Research and analysis

Research report: understanding the role of DCMS in building and strengthening community connections

Published 10 July 2025

Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the support and input of many people.

We thank the research team:

• Alexandra Green
• Catherine Glaze
• George Medcroft
• Harriet Tucker
• Kay Robinson
• Lucy Newman
• Robert Spence

The study was managed by Jenny Williams and directed by Valdeep Gill.

We also thank the colleagues at Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in particular Lily Murphy, Maria Willoughby and Peter Harrison-Evans for their support and guidance throughout; as well as the DCMS research advisory group.

Executive summary

In 2024, the new government laid out their key, long-term missions for the country. As part of this, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) looks to contribute to building richer lives, focussing on key themes such as social cohesion and stronger communities, across all places, as part of their objectives. This evidence review contributes to the understanding of the role DCMS can have in strengthening communities and considers evidence on the delivery of place-based interventions within the Civil Society sector.

Ecorys UK delivered a rapid evidence review, to assess the evidence on how DCMS’s policies and sector interventions have supported and sustained strong communities, between 1999 to 2024. The review had two strands with distinct aims:

Strand 1: What works

Identify ‘what works’ in DCMS-led policy interventions to build and strengthen communities, across the six DCMS sectors. Place-based interventions were in-scope for this aim, amongst other intervention types.

Strand 2: Place-based interventions

A deep-dive on the role of place-based interventions in supporting stronger communities and local civil society. This focused on interventions within the DCMS Civil Society and Youth sector only, and included interventions delivered and funded by DCMS, the wider Civil Society and Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector.

The review objectives and overarching research questions, were as follows:

	Strand 1: What works	Strand 2: Place-based interventions (Civil Society and Youth sector)
Objectives	Based on the literature reviewed, identify and describe: - where DCMS policies/interventions can best contribute to the outcomes associated with building and maintaining strong communities, particularly for those most in need - the strength and quality of evidence available; identify gaps in the evidence base, generating recommendations on - how the evidence base can be improved - develop a logic model informing the pathways from intervention to stronger communities	Based on the literature reviewed, identify and describe: - whether place-based interventions are an effective way of achieving DCMS’s priority community outcomes - which place-based interventions were most impactful for achieving priority community outcomes -the design and delivery features of impactful place-based interventions.
Research question	How do DCMS policies and programmes, across DCMS sectors, help to build and strengthen communities and local civil society? And how can DCMS maximise their impact?	What can be learnt about the role of place-based interventions in supporting stronger communities and local civil society?

Rapid evidence review

The review was delivered between January to March 2025, and followed an adapted rapid evidence assessment methodology. In total 51 items were fully reviewed, as detailed in the table below. The review prioritised in-person community programmes. Most reviewed items were evaluation reports of single programmes, alongside a small number of rapid evidence reviews and meta-analyses on relevant topics.

Number of items	Strand 1	Strand 2	Total
Screened	63	22	81
Reviewed in full	29	22	51
Reviewed in full, by DCMS sector	- 9 Cultural sector - 2 Media sector - 2 Creative industries - 10 Civil Society and Youth - 3 Sports sector - 3 Major events	- 22 Civil Society and Youth, of which: - 4 DCMS led (fully or jointly) - 3 led by wider government departments - 15 wider Civil Society VCSE-led	-
Reviewed in full, by programme start year	- 3: 2003 to 2009 - 18: 2010 to 2019 - 8: 2020 to 2023	- 3: 2001 to 2009 - 16: 2010 to 2019 - 3: 2020 to 2022	-

81 unique items (4 DCMS items screened for both strands)

Review findings

The Strand 1 and Strand 2 review findings suggest that DCMS (alongside wider government and VSCE partners) are committed to building social cohesion and stronger communities across all places in the UK. As reflected in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG, 2019) strategy ‘By deeds and their results’,^{[footnote 1]} strong and connected communities are crucial to ensuring the country’s prosperity and reducing social and economic disparities. Coordinated programmes play an important role in investing and building communities. Well designed and implemented initiatives hold the potential to create richer lives for all by strengthening ties between people and place. Further, they can create new opportunities for active citizenship, boost health and wellbeing of citizens, reduce loneliness, and foster pride of place.

This rapid evidence review took stock of a selection of community programmes (n=51) funded by DCMS, central government departments as well as Civil Society and VCSE sector, over the past 25 years. The intention was to map the community outcomes achieved across programmes and the conditions needed for effectively achieving these. Furthermore, the review identifies learning on designing and delivering high quality community and place-based programmes and provides reflections on how to bolster future programme learning and evaluations; and concludes with a set of recommendations for future policy and practice. Much of the learning was applicable across DCMS sectors.

Communities in the lead

While all programmes reviewed included a coordinating role for government (or civil society organisations), the literature advocated active involvement by citizens and community actors in designing and delivering interventions within their own communities. Much of the literature points to this being a critical success factor of ensuring programmes were responsive to local community wants and needs. By placing communities at the heart of design and delivery, programmes could be informed and strengthened by local intelligence and lived experiences, complementing existing provision whilst addressing service gaps. Communities could provide simple solutions to engaging others in the community, including under-served groups. Crucially, active citizen involvement in programmes supported community buy-in and trust to programmes from the outset, which could continue and be sustained beyond funding windows.

Community consultation, co-production and co-creation of programme designs and delivery happened to different levels of quality across programmes. Models fell into three broad standards of co-production (as shown in the figure below):

1. Doing to: whereby citizens were predominantly in a passive role

2. Doing for: which included some degree of people involvement

3. Doing with: where citizens were equal partners in decision-making to programme leads.

Use zoom on your browser to view.

Much of the literature included very little detail on the practical ways of how co-production workstreams were established and maintained over time. The collective learning across programmes suggests that co-production with local communities should be intentional. Furthermore, it requires a dedicated co-production workstream and staff to scaffold and support its establishment and continued momentum. This sometimes included the onboarding of dedicated staff, community organisations and VCSEs with specialist skills and expertise in community participation. This was especially important for engaging vulnerable groups, including children and young people, people who were homeless, had health conditions, or language needs. High quality co-production produced positive outcomes in and of itself, from supporting the development of local networks, social capital and building skills and confidence. Common pitfalls included losing citizens’ trust by not acting on their feedback, frustrations of power imbalances with programme leads, challenges in maintaining positive group dynamics, and limited time for effective relationship building.

Building on community assets

The literature recommended tailoring programmes to places, to avoid prescriptive, one-size-fits all approaches. Definitions of ‘place’ varied by programme; typically place equated to a local authority area but some programmes focused on smaller electoral wards or lower super outputs areas and specific demographic groups (for example, young people) within an area. As an initial step within programme designs, the literature stressed the value of mapping places and its community assets, from existing infrastructure, services, community spaces and people. Culture, sports and major events programmes were generally well-versed in asset mapping methodologies which supported longer-term sustainability of new investments, whereas Civil Society and Youth programmes were variable in this regard.

A strengthens-based approach to programming avoided deficit starting points, focusing on negative stereotypes or stigmatising community ‘problems’. This enabled programmes to build on existing community strengths and target investments where they were needed. Each place has different assets, resources and programme starting points, which intervention designs and implementation plans need to account for. For instance, some places may have well established multi-agency partnerships, which new programmes can lean in to, while other areas may lack such infrastructure, and need to establish relevant partnerships from scratch. As such, the literature warned against simply ‘lifting and shifting’ community programmes that have been evidenced to work in certain localities to another. Each place has unique demographics, culture and resources and requires considered programme delivery.

Overall, a key message was that place-based programmes should allow for variation and tailoring of local solutions. However, community asset mapping may require a good deal of lead-in time within the programme formulation and design stage, to enable full understanding of places, before introducing programmes.

Funding models and strategic programme planning

Non-repayable grants were the main funding source used across the reviewed programmes. Over the last 25 years, there was a move to match funding designs and social investment models (such as Social Outcomes Partnership models), that drew in broader investments across government and national and local philanthropic and private investors. Social investment models are outcomes driven by design and enable local and national funders to support local innovation and get programmes off the ground.

However, they are not without their design, implementation and measurement challenges. The review evidence shows that well designed, traditional grant models can also achieve positive outcomes and are well suited to smaller investments and testing new solutions to complex social problems. Some sector programmes, namely culture, sports and major events also drew in commercial income from activities and outputs. Consistent learning across programmes, was the need for targeted marketing of funding opportunities and creating simple, user-friendly funding applications.

Additionally, programme learning stressed the importance of accessible funding opportunities for small community organisations, given their limited capacity for competitive funding applications whilst recognising valuable links they have with local communities. Solutions included, making it a mandatory requirement for partnership teams to include smaller organisations, to be eligible for funding, or offering small funding amounts (with simple application processes) to small community organisations for targeted work.

Well-resourced programmes supported programme delivery. Where project costs and resources were underestimated, this could lead to programmes under-delivering or descoping activities. There was also evidence of national funding being retracted following spending reviews, which resulted in programmes ending early. This had knock-on effects for achieving programme outcomes, programme sustainability and damaging trust in public services provision. When such changes and risks to programme delivery occurred, the literature suggested that communications could have been clearer from national and local programme leads. Conversely, expensive interventions that were feasible with ring-fenced grant funding were not always sustainable in the longer-term, leading to a disruption of local provision once programmes ended.

Both grant and wider funding models benefited from a clear, transparent and shared programme vision. The literature emphasised the use of Theories of Change to establish a shared vision across multi-partner programmes, to detail its activities, outputs and outcomes, risks and assumptions. A Theory of Change tool could support discussion and understanding of the programme’s underlying theory and provide a framework for monitoring and evaluation. When published, the Theory of Change provided a transparent tool of programme activities and ambitions. Reports also highlighted the importance of revisiting the Theory of Change at key points in the programme to avoid mission creep, particularly for longer-term programmes and those with several partners.

Strategic planning of national programmes required local government input at the formulation stage, to ensure alignment of national and local policies, priorities and service provision. In the absence of this collaboration, new programmes risked being out of sync with local strategies, fail to secure buy-in from local leadership, or integrate fully within local systems. Joined-up working with local authorities and its partners (e.g., schools, libraries, etc), supported designs that can be implemented in practice, within the realities and constraints of local contexts. As mentioned above, partnership building took time and resource, and the literature listed examples where programmes underestimated the inputs required for this.

Test and learn

A small number of programmes received development funding or small fund pots to test and pilot design theories at a small scale. These investments afforded programmes the chance to strengthen their designs by testing whether they worked in practice. This helped to inform refinements to optimise full programme delivery, ahead of securing funding to scale programmes more widely. Programme teams reflected that these funding pots afforded dedicated resource to develop better formulated and pragmatic programme designs.

Civil society funders, specifically the National Lottery Community Fund, funded longer-term (5 to 10 year-long programmes) with the aim to ‘test and learn’ different approaches and develop local solutions to social issues. Such investments recognised the need for long-term funding and time needed to establish effective partnerships, new systems and ways of working and refine delivery to a higher level of programme maturity, in order to take learning and lessons forward. These programmes not only sought to deliver results at the local level, but they aimed to gather evidence to extrapolate up to inform national policy and practice.

Programmes also built on the existing evidence base, taking learning from past good examples of similar sectoral policies and programmes. Additionally, delivery teams could benefit from real-time learning and knowledge exchanges across other funded delivery teams; however, this was not always a featured programme workstream.

Sustained change

Building and strengthening communities requires a long-term focus, with policies and programmes needing to build momentum and commitment over time to achieve sustainable growth. Good practice examples were offered by major events programmes reviewed, which started legacy planning within the programme design stage, to ensure longer-term goals were considered upfront.

Local community organisations, particularly small organisations with a specific community focus, often lacked the knowledge, skills and resources to seek additional funding, to complete funding applications, or sustain programmes beyond the core funding window. Short-term funding (2 years or less) did little to support the longer-term financial stability of VCSE sector organisations. Where national programmes included a support function, in the form of capacity building for funding applications or organisational marketing for example, delivery teams benefited from this specialist support.

The programmes assessed reported a range of outcomes for individuals, communities and local systems within the lifetime of the funding. These typically included lasting infrastructure improvements, resources, upskilled individuals and organisations, new networks and partnership, amongst others. They also stated plans for sustainability, outlining opportunities (for example, aspects of programmes being retained, especially where they had become integrated into existing services and systems) and practical resource constraints (for example, lack of funding, lack of strategic buy-in from local leaders, lack of demonstrable programme impact, lack of dedicated staff and volunteers). However, most reports were not able to provide solid evidence of longer-term sustained changes and outcomes, due to the short-term timing of the evaluation period.

Measuring (community) outcomes

The DCMS community outcomes of interest cover ten areas (see below), and these were the focus of the review.

1. A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood

2. Social capital

3. Civic participation

4. Volunteering

5. Loneliness

6. An ability in influence/make decisions locally

7. Accessible cultural and sporting amenities

8. A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations

9. Overcoming integration challenges along race, faith or socioeconomic lines in communities

10. Ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities

The programmes reviewed, reported a range of positive (and unintended) outcomes for individuals, communities and local systems. However, most had a primary focus to achieve broader outcomes than the community benefits listed above, aligned to the specific programme activities. Yet, most programmes intended to achieve at least one (or more) of the community outcomes of interest. In cases where the above community outcomes were explored, the above phrasing of the outcome did not always map directly onto how the programme defined and measured these.

For instance, ‘a sense of belonging to a neighbourhood’ or ‘social capital’ was defined and measured in various ways across programmes, including ‘feeling of community connectedness’ or ‘number of new friends or contacts made’. Whereas, for outcomes such as ‘volunteering’ and ‘loneliness’, definitions and measurements were more consistent across programmes. For example, reports provided counts of volunteers engaged, personal accounts of loneliness and changes brought about by programmes, or assessed using validated survey measures on loneliness and wellbeing. Some outcomes appeared less frequently in the literature, but could be inferred by the programmes stated aims, for example, ‘civic participation’ and ‘ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities’.

In line with the review inclusion criteria, all programmes reviewed included an evaluation. The quality and robustness of these varied. Larger-scale programme investments also included proportionately larger-scale, and sometimes longitudinal, evaluations. While implementation and process learning were well captured across all programmes reviewed, there were relatively few studies that included a counterfactual or theory-based impact evaluation, or economic assessment of the programme. As a result, programmes largely reported on perceived outcomes (qualitative data). Some studies noted that it was too early for outcomes to be realised and assessed during the funded evaluation period. Additionally, there was very little reference to the use of feasibility studies, to assess the suitability of different impact and economic methods for programmes, based on data availability, comparison group options and ethical considerations.

New programmes, and especially place-based programmes, can take time to become established. Whilst process evaluations are relatively straightforward to implement at any stage of the programme maturity journey, impact and economic evaluations are better suited and more worthwhile investments, only once programmes are operating at a steady state (i.e. have reached maturity). Often new programmes include a period of test and learn, albeit informally, and during this time, process evaluations can be helpful to capture early learning on implementation to support recommendations for refinement. Yet, there is value in working with evaluators from when the programme is in its early design stage, to create and test data and monitoring tools and guidance, to ensure delivery teams can capture and report on high quality data necessary for any future impact or economic evaluation.

Practical learning for programme design and implementation

Use zoom on your browser to view.

In practical terms, the review found that strong programme design and implementation supported the achievement of community (and wider) outcomes. This learning was applicable across the different DCMS sectors.

The review findings suggested that the programme life cycle can be considered across five key stages (as illustrated in the figure above):

1. policy formulation and needs identification

2. design

3. delivery

4. sustainability

5. learning and evaluation

Common community programme design and implementation strengths identified across reviewed studies are summarised below to provide helpful learning for future programming.

Programme design (including needs identification)

• To achieve positive community outcomes, programmes need to be designed with the expected outcomes in mind, for focused and appropriate inputs and activities. Furthermore, programmes need a clear rationale of how the intended activities provide the necessary mechanisms for achieving the intended community changes and outcomes. Without this focus, programmes may not be set-up to offer opportunities to bring communities together and enrich community life.

• Evidence-informed rationale: Stronger programme designs were underpinned by an evidenced need in the form of primary research, analysis of local data and demographics, service mapping and gapping exercises, and community consultation. This informed the programme rationale, targeting of communities and services, as well as geographic areas and groups. In turn, this provided the foundational information for programme formulation and implementation of its activities.

• National and local policy alignment: Local community programmes required alignment between national and local government policies. Ensuring alignment at the programme design stage, reduced risks of national programmes duplicating local services or creating competition across with local services and existing programmes. It also allowed consideration of local public service and VCSE landscapes, including available infrastructures and budgets. Understanding the availability (or lack of) local resources could help to pre-empt and mitigate risks to programme implementation.

• Community co-production: Co-creation and co-delivery was a feature of many community programmes, whereby local stakeholders (for example, local authorities, local services, VCSE sector and community members) were active participants in programme design, governance and onward delivery. Including the voice and lived experiences of community stakeholders was integral to effective designs. Community voice could help to ensure programmes were appropriately tailored to local people and places, offer community-led solutions and secure local buy-in to programmes. The evidence warned against top-down approaches that failed to take local knowledge and networks into account.

• Asset-based approaches: The literature advocated strength-based designs that identified and built up from the assets within a community, rather than focusing on its deficits and problems. This included building on existing physical resources, human skills, social networks, environmental and cultural assets. Such designs could facilitate programme sustainability, as they made better use of existing community resources.

• Different starting points: National programmes typically involved several local areas with different populations, assets and resources. Place-based designs considered different local starting points, developing programmes broadly aligned to national aims, whilst implementing provision pragmatically informed by the local context.

• Funding models: Grants were the predominant funding model used across community programmes reviewed; although there was also evidence of increased diversification, whereby programmes adopted social investment models, such as Social Outcomes Partnerships (also referred to as Social Impact Bonds). In these designs, programme leads must identify and measure agreed outcomes to receive maximum payments. The review findings highlight how these models introduced new investments into social policy programmes, including from private funders; but their design and implementation can be complex. Furthermore, evidence of their effectiveness compared to traditional grant funding is inconclusive. While there is substantial qualitative and process evaluation evidence reporting certain benefits of these models, there is limited counterfactual-based impact analysis on their effectiveness compared to traditional funding. As such, it is important to consider upfront which type of funding model will work best for any new programmes.

• A shared vision: Programmes typically included multiple community partners. It was crucial that they had a shared understanding of the programme’s rationale and strategic vision. A Theory of Change was a recommended tool to ensure stakeholders agreed about the expected activities and desired outcomes for programme participants, local communities, and local systems, at the design stage but then revisited to avoid mission creep over time. There is also value in publishing the Theory of Change, to provide a transparent overview of the programme vision, and allow use by wider policy and programme audiences.

Programme implementation (and delivery)

• Piloting: Development grants and piloting phases helped to test and learn whether programme designs could work in practice on a small scale, and inform refinements before wider rollout and funding investments. Similarly, testing programme data collection processes and mechanisms, to identify and address any data quality issues early, was recommended to optimise data collection of programme and (community) outcomes.
• Dedicated governance, delivery staff and support structures: Having sufficient people resource at strategic and operational levels, and with the right skills and expertise, helped to drive programmes forward. Similarly, volunteer workforces could provide essential skills and capacity, but recruitment and retention issues were common. Where workforces did not buy-in to the programme or were resistant to change, delivery could be hindered and unlikely to be sustained beyond the funded period .
• Delivery plans: Having a clear delivery plan with actions and clear lines of responsibility across local partners supported implementation to stay on track and flag issues early.
• Ongoing learning: Programme partners valued knowledge exchange opportunities to learn about different delivery models, issues and solutions and to support wider sectoral networking.

Engaging communities

• Engagement plans: The literature emphasised a need to map local stakeholders and develop engagement strategies to support programme awareness and reach within communities.
• Power shifting: Involving community members in programme design, delivery and refinement, helped to identify ways to reach target groups. The literature noted that true co-production can be a very different way of working for public services, it needed dedicated resource, and community feedback needed transparent action. It took time to build people’s trust, and as such, short-term funding could limit the potential of community co-production activities.
• Diverse community organisations: Funding a variety of community organisations, including smaller ones, helped to reach and engage a diversity of people. Small organisations may not always have the skills and capacity to write successful grant applications and need appropriate support structures to help.
• Bringing services to people: The literature highlighted the importance of delivering services in contexts that felt safe for beneficiaries and made it easy for them to attend. For example, delivering youth social action projects in schools and involving teachers in promoting project opportunities to target pupils.
• Peer-support and dedicated staff: Studies cited many successful engagement approaches including word-of-mouth, peer-support, informal language support and dedicated staff roles to deliver outreach and support community members to be matched to appropriate support.
• Universal and targeted interventions: Tiered support could help engage different groups and levels of need, for example, offering universal interventions to benefit whole communities, and targeted interventions to focus on specific subgroups or individuals with particular needs or risks.

Programme sustainability

• Programme legacy: The literature outlined a range of programmes’ legacies, especially if programme designs sought to embed delivery and changes within existing service provision and systems, such as improved local infrastructure, skills and knowledge, resources, networks and partnerships. The expectation was that the programmes had provided lasting benefits for individuals and communities beyond the funding period.
• Planning for sustainability: This included early planning of funding sources, (de)scoping of services, staffing and volunteer needs, beyond the programme funding period. Many funded organisations were required to plan for sustainability early on and given access to specialist support for this purpose. Local organisations valued support to seek out alternative funding sources and build a business case for further funding. A lack of local strategic and commissioner buy-in to programmes limited local funding opportunities, as did a lack of demonstrable programme impact evidence.

Monitoring and evaluation of programmes

• Early planning: A clear message was that monitoring and evaluation design consideration needs to happen alongside the programme design. As mentioned above, this includes the community outcomes expected to be achieved, and practical considerations about how to best capture necessary (qualitative and quantitative) data to facilitate measurement of outcomes and wider evaluation activity. Some studies highlighted that evaluations were commissioned too late, or ended too early, to fully and robustly capture programme learning and assess the (community) outcomes achieved.
• Programme team buy-in: There is a need to communicate the value of evaluation activities to delivery teams, who are typically responsible for data collection throughout programme implementation. Evaluation processes, such as monitoring data tools and guidance (for example, to gather data on participation, attendance, outcome assessments) need to be clear and user-friendly, to support robust and consistent data across local programme sites.
• Robust designs: Community programmes typically used process and implementation evaluations to gather learning on how activities were operationalised. The review found that few studies included an impact or economic evaluation, due to challenges of identified comparison groups and data availability. Similarly, few studies used validated measures to assess community outcomes, meaning less evidence was available on programme effects. There are therefore potential opportunities to make this a focus of programme evaluations in the future.

Recommendations for policy and furthering the evidence base

Policy recommendations

• Policy recommendation 1: Creating the conditions for stronger communities requires long-term investment over time
• Policy recommendation 2: Leverage multi-sector partnerships to benefit and enhance local community programmes
• Policy recommendation 3: Upskilling community leaders to strengthen the financial sustainability potential of community models

Monitoring and evaluation recommendations

• Research recommendation 1: Strengthen evaluation specifications (with appropriate funding) to assess feasible evaluation process, impact, economic designs and improve programme and outcome data collection
• Research recommendation 2: Invest in longitudinal studies to measure and explore change over time
• Research recommendation 3: Learning activities and papers can provide valuable insights that are not captured through formal evaluations

Key definitions

The below table provides working definitions of key terms and concepts the research team used to guide the review.

Table 1. Key definitions

Term	Definition	Source
DCMS sectors	- Cultural sector, including Arts, Heritage, Museums, Libraries - Media sector - Creative industries - Civil Society and Youth - Sports sector - Major events	DCMS
Strengthening Communities	The act of reinforcing place, people and pride, shaped by building on trust and pride in local areas, active participation, adequate access to shared community spaces in a way which is inclusive for all community members.	MHCLG strategy, 2019[footnote 2]
Place-based intervention	Intentional targeting of place (a geographical area usually below the regional level), for example at the local authority or ward level. Targeting is often focused on specific localities with high socio-economic deprivation, other areas of local need related to policy goals (for example, lower rates of volunteering compared to national averages), or targeted at certain demographic cohorts within a geographical place	DCMS
Civil Society	A range of independent activities, outside of state control, with the primary aim of achieving social value. This includes the social sector of volunteers and voluntary, charitable and social enterprise organisations (VCSEs), and parts of private sector activity and public service delivery	DCMS
Mechanisms for strengthening communities	- Building trust, connectedness and local pride: DCMS-sectors can contribute to building a sense of pride through Civil Society and Loneliness strategies that help to build connectedness in communities - Active citizenship and local control: To ensure that all citizens have opportunities to be active in their communities, including through supporting the expansion of volunteering and encouraging active and mobilised citizens. - Shared community spaces: Build upon sustainably-run and inclusive spaces, including strengthening libraries and access to community spaces for young people - Shared prosperity, with no community left behind: Encourage civic engagement and support social investment in areas that struggle with long-term issues of deprivation and a lack of civic infrastructure	DCMS CG strategy, 2019
Asset-based Community Development (ABCD)	- A particular approach to sustainable community development. It builds on the assets available within a community and mobilises individuals, associations and institutions to come together to realise and develop their strengths. In contrast to professionalised, service delivery approaches, which tend to focus on the problems, needs and risks of a community. ABCD moves the focus from ‘what is wrong with us’ to ‘what is right with us’	Ageing Better programme [footnote 3]
Community themes and outcomes of interest	- A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood - Social capital - Civic participation - Volunteering - loneliness - An ability in influence/make decisions locally-accessible cultural and sporting amenities - A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations-overcoming integration challenges along race, faith or socioeconomic lines in communities - Ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities	DCMS CG strategy, 2019

Introduction

Project background

In 2024, the new government laid out their key, long-term missions for the country. As part of this, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) looks to contribute to building richer lives, focussing on key themes such as social cohesion and stronger communities, across all places, as part of their objectives. This review contributes to our understanding of the role DCMS can have in strengthening communities, and considers evidence on the delivery of place-based interventions within the Civil Society sector.

DCMS commissioned Ecorys UK to deliver a rapid evidence review, to assess the evidence on how DCMS’s policies and sector interventions have supported and sustained strong communities, between 1999 to 2024. The review had two aims with distinct objectives (Table 2):

• Strand 1. What works: identify ‘what works’ in DCMS-led policy interventions to build and strengthen communities, across the six DCMS sectors (see Table 1). Place-based interventions were in-scope for this aim, amongst other intervention types
• Strand 2. Place-based interventions: a deep-dive on the role of place-based interventions in supporting stronger communities and local civil society. This focused on interventions within the DCMS Civil Society and Youth sector only, and included interventions delivered and funded by DCMS, the wider Civil Society and Voluntary Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) sector

Table 2. Project objectives

Strand 1: What works

Strand 2: Place-based interventions (Civil Society and Youth sector)

Based on the literature reviewed identify and describe: -where DCMS policies/interventions can best contribute to the outcomes associated with building and maintaining strong communities, particularly for those most in need -the strength and quality of evidence available; identify gaps in the evidence base, generating recommendations on how the evidence base can be improved -develop a logic model (see Appendix) informing the pathways from intervention to stronger communities

Based on the literature reviewed identify and describe: -whether place-based interventions are an effective way of achieving priority community outcomes (see Table 1) -which place-based interventions were most impactful for achieving priority community outcomes-the design and delivery features of impactful place-based interventions

Research method

This study was delivered between January to March 2025. This review follows an adapted rapid evidence assessment (REA) methodology ^{[footnote 4]}. It involved four steps, outlined below. More detailed technical method information is provided in the Appendix.

