartlepool | ||
| Halton | ||
| Bradford | ||
| Doncaster | ||
| Mansfield | ||
| Croydon | ||
| Great Yarmouth | ||
| Sunderland | ||
| Preston | ||
| Enfield | ||
| Peterborough | ||
| Medway | ||
| St. Helens | ||
| Bolton | ||
| Leicester | ||
| Hounslow | ||
| Luton | ||
| Gateshead | ||
| Haringey | ||
| Coventry | ||
| Wigan | ||
| Brent | ||
| Rotherham | ||
| Thurrock | ||
| Portsmouth | ||
| Swale | ||
| Nuneaton and Bedworth | ||
| Wakefield | ||
| North East Lincolnshire | ||
| Newcastle upon Tyne | ||
| Ipswich | ||
| Gravesham | ||
| Pendle | ||
| Barnsley | ||
| Thanet | ||
| Boston | ||
| Fenland | ||
| South Tyneside | ||
| Derby |