Step 1: Agree research questions and search criteria

The below research questions were agreed with DCMS. A more detailed set of research questions are provided in the Appendix.

• Strand 1. What works: How do DCMS policies and programmes, across DCMS sectors, help to build and strengthen communities and local civil society? And how can DCMS maximise their impact?
• Strand 2. Place-based interventions: What can be learnt about the role of place-based interventions in supporting stronger communities and local civil society?

The below inclusion and exclusion criteria were agreed with DCMS and guided the literature searches. A detailed set of criteria specific to Strand 1 and 2 are in the Appendix. Studies needed to meet the criteria outlined below to be included in the review. To capture the range of available evidence, studies using quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods and evidence reviews were eligible for the review. Peer-reviewed academic literature and non-academic (‘grey’) literature were also considered for inclusion.

Table 3. High-level inclusion and exclusion criteria

Theme	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Date	Literature published 1999 to 2024	Literature pre-1999
Subject	- Literature on in-person community policy interventions - Strand 1: DCMS-led only - Strand 2 : DCMS and VCSE-led; CSY sector only	Literature not directly related to policy areas or target cohort e.g., housing /high street regeneration, transport, energy infrastructure, digital and digital only community interventions
Quality	- Priority given to research and evaluation reports	- Policy/ strategy documents, literature without a clear evidence base, expert opinions  -Books and publications of equivalent length, in the interest of time and resource
Country / language	- Strand 1: UK evidence; Strand 2: UK evidence with comparison to other country intervention acceptable (e.g., Europe, Australia, US) - English	Outside UK exclusively- not in English

Step 2: Searching, screening, quality assessment and prioritisation

Searching for relevant policies, programmes and evaluation reports, was done in two main ways:

• DCMS provided lists of policies and evaluations
• Online searches via .gov, Google and Google Scholar

Based on the above searches:

• a longlist (n=128) of relevant DCMS policies (Strand 1) and place-based interventions (Strand 2) was developed.
• screening: From this list, 81 items of literature were identified for screening (across both aims). This list was agreed in discussion with DCMS. Screening involved reviewing the abstracts, executive summaries or equivalent of each item. Data was systematically summarised in a Data Extraction Framework (in Excel).
• quality assessment: This quality of the evidence was then scored using an agreed quality assessment scoring system; whereby scores ranged from 9 (highest quality score) to 3 (lowest quality score). This scoring system was used to prioritise items for full review. Table 4 outlines the high-level scoring criteria; a more detailed scoring information for Strand 1 and 2 is provided in the Appendix.

Table 4. High-level quality scoring criteria

Quality Assessment Score	Weaker (score: 1)	Medium (score: 2)	Stronger (score: 3)
Relevance to research questions (RQ)	Provides information on in-scope policies, but does not answer RQs	Focus on in-scope policies, implementation lessons but does not include information on outcomes	Focus on in-scope policies, with outcomes assessment and sustainability
Level of rigour for publication/evidence	Strategy documents/ plans, anecdotal evidence, opinion pieces, feasibility studies	Annual/internal/formative report, self/internal evaluation, process evaluation, perceived impacts only reported	Independent evaluation, summative impact/economic evaluation
Publication date	Pre-1999 publication or policy	1999 to 2019, and relevant DCMS policy	Post 2020, and relevant DCMS policy

Step 3: Full appraisal

Based on the quality scores, alongside discussions with DCMS, 51 of the most relevant, and highest quality pieces of literature were selected for the full review and synthesis. The full review involved reading full reports, extracting descriptive information and key findings aligned to the research questions. Data was systematically summarised in a Data Extraction Framework (in Excel), under the agreed research questions.

Table 5. Literature screened and reviewed in full, by aim

Number of items	Strand 1	Strand 2	Total
Screened	63	22	81
Reviewed in full	29	22	51
Reviewed in full, by DCMS sector	- 9 Cultural sector - 2 Media sector - 2 Creative industries - 10 Civil Society and Youth - 3 Sports sector - 3 Major events	22 Civil Society and Youth, of which: - 4 DCMS led (fully or jointly) - 3 led by wider government departments - 15 wider Civil Society VCSE-led	-
Reviewed in full, by programme start year	- 3: 2003 to 2009 - 18: 2010 to 2019 - 8: 2020 to 2023	- 3: 2001 to 2009 - 16: 2010 to 2019 - 3: 2020 to 2022	-

81 unique items (4 DCMS items screened for both strands)

Step 4: Data synthesis and answering the research questions

Data analysis involved four key activities, which enabled synthesis and integration of evidence from diverse sources: 

• Thematic analysis: Categorisation of findings by key themes under the research questions, focusing on what interventions and underlying mechanisms work to strengthen communities, identifying effective interventions/placed-based approaches
• Comparative analysis: Comparison of findings across different policies (e.g., sub-sector, intervention types, geography) to draw insights on effective practices 
• Identification of evidence gaps: Looking across the appraised sources to highlight gaps in the evidence base, particularly around the effectiveness of interventions and outcomes measurement, to help inform future policy research priorities
• SWOT analysis: Grouping findings into the key strengths across the range of DCMS policies and place-based interventions, common weaknesses, alongside potential opportunities and threats for future policy programmes (SWOT output in Appendix)

Study limitations and considerations

• The findings are based on a rapid evidence review with 51 evidence sources. A systematic evidence review was not employed, therefore some literature may have been missed. This review does not claim to be fully comprehensive
• The Strand 1 review is focused solely on DCMS led policy programmes and interventions, and can therefore not speak to wider community programmes delivered since 1999. The evidence is weighted more heavily towards the Civil Society and Youth sector, with comparatively less high-quality evidence found for review within the Media and Creative industries sectors
• The Strand 2 review presents a selection of place-based interventions, but is by no means a comprehensive review

About this report

The review findings are reported in Chapter 2 (Strand 1: What works) and in Chapter 3 (Strand 2: Place-based interventions). The report concludes with Chapter 4 which presents key recommendations for future policy and furthering the evidence-base.

Strand 1: What works to strengthen and support communities

This chapter presents findings from the Strand 1: What works review, detailing learning from community programmes across the six DCMS sectors. The scope and limitations of the review are detailed in the introduction. A logic model was produced, informed by the review findings (see Appendix). This chapter outlines findings on what works for DCMS programmes in terms of achieving community outcomes, and how community outcomes need to be considered within programme design, implementation and sustainability planning (for beyond the core funding period). The chapter also outlines the strengths and gaps of programme monitoring and evaluation processes. It concludes with a summary of DCMS sector specific learning in community programme delivery and related community outcomes.

Overview of programmes reviewed

The following table provides an overview of the DCMS community programmes included in the review, as context for the findings.

Table 6. Overview of programmes and literature reviewed

DCMS sector	Programme	Years	Funding amount
Cultural sector, including Arts Heritage, Museum, and Libraries	Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund	2016 to 2018	£3.9 million
	Meta-evaluation of Arts Council England-funded place-based programmes	2011 to 2021	£116 million, various programmes over 10 years
	National/regional museum partnership programme	2004 to 2008	£7.05 million (2004 to 2006) additional £9.4 million (2006-2008) for programme expansion
	Taylor review pilot	2018 to 2020	£1.8 million
	The Culture and Heritage Capital Programme	2021 to ongoing	£3.3 million
	The ‘Cultural Olympiad’ and London 2012 Olympics	2008 to 2012	£126.6 million
Civil Society and Youth	Building Connections Fund	2018 to 2021	£11.5 million
	Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund	2011 to 2015	£80 million
	Community Organisers Programme	2010 to 2015	£30 million
	DCMS 50+ Volunteering programme	2017 to 2020	£5.2 million
	Great Place Scheme (England)	2016 to 2021	£15 million
	Loneliness Stigma (Rapid Evidence Assessment)	2010 to 2023	Various
	National Citizen Service	2009 to 2025	£158.6 million (2019 to 2020)
	Place-based giving schemes (Evidence Review)	2018 to 2020	Various
	Place-based giving schemes - Growing Place based giving programme	2019 to 2020	£100,000 per area; £600,000 in total
	The Youth COVID-19 Support Fund	2020 to 2021	£16.5 million
	Youth Social Action (Rapid Evidence Review)	2012 to 2021	Various
Media sector	Community Radio Fund	2005 to ongoing	£1.68 million (2016 to 2017 and 2019 to 2020)
	London 2012 Games media impact study	2013	£3.3 million
Sport sector	Multi-sport grassroots facilities programme	2021 to ongoing	£320 million
Creative industries	Creative People and Place	2013 to ongoing	£108 million by 2025
Major events	Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games and legacy programme	2018 to 2022	£778 million, from national and local government; supplemented with £120 million of commercial income raised
	Coventry UK City of Culture	2020 to 2021	£22.8 million, from government and National Lottery
	Eurovision 2023	2023	£10 million, from central government
	Hull UK City of Culture	2017 to 2018	£15 million, from central government
	The London Olympic and Paralympic Games	2012	£9 billion

Achieving community outcomes

Over the last 25 years, as showcased above in Table 6, DCMS has invested in, and supported, numerous programmes in the aim of supporting wide ranging community benefits. The reviewed programmes only provide a snapshot of the many government and DCMS investments across communities in England and the UK, during this time. Although strengthening communities was not always the primary intended outcome for all programmes reviewed, they all include a community component, and communities play an ever-important role in the work of DCMS.

For context, Table 7 provides an overview of the community outcomes (of interest to DCMS) reported across the reviewed programmes, alongside patterns by DCMS sectors. There was some variation within the literature as to how community outcomes were framed, and although we have tried to group outcomes as accurately as possible under the relevant headings this has involved a degree of researcher interpretation. Please note the rapid evidence reviews included in this review, are excluded from the below table.

Table 7. Community outcomes considered across reviewed programmes, by DCMS sector

DCMS sectors	Programmes	A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood	Social capital	Civic participation	Volunteering	Loneliness	An ability to influence/make decisions locally	Accessible cultural and sporting amenities	A thriving/ sustainable local civil society	Overcoming integration challenges	Ensuring prosperity is shared across all communities
Cultural sector, including Arts Heritage, Museum, and Libraries	Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund	x			x			x		x	x
	National/regional museum partnership programme		x		x			x	x	x	x
	Taylor review pilot				x			x	x	x
	The ‘Cultural Olympiad’ and London 2012 Olympics				x			x	x	x	x
Civil Society and Youth	Building Connections Fund		x		x	x
	Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund	x	x	x	x		x	x	x
	Community Organisers Programme	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
	DCMS 50+ Volunteering programme		x		x	x			x
	Great Place Scheme (England)	x	x		x		x	x	x	x	x
	National Citizen Service	x	x	x	x	x	x	x		x	x
	Place-based giving schemes - Growing Place based giving programme	x	x	x	x		x		x		x
	The Youth COVID-19 Support Fund				x				x
Media sector	Community Radio Fund	x		x	x				x	x
	London 2012 Games media impact study	x							x
Sport sector	Multi-sport grassroots facilities programme	x			x			x	x	x
Creative industries	Creative People and Places	x			x		x	x	x
Major events	Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games and legacy programme	x	x		x			x		x	x
	Coventry UK City of Culture	x	x		x		x	x	x	x	x
	Eurovision 2023	x			x					x	x
	Hull UK City of Culture	x	x		x			x	x	x	x
	The London Olympic and Paralympic Games	x			x			x		x	x

Pathways for achieving community outcomes

Overall, as illustrated in Figure 1, the review findings suggest that the community outcomes of interest (see Table 1 and 7), built on one another iteratively. The review found that funded programmes firstly created new or additional opportunities for community members and organisations to participate in (or deliver) enriching activities, these in turn, benefited individuals, local stakeholder organisations and networks. There is clear evidence that programmes benefit those who directly participated in programme activities, including individuals, organisations and networks involved. However, ‘whole community’ impact was seldom measured. The evidence on sustained outcomes is also patchy, given that most programmes only reported short-term outcomes.

Figure 1. Pathways for achieving DCMS community outcomes of interest, across reviewed programmes

Use zoom on your browser to view.

Specifically, community programmes:

• Created local opportunities for communities, from cultural, sports and volunteering opportunities (many targeted at specific localities and demographic groups, e.g., school children, 50+ age groups, socio-economically deprived groups and places). Additionally, programmes that included: community co-production (in programme and delivery), supported civic participation, created opportunities for community influence over programme priorities and spend, or for self-directed projects (e.g., youth social action)
• These opportunities, in turn, supported beneficial outcomes for individual programme participants and local organisations, that had potential to build and strengthen communities. For instance, several programmes demonstrated that participation in community and group activities (e.g., cultural, sports, volunteering, community decision panels, attending major events) could support a sense of belonging to places, build social capital through networks formed through programmes, and reduce isolation and loneliness. Furthermore, well-designed programmes that included tailored engagement and participation options for target groups (e.g., women, faith groups, those with specific health needs), helped to minimise barriers the target groups may have otherwise faced to participation
• Finally, programme funding, community opportunities and individual/organisational outcomes underpinned the building and strengthening of communities, through for example, local civil society investments in local groups, networks and organisations, and shared prosperity across local systems. However, whether community-level outcomes were sustained beyond the funded programme timelines was not clearly evidenced, due to a lack of longer-term evidence

Patterns of community outcomes assessed, by DCMS sector

The focus of this review was to consider the community outcomes of interest (see Table 1 and 7). Though the community outcomes measured in the reviewed programmes did not always directly map onto the DCMS community outcomes of interest most studies across sectors, assessed and reported on at least one of the relevant outcomes.

• The review found that some DCMS sectors covered more community outcomes than others. For instance, cultural, creative industries, civil society and youth and sports programmes reported more and broader community outcomes, than media and major events programmes. This may also reflect the fact that the review included more programmes across civil society and youth and cultural sectors, as noted in the study limitations (see Introduction)
• Additionally, some outcomes were more (or less) evident across the programmes. Frequently measured outcomes included: a ‘sense of belonging’ (but not necessarily to a neighbourhood); establishment of civil society ‘community groups, networks and organisations’; ‘overcoming participation barriers’. Conversely, ‘social capital’ and ‘ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities’ featured less across reviewed programmes. This is possibly because these were not a primary focus of programmes, or due to challenges in measuring these concepts directly. For example, there were examples of standardised survey measures being used to assess outcomes such as ‘loneliness’, but there was no evidence within the review of standardised measures being used to assess ‘social capital’ or ‘shared prosperity’ outcomes. Further, some community outcomes were closely linked, for instance, programmes with a volunteering element generally included outcomes for reduced loneliness and increased sense of belonging. Similarly, programmes with a focus on increased participation in cultural and sports activities, also sought to reduce loneliness, and sense of belonging
• Overall, successful community outcomes were most evident in programmes that integrated activities into existing local systems, involved local decision-making within programme design and implementation, and created or built upon long-term partnerships across local partners 

Showcasing community outcomes of DCMS programmes

Crucially, to achieve the desired community outcomes, programmes need to be designed and implemented with these outcomes in mind. Furthermore, programme monitoring and evaluations also need to be aligned to measuring the community outcomes in the most robust way. The reviewed programmes aimed to deliver broader outcomes, not just community-focused outcomes. Outcomes of focus were aligned to the specific programme aims, for instance these included (but were not limited to): improved knowledge, educational outcomes, employment, positive media reports and economic outcomes. These broader outcomes and themes are not reported on in detail in this review.

As discussed in more detail in the monitoring and evaluation section (below), programme evaluations typically used qualitative methods, as opposed to robust, quantitative or experimental impact assessments of outcomes. Typically, community outcomes were collected through qualitative methods such as interviews. There was some use of surveys, but only a limited use of validated metrics.^{[footnote 5] [footnote 6]} Most programmes did not capture differential outcomes for different programme audiences, and where they did so, they did not capture the mechanisms for change. There were exceptions to this, whereby some programmes included a robust counterfactual impact evaluation to measure outcomes for participating individuals, alongside process evaluation to capture implementation learning.

A small number noted unanticipated challenges in achieving outcomes, including the COVID-19 pandemic which necessitated changes to delivery models (for example, ending workstreams or transitioning to digital delivery) or finding that initial programme targets were overly optimistic.

For more detail, Table 17 in the Appendix outlines how community outcomes were measured in practice across the reviewed programmes. The case studies below showcase two examples of particularly effective programmes (in terms of achieving community outcomes through considered programme design, implementation and measurement). These were the Great Place Scheme and the National Citizen Service 2019 summer programme, as outlined in the case study boxes below.

Case study box 1: Supporting community change through cultural partnerships

The Great Place Scheme (Cultural sector)

The Great Place Scheme ran between 2016-2021 and was delivered by Arts Council England and the National Lottery Heritage Fund. The programme encouraged cross-sector partnerships between cultural and community groups, particularly in areas with high socio-economic deprivation and low cultural activity. It aimed to positively impact places’ local economies, jobs, education, community cohesion, and health and wellbeing through local investment in arts and culture.

A (process and) impact evaluation examined the cultural, social and economic impact of the scheme, using audience surveys, volunteer and training surveys, stakeholder interviews and case studies. It also compared funded areas with three non-funded areas in a counterfactual analysis. Whilst challenges included varying levels of local authority buy-in, economic constraints, and the impact of COVID-19 on in-person participation, the evaluation found that this was a highly effective programme in strengthening communities, particularly in areas with low cultural investment and socio-economic challenges. The place-based approach ensured that interventions were locally relevant, leading to increased community participation, cultural engagement, and strengthened local networks.

The programme measured, and found, that it contributed towards the following community outcomes:

• Cultural participation: Measured via surveys which captured event attendance and audience diversity; the evaluation found that more people attended arts and heritage events than prior to the programme (where baseline data was available), especially those from underrepresented groups. The programme also saw an uplift in community engagement (in the form of volunteering and input into decision-making), measured using community group surveys and focus groups
• Sense of belonging: Measured through qualitative interviews and wellbeing surveys; the programme had a positive impact on local pride, driven by place-based storytelling and heritage-focused projects. The same evaluation methods were also used to measure, and found a programme contribution to, mental health and wellbeing outcomes
• A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations: The evaluation found programme impacts relevant to cross-sector collaboration, with additional partnerships formed between culture and health, education, and tourism sectors; and stronger networks between arts organisations, businesses, and local governments. These outcomes (and economic outcomes) were measured using local economic tracking and business engagement surveys, and policy document reviews. Some projects also experienced greater financial sustainability because of being able to leverage other funding beyond the initial grant

Case study box 2: Community and broader outcomes delivered through the National Citizen Service

National Citizen Service (Summer 2019) (Civil Society and Youth Sector)

Around 81,000 young people aged 16 to 17 took part in the National Citizen Service (NCS) programme of summer 2019 across England. The programme aimed to enhance personal, social and civic development, whose outcomes were assessed through an impact and value for money evaluation. To measure impact, the evaluation conducted a baseline survey at the beginning of the programme, and a follow-up survey shortly after its end, with NCS participants and a comparison group of young people. It used a difference-in-difference approach and propensity score matching to adjust for differences between the participant and comparison groups.

The evaluation grouped outcomes into 4 areas: social cohesion, social mobility, social engagement, and wellbeing and loneliness.

• Social cohesion measures included levels of social trust, comfort with a friend or relative going out with someone who is different to them, ethnic diversity of participants’ social circles and positivity towards people from different backgrounds
• Social mobility measures included self-confidence measures such as teamwork, communication and leadership, aspirations, and problem-solving and decision-making capabilities
• Social engagement measures included agency and attitudes to community involvement, participation in public affairs (such as intention to vote), and volunteering outside of the programme
• Wellbeing and loneliness measures included the four ONS wellbeing measures: life satisfaction; the extent to which participants feel the things they do in their life are ‘worthwhile’; happiness; and anxiety. They also included measures around self-expression and emotional regulation

The evaluation found that at an overall level, the programme had a statistically significant positive impact across most of the social cohesion measures examined in the survey, as well as across social engagement measures, and most social mobility measures examined. The NCS summer programme had a statistically significant positive impact on all four ONS wellbeing measures: life satisfaction; the extent to which they feel the things they do in their life are ‘worthwhile’; happiness; and anxiety. However, it did not have a statistically significant impact on levels of feelings of loneliness, or the time spent volunteering in a typical four-week period after the programme. ^{[footnote 7]}

Programme design

This section outlines learning from across the reviewed programmes and literature on what worked to design quality community programmes generally, but also to achieve the community outcomes of interest.

Clear programme rationale, strategic vision and alignment to community outcomes

Community programmes with the strongest designs (and who measured community and broader outcomes) had a clearer focus and rationale for change. These programmes incorporated long-term, strategic planning, based on an evidenced needs case. Importantly these programmes targeted and aligned delivery to local community priorities and outcomes; making these explicit in delivery plans or a programme Theory of Change (ToC).^{[footnote 8]}

For example:

• The Community Radio Stations Fund^{[footnote 9]}, aimed to help community radio stations become more sustainable. They therefore focused on community outcomes and long-term stability from the start, supporting stations with business development, volunteer engagement, and income stream diversification.
• A programme Theory of Change was found to be a useful tool to map programme inputs and activities and how these are expected to link to outputs and (community) outcomes. Findings suggested that, where ToCs were developed and agreed with programme stakeholders and partners, and revisited throughout delivery, this could serve to provide a shared vision, avoid mission creep and keep programmes on track.
• Using an innovative data driven approach, the Coventry City of Culture Trust^{[footnote 10]} created tailored action plans to align support with the needs and priorities of local communities. The senior management team of the Trust also established a ToC, based on the programme’s Cultural Strategy and the UK City of Culture bid. This meant from pre-delivery to legacy, that programming and investment priorities, activities, and outputs were aligned with the desired transformational changes for the city and its communities and embedded within the stated outcomes in the ToC. Further, the ToC served as a basis for negotiations with funders, as it meant that investment was sought for set outcomes rather than abstract projects and activities. See ’Case Study Box 3‘ for further insight.
• Studies also suggest that using policy evidence to inform programme design can lead to positive outcomes. For example, the Great Place Scheme was based on the Culture White Paper, 2016, which advocated for embedding culture in local planning, and previous research on the role of culture in economic development and similar place-based cultural investment schemes.^{[footnote 11]}

However, a good number of the reports reviewed did not detail whether the programme design had been based on the evidence base or a needs assessment. This is not to say that they did not do so, but greater learning may be achieved if detailing this is a requirement for future policy evaluation reports. Similarly, they did not detail how community (or broader) outcomes were established, and who was involved in this decision-making.

Case study box 3: Co-creation, clarity of vision, and strategic planning

UK City of Culture Coventry (major events)

A core principle of the Coventry City of Culture programme^{[footnote 12]} was devolved co-creation, alongside a hyper-localised model of delivery. By placing co-creation opportunities in the communities that were typically under-engaged, the programme’s design was driven by local evidence. Specifically, the cultural programme was shaped to meet the needs of communities across the city. National, regional, and local datasets on cultural participation and need were used to understand, assess, and target local gaps.

The Trust’s Caring City programme was established in response to four identified city needs around mental health, newly arrived communities, young people at risk of exploitation, and those with lived experience of homelessness. The Summer of Surprise programming was targeted on locations with historically low cultural participation. Data was proactively used in programme planning, including the Coventry Cultural Place Profiler which provided cultural and non-cultural data that cultural organisations in the city could access as a planning tool.

The programme upskilled communities to be involved in the creation of the cultural programme and offered opportunities to engage at different points in the process of cultural production and consumption. This was done by embedding producers in local organisations (typically volunteers and freelancers).

Those that had historically been excluded from publicly funded cultural activities participated in greater numbers. The programme evaluation found that the targeted nature of the activities did provide social value for those involved. The Trust had built-in a focus on inclusivity from the start via a Theory of Change. Focusing on inclusion is now a requirement in DCMS guidance issued to bidding cities in the UK City of Culture Programme.

Alignment between national and local policy

Studies suggest it is good practice for central government to work with local authorities when designing community programmes, to align programmes with local and national priorities and ensure programmes build upon the infrastructure and gaps of current community provision. Aligning local and national policy programmes has key benefits for community programme design and implementation including broader reach, partnership and learning opportunities, and economies of scale.

Conversely, shifting national and local government priorities, ambitions, and budget constraints led to implementation challenges at the local level. Studies highlighted the need for central government and delivery teams to clearly and effectively communicate programme priorities (and any changes) to ensure that delivery meets changing expectations. For example:

• The Creative People and Places programme^{[footnote 13]} included 33 local programmes in the national programme, allowing for peer learning between projects at local and national levels.
• The DCMS 50+ volunteering programme^{[footnote 14]} was made up of four innovation funds and substantial non-financial support from the fund managers, Nesta (see Nesta). The funding was to come in waves from DCMS, focusing on ‘waves of commitment’ to increase the participation of those aged over 50 in volunteering. However, early in the programme, government priorities shifted alongside budget constraints, leading to the programme being scaled back. At the time, it was acknowledged that this would make it difficult to deliver on the wider expected programme outcomes.
• The Youth Social Action Review^{[footnote 15]} highlighted a study that explored the role of the UK government in promoting civic activism by analysing engagement in sports youth clubs. The study found paradoxes between the government’s desire to increase volunteering and civic action and cuts to youth club funding and increases in facility hire costs by local government. This resulted in civic activism opportunities being concentrated in socially advantaged areas, where volunteers had the time and resources to participate.

Building on the strengths of local communities

Many studies reviewed warned against ‘top-down’ community programme design processes. Instead, they favoured Asset-based Community Development approaches (see Table 1 for definition) for effective ‘bottom-up’ programme designs and moving the focus from ‘what is wrong with us’ to ‘what is right with us’ (see Asset-based community development (ABCD) - CFE Research). For instance, the review of place-based giving schemes^{[footnote 16]} demonstrated how capitalising on strong community networks served to increase activism, building more resilient and integrated communities.

Building on the ability of local people to design, deliver, and lead activities harnessed existing resources (e.g., networks and local knowledge) allowed communities to meet the challenges they faced, based on their lived experiences and own strengths. Critically, communities needed dedicated support to effectively engage in programme designs (and implementation). Factors that led to programmes successfully developing local capacity, alongside financial support, included: the provision of strategic leadership; personnel (including volunteers); courses and workshops (on community organising, funding applications, and operational planning) to smaller community organisations.

For example:

• The Taylor Review Pilot^{[footnote 17]} provided workshops for representatives from local faith organisations to learn about maintenance and repairs, community engagement, and change management. The pilot employed Community Development Advisers to work with listed places of worship to help them develop new relationships in the wider community, identify opportunities for use of the building and for other activities, and seek income streams for the future to underpin building repair and maintenance.

Support often came from local and regional sector-based bodies and organisations, such as Historic England and support agencies (e.g., Nesta). This support was key for smaller organisations that had received grants and had little or no pre-existing partnership with local organisations, agencies, and/or individuals.

Strong partnerships

Strong partnerships and governance arrangements were key for successful programme designs (and implementation). The features of effective arrangements included: a suitable lead to chair meetings and scaffold discussions and decisions; clear designation of each partner’s role and commitment required during the funded period; inclusion of the right people, with the right resources and expertise to drive programme design and delivery.

However, studies also noted that governance structures should not be overly bureaucratic or an impediment to the pace of progress. In cases where partnerships were weak or ineffective, this was because there had been an underestimation of the resources required for partnership building and conflicts between partners emerged. Finally, a study reflected the caveat that programmes should be designed to account for different starting points in terms of the maturity of local partnerships, and that, where grantees have little or no pre-existing partnerships, programmes should support them to build these.^{[footnote 18]}

For example:

• The governance arrangements for the Cultural Olympiad programme^{[footnote 19]} relied on a complex partnership model involving nationwide funding drawing from multiple funders, partnership development and distinct leadership from a dedicated board with support from core Games stakeholders. The establishment of the board (with close involvement of DCMS and the Mayor’s Office alongside dedicated Stakeholder and Legacy Steering groups) strengthened the relationships between the principal funding partners and sped up decision-making.
• For major events programmes, studies suggested that streamlined governance arrangements were key for equitable relationships. Having streamlined governance and protocols in place mitigated common project management and delivery challenges as the constituent projects of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games ebbed and flowed^{[footnote 20]}. Similarly, to ensure that the Hull City of Culture’s^{[footnote 21]} consortium had a diverse range of members that worked well together, clear protocols and structures were put in place from the beginning of the programme to establish equitable relationships between members.

Co-production with the community

Planned, strategic, and flexible co-production with community members served to extend the reach, inclusion and impact of community programmes. Though many reports stated that co-production was a feature of the programme design, often little detail was provided on how this was implemented in practice (e.g., recruitment, activities, resources) and lacked learning or good practice recommendations for future programmes.

For example:

• The Community First Neighbourhood Fund programme^{[footnote 22]} was designed to be locally driven and flexible. Around 600 Community First Panels, composed of local residents, were responsible for setting funding priorities and deciding which community projects received funding. This design was chosen so that decisions were made by those who understood the needs of the community.

Funding amounts

All programmes reviewed received large-scale funding; though the amount of funding varied considerably, from £5.6 million to £320 million, depending on scale and length of programmes.

• Programmes were fully or jointly funded by DCMS. Joint funding was either with wider civil society and VCSEs (e.g. Comic Relief), sector specific public bodies (e.g., the National Lottery Community Fund, Sports England and Arts Council England) or other government departments (e.g. Cabinet Office, Department for Education).
• Some programmes also received matched funding from local authorities, in terms of cash and volunteering hours. Some programmes, particularly major events programmes (e.g., Coventry UK City of Culture^{[footnote 23]}) received capital investment from local and regional governments, businesses, and other private investors.
• Some programmes also received social investment funding from private and charitable foundations for example, the Co-op Foundation within the Building Connections Fund^{[footnote 24]}, and Lloyds Bank Foundation within the place-based giving schemes.^{[footnote 25]}

Several reports did not detail funding arrangements, making it difficult for this review to present learning from the different models.

Funding distribution to community delivery organisations

When it comes to funding distribution, many programme reports did not provide detail on how funding was distributed, nor did they provide information on the value of the distribution methods programmes used. As such, it was not possible to comparatively discuss the merits and limitations of distribution methods, or the impact different methods had on outcomes. 

Most programmes funded local delivery teams through a grants system, predominantly from DCMS and distributed by relevant arm’s length bodies, as detailed below. Grant size varied considerably across the studies reviewed. For example, the Youth Covid Fund^{[footnote 26]} gave grants ranging from less than £1,000 to some smaller organisations, and around £3 million to the Prince’s Trust. The Coventry UK City of Culture^{[footnote 27]} programme’s Trust (the programme delivery lead) received £22.8 million in total, with £10.9 million from central government funding and £10.4 million from National Lottery funding. This public funding subsequently drew in additional funding from capital investment and elsewhere.

Programmes funded by arm’s length bodies, such as the National Lottery and Arts Council England generally distributed grant funding based on competitive application processes, ensuring funding was awarded across a diversity of regions and communities.^{[footnote 28]} For example, the funding criteria for the Great Place Scheme included demonstrating evidence of high levels of socio-economic deprivation and low levels of cultural activity. Applications were also assessed based on their potential to embed culture in local decision-making, create long-term partnerships, and contribute to economic and social outcomes.^{[footnote 29]}

Over time, predominantly in major events and cultural sectors there was evidence of some funding diversification, as highlighted by programmes receiving matched funding, capital investment, and social investment. There were also some examples of funding being linked to social value.

• For example, the Birmingham Commonwealth Games^{[footnote 30]} introduced a Social Value Charter which set out the values important to delivery and applied these values to the delivery of the games from conception to implementation, review and post-games activities. The charter meant that contracts of £50,000 or more had to have a minimum of 10% weighting allocated to social value commitments by suppliers. Some programmes also used key performance indicators as part of the assessment criteria for awarding funding. It was hoped that diversification of funding would make local communities become more self-sufficient and less reliant on state funding

Set-up timeframes and funding cycles

Within programme design, sufficient time and funding is an important consideration within the design phase, so that community programmes could implement programmes effectively during the delivery phase. The review findings suggested that longer term (more than 2 years), adequately resourced programmes, allowed for programmes and delivery teams to become established (allowing for staff and volunteer recruitment for example), test and learn what worked for the local community, and provided a good foundation to lead to positive community outcomes.

For example:

• The need for longer set-up times was highlighted by the Community Organisers programme^{[footnote 31]}. The programme aimed to set up Community Holding Teams (CHTs), made up of local people, to ensure that local communities played an active role in collective action and decision making. Programme stakeholders described their difficulty in setting up CHTs. They suggested that a year for this process was too short, partly due to the difficulty of recruiting CHT members.
• Additionally, the Hull UK City of Culture programme^{[footnote 32]} ran into issues because it had to both deliver projects and fundraise at the same time, meaning that delivery staff were not always confident that they had sufficient budget for the planned projects. This was a clear challenge, as it inhibited confident co-creation and partnership learning.
• The evaluation of Arts Council England’s funded place-based programmes^{[footnote 33]} demonstrated that larger pots of funding for each grant recipient led to more devolved spending decisions, which was a goal of the Creative People and Place programme and the Great Place Scheme.

Some studies highlighted that short-term funding cycles and uneven distribution of funding, made it difficult for community organisations to set-up and deliver programmes at pace, making it difficult to achieve the desired outcomes within funding timeframes or programme sustainability. Short-term funding also posed a challenge for long term financial stability of smaller community organisations.

For example:

• The Community Radio Fund^{[footnote 34]} was based on providing support on a yearly basis, however many of the funded community radio stations reported that they needed either long-term support or would need subsequent support to build lasting sustainability. The short-term nature of the funding, in some cases, made it difficult for the stations to plan effectively for the future, meaning that they were unable to fully-implement long-term strategies for growth.
• The review of place-based giving schemes^{[footnote 35]} reported that the uneven distribution of charitable donations, social capital, and grant funding led to a decline in community cohesion and a loss of community spirit.
• Additionally programme evaluations^{[footnote 36]} also highlighted instances of some aspects of support being ready before all services across the funded programme were, or vice versa. This was due to the evolving nature of early-stage programme design. Community programmes had to evolve quickly because of the short-term nature of funding and did not always have the time to fully prepare and to use the support provided.

Programme implementation

This section details learning on the strengths and challenges to effective delivery of community programmes. Well-delivered programmes were better placed to support the intended (community) outcomes, aligned to the programme design and theory. Further, the desired (community) outcomes needed to remain front and centre of programme delivery, to avoid mission creep or dilution of the programme aims and/or outcomes measurement.

Strengths of programme implementation

• Pragmatic data collection practices: Several studies highlighted challenges around embedding consistent programme data collection practices (e.g., programme reach, participation, outcomes measurement, etc.) across local programme delivery teams and partners. In programmes where there were lacking or inconsistent data collection practices, such as in the Multi-Sports Grassroots Facilities programme^{[footnote 37]}, this limited the usability of the data for stakeholders and disrupted programme learning. Further, it stretched the capacity of delivery staff further whilst they redirected efforts to resolve the data issues. However, done well, clear and simple shared data practices could negate programme disruptions during implementation. For instance, the Taylor Pilot^{[footnote 38]} demonstrated that incorporating effective data recording practices into programme design and delivery, served to ensure resilience and continuity even during staff turnover, maintaining programme sustainability. Having consistent data collection methods and reporting during programme delivery, can help to evidence with intended (community) outcomes
• Live delivery plans: Multiple programmes included the use of tailored action plans with clear prioritisation strategies for implementation. These helped to guide the delivery focus, allocation of resources and ensure efficient time staff use, whilst effectively addressing programme priorities and delivering community outcomes. In the absence of transparent plans, there could be confusion about multi-partner roles, responsibilities and programme vision. For example, as part of the attempt to grow the place-based giving programme^{[footnote 39]}, the Charities Aid Foundation created customised plans for each of the six schemes across England, ensuring that support was aligned to specific local needs and national programme priorities
• Building on local partnerships for programme delivery: Studies highlighted that when local programme delivery built on local networks and infrastructure (such as local venues), delivery was more flexible, responsive, and able to meet local needs. Tapping into local networks and infrastructure could provide national delivery teams with greater insight into local needs, improved awareness of local contexts and important contacts; to support effective localised implementation
• Strong stakeholder relationships: Implementation worked best when predicated on strong stakeholder relationships, as was consistently noted in evaluations of partnership programmes. For example, the Great Places Scheme evaluation highlighted strengthened cross-sector partnerships, local strategic planning, and community engagement^{[footnote 40]}
• Piloting programmes before wider rollout: Piloting programmes before wider rollout laid the groundwork for successful programme implementation. However, not all programmes included this step. Piloting enabled project delivery teams to test and learn delivery approaches, and to refine the programme design and take on lessons for mainstage delivery. For example, the DCMS 50+ Volunteering programme^{[footnote 41]} built on the work of the first phase of the Centre for Social Action Innovation Fund (active between 2013 and 2016). This phase tested social action models that worked and complemented (and did not duplicate) public services. This initial phase provided learning on scaling what works, addressing needs and creating demand for social action models, finding the right route and approach to scale the programme successfully, as well as building capacity and capability for wider rollout
• Simple applications and decision-making: Simple application processes for programme grant funding and involvement allowed groups and organisations with little or no previous grant application experience to participate^{[footnote 42]} including grassroots community organisations without prior involvement in national programmes. Making the process simple led to programmes engaging with a diverse group of community organisations and participants across relevant VCSE sectors, increasing participation in local decision making and project delivery. Furthermore, piloting application processes could help to simplify them, and ensure they were clear and accessible
• Dedicated delivery teams with capacity: Dedicated personnel to drive programme delivery was essential for successful implementation. Studies highlighted that several projects, particularly those involving smaller community delivery organisations, were often overstretched. For example, the Hull City of Culture programme^{[footnote 43]} reported that the places targeted often lacked community capacity, meaning that project team staff had to take on multiple roles. The Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund^{[footnote 44]} highlighted that securing support from management (e.g., project coordinators), frontline, and volunteers was crucial to reduce reliance on overstretched library staff to ensure a smooth implementation. Central programme administration also facilitated smooth and efficient local implementation. For example, the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund^{[footnote 45]} report highlights that local organisations appreciated support from the Community Development Foundation, including the provision of an online administration system

Challenges to programme implementation

• Top-down approaches: Studies suggest that community members must be involved in the creation and delivery of programmes. If community members did not feel listened to, they were more likely to disengage and less likely to recommend participation to their networks. The review of Youth Social Action projects^{[footnote 46]} highlights that this may be particularly important for marginalised young people. They reported that targeted, grassroots campaigns were more likely to be successful, as participating young people felt that they had played an active role in shaping social action opportunities. Similarly, the Coventry City of Culture report^{[footnote 47]} highlighted that co-creation can mean different things to different people, and that this sometimes led to confusion during delivery about which elements of the programme could be co-created. The report highlighted the HOME Festival and the Legislative Theatre project as models of what can be achieved with a persistent commitment to power-sharing and the application of Arts & Homelessness International’s^{[footnote 48]} co-creation methodology, which emphasises ‘Freedom within a Framework’. This framework creates a safe space for people to contribute their ideas and thoughts, alongside a commitment that their ideas inform implementation, so that they can see their input in the end result
• Limited central support: In cases where central resources were not adequate to support delivery, implementation haltered. For example, the Community First Neighbourhood Matched fund programme^{[footnote 49]} was designed to be flexible and locally driven. However, some of the Community First Panels it funded (panels composed of local residents responsible for setting funding priorities) were under-resourced, meaning that they struggled to find projects and award all of their available funding
• Recruiting and retaining volunteers: Multiple studies highlighted volunteers were often difficult to recruit and retain, proving challenging for community programme models that relied on volunteers. Providing support for recruitment, training and ongoing management of volunteers was key for these programmes. The DCMS 50+ Volunteering programme^{[footnote 50]} and the Community Radio Fund programme highlighted difficulties grantees had in recruiting volunteers when they had limited prior experience and lacked the foundational infrastructure and support systems. The 50+ Volunteering programme also highlighted the importance of projects learning from their volunteers and making sure that their voices were heard in programme implementation and ongoing development, to ensure that they felt valued

Engaging communities in programme design and delivery

All community programmes reviewed sought to engage a range of communities in programme activities, from design to implementation. Common effective practices to engage communities included:

• Building trusting relationships: A few reports highlighted that gaining the trust of local communities and organisations took time. Careful planning was required to avoid competition with existing local projects and to secure community buy-in^{[footnote 51]}. As highlighted above, community engagement considerations are required from the programme formulation and design stage.
• Skilled staff and relational practices: Some reports highlighted that having the appropriately skilled staff involved in delivery was key for successful community engagement. For example, the Loneliness Stigma Rapid Evidence Assessment^{[footnote 52]} found that qualified professionals were able to address self-stigma^{[footnote 53]} by using sensitive language and careful framing of interventions. For some individuals, this helped to open conversations about their feelings which was important for their ongoing engagement.
• Leveraging existing networks: Multiple reports suggested that working with local organisations, pooling resources and knowledge, could help to engage hard-to-reach groups. In the case of the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund^{[footnote 54]}, these groups included the elderly and the housebound, as well as those in rural and deprived areas. The Libraries programme specifically targeted co-design and co-production activities to involve people from these groups, providing them with a sense of ownership over programme delivery. The Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund^{[footnote 55]} established a number of panels made up of local volunteers to support its goal of providing small grants to fund new and existing community groups. These panels set funding priorities to decide which projects were to receive funding in their areas; 85% of panel members used their personal networks to support the programme, ensuring that the programme met the needs of many within communities.
• Tailored and targeted support: Reports highlighted that support targeted and tailored to the needs of communities was beneficial for engaging communities. Good examples of this included programmes that involved local community members in identifying needs and setting priorities through consultation and research^{[footnote 56]}, those that included specific provision for co-production^{[footnote 57]}, and those that listen to communities through feedback mechanisms such as surveys, focus groups, and community forums/meetings.^{[footnote 58]} The rapid evidence assessment of Youth Social Action programmes^{[footnote 59]} found that to reverse the socio-economic gap in participation, interventions should target schools located in the most deprived areas. Collaboration with local organisations already in contact with young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds was intended to boost wider and more inclusive participation and enable young people to attend interventions in familiar locations, supporting sustained participation. Another study noted that working closely with local faith groups was crucial for engaging listed places of worship in programme delivery and reaching the communities they served.^{[footnote 60]}
• Delivery in nurturing and welcoming spaces: Several studies suggested that providing friendly and welcoming spaces for a wide range of groups to participate in, could be effective at nurturing a sense of belonging and integration. Such spaces promoted friendly interactions and gave space for self-directed action, creation, and positively experienced civic engagement.^{[footnote 61]} The studies reviewed did not provide explicit detail on the practical components of creating and maintaining a friendly and welcoming space.

Programme sustainability

While much of the literature reviewed covered programme sustainability planning, it did not provide evidence as to what activities or outcomes were sustained beyond the funding periods examined. There was little to no reporting within the literature on lasting community outcomes. This section summarises the plans captured within the literature, and the anticipated challenges and barriers to sustainment.

Integrating programme legacy planning within programme design

Early planning for legacy was a key design feature of some of the programmes assessed within the literature. This was particularly the case for major events:

• For the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games, a post-Games legacy programme aimed specifically to capitalise on the momentum of the event and make use of surplus Games revenue.^{[footnote 62]} Roles and responsibilities within the legacy programme were also allocated from the outset of the Games.^{[footnote 63]}
• This was similar for the Coventry City of Culture 2021, and the Hull City of Culture 2017, where the delivery organisations produced a legacy plan. In the latter example this provided a roadmap for the next 3, 10 and 20 years of cultural development in the city, aligned to Hull city’s Cultural Strategy for 2016-26. Working with many partners, the plan included the aim to ensure that culture, participation and learning would be embedded into the lives of young people growing up in the city.
• Several other studies across culture and civil society and youth sectors also maintained that early legacy planning should be a key consideration in programme design. These studies emphasised the importance of embedding an understanding among funding recipients of the need for appropriate financial planning and consideration of sustainability beyond the funding window. They also noted the potential value of allowing dedicated time and resource within programme periods for this purpose ^{[footnote 64]} and that there may be additional complexities associated with sustaining programmes with many interdependencies and partners, due to the challenges of progressing multiple priorities simultaneously.^{[footnote 65]}

Studies detailed a number of programmes adopting an asset-based approach which built on existing community activities or infrastructures, on the basis that these may contribute not only to initial delivery but strengthen local networks and provide a strong foundation for sustainment.^{[footnote 66]} For example, communities or organisations may already have effective collaborative partnerships, income streams or governance structures which central government-led programmes should aim to build on rather than duplicate or challenge.^{[footnote 67]}

Accessible funding options and expert support for community partners

The need for accessible funding options beyond the programme funding period was heavily referenced within the literature.^{[footnote 68]} Studies communicated the importance of funding recipients having access to (or being provided) further funding for core costs to maintain some programme activities over a longer period. As part of some programmes, funding recipients were provided with support to develop their capacity and skills to obtain funding through other means; for example, through income diversification and business planning, or enhanced grant bid-writing skills.^{[footnote 69]} The kind of support provided would ideally be cognisant of sectoral funding norms, and of programme location. Longer term funding cycles were also noted as potentially beneficial to allow funding recipients to dedicate time to programme monitoring, in part as a way to track their progress and develop a portfolio that could be used to support other funding bids (for example to support with core costs);^{[footnote 70]} and in part to allow greater time to embed change.^{[footnote 71]}

• For example, a Creative People and Places programme study noted that its projects tended to generate little income, but were more successful in fundraising and attracting investments from trusts and foundations in underserved areas.^{[footnote 72]} Two studies also noted that for place-based interventions reliant on local or community funding, options may be more constrained in less economically advantaged areas ^{[footnote 73]}
• A small number of studies included reflections on the provision of such support, for example by Nesta, the delivery lead for the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme (2017 to 2020). One study indicated that the non-financial support provided by Nesta as part of the programme helped grantees to improve their organisations’ adaptability and resilience, clarify their mission aims, strengthen their reputation and legitimacy, and seek alternative funding. However, some grantees indicated that they would have welcomed more support in helping them think through the long-term sustainability of their projects or would have preferred this support to have come earlier in their funding. ^{[footnote 74]}

Managing risks to programme sustainability

Capacity issues and resource scarcity were identified as core barriers to programme sustainability, which continued funding may have helped to address. Early planning to identify potential risks and mitigations to programme sustainability (for example, staff turnover, or programme-specific staff roles ending) beyond the core funding period was a need, uncovered by some studies. Recommendations for solutions (to be delivered during the core funding window) included:

• Knowledge sharing across delivery teams on local sustainability plans, to provide clarity on what should happen after the funding window, and the expectations, mechanisms and accountability for continuing delivery^{[footnote 75]}
• Multi-team governance structures where programmes are delivered collaboratively, to avoid single organisations holding dominance within decision-making, which could disrupt cooperative governance^{[footnote 76]}
• Network building to develop or sustain community connections, important for access to knowledge and local opportunities^{[footnote 77]}
• Staff and volunteer buy-in to programme activities was also anticipated within some studies to be important in sustainment. This was raised as a potential barrier where there remained some institutional, cultural resistance to change^{[footnote 78]}
• Ensuring support from local leadership: Local council and political leaders’ buy-in was seen as crucial for sustaining services. Programme sustainability may also be helped by embedding learning in future planning documents such as local economic plan and encouraging joint commissioning with local authorities, and where relevant, into public policy processes or guidance documents^{[footnote 79]}

Examples of sustained programme activities

In addition to the examples above, where funding recipients were supported during programmes to obtain further funding, examples of other methods used to embed sustainability in programme designs included:

• Infrastructure: For major events a legacy of infrastructure within the event places, for example improved transport routes, new sports centres and building upgrades. Infrastructure was designed to be useful for the event itself, but crucially also for ongoing community use after the event period.^{[footnote 80]} This was also the case in some cultural programmes, for example, within the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund whereby community spaces were intentionally redesigned for ongoing use by service users and/or for hire to local organisations after the funding window ended. Digital resources bought by libraries with the funding also remained available for service user access, or loan to other local organisations or to other libraries.
• Staff training, knowledge and skills: Another theme in a small number of cultural programmes was the delivery of training to staff, to develop their understanding of the purpose of programme activities and their expertise in delivery, with the goal of retaining this knowledge organisationally.^{[footnote 81]} In one example this training supported staff to continue delivering community-facing activities, for example in the above Libraries Fund; promoting a culture of disability awareness, delivering community activities such as workshops, as well as supporting library patrons whose behaviours may challenge.
• Local networks: A ‘pumping and priming’ approach used by the Civil Society and Youth sector programme, the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund. This approach saw the programme provide initial funding for applicants to try out new initiatives and establish their sustainability, before enabling them to apply for larger grants from the programme. The study reported that interactions between local panel application assessors, and projects, also strengthened local networks.^{[footnote 82]} Another study noted Cultural Compacts^{[footnote 83]} (e.g. Sunderland, Coventry) had been established, using Arts Council England Cultural Compact funding, to maintain project impact and that some partnerships had continued between public and private sector organisations beyond the funding period. ^{[footnote 84]}

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

Studies were aligned in suggesting that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) processes need to be considered and included from the outset to support robust evaluation and sectoral learning. Additionally, that evidence reviews (if commissioned as part of a programme) should be conducted in advance to best inform programme design. As mentioned within the programme design section above, Theories of Change (ToC) were recommended to provide a shared vision for programmes, clarify programme rationale, and to agree a set of outcomes to be measured, hence providing an evaluation framework to underpin consistent, relevant data collection. Publishing ToCs provided transparency around the programme’s overarching vision. It was also noted that ToCs, and corresponding evaluation frameworks, can also support evaluations led by other learning partners (for example, at a project or fund-level, where relevant) to support programme-level analysis.^{[footnote 85]}

Building M&E capacity of community organisations

The evidence highlighted that the value of M&E processes needs to be effectively communicated to programme delivery teams, and for these processes to be piloted or tested to identify and address data quality issues early. This activity supported high-quality evaluations and robust, summative evidence claims.

As mentioned above in programme implementation, studies noted the limitations of community organisations’ ability or capacity to collect data in support of evaluations, especially where organisations were volunteer or community-led. There was also evidence of missed opportunities to build the M&E capacity of such organisations. This included small community organisations for whom such support could help to both monitor progress for the purpose of learning and demonstrate added value of DCMS funded (and broader) programmes.

Conversely, studies drew out good practice for community organisational learning, which included learning events and opportunities held throughout the programme for community partners to come together for peer support, and to share ongoing learning as they refined project implementation. The value of these ongoing learning activities over, for example, conducting only a final summative evaluation, was emphasised in order to support programme implementation.

Robust evaluation designs

Process and perceived outcomes evaluation designs were primarily those assessed across the programme evaluations consulted within this review. These studies provided valuable learning on how programmes were operationalised in practice, and stakeholders lived experiences of the programme’s outcomes. However, the presence of robust impact and economic evaluations was less evident, indicating that further attention to these research approaches could strengthen the evidence-base. Studies noted several reasons for their focus on perceived outcomes rather than robust impact assessment. Common issues included:

• difficulties in establishing a suitable comparison group that would support an experimental impact evaluation (i.e., randomised controlled trial) and quasi-experimental design.
• evaluation being commissioned too late to conduct research with all relevant funds or stakeholders, or to inform funding recipients’ data collection; or, the evaluation ending too early in relation to delivery windows to be able to establish full impact.
• high levels of difference or complexity within programmes presenting a challenge to programme-level evaluation; for example, where programmes included multiple funding streams with very different goals; markedly changed in scope during delivery; or targeted distinctly different local needs or communities.
• drawing from numerous project-level evaluations that employed different approaches to measurement, again limiting a comprehensive national programme evaluation.
• challenges in data quality or availability, including small sample sizes (often accompanied by notable over or under-representation of particular projects or cohorts of funding recipients); or challenges in accessing beneficiaries.
• the absence of feasibility studies to establish robust impact and economic evaluation designs that are proportionate and practical within community delivery contexts.

Linked to these challenges, while reporting on perceived outcomes was broadly present in the literature reviewed, the mechanisms for change were not typically explored, nor were differential outcomes for different programme audiences. Further attention to the mechanisms of change, and audience differentiation both in terms of the outcomes achieved and the mechanisms behind any differences may therefore also help to strengthen the evidence base of what works, for whom and why.

Sector-specific learning

This final section summarises distinct learning from studies which provide insight into the conditions of the relevant DCMS sectors, that may be useful for consideration within future programme designs and alignment to intended community outcomes. Where sufficiently distinct information was not available for specific sectors, we note this below. It was somewhat challenging to draw out sector specific findings. This is due to the difficulties in determining whether sectoral differences within this sample of literature hold true more broadly, where the literature itself does not directly draw comparisons. As mentioned in the study limitations (see Introduction), this review also considers a greater volume of literature relating to some sectors than others, presenting a further challenge to comparison. Please also refer to Table 8, which presents an overview of achieved community outcomes in the programmes reviewed, by DCMS sector.

Table 8. Community outcomes achieved across reviewed programmes, by DCMS sector

DCMS community outcomes of interest	Cultural	Media	Creative industries	Civil society and youth	Sport	Major events
A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood	x	x	x	x	x	x
Social capital	x			x		x
Civic participation		x		x
Volunteering	x	x	x	x	x	x
Loneliness				x
An ability to influence/make decisions locally			x	x		x
Accessible cultural and sporting amenities	x		x	x	x	x
A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations	x	x	x	x	x	x
Overcoming integration challenges along race, faith or socioeconomic lines in communities	x	x	x	x	x	x
Ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities	x		x	x		x

Cultural sector

Within the cultural sector literature, there were instances of measurement and success against all outcomes of interest to this study, except for social capital and civic participation which were less likely to be measured. Two studies also identified unanticipated programme outcomes. Within the Hull City of Culture programme, one study noted that cultural organisations experienced challenges in the form of increased competition for audiences and funding, and in securing venues throughout the year.^{[footnote 86]} Separately, a meta-evaluation of Arts Council England-funded place-based programmes noted the importance of providing places where cultural partnerships were less developed with equal funding opportunities. In practice this could mean avoiding requirements for bids to come from consortia or providing additional time or assistance to develop relationships to support delivery.^{[footnote 87]} These findings indicate differences in how community cultural organisations may experience funding opportunities, and highlight a potential need within programme design to consider pre-existing local ecosystems of competition and collaboration.

The literature also held some cultural sector-specific learning around outcomes frameworks and measurement. For example, the Culture and Heritage Capital Programme notes the importance of developing consistent metrics and valuation methods to support cultural and heritage programmes to articulate their value to society, and has provided a blueprint for how to monetise these assets. While there are challenges around valuing subjective and non-monetisable benefits, the study suggests that co-creation within the sector, and relevant academia, can improve the relevance of the metrics used; while alignment with broader political agendas can support buy-in.^{[footnote 88]}

Separately, the literature indicated the potential for commissioners to align cultural and mental health outcomes within outcomes frameworks. The Great Place Scheme recorded that culture was embedding into local policies and strategies. Culture was integrated into 10+ regional strategies (e.g. economic development, health and wellbeing), whose approach was then adopted by some local authorities, who, in turn, integrated cultural strategies into long-term urban planning, health, and wellbeing agendas. This helped to increase cross-sector collaboration linked with health, education, and tourism. The Scheme also reported developments around aligning cultural and mental health outcomes. For example, Great Place Scheme providers developed an outcomes framework in collaboration with academics, mental health practitioners and the cultural sector. The outcomes aligned with both the cultural sector and outcomes used by mental health practitioners to record national data. The project hoped the framework could lead to further creative wellbeing work being commissioned by the health sector. A pilot project was also completed with CAMHS (Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service) which built creative activity into a statutory mental health service.^{[footnote 89]}

Media

Of the two items reviewed within this sector, only one included a community-focused media programme. In terms of outcomes, this focussed on capturing metrics relevant to a thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations, specifically in respect of community radio organisations. The relevant outcomes measured were: stations’ financial sustainability, based on their financial data; their capacity for operation and management, based on surveys and interviews with staff and volunteers; community outreach and engagement, based on data from listener surveys, social media engagement and audience feedback; and volunteer engagement and development, based on station data on volunteer numbers before and after funding, retention rates and interviews and surveys with volunteers. ^{[footnote 90]} As there were few items reviewed in this sector, a further and more sector specific review may be helpful to shape future programme development.

Creative industries

Within the creative sector literature, outcomes around a sense of belonging, civil society networks, the ability to make decisions locally, and overcoming integration challenges were observed, as well as impact on civic participation to a lesser extent. In terms of sector-specific learning, one study highlighted the importance of allowing for flexibility within delivery approaches, and the role and maintenance of a shared vision. This was identified as assisting collaboration between different organisations and balancing different artistic approaches to excellence. It also noted the importance of building in equity and diversity to programme design to ensure marginalised practices are recognised. Further to supporting diverse engagement, the study found that artistic, complex and formal terminology often used in arts marketing can be exclusive or intimidating, presenting a challenge to participation especially from communities with little prior knowledge of, or involvement in, the arts.^{[footnote 91]}

Civil Society and Youth

Within the civil society and youth literature, almost all community outcomes relevant to this study were measured; with the exception of cultural and sporting amenity access, and shared prosperity. These programmes were often found to have impacted feelings of community connectedness (such as a sense of belonging) and wellbeing in particular, connected to participation, for example through volunteering.

As with all sectors, literature highlighted the importance of building relationships between government and VCSE organisations to plan and deliver community programmes to support community engagement and outcomes. Studies also highlighted some effective mechanisms for engaging different community groups. When engaging young people, one study noted the importance of listening to, and platforming their voices so that other young people could see and recognise their own experiences, hence supporting further engagement. This was particularly important for engaging with marginalised groups. The same study also highlighted that young peoples’ involvement in social action was often driven by both self and other-oriented motives including gaining new skills, being influenced by family or friends, and helping the community. It found that, amongst young people, ethnic minorities and people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were the two most underrepresented groups involved in social action.

To address this, it suggested targeting schools located in more deprived areas, collaborating with local organisations already in contact with young people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds to boost participation, and ensuring that participation is financially sustainable for young people from less affluent families.^{[footnote 92]} Separately, another study noted that working closely with local faith groups, such as Dioceses and other bodies, was crucial for engaging listed places of worship in local communities to enhance partnership working and strengthen facilities in local areas.^{[footnote 93]}

Sports and Major events

There was a lot of overlap between sports and major events programmes. Reviewed literature highlighted how programmes supported cultural and sporting amenity access (for example, measured using audience attendance data which also captured engagement from underrepresented groups), volunteering (connected to other positive outcomes as mentioned above), and a sense of belonging (framed as pride of place) were the main outcomes measured.

Specific to learning from the major events sector, studies placed particular emphasis on capitalising on momentum following the event in order to sustain community engagement and related outcomes. In practice, this included legacy planning, considered from the outset, and in receipt of its own funding. This finding applied to both sporting and cultural events, where studies highlighted the risk of communities and delivery organisations otherwise returning to business-as-usual after the core funding period due to the inherently time-bound nature of events.^{[footnote 94]} Some studies also noted broader benefits to major event participation.

One study suggested that engagement with major events may hold positive connections with participation in other community activities: for example, 39% of respondents to the one-year post-Birmingham Commonwealth Games Residents Survey reported that the Games had a positive impact on their participation in creative and cultural activities, and this proportion was higher among those who directly engaged in the Games at 60%.^{[footnote 95]} Another study indicated that the participation of multiple funders in major events may also present opportunities for cross-sector network development and collaboration.

However, this study also noted the importance of maintaining a singular vision even within diverse major events-related programmes. This observation was drawn from evidence that the public’s ability to understand the role of the Cultural Olympiad was impaired in the run-up to the London Olympics 2012 by its lack of a single management structure and identity.^{[footnote 96]}

Strand 2 findings: place-based interventions

This chapter presents findings from the Strand 2 place-based interventions review and explores what can be learnt about the role of place-based programmes ^{[footnote 97]} and interventions in supporting stronger communities and local civil society. It draws lessons across DCMS and wider civil society and VCSE sector led programmes. The scope and limitations of the review are detailed in the introduction. This chapter outlines findings from place-based interventions in terms of achieving community outcomes, and how community outcomes need to be considered within programme design, implementation, and sustainability planning beyond the funding period. The chapter also outlines the strengths and gaps of programme monitoring and evaluation processes.

Overview of programmes reviewed

Table 9 below, provides an overview of the community programmes included in the Strand 2 review, as context for the findings. All programmes and literature reviewed focused on the civil society and youth sector. The community programmes were funded by a mix of central government departments (including DCMS) (9 programmes) and VCSE bodies (11 programmes).^{[footnote 98]} The review focused on 17 programmes, the majority structured as traditional grant-funding schemes, although a minority (6) were designed as social investment models. Most of the sources reviewed were programme evaluations and learning papers, and a small number (5) were scoping reviews and rapid evidence assessments (REAs) of place-based programmes.

Typology of place-based interventions

The typology below (Figure 2) illustrates the range of place-based interventions reviewed for Strand 2. Place-based interventions targeted specific localities with high socio-economic deprivation, or areas of local need related to policy goals (e.g., lower rates of volunteering compared to national averages), or targeted at certain demographic cohorts with greater need within a geographical place. Programmes were funded through a mix of grants (primarily from central government and the National Lottery) with some investment from the public, private and VCSE sectors through social investment models in the form of Social Outcomes Partnerships (also referred to as Social Impact Bonds (SIBs)).^{[footnote 99]} All the place-based interventions featured included co-production activities, involving local community members in design and delivery actions, to varying degrees. These place-based interventions sought to build on existing community and public sector assets, testing innovative approaches to strengthen and diversify local capacity.

Figure 2. Typology of place-based interventions across the review

Use zoom on your browser to view.

Table 9. Overview of programmes and literature reviewed

Programme	Years	Intervention type / description	Beneficiary groups	Geographic scale	Funding amount	Source of funding
A Better Start	2015 to 2025	Early help for babies and very young children	Families with children aged 0 to 3	5 local authorities (LA)	£215 million	The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF)
Big Local Programme	2012 to ongoing	Long-term, community-led investment programme	Nonprescriptive. The programme works directly with individuals living, working, studying and playing in areas rather than through organisations	150 local communities across England	£200 million endowment from the Big Lottery Fund	TNLCF
Cities of Service	2013 to 2016	Volunteer programme, guided by US Cities of Service model	Volunteers	7 UK cities	£810,000	Nesta
Commissioning Better Outcomes (CBO) Fund	2013 to 2024	Aimed to grow the Social Impact Bond (SIB) market in the UK and to support VCSEs to deliver early prevention to address deep rooted social issues	Wide range of beneficiary groups, across a number of domains (including education and early years, employment, family welfare, older people’s health).	England	£40 million	TNLCF and local commissioners
Communities First Programme	2001 to 2018	10-year programme to reduce poverty through place-based, community development	52 of the most deprived communities in Wales	Wales	£432 million	Welsh Government
End of Life Social Action Fund	2014 to 2016	Funding for 7 social action projects to support volunteers to tackle the isolation and loneliness of people at the end of their lives	Volunteers and those receiving end of life care	England	£800,000	Cabinet Office
Fair Share Trust	2003 to 2013	Capacity and sustainability support provided to VCSEs to involve local communities in decision making, build social capital, and improve community environments	77 areas in the UK.	UK	£50 million	TNLCF
Flying Start	2006 to ongoing	Early help for families with children under 4 years, in disadvantaged areas	Families with children under 4 years	Wales	For the period of the review (2007 to 2018). £600 million[footnote 100]	Welsh Government
HeadStart	2016 to 2022	School and community-based mental wellbeing support for young people delivered through 6 place-based partnerships	Young people aged between 10 and 16	6 LAs in England	£67.4 million	TNLCF
Invest Local	2013-2023	10-year, place-based community development programme	13 communities	Wales	£16.5 million	TNLCF
Life Chances Fund	2016 to 2025	A fund contributing outcome payments for locally commissioned social outcomes contracts that involve social investment (e.g., SOPs)	The fund aims to support over 60,000 individuals to achieve better life outcomes in areas such as health, employment, and housing	UK	£70 million	Managed by TNLCF on behalf of DCMS
Neighbourhood Challenge	2011 to 2012	A place-based, community development programme	17 communities	England	£1.7 million	Nesta and TNLCF
Place-Based Social Action Programme	2019 to 2024	Place-based social action programme designed to enable people, communities, local non-statutory organisations and the statutory sector to collaboratively create a shared vision for the future of their place	10 communities	England	£4.5 million	DCMS and TNLCF
The Single Community Programme	2001 to 2006	A place-based community development programme designed to provide the means for communities to participate in local policymaking	88 of the most deprived LAs	England	£183 million	Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM)
Uniformed Youth Social Action Fund	2014 to 2019	A programme designed to get more young people involved in social action through uniformed groups	Young people aged between 6 and 25	UK	£10 million	Cabinet Office and Youth United
Youth Investment Fund (original programme)	2017 to 2020	Creating, expanding and improving youth services across England and their services in the out of school youth sector, to drive positive outcomes for young people	Young people aged between 11 and 19 (up to 25 for those with SEND and/or disabilities)	England	£40 million	DCMS and TNLCF
Youth Engagement Fund (UK)	2007 to 2024	A SOP fund aimed to help young people to participate and succeed in education or training in England	Young people aged between 14 and 17	England	£16 million	Cabinet Office, Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Ministry of Justice (MoJ)
Evidence reviews
Place-based approaches to support children and young people	1998 to 2018	Key literature on place-based approaches to support and improve outcomes for children and young people	Children and young people	UK, Australia, USA	Various	Various
Welsh Government Scoping Review of Place-based approaches to community engagement and support	1992 to 2022	A review of place-based initiatives in Wales	Various	Wales	Various	Various
Lankelly Chase review of place-based approaches	1992 to 2017	An overview of analysis and learning from over 200 pieces of literature on place-based approaches over the past 50 years – both government and foundation-sponsored	Various	Mainly in the UK but also in the US, Europe, Canada and Australia	Various	Various
Systematic review of community infrastructure (place and space) to boost social relations and community wellbeing: Five year refresh	2017 to 2023	Systematic review of interventions that improve community social relations and/ or community wellbeing	Adults aged 16 to 65 years	UK and OECD countries	Various	Various
Evaluating Place-Based Approaches: a review of methods	2009 to 2023	Approaches to evaluating place-based programmes.	N/A	N/A	Various	Various

Achieving community outcomes

The Strand 2 review found that the community outcomes of interest (see Table 1) were supported across all programmes. The place-based programmes reviewed, sought to tackle complex, entrenched social challenges and inequalities faced by local communities, whether it be improving access to early years support services, early mental health intervention, creating new volunteering, training, employment systems or leisure opportunities and community networks. As shown in Figure 3, the reviewed programmes were generally designed to create system-level changes to connect and bolster communities and offer tailored solutions to target places or demographic groups. The programmes created new or additional opportunities, services and partnerships for community members and organisations, which in turn, benefited individuals and local systems. The short-term benefits for direct beneficiaries were clearly evidenced, but it is unclear whether programmes built and strengthened whole communities, or whether short-term outcomes were sustained, as this was not explicitly evidenced in the literature.

Figure 3. Achieving community outcomes through place-based interventions

Use zoom on your browser to view.

As noted in the Strand 1 findings, to achieve the desired community outcomes, programmes need to be designed and implemented with these outcomes at the forefront. Relatedly, programme monitoring and evaluations also need to be aligned to measuring the community outcomes, robustly. Specifically, place-based interventions:

• These investments had potential to build and strengthen communities by supporting beneficial outcomes for individual participants and local organisations** involved in the interventions. For instance, some interventions demonstrated that participation in community and group activities (e.g., civic engagement volunteering, community decision panels) could support a sense of belonging to places, build social capital through networks formed through the programmes, and reduce isolation and loneliness for participants. Furthermore, well-designed interventions, that included tailored engagement and participation options for target groups (e.g., people with language support needs, those with specific health needs), could strengthen local early intervention systems and pathways. The provision of financial resources combined with place-based approaches within the programmes contributed to building and strengthening communities. This combination enabled programmes to strengthen local systems, invest in locally driven solutions to bolster and test out community partnerships and service provisions to enable individual, organisational and community outcomes. However, whether community-level outcomes were sustained beyond the funded programme timelines was less clear
• Targeted specific localities or demographic groups within target areas: Programmes invested in the targeted communities and offered system-level capacity building, which included volunteering opportunities in communities, recreational, education, and work-related settings and plugged gaps in local service provision across community and public sector provisions. Furthermore, programmes involved community members in designing, leading, and steering activities and projects, supported programme buy-in and ownership across local stakeholders, local decision-making processes, and strengthened social capital of programme participants, whilst simultaneously creating opportunities for longer-term systems change (if the models were sustained)

Common criticisms of place-based approaches are that they can:

• exclude individuals in need of support if they do not fall within the catchment area(s)
• fail to address the root-causes of disadvantage

Critics argue that place-based approaches neglect the structural causes of poverty. To be effective, place-based approaches should consider regional and national issues and be used to complement wider investment and poverty reduction strategies, to make a lasting change for communities.^{[footnote 101]}

Community outcomes assessed in the evidence base

This review focused on the community outcomes of interest (see Table 1). Though the community outcomes measured in the reviewed interventions did not always directly map onto the DCMS community outcomes of interest, most studies assessed and reported on at least one of the relevant outcomes.

• Overall, successful community outcomes were evident in programmes that focused on grassroots and community-led actions and activities that build on existing local systems. Capacity building support was essential to meaningfully involve local stakeholders, and to maintain local decision-making throughout programme design and implementation, as well as creating or diversifying long-term partnerships across local partners.^{[footnote 102]} 
• However, some outcomes were more (or less evident) across the programmes. Frequently measured outcomes included: ‘social capital’, ‘volunteering’ and ‘an ability in influence/make decisions locally’. Conversely ‘civic participation’ in terms of specifically engaging in democratic processes and ‘ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities’ featured less across reviewed interventions. This is possibly because these were not a primary focus of the interventions or studies, or due to challenges in measuring these concepts.
• Further, some community outcomes were closely linked, for instance, interventions with a social capital and/or volunteering element, generally included outcomes for reduced loneliness and an increased sense of belonging to a place.

Showcasing effective place-based programmes in producing community outcomes

A wide range of community outcomes were achieved, demonstrating the effectiveness of place-based programmes, both for geographical areas and specific target groups. Whilst short-term outcomes were evident for funded cohorts, many of the outcomes achieved were focused on creating the conditions for stronger communities, building the capacity of local assets and improving local spaces, in ways that could potentially be sustained by communities themselves. The case study below explores how community outcomes can be achieved through a mix of community co-production and investment in community assets alongside practical support from professionals.

Case study box 4: Empowering residents to steer local change to produce community outcomes

Invest Local (The National Lottery Community Fund (TNLCF))

Invest Local was a ten-year programme of funding and support for 13 deprived communities across Wales. The 13 communities were disproportionally impacted by economic decline and/or welfare reforms and had not benefited from discretionary funding (including National Lottery funding). The aim was to “enable residents to build on the strengths and talents within their communities and take action to make their areas even better places to live”.^{[footnote 103]}

• Programme design: Each community received up to £1 million to establish a local steering group to take investment decisions and actions and to engage with the wider community. Steering groups were supported by an Invest Local Officer. The model developed and mainstreamed local leadership within target communities. Successful groups were underpinned by a partnership with a local organisation which became a local anchor organisation, or a network of local groups, which delivered a range of services and support in the community
• Individual outcomes: Some areas reported a larger number of people had improved access to community spaces, services, support and/or opportunities locally which in turn strengthened individuals’ wellbeing and resilience. The evaluators noted the model demonstrated the power and potential of trusting communities
• Community outcomes: Overall, Invest Local strengthened communities by investing in local social capital and leadership, enhancing individuals’ abilities to cope in challenging contexts (including poverty, the cost-of-living crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic), and building partnerships between local groups and organisations
• Wider community level outcomes: The programme invested in community spaces and play facilities. Investments in community buildings provided delivery spaces for local groups and public and voluntary sector services. As noted, the increase in community capacity and infrastructure was reported to have strengthened people’s wellbeing and resilience. However, the long-term sustainability of these investments, once the Invest Local funding ended, was unknown at the time of the evaluation. The study concluded that long-term flexible funding was essential to maintain change

Some of the sources reviewed demonstrated the important role working towards community outcomes played in the personal development of individuals, building citizen’s skills, capability and confidence as a foundation for strengthening communities in the longer-term. These studies tended to be focused on measuring ‘soft’ outcomes around behavioural and attitudinal change, and ‘hard’ outputs such as qualifications gained. These studies provide useful insights into place-based approaches focused on a specific target group, such as disadvantaged young people. The below case study demonstrates how working towards community outcomes underpins other primary objectives of some place-based programmes, which attract funders keen to invest in upskilling citizens.

Case study box 5: Community outcomes contributing to young people’s personal development

Youth Engagement Fund (jointly funded by the Cabinet Office, DWP and the MoJ)

The Youth Engagement Fund (YEF) was a place-based programme designed to support young people to achieve individual outcomes around participating and succeeding in education and training, improving their employability, reducing their likelihood of future offending and improving their health and wellbeing. Community outcomes, such as volunteering and integration, emerged as key components of the young people’s programme journeys.

• Programme design: The London based project was managed by Prevista and delivered by 12 service providers in London. Activities included a range of tailored in- and out-of-school activities supported through a personal career coach, including volunteering, skills and enrichment activities, group work, employment integration activities, youth applied positive psychology and work with the young person’s family. The project aimed to support up to 1,000 young people across 10 London boroughs. The YEF also supported projects in Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Sheffield.

• Individual level outcomes: YEF projects reported a total of 23,175 outcomes (average of 3 outcomes per young person). The areas of greatest progress included young people:

  • gaining a QCF accredited entry level qualification (below GCSE)
  • improving their attitude to school or education
  • improving their behaviour at school

During the case study visits, the service providers asserted that most participants moved into a positive post-16 destination. However, this was not captured in the outcomes data because projects had to specify the particular type of post destination.^{[footnote 104]} There is therefore an opportunity to strengthen the evidence base around measuring community outcomes.

Unintended outcomes

Some studies detailed positive and negative unintended individual, community and systems outcomes. These included:

• Increased visibility of left-behind areas in policy discussions: The Big Local evaluators noted the programme had influenced broader debates about regional inequalities and funding models for deprived communities. Some communities became more politically engaged, using their strengthened networks to advocate for local policy changes*^{[footnote 105]}
• Positive spillover effects: A Better Start programme noted positive benefits in community engagement and parental involvement in wards which were not targeted by the programme^{[footnote 106]}
• Community perceptions of support: The HeadStart programme noted that some children and young people felt negatively about discussing topics that worried them in interventions, and some expressed worry about the support ending, whilst others felt disappointed that they were not selected to participate in the programme.^{[footnote 107]}

Measured community outcomes

Most studies reviewed for Strand 2 collected metrics against more than one of the community outcomes of interest to this review (see Table 1). Typically, these were collected through qualitative methods such as interviews. There was some use of surveys, but only a limited use of validated metrics ^{[footnote 108]} or impact evaluations.^{[footnote 109]} Examples of the outcomes measured are included in Table 18 (Appendix 3). It is not an exhaustive list of outcomes contained in the literature reviewed, but the most relevant for the priority community outcomes of focus for this review. The studies did not always provide details on the data used to measure outputs and outcomes or how data was sourced, collected or generated. The review found that:

• Studies may attribute a value to community assets without specifying the calculation used. Learning from the Neighbourhood Challenge demonstrated how monetary values can be assigned to volunteer time, to represent the value of community assets generated. However, the report does not provide details of the calculation used. For example, one community reported 26 social entrepreneurs and five young entrepreneurs had set up new social enterprises and stated the value of the assets and the voluntary time invested exceeded the cash value of the awards (over £70,000).^{[footnote 110]}
• Some measures used to assess community outcomes are based on self-reported metrics. For example, one initiative within the Cities of Service aimed to increase older people’s resilience to loneliness. The review noted that over 19,000 people reported feeling lonely “some or most of the time”.^{[footnote 111]}
• Community outcomes are sometimes predicated on, and/or enhanced by, investments in infrastructure. For example, Councils involved in Cities of Service trialled volunteering software to better coordinate and measure volunteering.
• Studies reviewed commonly assessed programme impact on individuals rather than community-level outcomes. For example, studies noted residents reported: being upskilled to deliver groups and community activities; had increased self-confidence, leadership skills, communication and social skills.^{[footnote 112]} Studies also noted increases in participants’ collaborative, project and technical skills.^{[footnote 113]}

Programme design

This section outlines learning from across the reviewed programmes and literature on design considerations for developing quality place-based programmes. The evidence base highlights the importance of defining place and considering community outcomes upfront, in order to create well designed programmes that support delivery and achieve the desired outcomes.

Defining place at the outset of programme design

Placed-based programmes (see definition in Table 1) intentionally targeted a place and/or a demographic group aligned to the policy initiative. Some programmes focused on regions or local authority areas to enable strategic partnerships and organisations to engage.^{[footnote 114]} Whilst others targeted support at the ward level, to concentrate funding in small, defined localities.^{[footnote 115]} Localities were also targeted to ensuring geographical balance (across urban, rural, and coastal areas) and to reach people with limited access to key infrastructure. For example, the Big Local programme focused on post-industrial areas in northern England, coastal communities in the south, and post-war social housing estates. Areas were chosen because they lacked community spaces, had poor digital and physical connectivity, and exhibited low civic engagement. As a further example, The Single Community Programme targeted the 88 most deprived local authority districts in England as part of The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM) Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, to reach diverse communities characterised by particular identities and interests as well as those living in disadvantaged areas.^{[footnote 116]}

Informed targeting of places and groups

Place-based programmes commonly targeted ‘left-behind communities’, which had previously missed out on government or civil society funding and experienced lower levels of investment and economic development (such as areas of post-industrial decline). A range of data, strategies and documents were used to identify target localities. For example:

• A number of programmes used the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) data^{[footnote 117]} to target interventions, often combined with wider demographic measures. For example, the Big Local programme used IMD data and commissioned research to identify correlations between community infrastructure and socio-economic outcomes. The results demonstrated that deprived areas without civic spaces (such as, community centres or pubs) had higher unemployment, poorer health outcomes, and greater levels of child poverty compared to other deprived areas that had these community assets. This data-driven analysis reinforced the need for a place-based, long-term funding model to address these structural disadvantages.^{[footnote 118]} Similarly, the Communities First programme used IMD to target the most deprived communities in Wales; and the Flying Start programme combined indicators of relative deprivation (Welsh IMD data, free school meals, and families in receipt of income related benefits) to identify target areas. Additionally, some programmes were focused on particular interest groups, for example the Skyline programme focused on three former coal mining villages in the South Wales Valleys.^{[footnote 119]}
• Target localities were also identified by assessing metrics on geographical variations for key groups or from learning from previous policies and interventions. For example, A Better Start selected localities within each partnership area based on local needs assessments, which used data and stakeholder insights to identify areas with higher deprivation and greater needs for early childhood support.^{[footnote 120]} Similarly, the Youth Engagement Fund was place-based in terms of its target group, supporting disadvantaged young people aged 14 to 17 to participate and succeed in education or training.^{[footnote 121]} Meanwhile, the Big Local programme used learning from previous community development policies and initiatives to inform its targeting approach. The research linked a lack of civic infrastructure to political disengagement, suggesting that investing in community-led initiatives could strengthen social cohesion and economic resilience.^{[footnote 122]}

Considering outcomes at the design stage

Programmes generally considered the intended outcomes at the design stage. Some programmes took collaborative approaches, by consulting the community and setting out the journey from activities to outcomes in a Theory of Change (ToC), whilst others took a more flexible approach which enabled communities to develop their own priorities over time. For example:

• Big Local empowered communities to define their own priority outcomes. They took a resident-led approach, working with individuals from local areas, to build their confidence and capacity to make a difference to their communities. Residents established interventions such as youth clubs, exercise classes, knit and natter groups, community allotments and physical spaces, such as a community hub or café.  Big Local identified early priorities around building local civil society capacity and/or supporting the development of local micro-enterprise. The programme therefore provided support activities including coaching, mentoring and light-touch support delivered by locally based staff. This was complemented by training and networking events and opportunities provided by Local Trust or other partners, alongside specialist consultancy and advice to help residents develop and deliver particular projects. (see: Big Local – Local Trust)
• Cities of Service emphasised the importance of impact metrics (e.g. meaningful difference made to programme beneficiaries) beyond programme outputs (e.g. number of volunteers recruited). SMART targets^{[footnote 123]} were reported quarterly on the progress of initiatives. The Cities of Service Organisation worked with each city to identify their outputs and outcomes. A ToC was developed for each initiative (setting out the intended link between the activities and intended outcomes). The ToC process encouraged council teams to consider the relationship between activities and outcomes and helped them to change approaches if these did not appear to be working as intended.^{[footnote 124]} Furthermore, building volunteering plans and outcomes measurement into the Cities of Service programme design, helped to strengthen the communities involved, as the case study below illustrates.

Case study box 6: Embedding volunteering outcomes into project design

Cities of Service (Nesta)

One intervention developed by Cities of Service focused on impact volunteering. The methodology helped refocus existing council volunteering services on impact by engaging volunteers more effectively. The intervention was designed to support teams to identify new opportunities to work with volunteers to enhance existing services, focusing on improving quality of life and preventative approaches. This new volunteering approach meant that council teams moved to consider volunteer hours at the planning stage, as a resource to support and direct volunteering capacity, to achieve most impact.

Impact volunteering was outcomes-focused on ‘difference made’ to beneficiaries. Council staff noted that the approach had helped them think more creatively, working with a wider range of partners and providing attractive volunteering opportunities.

The review noted that assessing volunteering impact requires good measurement data. Cities of Service councils received external support to design data collection tools to capture output and impact information, to understand whether volunteers were mobilised in the most meaningful ways. Potential bias in data collection was an important consideration, to ensure adequate time, support, direction and distance from delivery was built into the process. For example, involving case workers in data collection worked well, using their professional expertise to interview beneficiaries about their volunteering experiences.^{[footnote 125]}

Some placed-based studies adopted social investment funding. Social Outcomes Partnerships (also referred to as Social Impact Bonds (SIBs)), are outcome-based contracts that use private funding from social investors to cover the upfront capital required for a provider to set up and deliver a service. The service is set out to achieve measurable outcomes established by the commissioning authority (the outcome payer) and the investor is repaid only if these outcomes are achieved (see: Social Outcomes Partnerships and the Life Chances Fund. For example:

• Some Commissioning Better Outcomes (CBO) projects included community outcomes, such as increasing the number of volunteers. The Reconnections SIB project was designed to reduce social isolation and loneliness amongst people aged 50+ in Worcestershire, leading to improvements in health and reduced incidence of some long-term health conditions. The project was funded by a £788,000 start-up social investment, followed by £2.02 million if reduced loneliness was evidenced for at least 3,060 older people. All outcome payments were attached to a subjective measure – a reduction in loneliness. The evaluators noted the model carried an element of risk for the commissioners, as cohort’s loneliness could be reduced, but this may not lead to the intended savings in terms of reductions in the cohort’s use of secondary healthcare.^{[footnote 126]}
• Overall, the CBO data demonstrated wide variation in performance, indicating that some SIB projects were performing very well, but on the whole projects were behind forecast performance on engagements, outcomes achieved, and outcome payments made by both local commissioners and the programme.

In contrast, other studies noted caution in defining expected outcomes too tightly at the programme design stage. The literature highlighted the importance of community–based organisations needing the freedom to experiment, reflect and adapt their approach, as successful engagement approaches were likely to vary in different contexts. For example, learning from the Neighbourhood Challenge warned against imposing tightly defined outputs and outcomes at the design stage, as these may inhibit risk–taking and creativity. The learning partner also noted that community–led change evolves as projects develop, meaning it is not possible to predict the precise outputs and outcomes that will be achieved at the start of the project.^{[footnote 127]} This suggests a learning point for the design of Social Outcomes Partnerships, in needing to balance the desire for defining outcomes at the funding stage with allowing sufficient flexibility for adaption to local community contexts.

However, although the community-led approach empowered the projects to lead their journey of change, it presented challenges for the funder, Nesta, around collating and comparing projects’ learning. Nesta and their learning partner addressed this by using four themes from the existing evidence base on community organising, community development and wellbeing literature that evidenced strong and dynamic communities.

The four themes identified were:

1. communities are making the most of local assets, in particular the skills, passions and energies of local people, and the places and spaces where people can meet and make things happen

2. people and groups are well connected with each other and with those outside their community

3. people have opportunities to influence what happens in their community

4. people have the ability and ambition to drive change

The learning partner analysed the project plans in line with these four themes to construct a framework of ‘change statements’, which were then used to understand the type of change local groups wanted to see in their communities. The framework set out the ‘change statements’ under the four themes, with each statement representing a clearly defined outcome.^{[footnote 128]}

Demonstrating clear and practical targeting criteria in funding applications

Needs analysis helped to ensure funding reached communities where it was needed most. The West London Zone Commissioning Better Outcomes model provides a clear example of design informed by needs analysis. At-risk eligible children were identified through a mix of using data (school attainment, attendance, economic deprivation, parental involvement, children scores on a wellbeing survey) and consultations with school staff. School staff and project stakeholders regarded this as an effective approach to identifying ‘under the radar’ children who might not be identified without the data-driven approach. From a SOP/SIB design perspective this was effective as it minimised the potential for the provider to ‘cherry pick’ the ‘easiest to support’ children.^{[footnote 129]}

In contrast, the Youth Engagement Fund evaluators noted that it was unclear what needs analysis was done at the programme design stage, and relatively loose eligibility criteria was set which enabled projects to determine which young people were referred. DWP had produced a set of provider guidance to support the application process, which stipulated that projects must support the most disadvantaged young people at long term risk of being not in education, employment or training. Despite the guidance, the evaluation noted some cherry picking of participants, to ensure outcomes were achieved (and providers were paid).^{[footnote 130]} The evaluators therefore concluded that eligibility criterion should be clearly defined to ensure the needs of the most disadvantaged are considered when attaching delivery costs to outcomes.^{[footnote 131]}

Stakeholder involvement (including community engagement) to ensure local relevance

Professional stakeholders (from the public and voluntary sectors) were commonly involved in programme design processes. For example, stakeholders that informed the design of Big Local included policymakers, government researchers, and academics. Similarly, the Valleys Taskforce review highlighted “placemaking planning” engagement events, which brought together the Welsh Government and representatives from transport, regeneration, housing and local authorities to collaborate on the development of programme actions.^{[footnote 132]}

Local communities also played a central role in programme design, for example the Big Local programme was designed to be resident-led, meaning community members had direct control over decision-making and resource allocation.^{[footnote 133]} The case study below explores a similar approach in the context of the Communities First programme.

Case study box 7: Community-led programme design

Communities First (Welsh Government)

Communities First focused on deprivation. The 2001 Welsh IMD initially identified the most deprived communities in Wales. In 2012 the targeted areas were reorganised into fifty-two ‘clusters’ which covered larger geographic areas.

The programme was designed to collaborate with local communities by developing multi-agency partnership with representatives from the local community, statutory, private, and voluntary sectors. Community members were involved in identifying needs and designing activities to address local issues, collaborating with service providers to align mainstream services with project activities.^{[footnote 134]}

The community-led ethos of the programme incorporated community engagement into planning and delivery. By empowering the community to collaborate with service providers, the programme created social capital. The level of existing community activity and social capital was identified as a precursor to community engagement, with some areas needing more “preparatory capacity building” to build connections.

Effectively engaging with seldom heard community members was an important issue across the programme. Community engagement best practice techniques included keeping a strong community presence, targeted approaches such as door knocking and community events and using local partner organisations and schools. A survey of forty-five cluster managers and local representatives reported outreach, taster sessions, social media, and community events as effective methods for engaging seldom heard communities. Language needs beyond English and Welsh were identified engagement barriers. Additional language provision was important for areas with high proportions of Polish, Portuguese, and Asian communities.

The community-led approach meant local people decided on the priorities and actions for their area (with overarching, strategic direction). This way, the programme demonstrated a successful bottom-up, place-based programme which devolved ownership to communities and tapped into local knowledge to ensure activities responded to local needs. This involves a shift from traditional top-down models to a collaborative approach.

Similarly, social investment models engaged stakeholders at the design stage. For example, the Commissioning Better Outcomes report noted that once applicants were successful, they were expected to undertake early and extensive research and stakeholder engagement, consult with beneficiaries and potential delivery partners, including the VCSE sector. They were also expected to find support for their SIB from other commissioners, investors, delivery partners and prime contractors.^{[footnote 135]}

Programme design strengths

Successful design features noted in the literature emphasised both the funding criteria and support model as essential considerations at the design stage:

• Longer-term funding models (10 years+) provided some financial stability: This approach enabled communities to develop locally driven, sustainable projects, at least in the medium term. The community-led approach empowered local people to address issues most relevant to them, for instance, giving communities full control over how to spend their funds, allowing them to prioritise local needs.^{[footnote 136]}*
• A combination of universal and targeted interventions: Universal support aims to meet the needs of all individuals within a group, while targeted support focuses on providing additional help to those who need it most. Programmes also suggested designing practical support needs together with the target group, to ensure provision was planned at accessible times and locations.^{[footnote 137]}
• Capital funding: Some place-based interventions included revenue or capital funding, the latter for purchasing or developing fixed assets,^{[footnote 138]} to support programme set-up and delivery.

‘Test and learn’ programmes enabled these considerations to be tested in real time.

TNLCF funded a series of strategic ‘test and learn’ programmes, to explore diverse localised responses to supporting defined target groups, encouraging innovation and moving away from a prescriptive, ‘one size fits all’ programme design.

For example, HeadStart, gave six partnerships grant-funding over five years to trial potential local solutions to address mental health problems among young people, to measure success and respond iteratively and dynamically. The funding was allocated to six local authority led partnerships, bringing together the local authority, young people, schools, families, charities, community and public services to test and learn across diverse contexts. Participating local authorities were selected based on evidence of significant risk factors for mental health problems (e.g., high levels of deprivation and mental ill-health), strong partnerships could be easily established (e.g., between the local authority and the voluntary sector or the NHS). The most important factor in selecting the six areas was the quality of their proposed strategies, including the level of involvement of children and young people in local strategy development.

A Better Start was delivered by five partnerships through a total of £215 million grant funding over 10 years. The funding was allocated based on the specific needs of the five localities. This needs-based approach ensured that resources were directed to areas where they could have the most impact on improving children’s outcomes. The intention was to deliver long-term, place-based systems change to improve service delivery for families and young children. Additionally, the aim was to extrapolate up from local learning to inform national policy and practice in early childhood development

Funding models

This section outlines different funding models used to support place-based approaches, including: grants and social impact bonds; the merits and considerations of each model; and a summary of funding allocation processes used.

Funding types and sources

The most common funding sources for the reviewed programmes were grants, drawn from a combination of central government and National Lottery funding, and often administered by the National Lottery Community Fund. Central government funding included contributions from DCMS, DWP, the Cabinet Office, the ODPM and the MoJ. Although grants remained the most frequent source of funding, there was increased diversification over time, as social investment models gained traction. Other Arm’s Length Bodies involved in providing/managing grant funding included Arts Council England, and programmes were also supported by capacity building investments from foundations and charities, such as Nesta.^{[footnote 139]}

Case study box 8: Increasing access to funding for the voluntary sector

Commissioning Better Outcomes, West London Zone (WLZ) (National Lottery Community Fund and local co-commissioners)

The Commissioning Better Outcomes programme, aimed to support the development of SIBs and other outcomes-based contracting models in England. A key aim was to enable more delivery partners, including VCSEs, to access new forms of finance. Applicants were commissioning (typically public sector) organisations in England, e.g., local authorities, central government, clinical commissioning groups^{[footnote 140]}’.^{[footnote 141]}

As part of the programme, the West London Zone (WLZ now known as AllChild) was funded by four commissioners through outcomes-based payments. Apart from TNCLF, all of the commissioners were local, which was central to the WLZ place-based strategy to achieve long-term change within a targeted area in London. The local commissioners included:

• a local authority, the lead commissioner who paid for the service based on agreed outcomes. For instance, payment was in part based on the number of children completing the service and on evidence of satisfaction with delivery
• initially three schools were co-commissioners, and by the third year of delivery this grew to 18 schools
• private philanthropists paid for the service as a yearly grant, based on evidence of satisfaction by the local authority^{[footnote 142]}

West London Zone received subsequent funding through the Life Chances Fund.

Grant-based funding models

Grant-based funding models offered several advantages, according to the literature. For example, the Big Local programme used a grant model, ensuring that funds were non-repayable and directly available to local communities. Whilst this approach provides immediate resources, an established drawback of grant-funded interventions is that they often close at the end of the funding period. Different types of grant-funding approaches were identified within the large-scale grant programmes reviewed:

• Endowments: These are long-term investments, typically derived from donations, that provide ongoing financial support to a nonprofit organisation or cause. The funds are invested and can generate returns to support the organisation’s operations and mission. For example, the initial funding for Big Local came from TNLCF, which provided a £200 million endowment for the programme^{[footnote 143]}
• Match-funding: TNCLF funded strategic programmes which drew in a wide range of match-funding and resources. In this model the primary fund holders provide their donation with the agreement that it is matched by the applicant organisation, partner agencies or by another sponsor such as a local business. This increases the overall amount provided for the intended cause (adapted from UK community foundations, What is a grant?. Match-funding is sometimes provided in-kind, in the form of staff or volunteer time or other resources, instead of a financial contribution.^{[footnote 144]} For example, the five A Better Start partnerships secured an estimated £29 million in leverage funding or in-kind commitments from partners to support its activities between 2014-2025^{[footnote 145]}
• Micro-grants: These are small funding pots for individuals or groups to support community-based projects or initiatives. The application process is simple to support individuals and small local groups to access small amounts of money to achieve their objectives. The Single Community Programme (SCP) (£183 million) was part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy, funded by the ODPM. SCP provided small grants of up to £5,000 to involve local people in the regeneration of their communities and neighbourhoods. It also aimed to establish and support Community Empowerment Networks to enable community and voluntary sector involvement as equal partners with public service providers in Local Strategic Partnerships. The funding model was designed to give communities influence over the spending decisions of public bodies (such as local authorities, police forces, primary care trusts, and the Learning and Skills council).^{[footnote 146]}

Social investment funding models

Commissioners have more recently explored a range of alternative funding models, particularly social investment models, to see if they offered more sustainability potential. Social Outcomes Partnerships (SOPs, also known as Social Impact Bonds)^{[footnote 147]} as described above (see programme design) are outcome-based contracts that incorporate private funding. For example:

• The Life Chances Fund, a SOP (known as a SIB) managed by TNLCF on behalf of DCMS, is supporting 29 projects until 2025. This £70 million fund contributes to outcome payments for locally commissioned social outcomes contracts, involving socially-minded investors. The Fund aims to support over 60,000 individuals to achieve better life outcomes in health, employment, and housing. The contracts were locally commissioned and aimed to tackle complex social problems.^{[footnote 148]}

Social Outcomes Partnerships reviewed suggested that the model offered a number of design strengths.

• Better performance management: Closer and more regular scrutiny of performance, and/or faster and more decisive action to rectify under-performance. Improvements in data collection and reporting helped to identify target groups and measure progress. Some stakeholders felt these changes had wider application to conventional contracts.^{[footnote 149]}
• Greater flexibility than conventional contracts: The focus on outcomes rather than inputs or activities, gave more freedom to providers to adapt service delivery over time to individual needs or learning to achieve the outcome targets.^{[footnote 150]}
• More effective use of resources: The evidence suggests the SIB mechanism encouraged commissioners to pay for an early intervention service, as they only had to pay when target groups engaged or achieved desired outcomes. Constrained budgets meant they would have struggled to afford the service without this level of assurance.^{[footnote 151]}
• Awareness raising about the potential benefits of alternative funding models: The Life Chances Fund evaluation noted that successful stakeholder engagement (including commissioners, providers and investors) was due to the time taken for open and meaningful conversation to ‘demystify’ SIBs.^{[footnote 152]}

However, a series of design challenges were also noted in relation to the SOP (SIB) approach, including:

• Tension between stakeholders: Tensions arose when providers underestimated their ability to bear financial risks, and request contract renegotiation that transferred risk back to commissioners. Additionally, commissioners were sometimes asked to make larger upfront payments than originally contracted, or to pay more per outcome to compensate for fewer outcomes being achieved.^{[footnote 153]}
• Defining realistic and measurable outcomes: The Life Chances Fund identified challenges including difficulties developing and agreeing appropriate outcome measures, including an inability to reach consensus on what the project was trying to achieve, issues with outcomes which would not be realised for a considerable period, and challenges in establishing outcome frameworks in fields where the existing evidence base is limited. This was particularly the case for applications proposing complex interventions, involving multiple commissioners, where challenges existed around attribution and causality, and who should pay for which outcome. A further challenge was the perceived complexity of, and the resource required to, develop a SIB.^{[footnote 154]}
• Learning for future models: The Youth Engagement Fund evaluation suggested ways to improve future SIBs designs, including ensuring a full implementation period to ensure mechanisms are in place for a project to get off to the best start, using local contributors to embed activity within the local ecosystem, ensuring a strong link between the intervention and the outcomes that payments are attached to.^{[footnote 155]}

Funding allocation processes

Programmes funded by arm’s length bodies, such as the National Lottery generally distributed grant funding based on competitive application processes, which assessed bids against set criteria to ensure funding was awarded across programme aims and priorities and spread across target regions and communities.^{[footnote 156]} Alternatively, the selection process for some programmes was non-competitive, for example, Big Local funding was directly awarded to selected communities, focused on areas with high deprivation, lack of civic assets, and low levels of community engagement.^{[footnote 157]}

• The Commissioning Better Outcomes (CBO) programme had a two-stage application process, consisting of an Expression of Interest (EoI) and, if approved, a full application. Commissioners, providers or intermediaries could submit an EoI, but it was expected that full applications would be from a commissioning organisation (typically a public sector organisation) based in and serving people in England, such as a local authority or clinical commissioning group. Development grants were awarded to successful projects, as set out in the box below

TNLCF made up to £40 million available through CBO, with up to £5 million set aside for development funding to support a ‘test and learn’ philosophy.

All projects, bar one, accessed the CBO Development Grant. For commissioner-led projects, the development funding was reportedly necessary to get the project moving, as commissioners would not have had the resources or the specific skills needed to do the feasibility work in-house.^{[footnote 158]}

• The CBO funding criteria only allowed specific types of SIBs to be funded, including top-ups to create new SIBs (not additional outcomes for existing SIBs). Projects were required to focus on improving outcomes for people most in need, involve VCSE partners, include social investment, and offer new and innovative service delivery. Projects could not replicate or replace services that a public body had a statutory duty to deliver.^{[footnote 159]}

Development grants strengthened programme designs, by providing a ‘proof of concept’ to validate the programme theory and identify implementation issues early. For example, TNLCF provided a £150,000 award to support the development of the West London Zone programme proposal.^{[footnote 160]}TNLCF also managed the Life Chances Fund and allowed successful applicants at the expression of interest stage, to apply for a development grant of up to £30,000, to fund specialist support with the technical aspects of their applications. Development grants were consistently viewed as a key source of support in helping to develop project business cases and financial models. In this instance, stakeholders suggested that the development funding eligible spend criteria should have included buying in externally commissioned support, to free up or backfill staff time required for development work.^{[footnote 161]}

Awareness raising activities supported programme designs by engaging relevant stakeholders. For example, the Life Chance Fund encouraged bids from commissioners, providers and others including social investment intermediaries and consultants. Call outs to potential applicants were supported by active outreach to commissioners and invitations to attend tailored events and webinars developed and delivered by TNLCF and its partners (GO Lab, DCMS and Traverse). Applicants were encouraged and supported to make links with and learn from commissioners and providers with previous experience of developing SIB funded projects, and this was said to support the application process.^{[footnote 162]}

Programme implementation

This section details learning on the strengths and challenges to effective delivery of place-based programmes.

Defining priorities for delivery

Programme reports did not always detail who was involved in defining priorities for delivery. Of those that did, three models of decision making were identified:

• Funder/commissioner-led: The priorities for delivery through social investment models are essentially defined by the funder (see Funding Models section). For example, the Youth Engagement Fund was organised on a ‘rate card’ basis; with fixed payments attached to a range of pre-defined outcomes, such as school-based outcomes (attitude, behaviour and attendance), qualifications (from entry-level to level 3) and employment with training (entry into and sustained employment). One programme objective was to test the extent to which social investment can drive improved outcomes for young people and generate benefit savings, as well as other wider fiscal and social benefits.^{[footnote 163]} However, many SOPs (SIBs) take a black box approach, whereby outcomes are specified but the approach to delivery is not (as that is decided by the provider). Similarly, the priorities for delivery were also funder/commissioner led on the National Lottery Community Fund’s strategic investment programmes, such as A Better Start and HeadStart, with core activities and outcomes set out for each partnership (see: A Better Start, The National Lottery Community fund), although within these parameters, partnerships were expected to innovate to test new ways of addressing need and producing the programme outcomes
• Local stakeholder-led: Some programme’s delivery priorities were set collaboratively by local organisations. For example, Neighbourhood Challenge worked with 17 organisations and partnerships across England to create local change by releasing untapped potential in communities. Each group began from the assumption that their communities already contained existing strengths and potential for change. The organisations used different approaches to mobilise these untapped assets, including running challenge prizes, community organising, social enterprise awards and participatory budgeting parties^{[footnote 164]}
• Community-led: Other programmes empowered communities to set their own delivery priorities. For example, Invest Local provided funding and support for 13 communities across Wales over 10 years. Each community was awarded up to £1 million to invest, and each identified their own priorities, who they would work with and how to use their funding.^{[footnote 165]} (See Case study 4 in the community outcomes section for further details)

Some programmes included a mix of all the above models for defining priorities. For example, in 2018, DCMS worked with 20 partnerships to help create a shared vision and plan setting out how high impact social action could help respond to local needs. Based on the strength and ambition of the plans, 10 were awarded a grant of up to £240,000 over a three-year period to implement their social action plan. The Place Based Social Action (PBSA) Programme aimed to create positive change by enabling people, communities, organisations and the statutory sector to work collaboratively to create a shared vision for the future of their place and address local priorities through social action. The programme was delivered by 10 funded VCSE partnerships.^{[footnote 166]}

Case study box 9: Long-term community control for setting delivery priorities to strengthen communities

The Big Local programme (TNLCF)

Local Trust oversees and administers the Big Local programme through which local community groups design and implement initiatives. Voluntary organisations provide support, training, and guidance to local projects. The programme allocated over £1 million in long-term grants (over 10 to15 years) to 150 local communities. These communities had full control over how to spend their funds, allowing them to prioritise local needs. The programme was based on community consultation and co-production.

Residents were given control over funding decisions, and local insights shaped how the initiative was implemented. This ensured that the interventions were locally relevant and tailored to specific community needs. Local people were heavily involved in the delivery of initiatives, with some forming local steering groups, volunteering, or directly leading projects. Rather than imposing external service providers, the programme trusted communities to design, manage, and implement their own solutions to local issues.^{[footnote 167]}

Scope and type of delivery

The majority of the studies reviewed were focused on creating change for the direct cohort of participants and their immediate locale (which could be a year group in a school, a youth club or organisation or a geographical community). Most studies were also keen to inform systems change where possible (through multi-agency working and/or sharing learning with local and national policy makers). Please refer to the sustainability section for discussion on systems change.

• The evidence suggests that effective community engagement is integral to the success of place-based approaches. Engaging community members at a local level connects people and provides a foundation for collective action. The common identity fostered by a shared sense of place was seen to help mobilise community assets. Community members are incentivised to engage in place-based work because decisions about policy and public services in their local area affect them on a personal level. This experience can be used to improve service delivery by more effectively co-ordinating or ‘joining up’ public services. This approach can improve the economic efficiency of local services, by reducing duplication and focusing on preventative and early intervention measures, informed by local people. Additionally, the outcomes of decisions made at a local level are more visible, making it easier for community members to hold leaders to account. This had the further benefit of community members feeling that they had more of a stake in their local area.^{[footnote 168]}

The types of place-based interventions delivered included actions to mobilise and consult communities, initiatives to improve local, places, buildings and equipment, capacity building of skills and volunteering to support others.

• Local decision-making and policy making: A key aspect of place-based programmes was community members’ core involvement in decision-making processes. Engagement methods included consultation meetings (e.g., public forums and workshops), community panels (where residents helped to shape project decisions), volunteering and participatory activities (residents actively involved in community events and programming). Community groups provided local insight, co-produced initiatives, and engaged residents. For example, the Single Community Programme delivery model facilitated community participation in local policymaking, influencing changes to their local area and services. Community groups received grants to become more involved in improving their neighbourhoods and influence local decision-making. Community Engagement Networks brought together organisations from the VCSE and public sectors to work together as equal partners and input to strategic partnerships. The model increased community participation in local governance and decision-making structures, thereby increasing the accountability of service providers to their communities. The networks also helped to increase social capital by building the confidence and capacity of individuals and small groups, enabling local communities to influence and support service delivery.^{[footnote 169]}
• Improving public spaces and access: Big Local focused on local challenges such as improving public spaces, increasing civic engagement, or enhancing connectivity. Residents were able to make locally relevant decisions, leading to Interventions tailored to the unique characteristics of each locality. The flexibility of the funding enabled projects to focus on local needs. Investment in community spaces (such as village halls or meeting places) played a crucial role in strengthening social networks and creating engagement opportunities.^{[footnote 170]}
• Improving local equipment and capital: For example, Phase 1 of the Youth Investment Fund provided £12 million funding to youth organisations for small-scale capital projects to address urgent or shorter-term demand for equipment and/or capital to enhance youth services, particularly digital infrastructure and smaller-scale refurbishment and renovation work to expand and improve facilities for youth activities in areas of need.^{[footnote 171]}
• Addressing gaps in existing provision: Some interventions tested systems change approaches by using volunteers to plug capacity gaps in current service delivery. For example, the End of Life Social Action Fund supported seven social action projects providing compassionate support to people at the end of their lives and to their families. Volunteers helped to tackle loneliness and isolation by providing companionship and emotional support, as well as practical support to help people reconnect with their own communities. Support included providing transport to community groups, teaching people how to contact distant family members online, and providing advice and signposting. The evaluators found the befriending/good neighbour intervention seemed to improve access to support, helping to maintain quality of life or slow decline (rather than facilitating quality of life improvement).^{[footnote 172]}
• Interventions tailored to improving the accessibility of services/support: A key aspect of place-based models was enhancing provision to reach diverse community members. Activities included providing support in/with community languages and addressing cultural sensitivities, such as cultural food preferences. Adjusting service delivery formats to accommodate participants’ schedules and needs, such as splitting programmes across days also improved engagement. Early Intervention and holistic support, providing clear pathways of support were also found to help individuals navigate services and receive continuous support.^{[footnote 173]} A number of place-based programmes delivered early intervention activities, offering a mix of universal services and targeted support for children and families to support children’s social and health development.^{[footnote 174]}
• Education, training and work programmes focused on target communities: A range of place-based programmes deliver support actions to improve engagement, retention and attainment in education settings and progression into training, work or other positive destinations, including the Youth Engagement Fund and some Commissioning Better Outcomes projects.^{[footnote 175]}

Who delivered programmes

All programmes included a dedicated, paid delivery team to implement activities. Delivery teams were made up of specialist staff, depending on the programme aims and target groups. Teams were supported by community members, volunteers and held to account by funders.

• Dedicated delivery staff played a key role, testing new approaches with a target population. The West London Zone employed and trained Link Workers, to provide direct support to participants and coordinate delivery including early intervention support delivered by local partner organisations in schools.^{[footnote 176]} Dedicated support staff (or volunteers) in keyworker, co-ordinator or peer-support roles were also integral to many delivery models.^{[footnote 177]} For example, community facilitators supported local people to engage in decision-making and volunteering opportunities. Stakeholders reported benefits of capacity building in volunteers, as this had significant benefits in extending the reach of the programme and building rapport with service users. Additionally, evaluators noted that providing local autonomy over decision-making helped to build trust and ownership, leading to people being more willing to engage.^{[footnote 178]} Community-led organisations delivered grassroots programmes and enabled local participation. Community ownership was a key feature, with local people playing active roles in decision-making and event execution. Community trust and engagement was strengthened by working within existing networks and fostered stronger public participation. For example, the Skyline review noted that community meetings provided an effective forum for discussing community projects and sharing a long-term plan for a community steward. Community-led stewardship recognises the central role of local people working with local agencies to manage local assets in order to meet needs and strengthen communities
• Community members played a central role in decision-making and delivery in many place-based interventions. For example, the Big Local evaluation team noted that although the Local Trust was the primary organisation responsible for overseeing implementation, a range of stakeholders including local voluntary organisations, local authorities, and regional partners provided logistical support and expertise, with the programme designed to be resident-led, meaning that local people had full control over how funds were used, ensuring alignment with their specific needs and priorities.^{[footnote 179]} Multi-agency partnerships were therefore an important foundation for establishing community-led approaches
• Place-based delivery models were held to account by their funders. Place-based SOPs (SIBs) such as the Youth Engagement Fund ^{[footnote 180]} and the Life Chances Fund projects were led by local commissioners and/or by providers in partnership. This approach demonstrated positive progress towards the objective of increasing the amount of capital available to VCSE sector providers.^{[footnote 181]} Similarly, the TNLCF’s strategic investment programmes such as A Better Start and HeadStart were large-scale partnerships between the statutory and voluntary sectors and co-designed with people with lived experience of the issues being addressed (see: A Better Start – 5 year learning). Whilst the partnerships were held to account by their funders, the programmes were based on collaboration and allowing local flexibilities to test new ways of addressing community needs

Common implementation strengths

Overarching implementation strengths identified in the literature, included:

• Providing funds directly to the voluntary sector built the confidence of local groups to work towards community outcomes. The Single Community Programme report noted that community groups valued the independence they gained by having access to funds that had not been received through local public sector organisations. This enabled them to express views robustly in the knowledge that it would not compromise their funding. Participants considered the grant application process to be straightforward. Grants reached small community groups that had not previously received public funding. The straightforward application process reduced bureaucracy and enabled the voluntary sector to access funds directly. Furthermore, linking the grants to community networks helped to develop neighbourhood priorities and increased community awareness about the contribution their activities made towards strengthening their community.^{[footnote 182]} This approach ensured communities considered their intended community outcomes and how they would be measured at the programme design stage.
• Implementation worked best when predicated on strong stakeholder relationships, as was consistently noted in evaluations of partnership programmes. For example, the HeadStart evaluation noted that the relationship between the programme team and schools was central to successful implementation. Strong partnerships supported work towards a range of positive outcomes, including enhancing schools’ ethos, priorities, policies and curriculum for supporting young people’s mental health and wellbeing. The evaluators also noted that partnership working contributed towards strengthening staff skills and young people’s resilience, confidence and wellbeing.^{[footnote 183]} A key feature of successful partnership implementation was community leadership and flexibility. Evaluators noted the lack of top-down management allowing services to innovate and make positive changes, with professionals trusted to use funding flexibly.^{[footnote 184]}
• Peer support roles were noted by some studies to engage and support participants more holistically. For example, A Better Start cited peers providing communication and language support which engaged families and supported intervention decisions.^{[footnote 185]} Fair Share Trust noted that many of their funded organisations included peer support. Crucially, peer support had often been formalised through volunteering or mentoring programmes; Examples included young people taking on leadership roles and becoming involved in running projects and activities and participating in youth panels, with some becoming role models for younger participants and ambassadors to their peers and the wider community.^{[footnote 186]} Relatedly, the Youth Engagement Fund noted young people were effectively engaged through the quality of the coaching and mentoring support, coupled with complementary programmes that young people could be signposted into to tackle specific issues.^{[footnote 187]}

Common implementation challenges

Overarching implementation challenges identified in the literature included:

• Strategic partners from local authorities and wider organisations struggled to balance involvement in programmes with other commitments, and some projects found it difficult to secure buy-in from senior policymakers. For instance, the HeadStart evaluation highlighted the burden of large-scale investments on school staff time and capacity, with suggested solutions including rolling out activities in select areas rather than across the whole region.^{[footnote 188]} Capacity issues in the wider system were noted across statutory service workforces. For example, A Better Start noted challenges around recruiting and retaining staff, particularly in specialised roles. Temporary contracts and uncertain future funding made recruitment difficult.^{[footnote 189]}
• Local contextual factors adversely affected implementation; a lack of community infrastructure in some areas, made it difficult to implement projects effectively and sustain activities.^{[footnote 190] [footnote 191]} In some cases, this led to long travel times and difficulty maintaining connections with service delivery teams and external partners, as temporary spaces had to be used.^{[footnote 192]} One solution was to ensure that programme designs did not rely on local services that may not be there in the future.^{[footnote 193]}*
• The evidence suggests communities disengaged when they felt decisions were externally imposed. Top-down approaches where external agencies dictated project priorities tended to be less successful than genuinely community-led initiatives.^{[footnote 194]}
• Short-term interventions were less likely to achieve a legacy. Without ongoing support, projects risked becoming unsustainable. Short-term interventions were less effective in communities that lacked existing engagement structures, as extra effort was required to build trust and capacity before people felt empowered to take action.^{[footnote 195]}

Programme sustainability

Very little evidence is available on programme sustainability after programme funding had ended. The available evidence mainly related to sustainability planning or short-term sustainability.

Funding considerations

Building sustainability into the programme through long-term (10 to 15 year) funding supported communities to develop lasting infrastructure and leadership capacity. The Big Local programme reported some success in communities becoming more self-sufficient by the end of the funding period, with stronger social networks and increased local investment.^{[footnote 196]} Furthermore, promoting community ownership of the programme locally, provided a potential pathway to achieving a long-term legacy and sustainability (see: Big Local: Reflections from ‘the Outside In’ (Paper Three)).

The SOP (SIB) mechanism has been viewed as a potentially more sustainable model. This was in the context of shrinking local authority budgets and the ‘need to do more with less’. For one of the Life Chances Fund projects the sustainability potential had provided the stimulus to design a project from scratch around SIB principles while others were looking for more sustainable funding to grow existing work or fill gaps in provision.^{[footnote 197]} Conversely, the Commissioning Better Outcomes evaluators found that the sustainability of the SIB model was less likely without top-up funding. There is growing evidence that top-up funds are relied on to ensure the financial viability of SIBs. This is set against a backdrop of broader questions of whether SIBs are viable for local commissioners without such funding.^{[footnote 198]} In particular, maintaining the blend of public and private money in the mechanism, whilst minimising the financial demand on the public sector contributors, was important to implement a longer-term sustainable solution for early intervention.^{[footnote 199]}

Aligning programmes to complement and integrate into local systems

The evidence indicated that aligning plans to complement the local system strengthened sustainability potential. For example, strengthening partnerships between communities, local authorities, and private sector stakeholders ensured continued support for some activities.^{[footnote 200]} HeadStart partnerships stated that integrating with local services and fitting within the existing systems as far as possible were crucial to sustainability, as was developing key relationships and getting buy-in at a senior level (especially in schools).^{[footnote 201]}

West London Zone stakeholders implemented expansion plans set out during the initial SIB development. They expanded delivery to another area (Wigan) to ensure the sustainability of provision beyond the Commissioning Better Outcomes (CBO) and Life Chances Fund (LCF) contracts. The evaluator noted there was a solid plan for sustaining the model beyond the top-up funding from CBO with a commitment from partners to remain involved with a specified amount of capital ring-fenced for the project.^{[footnote 202]}

Build capacity to address gaps

Some of the literature identified sustainability potential in capacity building approaches, designed to embed change in the system. For example, investing in local skills development helped to maintain and strengthen community assets.^{[footnote 203]} The A Better Start evaluation, noted that management had developed a workforce development plan to ensure staff acquired transferable skills and knowledge that they could take back into the workforce as a legacy of the programme. Workforce collaboration and ways of working developed through the programme were also expected to continue within existing services. The model and interactions developed were seen as sustainable practices.^{[footnote 204]} One SIB investor provided capacity building support to service providers by providing advice and workshops on growth and sustainability.^{[footnote 205]}

Some communities had successfully built capacity to sustain projects beyond the initial funding period, for example through strengthened local leadership, building stronger community networks and creating new civic space. Evaluators noted these assets were expected to continue providing benefits long after the funding ended. Indeed, community leadership models developed through the Big Local programme were sustained in some areas. For example, some communities established permanent social hubs, initiated self-sustaining social enterprises, or built lasting partnerships with local organisations to continue service delivery.^{[footnote 206]} Neighbourhood Challenge also noted that embedding community ownership was essential for initiatives to be sustained, in that local groups needed to evolve to draw on their own resources in the longer-term and become catalysts of locally-led change.^{[footnote 207]}

Embedding change through training and resources

Local capacity was also strengthened by providing resources, and upskilling workforces and beneficiaries. Examples include:

• sharing resources developed during the programme, for people to continue to use over time^{[footnote 208]}
• supporting training through skills development or training events^{[footnote 209]}
• ‘train the trainers’ models could support longer-term workforce development. For example, in HeadStart, staff built capacity of school leaders, who then cascaded and embedded learning across the school staff and systems^{[footnote 210]}
• a Better Start training for parents/carers, from infant feeding to healthy food provision, facilitated by strong links with public health teams. Parents were expected to continue activities with their next child and share information with others. Staff training in various interventions expanded service offerings, including cognitive analytical therapy and baby massage.^{[footnote 211]}

Systems level change

Multiple programmes aimed to bring about longer-term local systems change, through changes in how local organisations and stakeholders worked together. Examples of this include:

• The Fair Share Trust evaluation noted that sustainability was achieved within communities by focusing on capacity building and social capital, which strengthened local skills, abilities, confidence, networks and structures.^{[footnote 212]} Sustainability was most evident in terms of workforce, organisational or individual transformation achieved through training and upskilling staff and beneficiaries across intervention sites, such as schools, mental health services and community organisations. Aspects of the HeadStart programme had also been embedded within existing local agendas, or because local organisations were planning to maintain delivery beyond the funding period. Sustainability had also been achieved by HeadStart creating lasting changes to the curriculum or to school policies. Key learning, tools and resources from HeadStart could continue to be used by schools.^{[footnote 213]}
• The Big Local programme encouraged communities to form partnerships with local businesses, charities, and government bodies to extend their impact beyond the initial funding.^{[footnote 214]} Another study noted that improved ‘joined up’ working between organisations, services and individuals would continue, enabling them to share learning and information more easily. Collaborative working would continue, following a shift to a shared or embedded language, understanding or approach, for example by taking ‘whole city’ approaches to mental health and wellbeing.^{[footnote 215]}
• There was also some evidence of sustained change, through influencing local and national policy and practice, for example, by improving commissioners’ knowledge of early intervention and prevention. An increased emphasis on co-production in policymaking and commissioning was also attributed to programmes. Some SOPs (SIBs) secured follow-on funding. For example, West London Zone (WLZ, part of the Commissioning Better Outcomes programme) secured further funding for a second SIB from the Life Chances Fund. The project had expanded significantly in its first three years. By the time of the evaluation, the WLZ was commissioned by two local authorities, the service was operational in 18 schools, and they commissioned 32 partners and linked with a similar number.^{[footnote 216]}
• The Life Chances Fund noted effective stakeholder engagement was a key challenge to sustainability for both providers and commissioners.^{[footnote 217]} The Kirklees Better Outcomes Partnership (KBOP) effectively developed cross-sector networks and partnerships to transform local services and support systems change. This was achieved by the KBOP leadership acting as an ‘ecosystem orchestrator’, an organisation that takes the lead in identifying joint goals and coordinating action with a diverse range of actors.^{[footnote 218]} The pandemic accelerated KBOP’s role as a local ecosystem orchestrator, as it was the first local service to set up a support helpline in the early stage of the pandemic. The helpline raised awareness locally about the KBOP partnership, which became the first point of contact for individual users, referral agencies and wider community organisations. This enabled KBOP, in turn, to build knowledge of local services and provide ‘systems strengthening’, by aligning KBOP’s strategy with local and regional policies. This investment was a business decision to strengthen partner relationships further, to support the development of future projects, for example through collective bids for future funding, which were improved through the strengthened relationships between local organisations.

Making a case for sustainability

Building a case for sustainability funding and delivery was important. This could be facilitated by:

• Ensuring support from key leadership figures:** Local council and political leaders’ buy-in was seen as crucial for sustaining services.^{[footnote 219]} Programme sustainability was also helped by embedding learning in future planning documents such as national policy, local economic plans,^{[footnote 220]} and encouraging joint commissioning with local authorities
• embedding change in mainstream delivery: Statutory services and partners maintaining services and identifying different funding streams after the end of the grant funding^{[footnote 221]}
• evidencing need through demonstrable impact: The impact of services and data collected on outcomes were considered key to securing future funding. Some ‘A Better Start’ partnerships were creating a ‘commissioning pack’ to evidence the impact of services, which could be used to secure funding from other sources^{[footnote 222]}

However, sustainability might be hindered by:

• Dependence on project funding without long-term financial models: The evaluations of some grant-funded models noted economic pressures made some community activities a lower priority for further investment. Similar challenges were noted in the reviews of SOPs (SIBs). For example, only small pockets of the Youth Engagement Fund provision were sustained (through schools funding its continuation in their school), and the full programme was not funded again. The evaluators noted that longer-term funding would be needed to evidence longer-term outcomes, such as sustained employment. For example, projects believed that if they had longer to claim outcomes, more young people would have moved into a post-16 destination.^{[footnote 223]}
• Austerity measures and reductions in local government funding: Communities might be forced to take on responsibilities that were previously covered by public services. Research suggests that left-behind areas have suffered disproportionately. Despite their higher levels of need, average funding per head for local government services in these areas is lower than the average. Ensuring that communities had access to alternative funding sources and institutional support was critical to longer-term success, beyond the core programme funding period.^{[footnote 224]}
• Loss of dedicated delivery staff: Local programme stakeholders were concerned about funding periods coming to an end, and the loss of services and staff to deliver services they came to rely on. For instance, school staff highlighted concern about the HeadStart funding period ending. They did not want targeted interventions for young people and support from the HeadStart staff teams to be withdrawn. Schools stated they would struggle with capacity without dedicated resources. They intended to deliver a ‘HeadStart-lite model’ after the end of the funding period.^{[footnote 225]}
• Lack of programme impacts: Services that could not provide concrete impact data were less likely to be recommissioned. While case studies were used to illustrate impacts, they were not as persuasive as quantitative data.** Difficulty in presenting data on impacts hindered the ability to secure future funding.^{[footnote 226]}
• Expensive services: Despite evidence of positive impacts, the cost of activities relative to the number of beneficiaries reached was a significant consideration. For example, in A Better Start, one-to-one breastfeeding interventions were less cost-effective compared to other NHS projects.** However, some respondents believed that expensive services could prevent future medical interventions, making them economical in the long term.^{[footnote 227]}
• Reliance on voluntary participation: If key community leaders moved away or disengaged, without a clear replacement, projects could struggle to continue their momentum.^{[footnote 228]}

Monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

This section outlines learning from the monitoring and evaluation designs of place-based programmes. The review found few studies reached Nesta’s Standards of Evidence^{[footnote 229]} level 3, that is, providing a counterfactual or comparison group, which made it difficult to evidence programme impact relative to similar communities that did not receive funding. The section also provides wider considerations on the strengths and weaknesses of monitoring and evaluation approaches identified in the place-based literature.

Strengths of evaluation designs

A key feature of robust evaluation design was preparatory work to provide a solid foundation for the evaluation. Two types of preparatory work include scoping activities and feasibility studies:

• Scoping activities: A preliminary research stage enabled evaluators to assimilate a clear understanding of the programme aims and key features, to inform their approach to evaluation design. For example, the scoping stage for the Life Chances Fund was used to refine the evaluation design and included the creation of a programme ToC. The evaluation used a range of evidence including administrative project-level data, interviews with successful and unsuccessful applicants and strategic programme stakeholders as well as case study fieldwork.^{[footnote 230]}
• Feasibility studies: A minority of studies included a feasibility study to inform the main evaluation design, For example, the Youth Engagement Fund evaluation tested options for the impact evaluation. This included consultations with government departments, the funded projects and young people, and ToC workshops.^{[footnote 231]} Similarly, the Youth Investment Fund feasibility study for Phase 2 of the programme evaluation reviewed the programme’s ToC and collaborated with the client to hone in on key outcomes of interest for a counterfactual impact evaluation. The selected outcomes were attributable to the fund and likely to be evident within the evaluation timescales. The evaluators recommended constructing a comparison group and using matching techniques and a difference-in-differences analysis** to reduce systematic differences between the treatment and comparison groups.^{[footnote 232]}

Studies noted the importance of counterfactual evidence/comparisons with areas that did not receive funding in helping to assess outcomes and evidence impact. For example, HeadStart included three summative impact evaluations (randomised controlled trials) of specific interventions.^{[footnote 233]} However, most commonly studies noted the complexities and impracticalities, which meant it had not been possible to provide a counterfactual impact evaluation.

The majority of the evidence base therefore consists of process and outcomes evaluations which used mixed methods to triangulate evidence from different sources. This included, for example, quantitative analysis of monitoring information, postcode analysis, survey data, and qualitative case studies based on focus groups and interviews with a range of stakeholders.^{[footnote 234]} Data collection was commonly followed by constructing a rigorous analytical framework to assess the data.^{[footnote 235]} Where possible, large-scale evaluations used validated scales or questionnaires to compare/baseline programme results with national data. For example, HeadStart measured young people’s wellbeing and mental health outcomes and matched the results to national data.^{[footnote 236]} The Single Community Programme used National Audit Office approved methodology, and included including a literature review, surveys, interviews, and case studies.^{[footnote 237]}

Case study box 10: Monitoring and evaluating place-based community outcomes

Invest Local (TNLCF)

Invest Local’s Theory of Change set out how the programme was expected to work and generate change.^{[footnote 238]} The evaluation used Realistic Evaluation, a theory-based approach, to understand and identify the difference that Invest Local made to funded communities. The approach involved measuring outcomes (what changed) and then identifying the extent to which these outcomes were attributable to (or caused by) Invest Local. This was achieved by exploring the relationship between the programme context, programme activities and mechanisms, and the outcomes (what changed for individuals and communities, such as increases in consciousness, confidence and capacity, enabling people to act and bring about change, and changes in people’s and in communities’ wellbeing and resilience).

A mix of qualitative and quantitative data were analysed for the evaluation. This included a review of programme documents and minutes of steering group meetings; interviews and discussions with steering group members, paid staff including Invest Local Officers (ILOs) community fundholders and site visits to observe and discuss the context and change in each community. The 13 Invest Local areas were made up of 37 Lower Super Output Areas (LSOAs). Data on 35 of these LSOAs was combined to create an average score for the Invest Local programme areas. Data was compared to matched, non-funded LSOAs; a (non-equivalent) comparison group. To explore whether changes in the funded communities were unusual or atypical, data from Invest Local areas was compared with national or local authority trends and two sets of 35 LSOA areas (70 in total).

The evaluation was complicated by the effects of the pandemic on mental health and wellbeing. The evaluator notes that as the data suggests that on most measures trends in Invest Local communities mirrored national trends. This demonstrates the complexity of measuring community outcomes, which cannot be isolated from wider contextual factors which affect residents’ experience of community life.

Longitudinal research

Longitudinal research allowed evaluators to explore changes in places over time. However, as noted above, this type of research is expensive, time consuming and complex. The National Lottery Community Fund has attempted to improve the longitudinal research evidence base, by commissioning medium-term evaluations of its strategic interventions. For example, A Better Start interviewed families over a four-year period, capturing changes and developments in family experiences and practices over time.^{[footnote 239]} Similarly, the HeadStart programme conducted semi structured interviews with the same cohort of young people once per year over five years.^{[footnote 240]} Longitudinal research supported inclusive participation ensuring that outcomes were explored through participants’ experiences to gain holistic feedback.^{[footnote 241]} The sources reviewed provide limited reflections on longitudinal research as an evaluation method. This suggests a gap in the evidence base; it may be useful to include a requirement for evaluators to provide a technical annex reflecting on the research methodology itself.

Case study box 11: Learning what works and what does not across large-scale programmes

HeadStart programme (TNLCF)

Studies of individual interventions indicated some effective interventions delivered through HeadStart, and some that were less effective. Full attendance to interventions by young people and engagement were crucial to the success of programmes.

The evaluation reported a reduction in rates of exclusion in HeadStart schools in 2016/17, compared to schools in other areas of the country. The evaluators estimated that HeadStart prevented 800 students from a school exclusion in 2016/17. While the findings showed a decrease in exclusion rates, it cannot tell us about the reasons for the decline. HeadStart could not identify a statistically significant overall impact of either the targeted or universal support on young people’s mental health and wellbeing. It did not find any evidence of positive impact on young people’s school attendance or attainment.^{[footnote 242]}

Limitations of evaluation designs

Lacking programme monitoring information, including baseline data, and inconsistent outcomes data collection approaches limited evaluations. Many projects lacked baseline engagement data to measure change against. Studies noted challenges in collecting accurate intervention data, including inconsistent approaches to data collection by different teams, and insufficient capacity to provide data to evaluators. Even where evaluation teams created a common outcomes framework there were variations in data quality.^{[footnote 243]}

Gaps in the evidence base

Much of the evidence consisted of interim reports, and focused on process learning, as it was too early to measure outcomes. Interim reports provided rich insights into implementation. Some reports relied on secondary evidence, for example, interrogating programme monitoring data. Whilst this analysis is sometimes sense-checked with experts,^{[footnote 244]} it may lack community nuances that could be gained from primary research with community groups.

As noted above, many studies lacked a counterfactual or comparison group, making it difficult to evidence impact relative to similar communities that did not receive funding.^{[footnote 245]} For example, the Commissioning Better Outcomes evaluation noted a key limitation was the lack of a comparator group, as it was difficult to assess the utility of SIBs without comparing it to an alternative commissioning mechanism or conventional contract that addressed a similar cohort. Without such a rigorous measure, it remained difficult to prove whether SIBs improve outcome performance significantly.^{[footnote 246]} The West London Zone evaluators noted that the ambition to provide personalised support to a student cohort with an array of outcome goals, made it challenging to assess impact. This affected the potential to robustly evaluate the longer-term service outcomes and determine what may have happened without the intervention.^{[footnote 247]}

The lack of long-term evidence meant socio-economic impacts (e.g., employment, health improvements) were harder to measure. Even when long-term funding was provided, the sustainability of outcomes was largely unknown.^{[footnote 248]} Where longitudinal research was possible, attrition was a concern (i.e., drop out of organisations and individuals). Reliance on self-report data was also an issue, for example, the HeadStart evaluation noted young people did not always recall the details of their involvement in interventions or see them as distinct from other support, making it difficult to attribute impact.^{[footnote 249]}

Recommendations for policy and furthering the evidence base

This final section brings together overall recommendations from review Strands 1 and 2 for future policy and evaluation of community programmes. These recommendations apply across the DCMS sectors.

Policy recommendations

Based on the literature the three priority policy recommendations are:

Policy recommendation 1: creating the conditions for stronger communities requires long-term investment.

The literature consistently points to the value of building on existing good practice and community assets and the need for longer-term investment. Allowing time for relationship-building is essential. It can take years to secure local buy-in, build trust, and create sustainable community-led networks. The current evidence base demonstrates what communities can achieve when they are empowered to develop their social capital, skills and confidence to drive local change, but more needs to be done to embed and sustain change. 

Policy recommendation 2: leverage multi-sector partnerships.

The current evidence base clearly demonstrates the value of multi-agency working across sectors. The positive effects of programme application criteria which (over the past 25 years) have evolved to emphasise collaboration rather than competition is clear. More recent developments to diversify partnerships through social investment models show benefits in terms of programme design and implementation, but their impact is less clear. Creating funding models/conditions that encourage more businesses (private and social investors, philanthropists) to make long-term commitments to communities could boost community-led change.  

Policy recommendation 3: upskilling community leaders to strengthen the financial sustainability potential of community models.

Many local community members have the abilities needed to lead community investments in the longer-term. Project funding could be provided to upskill community organisations to develop revenue models, attract and manage alternative funding streams beyond grant funding. This would strengthen the VCSE sector directly and support wider systems change, enabling more VCSE organisations to take on roles previously delivered by the public sector. Whilst the evidence shows the vital contribution of VCSEs and volunteers, it is clear that in the past, the VCSE sector has been under-funded and under-resourced in terms of paid staff. There is an opportunity to invest in community leadership development alongside social investment and other innovative investment models, to strengthen core management and business functions within the VCSE sector, and to develop and retain local community assets.  

Monitoring and evaluation recommendations

Based on the literature the three priority monitoring and evaluation recommendations are:

Research recommendation 1:

Strengthen evaluation specifications (with appropriate funding) to assess feasible evaluation process, impact, economic designs and improve programme and outcome data collection.

The current evidence base reports a number of challenges with data collection, including a lack of baseline data. There is an opportunity to improve evidence on pre-intervention cohorts and engagement metrics for better comparison. Related to this is designing methodologies that encourage the use of standardised measurement tools to track participation, community outcomes and impact, and using national data sets to improve impact evaluations. Linked to this, the review findings suggest there is an opportunity to ensure economic evaluation design is fit-for-purpose. The current evidence base notes challenges around some delivery providers lacking the granularity of economic data and/or time, skills and capacity to collect robust financial data for analysis. This highlights the importance of testing and piloting programme and outcome data collection tools and approaches before implementing evaluation designs. 

The commissioning of feasibility studies to assess impact and economic evaluation design options, including appropriate comparison groups, would better maximise the strength of evidence captured. Furthermore, DCMS may wish to develop an outcome measures toolkit that includes DCMS approved definitions of each community outcome, alongside recommended validated outcome measures for each. As shown in the table below, these could be drawn from existing high-quality national surveys to provide robust measures with national benchmarks, for example, the Community Life Survey, Active Lives Survey, ONS recommended loneliness measures (see: Measuring loneliness: guidance for use of the national indicators on surveys), ONS4 personal wellbeing guide measures. This could enable consistent data capture across programmes, to support future meta evaluation of programmes.

Table 10. Suggested options for measuring community outcomes

DCMS community outcome of interest	Measurement options for future programmes and evaluations
A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood	- Community Life Survey - Sense of belonging questions, specifically: Your community; Your local area, Attitudes to local area
Social capital	- Community Life Survey - Combination of measures including: Contact with friends and family, Your community; Local facilities
Civic participation	- Community Life Survey - Civic engagement and social action questions, specifically: Local politics and affairs; Activities in your local community
Volunteering	- Community Life Survey - question on Volunteering, Unpaid help to other people
Loneliness	- ONS recommended loneliness measures - Community Life Survey - Loneliness and support networks questions, specifically Contact with friends and family, Wellbeing
An ability in influence/make decisions locally	- Community Life Survey - Civic engagement and social action questions, specifically, Local area involvement
Accessible cultural and sporting amenities	- Active Lives Survey - Community Life Survey - Civic engagement and social action questions, specifically: Local facilities, Local arts and culture, Local heritage and sports
A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations	- Community Life Survey – Local facilities questions
Overcoming integration challenges along race, faith or socioeconomic lines in communities	- Programme monitoring information – collection of participant demographic information, aligned to ONS Census 2021 questions for example, ethnicity, religion, employment status
Ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities	- No single measure available. Combination of measures could be used, for example: - Analysis of area level deprivation e.g., Index of Multiple Deprivation - Programme monitoring information (e.g., participation, participant demographic data - employment status)- Wellbeing measures, e.g., ONS4

Research recommendation 2

Invest in longitudinal studies to measure and explore change over time, beyond the core funding window.

Although the evidence base provides some examples of longer-term project funding, there remains clear evidence gaps around understanding impacts and achieving and sustaining change beyond the core programme and evaluation funding period. Evaluation designs need to be strengthened by encouraging more follow-up after 3, 5 or 10 years to assess sustained impact. This would require creative thinking about how best to meaningfully and appropriately track change for individuals, organisations and communities over time. Particular challenges have emerged recently around evaluating Social Impact Bond models due to their complex designs and involvement of multiple partners. This has led to corresponding challenges for impact evaluation design in the short and longer-term.  

Research recommendation 3

Learning activities and papers can provide valuable insights that are not captured through formal evaluations.

The evidence base demonstrates the complementary nature of generating real-time learning for programme delivery teams alongside robust process, outcomes and impact evaluations. Commissioners should consider how these two methodologies can be developed further to provide evidence at different time points and for different purposes.  

Appendix 1: technical method

Detailed research questions

Table 11. Strand 1, what works: research questions

Theme	Question
Description/overview	What are the key DCMS policies/ interventions reviewed?
Programme design	What were the common design strengths and challenges? Was the design informed by: -A needs analysis? - The evidence-base? - Community consultations / co-production? For programmes with successive funding rounds – has past learning informed ongoing funding decisions and designs?
Programme implementation	What were the common implementation strengths? What were the common implementation challenges? Were there variations by different localities, demographics or strands of work?
Engaging communities	What works to engage and strengthen all communities, and those most in need? What does not work?
Programme sustainability	What helped programme sustainability, beyond the funding period? What hindered sustainability?
Outcomes	What outcomes were achieved? And for whom? What outcomes were sustained? And for whom?
Evaluation / strength of evidence	What were the evaluation strengths? What were the evaluation limitations and gaps? What outcomes were measured? How were they measured? Were the desired outcomes achieved? Were there any unintended outcomes?
Learning for future	What are the lessons learnt for future policy development to strengthen communities? What are the lessons learnt for future evaluation and measuring outcomes?

Table 12. Strand 2 , place-based interventions: research questions

Theme	Question
Description/overview	What are the key place-based interventions reviewed? How have programmes been funded? - What was the funding allocation criteria (e.g., need, competition)? - What was the source of funding (e.g., government or non-government)? - What type of funding model was used (e.g., grant, social investment, blended finance)?
Programme design	What typologies of intervention and delivery exist? How have programmes defined the geographical scale of support? What were their approaches to identifying target localities? Was the design informed by: - Which stakeholders were involved? - A needs analysis? - The evidence-base? - Community consultations / co-production? What are the different approaches to design and delivery?
Programme implementation	What were the common implementation strengths? What were the common implementation challenges? Were there variations by different place-based models, localities, demographics or strands of work?
Engaging communities	What works to engage and strengthen all communities, and those most in need? What does not work?
Programme sustainability	What helped programme sustainability, beyond the funding period? What hindered sustainability?
Outcomes	How effective were different place-based models in contributing to strengthening communities? What outcomes were achieved? And for whom? What outcomes were sustained? And for whom?
Evaluation/strength of evidence	What were the evaluation strengths? What were the evaluation limitations and gaps? What outcomes were measured? How were they measured? Were the desired outcomes achieved? Were there any unintended outcomes?
Learning for future	What are the lessons learnt for future design and implementation of place-based interventions? What are the lessons learnt for future evaluation and measuring outcomes?

Detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table 13. Strand 1, what works: inclusion and exclusion criteria

Theme	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Date	Literature published since 1999	Literature pre-1999
Language	English	Other languages
Subject	Literature on DCMS’s in-person community policy interventions Hybrid (in-person/offline and online) interventions should only be included if the online/remote element is an enabler to an in-person community intervention Discusses community outcomes of interest (see Table 1) Programme/intervention fully or jointly funded by DCMS	Literature on non-DCMS programmes/interventions Literature not directly related to policy areas or target cohort; e.g., housing /high street regeneration, transport, energy infrastructure, digital-Programme/intervention NOT fully or jointly funded by DCMS
Sectors	All 6 DCMS sectors	Housing /high street regeneration, transport, energy infrastructure, digital
Quality	Priority given to high-quality research and evaluations (e.g., formative, process, impact, economic, feasibility studies).  Academic and grey literature	Policy/ strategy documents Literature without a clear evidence base-Expert opinions-Books and publications of equivalent length, in the interest of time and resource
Country	UK Evidence	Outside of UK

Table 14. Strand 2 , place-based interventions: inclusion and exclusion criteria

Theme	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Date	Literature published since 1999	Literature pre-1999
Language	English	Other languages
Subject	Literature on in-person place-based community interventions related to supporting stronger communities and local civil society-Hybrid (in-person/offline and online) interventions should only be included if the online/remote element is an enabler to an in-person community intervention-Discusses community outcomes of interest (see Table 1) Funded and delivered by DCMS and OR the wider civil society, ALBs and VCSE sector	Literature on national initiatives, where place-based learning emerges Literature not directly related to policy areas or target cohort; e.g., housing /high street regeneration, transport, energy infrastructure, digital
Sectors	Civil Society and Youth Sector	Housing /high street regeneration, transport, energy infrastructure, digital
Quality	Priority given to high-quality research and evaluations (e.g., formative, process, impact, economic, feasibility studies).  Academic and grey literature	Policy/ strategy documents Literature without a clear evidence base Expert opinions Books and publications of equivalent length, in the interest of time and resource
Country	UK evidence (discretion to include literature with UK evidence alongside comparisons to other countries)	Outside of UK exclusively

Detailed quality scoring criteria

Table 15. Strand 1, what works: quality assessment criteria

Quality Assessment Score	Weaker (score: 1)	Medium (score: 2)	Stronger (score: 3)
Relevance to research questions (RQ)	Literature does NOT contain information relevant to any of the RQs.	Literature contains information relevant to some but not all of the RQs. Focus on programme design and/or implementation No focus on impact or outcomes of interest Literature is about programme specific to COVID-19 emergency response	Literature contains information relevant to all/most of the RQs. Focus on programme design/ implementation Focus on impact or outcomes of interest
Level of rigour for publication/ evidence	Literature is: -Strategy document - Programme plan-Anecdotal evidence - Opinion piece - Evaluation protocol or Feasibility study	Literature is: - Annual/internal/formative report-Self or internal evaluation (not independent evaluation) - Process evaluation only - Perceived impacts only (qualitative not QED/RCT)	Literature is: - Independent evaluation-Summative impact evaluation using QED, RCT-Summative impact evaluation using robust theory-based method - Impact evaluation includes one or more outcome of interest (see Table 1) - Summative economic evaluation using vfm, CBA, CEA
Publication date	Post 1999, but pre-1999 policy	1999-2019-2020-2022 and specific to COVID-19 emergency response	Post 2020, and not specific to COVID-19 emergency response

Table 16. Strand 2 , place-based interventions: quality assessment criteria

Quality Assessment Score	Weaker (score: 1)	Medium (score: 2)	Stronger (score: 3)
**Relevance to research questions (RQ)	Literature is NOT focused on place-based programmes – NOT targeted in LA, region, interest group or community group Literature does NOT contain information relevant to any of the RQs	Literature is focused on place-based intervention Literature contains information relevant to some but not all of the RQs. Focus on programme design and/or implementation No focus on impact or outcomes of interest-Literature is about programme specific to COVID-19 emergency response	Literature is focused on place-based intervention Literature contains information relevant to all/most of the RQs Focus on programme design/ implementation Focus on impact or outcomes of interest
Level of rigour for publication/ evidence	Literature is: - Strategy document - Programme plan - Anecdotal evidence-Opinion piece - Evaluation protocol or Feasibility study	Literature is: - Annual/internal/formative report - Self or internal evaluation (not independent evaluation) - Process evaluation only - Perceived impacts only (qualitative not QED/RCT)	Literature is: - Independent evaluation - Summative impact evaluation using QED, RCT - Summative impact evaluation using robust theory-based method. - Impact evaluation includes one or more outcome of interest (Table 1). - Summative economic evaluation using vfm, CBA, CEA
Publication date	Post 1999, but pre-1999 policy	1999-2019-2020-2022 and specific to COVID-19 emergency response	Post 2020, and not specific to COVID-19 emergency response

Appendix 2: bibliography

Strand 1: what works, by DCMS sector

Below is a list of all literature included in the Strand 1 review, organised by DCMS sector.

Civil society and youth, including youth and volunteering programmes

1. Sawdon, E., Standing-Tattersall, C., Weston-Stanley, P., Martin, A., and Dinos, S. (2023) Loneliness stigma: Rapid evidence assessment. Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
2. Charities Aid Foundation. (2022) Growing place-based giving: End of programme report. Charities Aid Foundation.
3. Alma Economics. (2021) Rapid evidence assessment: Youth social action. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
4. Frontier Economics. (2021) Understanding the drivers of engagement in culture and sport for adults aged 50+. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
5. Hammelsbeck, R., Mitchell, M., Thornton, I., White, C., Taylor, B., and Bristow, T. (2021) Evaluation of the Youth COVID-19 Support Fund. NatCen Social Research.
6. Kantar and London Economics. (2021) National Citizen Service 2019 Summer Evaluation: Main Report. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
7. Rose, A., Abrams, T., Parker, E., and Todres, G. 2021, The Building Connections Fund: Evaluation of the Building Connections Fund – parts one and parts two New Philanthropy Capital.
8. Hopkins, L., Rippon, S., Booth, P., and Goudie, R. (2018) Place-based giving schemes in England. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
9. Ipsos MORI and NEF Consulting. (2015) Evaluation of the Community Organisers Programme: Final Report. Cabinet Office.
10. McGinty, A., Purcell, L., Rhatigan, J., and Soteri-Proctor, A. (2015) Community First Programme Evaluation. Department for Communities and Local Government.

Cultural Sector, including Arts, Heritage, Museums, and Libraries

1. Sagger, H. and Bezzano, M. (2024) Embedding a Culture and Heritage Capital Approach Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
2. BOP Consulting (2023), Great Place Programme Evaluation (England): Understanding the programme’s legacy Arts Council England and National Lottery Heritage Fund.
3. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023)Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report. Coventry City Council.
4. Lee, B. and Nott, C. (2021) Meta-evaluation of Arts Council England-funded place-based programmes. Shared Intelligence.
5. Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
6. Culture, Place and Policy Institute, University of Hull. (2018) Cultural Transformations: The Impacts of Hull UK City of Culture 2017– Preliminary Outcomes Evaluation. University of Hull.
7. Traverse. (2018) Evaluation of the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
8. García, B. (2013) London 2012 Cultural Olympiad evaluation: Summary report. University of Liverpool.
9. Grant Thornton, Ecorys, Loughborough University, and Oxford Economics 2012, Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Report 4 and Report 5 Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
10. Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Creaser, C., Sandell, R., Jones, C., and Woodham, A. (2007) Inspiration, identity, learning: The value of museums. Second study Research Centre for Museums and Galleries. University of Leicester.

Media sector

1. Wavehill. (2021) Community Radio Fund evaluation. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
2. García, B. (2013) The Olympic Games and cultural narratives: Host media coverage on the London 2012 Cultural Olympiad. Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

Sports sector

1. Deloitte. (2024) Evaluation of Multi-Sport Grassroots Facilities Programme and Park Tennis Court Renovation Programme – Interim Report. Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
2. KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report. Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Major events

1. Baker, C., Atkinson, D., Grabher, B., and Howcroft, M. (2024) Culture, place and partnership: the cultural relations of Eurovision 2023. British Council.
2. KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report – Executive Summary Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
3. KPMG. (2023) Interim evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games. Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Creative industries

1. Robinson, M. (2022) *[en years of learning from Creative People and Places.] Arts Council England. Available at: https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/creative-people-and-places-0/learning-creative-people-and-places
2. Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report. Arts Council England.

Strand 2: placed-based programmes

Below is a list of all literature included in the Strand 2 review, separated by whether it was a DCMS-led programme or delivered by the wider civil society and VCSE sector.

DCMS-led place-based interventions

1. Ipsos UK. (2022) Youth Investment Fund Phase 1: Process Evaluation Report. London: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
2. Scanlon, K., Bradshaw-Walsh, K., McNeil, B., Bryson, C., Purdon, S., Fischer, J., Piazza, R., and Fowler, B. (2021) The Youth Investment Fund: Learning and Insight Paper Seven – Findings from a shared evaluation of open access youth provision. London: New Philanthropy Capital.
3. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
4. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. London: The National Lottery Community Fund.

Wider civil society and VCSE sector-led place-based interventions

1. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report. London: The National Lottery Community Fund.
2. Bagnall, A.-M., Southby, K., Jones, R., Pennington, A., South, J., and Corcoran, R. (2023) Systematic review of community infrastructure (place and space) to boost social relations and community wellbeing: Five year refresh, What Works Centre for Wellbeing.
3. Fitzpatrick, R., Edbrooke-Childs, J., Stapley, E., Deighton, J., & Patalay, P. (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report. London: Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre.
4. Holtom, D., Bowen, R., Thomas, A., Thomas, D., Cunnington Wynn, L., and Quinn, L. (2023) Evaluation of Invest Local: Weathering the Storms 2016–2023. Cardiff: People and Work.
5. Smith, S., Irving, M., Mann, G., Bjørndal, A., and Lewis, J. (2023) Evaluating Place-Based Approaches: A review of methods used Youth Endowment Fund.
6. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Cardiff: Welsh Government, GSR report number 43/2022.
7. Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. London: Department for Work and Pensions.
8. Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R.(2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report, The National Lottery Community Fund.
9. Erskine, C. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond: An in-depth review produced as part of the Commissioning Better Outcomes Fund Evaluation The National Lottery Community Fund.
10. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge Local Trust.
11. Renaisi (2019, 2022) Learning from Phase 1 and Phase 2 Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and The National Lottery Community Fund.
12. McBride, M. (2018) Place-based approaches to support children and young people. Glasgow: Children’s Neighbourhoods Scotland.
13. Taylor, M., Buckley, E., and Hennessy, C. (2017) Historical review of place-based approaches. London: Lankelly Chase Foundation.
14. Ipsos MORI (2016) Evaluation of the Uniformed Youth Social Action Fund 2. London: HM Treasury.
15. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges. London: Nesta.
16. Walshe, C., Payne, S., Perez Algorta, G., Ockenden, N., and Preston, N. (2016) Evaluation of the End of Life Social Action Fund. London: Department of Health.
17. Casey, A. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. London: Nesta.
18. National Audit Office (2004) Getting Citizens Involved: Community Participation in Neighbourhood Renewal. London: The Stationery Office.

Appendix 3: supplementary information for Strand 1 and 2 chapter findings

Strand 1: chapter findings, additional information

The below table provides information on the community outcomes measured across the programmes reviewed in Strand 1.

Table 17. Strand 1: Measuring community outcomes

DCMS community outcome of interest	Outcomes assessed in programmes reviewed	How outcomes were measured
A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood	Sense of belonging, or networks within the local community were measured in a number of studies. Some studies on creative, cultural and civil society programmes, instead, measured ‘social cohesion’; as a similar concept Pride of place in programme beneficiaries’ area of residence was also another outcome captured, that relates to this theme. Some literature specifically explored reputational impact, for example, how positive perceptions were of a given place, following a major event for example	Typically measured using self-reported metrics, collected through surveys and interviews studying print media related to a specific event, such as the London 2012 Games[footnote 250]
Social capital	A number of metrics related to social capital were measured across the literature, some of which also linked to sense of belonging to a neighbourhood. For example; One study measured a sense of feeling like part of a ‘team’ or community; new relationships or friendships developed; and the development of mutual support networks[footnote 251] Some studies (particularly in Civil Society and Cultural sectors) also captured self-confidence and skills development and sometimes linked to future employability	Self-reported metrics, collected through surveys and interviews In some cases, demographic data to measure engagement, for example from disadvantaged or minority communities. Value for money analysis
Civic participation	There was less evidence of this outcome across programmes. Where it was explored, civic participation was defined in terms of volunteering (see below), involvement in community panels, and involvement in social action programmes The Youth Social Action Rapid Evidence Review (2021) however, indicates that within the youth sector, there exists a strong evidence-base both on the impact of youth social action on civic engagement and on the mechanisms and conditions that make it feasible One study on the National Citizen Service youth programme captured outcomes related to levels of involvement in extracurricular activities, formal volunteering (such as circulating a petition or raising money) and informal volunteering as indicators of participation[footnote 252]	Self-reported metrics, collected through surveys and interviews Programme management information data (on reach)
Volunteering	Volunteering metrics were collected across programmes with a volunteering component Some studies captured self-reported metrics around volunteers’ experiences related and outcomes, such as perceived impact on their own sense of purpose, confidence, levels of happiness, wellbeing and relationships with others in the community	Programme management information data (on reach) Studies captured participation data (e.g. number and demographic data of volunteers engaged) Self-reported metrics, collected through surveys and interviews, on volunteers’ experiences and outcomes. One study used the ONS4[footnote 253] to assess the impact of volunteering on their wellbeing.[footnote 254]
Loneliness	Programmes with a focus on reducing loneliness used self-reported metrics, such as how often a participant felt lonely, or the extent to which they felt their participation in a programme had reduced or prevented feelings of loneliness Some studies measured this outcome in terms of ‘social isolation’ or also captured feelings of wellbeing.	Self-reported metrics, collected through surveys and interviews One study drew on validated survey metrics to measure loneliness and wellbeing, including the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale to measure service users’ mental health; the ONS direct measure of loneliness, ‘How often do you feel lonely?’ and the UCLA 3-item loneliness scale
An ability in influence/make decisions locally	There was less evidence of measurement of this outcome within the literature, especially outside of the Civil Society and Youth sector, and to a lesser extent in the cultural sector. Two studies on civil society programmes measured related outcomes in the form of awareness of community issues [footnote 255]; participants knowing how to deal with a problem in their local area; feeling of being able to have an impact on the world around them, and holding a sense of responsibility towards their local community[footnote 256] However, the Youth Social Action Rapid Evidence Review (2021) indicates that there exists a strong evidence base for the impact of social action on political participation Other literature included in this review notes the value of community engagement in programme design and local decision-making, but did not capture specific outcomes related to this	Self-reported metrics, collected through surveys and interviews-Programme management information data (on reach)
Accessible cultural and sporting amenities	Participation data was generally collected (for example, audience, participant or visitor data). This was sometimes broken down by social demographics, especially by programmes that aimed to engage specific target audiences as part of their objectives Volunteer and programme-related employment data were also collected in relation to this outcome; both as a metric for engagement and for economic impact Participation levels in physical activity was also measured within some literature on major sporting events programmes	Programme management information data (on reach) To a lesser extent, self-reported metrics, collected through surveys and interviews
A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations	This outcome was not explicitly measured within the studies reviewed. However, elements captured that relate to this outcome were a range of organisational and local system outcomes, including financial outcomes. Programmes captured metrics around business sustainment or development, organisational reach (i.e. beneficiaries served), staff skills development, networks or new partnerships developed, or additional funding obtained. These were captured within a wide range of programmes, but particularly where programmes focussed on supporting organisations with their core costs with the primary aim of sustainment, such as the Youth COVID-19 Support Fund[footnote 257] and the Community Radio Fund.[footnote 258]	Qualitative self-reported data, via stakeholder interviews
Overcoming integration challenges along race, faith or socioeconomic lines in communities	The outcome of ‘integration’ was not commonly explicitly measured; but related outcomes were captured within a number of some studies. For example, one study identified increased feelings of connectedness from volunteers; with volunteering acting as a gateway to interacting with members of the community that they wouldn’t normally meet.[footnote 259] Major events, civil society and cultural sectors in particular also gathered metrics around community participation in programmes by different groups (by ethnicity; socio-economic status (captured for example via free school meal eligibility); and disability status.	The main metric used across studies was demographic data to measure engagement, for example, from disadvantaged or minority communities. More specific measures used within one cultural programme included perceptions of social cohesion and of changing perceptions of vulnerable groups within the community[footnote 260] Qualitative self-reported data, via stakeholder interviews
Ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities	There was less evidence of direct measurement of this outcome; and of outcomes differentiation in the studies examined for different programme audiences.	The main metric used across studies was demographic data to measure engagement, e.g., from disadvantaged or minority communities

Strand 2: Chapter findings, additional information

The below table provides information on the community outcomes measured across the programmes reviewed in Strand 2.

Table 18. Measuring community outcomes

DCMS community outcome of interest	Outcomes assessed in programmes reviewed	How outcomes were measured
A sense of belonging to a neighbourhood	‘A sense of belonging’ was not a commonly recognised outcome in the literature. However, some studies assessed: - The number of networks created within the local community - The number of networks residents engage with. Increases in social connectedness[footnote 261]. - Number of people with difficulties or needs connected or signposted to support[footnote 262]	Participation metrics, and self-reported metrics Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews Management information data - registration forms, attendance data
Social capital	A range of outcomes were measured around social capital. For example: - Examples of peer support within communities, often formalised through volunteering or mentoring programmes[footnote 263]. - Improved relationships and trust between people with different backgrounds and interests[footnote 264]. - Increased opportunities for individuals and groups to come together and co-operate to make a positive difference in their community[footnote 265]. - Number of new networks in the area[footnote 266] - Organisations are signposting between each other and sharing their knowledge and skills[footnote 267]	Participation metrics, and self-reported metrics Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews Management information data - registration forms, attendance data Observational data
Civic participation	Specific measures of civic participation in terms of local policy making were less evident. However, wider participation measures were commonly used. - Increases in people feeling more confident about playing an active role in their community as a result of participating in the programme[footnote 268]	-
Volunteering	Volunteering outcomes were assessed where programmes included a volunteer component. - Volunteer time in hours - Increase in volunteering rates[footnote 269]. - Levels of volunteering have increased[footnote 270] - Increase in volunteering activities[footnote 271]. - Vale of volunteer time[footnote 272] - Number of sustained volunteering matches - Number of sustained volunteers[footnote 273]	Participation metrics, and self-reported metrics Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews-Management information data - registration forms, attendance data-Observational data Assigning a monetary value to volunteer time
Loneliness	Programmes with the objective to reduce loneliness explored associated outcomes: - Studies drew on a happiness measure or wider health and wellbeing measures to infer the effect of interventions on loneliness[footnote 274] - Number of people reporting feeling lonely “some or most of the time”[footnote 275] - Number of people in contact with family, friends and neighbours less than once a month[footnote 276] - Increase in social connectedness.[footnote 277]. - Participation in local activities was itself a measure of change for some people who, because of personal challenges had become isolated from community life.[footnote 278]* ommunity Foundations. (2013). - Isolated people gained access to support services through projects[footnote 279] - Impact of sustained volunteering matches on beneficiaries, reducing isolation[footnote 280]*	Participation metrics, and self-reported metrics Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews Studies used the ONS direct measure of loneliness, ‘How often do you feel lonely?’ and the UCLA 3-item loneliness scale Or validated survey metrics for wellbeing, including the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale
An ability in influence/make decisions locally	Programmes intending to increase local decision making, assessed: - Number of local people becoming more empowered and influential[footnote 281] - Local delivery decisions (as opposed to civic participation which focuses on democratic structures). - New opportunities for influence[footnote 282] - Number of local people with new aspirations for their area and more confident about their ability to get involved in local initiatives - Whether the project had an impact on the way people feel about their ability to make a difference in their community ommunity Foundations. - Whether the project had an impact on the skills and abilities of local people involved in groups to be active in making changes in their community[footnote 283] - Some studies measured self-confidence and skills development	Self-reported metrics and participation metrics and demographic data Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews Management information data - registration forms, attendance data Observational data
A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks, and organisations	Most programmes involved multi-agency partnerships and local community networking. Assessment examples, include: - Community spaces had been used to better effect (unclear from the literature, how this was assessed) - Number of new local networks created.[footnote 284] - New and existing community and voluntary organisations demonstrating increased skills, improved networking opportunities, ability to leverage new funding and play a key role in regeneration -Support groups and networks for target groups established (for example, parents of children with special needs) - Building the (number of) networks, relationships and contacts of individual, voluntary and community groups and statutory bodies within communities. - Forums were stronger because they were attracting more members and were better connected to service providers[footnote 285]	Self-reported metrics and participation metrics and demographic data Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews-Management information data registration forms, attendance data Observational data
Overcoming integration challenges along race, faith or socioeconomic lines in communities	By their very nature most programmes were seeking to offer place-based solutions to improve service access and integration opportunities. Studies assessed: - Number of people of different backgrounds, interests and ages being reached and participating in programmes/ services - In some cases, studies assessed whether programmes were helping to overcome historic community rivalries[footnote 286]	Self-reported metrics and participation metrics and demographic data Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews Management information data - registration forms, attendance data Observational data
Ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities	This outcome was measured indirectly using accessibility measures. For instance: - Community spaces used to better effect. (unclear how this was assessed).[footnote 287] - Services had made changes so that they were more accessible to a wider range of people.[footnote 288] - Number of local people trained and supported to make better use of public spaces and community buildings.[footnote 289]. - Purchase of vehicles and equipment to deliver community activities[footnote 290]	Self-reported metrics and participation metrics and demographic data Self-reported metrics – surveys and interviews Management information data - registration forms, attendance data Evidence of grant funding in previously under-resourced areas-Local needs assessments, community/target group consultations Social investment data – from donors, philanthropist, etc

Appendix 4: SWOT analysis

SWOT analysis (Strands 1 and 2)

As part of the analysis the research team conducted a SWOT analysis, to help assess the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, of community programmes (across Strand 1 and 2).

Strengths	Weaknesses
Community outcomes: DCMS have set of focused community outcomes in mind Programme design: - Investments in local communities -Programmes across DCMS sectors to enrich local communities in multiple ways - Diversifying funding models – grants, social investment models, impact bonds - Use of development grants and piloting, to test design theories, before wider rollout - Needs analysis for community targeting Programme implementation: - Community co-production - Multi-agency partnerships programming - Use of universal and targeted interventions - Capacity building of local people: training, resources, networks - Building on VCSE sector strengths in communities Monitoring and evaluation: - Strong evidence-base on delivery processes process and impact evaluations - Outcomes demonstrated at individual, community and systems levels, in short-term	Community outcomes: programmes have used different measurement approaches that do not always map onto the DCMS priority community outcomes Programme design: - Short-term funding and programming Programme implementation: - Support for long-term sustainability planning - Data monitoring processes weaknesses; missing / inconsistent data across partners - Lack of ongoing learning opportunities (workshops/meetings) for delivery teams to exchange delivery lessons Monitoring and evaluation: - Missed opportunities to build evaluation capacity of small/grass roots organisations - Mechanisms between activities and expected outcomes not detailed - Lack of impact evidence on what works, particularly for complex programmes and programmes with complex funding mechanism, such as SIBs - Lack of longitudinal evidence of sustained impact on individuals, communities
Opportunities	Threats
Community outcomes: Develop clear definitions of each community outcome, as well as DCMS recommended outcomes measurement tools for each outcome to facilitate evaluation and outcomes measurement Programme design/implementation: - Bottom-up approaches: building on existing community resources; co-creation - Developing social value models - Involvement of smaller/grass roots community organisations to reach diverse audiences; build capacity and financial stability of such organisations - Establish volunteer workforces; with appropriate recruitment, retention and support structures Monitoring and evaluation: - Strengthen evaluations through commissioning feasibility studies, longitudinal evaluations, impact and economic evaluations - Capture/publish information on how/what needs analysis is done, how/why target localities are identified	Community outcomes: Individual changes easier to measure than community-level change; lack of investment in feasibility studies to identify possible comparator groups and robust impact and economic designs Programme design/implementation/sustainability: - Top-down approaches - Changing policy priorities/lack of national and local policy and programming -Mission creep/lack of shared programme understanding - Social investment models continue to be difficult to measure/report mixed results – and potential investors move away from the market-Limited resources and capacity within local systems for delivery - Lack of delivery-team, community, local leader buy-in to programmes -Unintended (negative) outcomes - Lack of onward funding - (Aspects of) community provision ends when programme funding ends

Appendix 5: logic model for strand 1 what works to build and strengthen communities

This logic model was co-developed between the Ecorys team and DCMS policy sector leads and advisors. This content is informed by the Strand 1 review finding and discussions with DCMS. It presents ‘what works’ in terms of the pathways from intervention inputs, activities, outputs, to stronger community outcomes. informing the pathways from intervention to stronger communities. This is intended to be a live tool for DCMS to use and adapt over time. It is intended to be used across DCMS sectors.

Strategic vision	Rational: What and why?	Rational: How?	Moderating factors
In line with the government’s vision, DCMS aims to contribute to richer lives with opportunities for all, in a more socially cohesive country. This includes building stronger communities in every part of the UK.	DCMS is responsible for promoting and supporting the UK’s culture, media, sport, tourism, and civil society sectors. The world-leading position the UK holds in these areas provides improved health and wellbeing for the population, productivity and growth for the economy and a strong reputation internationally. All DCMS activity is designed to enrich lives and drive economic growth. DCMS strengthens communities by investing in these sectors.	MHCLG (2019) identified 4 pillars to ‘strengthening communities’: 1. Building trust, connectedness and local pride, 2. Active citizenship and local control:, 3. Shared community spaces, 4. Shared prosperity, with no community left behind. DCMS wishes to contribute to strengthening these community pillars, by using the existing evidence base to shape future policies and sector interventions to support and sustain strong communities.	National policy and local priorities alignment and changes over time – affecting funding, resources and programme effectiveness Lack of/loss of project staff and/or volunteers - recruitment and retention challenges - which hinders programme momentum Communities/partners buy-in, engage and participate Wrap around support for local organisations in programme delivery and local people in participating Short-term investments which hinder sustained delivery and outcomes

Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Short-term outcomes (during funding period)	Long-term outcomes (beyond funding period)
Rationale for programme - Evidence informed policy development - National and local policy alignment - Theory of Change Funding: - Funders/commissioners - Grant; capital/social funds - Pro-bono, in-kind time People and Partners - National and local government - Governance and oversight - Advisory boards/groups - Support from sector agencies (Arts Council, museums, etc) - Managers and frontline staff - Volunteers - Partnerships (expertise, time, audiences) Places and Infrastructure - Community spaces (inc. community centres, libraries, museums, sports venues) - Community assets (vehicles equipment) - Capital funding (refurbishments, equipment) Implementation plans - Community engagement planmp - Marketing plan - Monitoring and evaluation plan	Planning - Programme design development, across 6 DCMS sectors - Theory of change/shared vision - Co-production Mobilisation/piloting - People recruitment/securing buy-in from people and partners - Programme piloting and refinement Implementation - Governance and partnership working - Bilding on community assets - Investing in infrastructure - Building capacity - In-person community-based activities - universal and targeted - Tailoring for specific communities Sustainability - Sustainability planning Monitoring and evaluation - Monitoring and evaluation [Formal] - Ongoing learning cycles [Informal]	Tools and capacity - Action plans, delivery plans - Increased number of people providing local support and services - Increased provision and access to community events - Increase in inclusive community engagement opportunities for adults and youth - Increased number of people volunteering - Increased number of volunteering hours providing community support - Increased community assets, skills Activities and events - Number of major culture and sporting events - Increased take-up of community activities - Increased retention of local people in community activities Infrastructure - Enhanced community facilities/sites - Increased revenue in communities Media - Increased number of positive media coverage [Major events]	Systems change - Diversification in funding models. (Social value) Some VCS groups more self-sufficient, better financial stability - Improved community infrastructure - Improved perceptions of local places Community participants - Community members continue the activity after the funding period - Increased sense of belonging to a neighbourhood - Increased social capital (skills, knowledge, confidence, feeling valued) - Improved mental health and wellbeing - Increased civic participation - Increased volunteering - Increased engagment (education, training) - Reduced loneliness - Increased ability to influence/make decisions locally - Increased community ownership and influence over local institutions, assets, and decision making processes. Wider community benefits - More accessible cultural and sporting amenities - Increased interest, engagement, enjoyment in the sectors - Improved community cohesion (funded areas) - Overcoming integration challenges along race, faith or socioeconomic lines in communities - Increased social mobility - More resilient communities - Stronger place-based events and spirit - Increased local pride	Systems change - Community infrastructure put to better use - Increased revenue in the sectors - Community, public and private sector providers working more cohesively - Reduced duplication of support - Reduced waste (under-utilisation of space) - A thriving and sustainable local civil society, with groups, networks and organisations Community participants - Sustained sense of belonging to a neighbourhood - Improved health and wellbeing Wider community benefits - Access to improved community spaces - Ensuring that prosperity is shared across all communities - Reduced antisocial behaviour amongst youth in all regions - Increased feelings of security in local neighbourhoods across the country - In every place, improved community cohesion - Increased national pride - In every place, improved community empowerment - Wider economic investments

Appendix 6: references

1. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (2019). By deeds and their results. How we will strengthen our communities and nation. By deeds and their results: How we will strengthen our communities and nation ↩

2. MHCLG (2019) By deeds and their results: strengthening our communities and nation - GOV.UK ↩

3. CFE Research (2020)Ageing-Better-in-Birmingham-Asset-Based-Community-Development-v1.0.pdf ↩

4. See for example appraisal of rapid review methodologies provided within: Davies P. (2004) Rapid evidence assessment: a tool for policy making. Government Social Research. London. http://www.gsr.gov.uk/new_research/archive/rae.asp ↩

5. A validated measure (or metric) is a survey, questionnaire, or scale that has been rigorously tested and refined to ensure it accurately and reliably measures what it’s intended to measure, and is appropriate for the target population. ↩

6. KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report. ↩

7. Kantar and London Economics. (2021) National Citizen Service 2019 Summer Evaluation: Main Report ↩

8. A “theory of change” (ToC) is a visual framework that outlines how and why a programme or intervention is expected to lead to specific outcomes and impacts, serving as a roadmap for achieving desired results. ↩

9. Wavehill. (2021) Community Radio Fund evaluation. ↩

10. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023) Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report ↩

11. BOP Consulting (2023) Great Place Programme Evaluation (England): Understanding the programme’s legacy ↩

12. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023) Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report. ↩

13. Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report ↩

14. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

15. Alma Economics. (2021) Rapid evidence assessment: Youth social action. ↩

16. Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities ↩

17. Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation ↩

18. Lee, B. and Nott, C. (2021) Meta-evaluation of Arts Council England-funded place-based programmes. ↩

19. García, B. (2013) London 2012 Cultural Olympiad evaluation: Summary report. University of Liverpool. ↩

20. Grant Thornton, Ecorys, Loughborough University, and Oxford Economics (2012), Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games ↩

21. Culture, Place and Policy Institute, University of Hull. (2018) Cultural Transformations: The Impacts of Hull UK City of Culture 2017 – Preliminary Outcomes Evaluation. ↩

22. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund ↩

23. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023) Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report. ↩

24. Rose, A., Abrams, T., Parker, E., and Todres, G. 2021, The Building Connections Fund: Evaluation of the Building Connections Fund – Parts one and two ↩

25. Hopkins, L., Rippon, S., Booth, P., and Goudie, R. 2018 Place-based giving schemes in England. ↩

26. Hammelsbeck, R., Mitchell, M., Thornton, I., White, C., Taylor, B., and Bristow, T. (2021) Evaluation of the Youth COVID-19 Support Fund. NatCen Social Research ↩

27. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023) Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report. ↩

28. BOP Consulting (2023) Great Place Programme Evaluation (England): Understanding the programme’s legacy ↩

29. BOP Consulting (2023) Great Place Programme Evaluation (England): Understanding the programme’s legacy ↩

30. KPMG. (2023) Interim evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games. ↩

31. Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute (2015) Evaluation of the Community Organisers Programme: Final Report ↩

32. Culture, Place and Policy Institute, University of Hull. (2018) Cultural Transformations: The Impacts of Hull UK City of Culture 2017 – Preliminary Outcomes Evaluation. ↩

33. Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report ↩

34. Wavehill. (2021) Community Radio Fund evaluation ↩

35. Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities ↩

36. Chairty Aid Foundation (2020) Growing place-based giving End of programme report ↩

37. Deloitte. (2024) Evaluation of Multi-Sport Grassroots Facilities Programme and Park Tennis Court Renovation Programme – Interim Report ↩

38. Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation. ↩

39. Chairty Aid Foundation (2020) Growing place-based giving End of programme report ↩

40. BOP Consulting (2023) Great Place Programme Evaluation (England): Understanding the programme’s legacy ↩

41. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

42. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund and Wavehill. (2021) Community Radio Fund evaluation ↩

43. Culture, Place and Policy Institute, University of Hull. (2018) Cultural Transformations: The Impacts of Hull UK City of Culture 2017 – Preliminary Outcomes Evaluation. ↩

44. Traverse. (2018) Evaluation of the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund ↩

45. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund ↩

46. Alma Economics. (2021) Rapid evidence assessment: Youth social action. ↩

47. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023) Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report. ↩

48. Homepage, Arts & Homelessness International ↩

49. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund ↩

50. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

51. Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities ↩

52. Sawdon, E., Standing-Tattersall, C., Weston-Stanley, P., Martin, A., and Dinos, S. (2023) Loneliness stigma: Rapid evidence assessment. ↩

53. Self-stigma refers to the negative attitudes and beliefs about oneself that people may develop based on societal stereotypes and prejudice. ↩

54. Traverse. (2018) Evaluation of the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund ↩

55. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund ↩

56. Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities ↩

57. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023) Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report. ↩

58. Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report ↩

59. Alma Economics. (2021) Rapid evidence assessment: Youth social action. ↩

60. Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation ↩

61. Alma Economics. (2021) Rapid evidence assessment: Youth social action. ↩

62. Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games – One Year Post-Games Evaluation Executive Summary – March 2024 ↩

63. Grant Thornton, Ecorys, Loughborough University, and Oxford Economics 2012, Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Reports 4 and 5. ↩

64. Hammelsbeck, R., Mitchell, M., Thornton, I., White, C., Taylor, B., and Bristow, T. (2021) Evaluation of the Youth COVID-19 Support Fund. NatCen Social Research, Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

65. Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities, Chairty Aid Foundation (2020) Growing place-based giving End of programme report ↩

66. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund, KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report ↩

67. Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation ↩

68. Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities, Chairty Aid Foundation (2020) Growing place-based giving End of programme report, Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation, Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report, KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report., Culture, Place and Policy Institute, University of Hull. (2018) Cultural Transformations: The Impacts of Hull UK City of Culture 2017 – Preliminary Outcomes Evaluation, Wavehill. (2021) Community Radio Fund evaluation, Traverse. (2018) Evaluation of the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund ↩

69. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report, Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report ↩

70. Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities ↩

71. Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Creaser, C., Sandell, R., Jones, C., and Woodham, A. (2007) Inspiration, identity, learning: The value of museums. Second study Research Centre for Museums and Galleries. University of Leicester ↩

72. Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report ↩

73. Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation, Walker C. (2018) Place-based giving schemes: Funding, engaging and creating stronger communities ↩

74. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

75. Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute (2015) Evaluation of the Community Organisers Programme: Final Report ↩

76. Chairty Aid Foundation (2020) Growing place-based giving End of programme report ↩

77. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund, Chairty Aid Foundation (2020) Growing place-based giving End of programme report ↩

78. Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Creaser, C., Sandell, R., Jones, C., and Woodham, A. (2007) Inspiration, identity, learning: The value of museums. Second study Research Centre for Museums and Galleries. University of Leicester, Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation ↩

79. Sagger, H. and Bezzano, M. (2024) Embedding a Culture and Heritage Capital Approach ↩

80. KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report. ↩

81. Traverse. (2018) Evaluation of the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund., Hooper-Greenhill, E., Dodd, J., Creaser, C., Sandell, R., Jones, C., and Woodham, A. (2007) Inspiration, identity, learning: The value of museums. Second study Research Centre for Museums and Galleries. University of Leicester ↩

82. Ipsos MORI. (2015) Evaluation of the Community First Neighbourhood Matched Fund ↩

83. Cultural Compacts were partnerships supported by DCMS and Arts Council England in 2019, designed to support the local cultural sector, with a special emphasis on cross-sector engagement beyond the cultural sector itself and the local authority. ↩

84. University of Warwick & Coventry University. (2023) Coventry UK City of Culture 2021 Impact Evaluation Report. ↩

85. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

86. Culture, Place and Policy Institute, University of Hull. (2018) Cultural Transformations: The Impacts of Hull UK City of Culture 2017 – Preliminary Outcomes Evaluation. ↩

87. Lee, B. and Nott, C. (2021) Meta-evaluation of Arts Council England-funded place-based programmes. ↩

88. Sagger, H. and Bezzano, M. (2024) Embedding a Culture and Heritage Capital Approach ↩

89. BOP Consulting (2023) Great Place Programme Evaluation (England): Understanding the programme’s legacy ↩

90. Wavehill. (2021) Community Radio Fund evaluation ↩

91. Ecorys. (2017) Creative People and Places: End of Year 3 Evaluation Report ↩

92. Alma Economics. (2021) Rapid evidence assessment: Youth social action ↩

93. Frontier Economics. (2020) Taylor Review Pilot Evaluation ↩

94. KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report., Culture, Place and Policy Institute, University of Hull. (2018) Cultural Transformations: The Impacts of Hull UK City of Culture 2017 – Preliminary Outcomes Evaluation, Grant Thornton, Ecorys, Loughborough University, and Oxford Economics 2012, Meta-Evaluation of the Impacts and Legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Reports 4 and 5, ↩

95. KPMG. (2024) Evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games: One Year Post-Games Evaluation Report. ↩

96. García, B. (2013) London 2012 Cultural Olympiad evaluation: Summary report ↩

97. In this review, place-based programmes are defined as: intentional targeting of place (a geographical area usually below the regional level), for example at the local authority or ward level. Targeting is often focused on specific localities with high socio-economic deprivation, other areas of local need related to policy goals (e.g., lower rates of volunteering compared to national averages), or targeted at certain demographic cohorts within a geographical place. The review is set within the UK context. ↩

98. Many programmes were funded by a range of sources. ↩

99. Social investment models, where some or all the income is dependent on achieving social outcomes set by the public sector commissioner. ↩

100. ↩

101. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

102. Lankelly Chase (2017) Historical review of place-based approaches. ↩

103. About Building Communities Trust BCT — BCT ↩

104. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

105. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

106. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

107. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

108. A validated measure (or metric) is a survey, questionnaire, or scale that has been rigorously tested and refined to ensure it accurately and reliably measures what it’s intended to measure, and is appropriate for the target population. ↩

109. One study used a ‘difference in differences’ design. NPC and the Centre for Youth Impact (2021) The Youth Investment Fund: Learning and Insight Paper Seven. Findings ↩

110. Nesta (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. ↩

111. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

112. NPC and the Centre for Youth Impact (2021) The Youth Investment Fund: Learning and Insight Paper Seven. Findings ↩

113. Ipsos UK. (2022) Youth Investment Fund Phase 1: Process Evaluation Report. ↩

114. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

115. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

116. National Audit Office (2004) Getting Citizens Involved: Community Participation in Neighbourhood Renewal. ↩

117. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) datasets are small area measures of relative deprivation across each of the constituent nations of the UK. Areas are ranked from the most deprived area (rank 1) to the least deprived area. ↩

118. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

119. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

120. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

121. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

122. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

123. SMART targets are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound ↩

124. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

125. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

126. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

127. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. ↩

128. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. ↩

129. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

130. Cherry picking is a perverse incentive whereby providers, investors or intermediaries select beneficiaries that are more likely to achieve the expected outcomes and leave outside the cohort the most challenging cases. ↩

131. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

132. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

133. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

134. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

135. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

136. People and Work. (2023) Evaluation of Invest Local: Weathering the Storms 2016–2023. ↩

137. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

138. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

139. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

140. Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) were clinically-led NHS bodies responsible for planning and commissioning healthcare services locally in England, but have been replaced by Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) since July 2022.  ↩

141. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

142. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

143. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

144. ‘’In-kind’ support is the donation or provision of goods or services other than cash contributions. ‘In-kind’ support — The Grants Hub ↩

145. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

146. National Audit Office (2004) Getting Citizens Involved: Community Participation in Neighbourhood Renewal. ↩

147. A Social Impact Bond (SIB) is a financing mechanism where investors provide upfront funding for a service provider to deliver social outcomes, and are repaid only if those outcomes are achieved, essentially a contract on future social outcomes.  ↩

148. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report. ↩

149. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

150. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

151. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

152. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report. ↩

153. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

154. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report, ↩

155. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

156. Ipsos UK. (2022) Youth Investment Fund Phase 1: Process Evaluation Report. ↩

157. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

158. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

159. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

160. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

161. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report, ↩

162. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report ↩

163. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

164. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper ↩

165. People and Work. (2023) Evaluation of Invest Local: Weathering the Storms 2016–2023. ↩

166. Renasi (2021) Learning from Phase 2 of the Place Based Social Action Programme ↩

167. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

168. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

169. National Audit Office (2004) Getting Citizens Involved: Community Participation in Neighbourhood Renewal. ↩

170. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

171. Ipsos UK. (2022) Youth Investment Fund Phase 1: Process Evaluation Report ↩

172. Lancaster University and the Institute for Volunteering Research (2016) What is the impact of social action befriending services at the end-of-life? Evaluation of the End of Life Social Action Fund ↩

173. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

174. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report; Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government, ↩

175. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report; Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond. ↩

176. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

177. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

178. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

179. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

180. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

181. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report, ↩

182. National Audit Office (2004) Getting Citizens Involved: Community Participation in Neighbourhood Renewal. ↩

183. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

184. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

185. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

186. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

187. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

188. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

189. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

190. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

191. Leeds Beckett University and University of Liverpool. (2023) Systematic review of community infrastructure (place and space) to boost social relations and community wellbeing: Five year refresh. ↩

192. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

193. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

194. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

195. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

196. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

197. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report, ↩

198. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

199. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

200. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

201. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

202. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

203. People and Work. (2023) Evaluation of Invest Local: Weathering the Storms 2016–2023. ↩

204. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

205. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

206. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

207. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. ↩

208. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

209. People and Work. (2023) Evaluation of Invest Local: Weathering the Storms 2016–2023. ↩

210. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

211. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

212. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

213. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

214. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

215. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

216. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

217. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report, ↩

218. Ebrahim, Alnoor (2019). Measuring social change: Performance and accountability in a complex world. Stanford University Press. ↩

219. Baker, S. (2022) A scoping review of place-based approaches to community engagement and support. Welsh Government ↩

220. Centre for Evidence and Innovation. (2023) Evaluating Place-Based Approaches: A review of methods used. ↩

221. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

222. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

223. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

224. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

225. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

226. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

227. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

228. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

229. Nesta’s Standards of Evidence Nesta’s Standards of Evidence, Nesta ↩

230. ICF Consulting Services Limited (2020) Evaluation of the Life Chances Fund: Interim report, ↩

231. Ecorys - Ronicle, J. and Smith, K. (2020) Youth Engagement Fund Evaluation: Final Report. ↩

232. Ipsos UK (2022) Impact evaluation feasibility assessment of Phase 2 of the Youth Investment Fund ↩

233. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

234. People and Work. (2023) Evaluation of Invest Local: Weathering the Storms 2016–2023. ↩

235. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

236. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

237. National Audit Office (2004) Getting Citizens Involved: Community Participation in Neighbourhood Renewal. ↩

238. People and Work. (2023) Evaluation of Invest Local: Weathering the Storms 2016–2023. ↩

239. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

240. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

241. National Centre for Social Research, RSM, University of Sussex, National Children’s Bureau, and Research in Practice (2024) A Better Start National Evaluation: Second Annual Report ↩

242. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

243. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

244. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

245. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

246. Ecorys - Ronicle, J., Stanworth, N. and Wooldridge, R. (2020) Commissioning Better Outcomes Evaluation: 3rd Update Report ↩

247. Ecorys and ATQ Consultants. (2019) West London Zone Collective Impact Bond ↩

248. Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) (2019) Left behind? Understanding communities on the edge ↩

249. Evidence Based Practice Unit, UCL and Anna Freud Centre (2023) Supporting the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people: the role of HeadStart – HeadStart national evaluation final report ↩

250. ESRC Centre for Corpus Approaches to Social Science, 1 Lancaster University (2012) London 2012 Games Media Impact Study ↩

251. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

252. Kantar and London Economics. (2021) National Citizen Service 2019 Summer Evaluation: Main Report ↩

253. The ‘ONS4’ measures ask people to evaluate aspects of their own well-being: a) how satisfied they are with their lives overall, b) whether they feel they have meaning and purpose in their lives an c) their emotions during a particular period (both positive and negative). The questions capture evaluative, eudemonic, and affective experience. Personal well-being user guidance - Office for National StatisticsM. (2023) Interim evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games ↩

254. KPMG. (2023) Interim evaluation of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games ↩

255. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

256. Kantar and London Economics. (2021) National Citizen Service 2019 Summer Evaluation: Main Report ↩

257. Natsen Social Research. (2021) Evaluation of the Youth COVID-19 Support Fund. ↩

258. Wavehill. (2021) Community Radio Fund evaluation. ↩

259. Traverse (2018) Evaluation of the Libraries: Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund ↩

260. Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University. (2021) Evaluation of the DCMS 50+ Volunteering Programme Final Report ↩

261. NPC and the Centre for Youth Impact (2021) The Youth Investment Fund: Learning and Insight Paper Seven. Findings ↩

262. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

263. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

264. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

265. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

266. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

267. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

268. Nesta (2012)Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper ↩

269. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

270. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

271. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

272. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. ↩

273. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

274. However, the Fair Share Trust evaluation reported a number of projects found that health and wellbeing was a difficult outcome to achieve and measure. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

275. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

276. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

277. The study used an Increase in social connectedness as an indication of having a positive impact on young people’s levels of loneliness. NPC and the Centre for Youth Impact (2021) The Youth Investment Fund: Learning and Insight Paper Seven. Findings ↩

278. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust ↩

279. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

280. Nesta (2016) Cities of Service UK: Capturing the Skills and Energy of Volunteers to Address City Challenges ↩

281. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper ↩

282. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. ↩

283. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

284. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper ↩

285. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

286. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

287. Nesta. (2012) Neighbourhood Challenge: Learning Paper. ↩

288. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

289. UK Community Foundations. (2013) Learning from the UK-wide evaluation of Fair Share Trust. ↩

290. Ipsos UK. (2022) Youth Investment Fund Phase 1: Process Evaluation Report. ↩