PLAIN TEXT - Working on Big Local: a survey of paid workers

Published March 2019.

Big Local is a volunteer, resident-led programme supporting 150 areas in England. The programme (funded by the National Lottery Community Fund) gives each area access to £1m and 10–15 years in which to spend it. The programme (run by Local Trust) puts decision-making in the hands of communities.

While it was envisaged that resident volunteers would drive the programme, over time it has become clear that paid workers play an important role in its day-to-day delivery. Currently, almost all 150 Big Local areas use some of their Big Local funding to engage paid workers to help deliver their Big Local plans locally.

Until recently, little was known about this paid workforce. So, in 2018 Local Trust carried out an online survey of workers to learn more about them and what it is like to work on Big Local (1). This report highlights key findings based on 151 completed responses which represents approximately 60% of workers across the programme (2).

The survey was broadly exploratory, but we were keen to answer the following questions:

• Who are Big Local areas funding to support the delivery of Big Local plans?
• What are their backgrounds, experience and qualifications?
• What are their roles and responsibilities?
• How do they carry out their role?
• What support do they get and who is this from?
• What makes it easier and more challenging for them to carry out their role?

In addition to information about all workers, three subgroups were analysed to see if (and how) their experiences differed: workers who were also residents in the Big Local area; workers whose role mainly involved community development/​engagement (CD/CE); and workers who were employees as opposed to self-employed (3).

Firstly, it was important to know who Big Local workers were. The following are some key findings about those surveyed. 

• 27% (40) are also residents in the Big Local area they work in.
• 34% (49) are members of their Big Local partnership.
• 84% (127) are employees of an organisation, 15% (22) are self-employed (4).
• 31% (47) were previously involved in Big Local before they became a worker.
• 73% (109) have worked or volunteered in a similar role before.
• 59% (88) have one degree or more.
• 72% are female, 28% are male.
• 87% (124) are white, 13% (18) are from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds.
• 54% (77) are aged between 45–64.

The picture we get is that workers are predominantly non-residents, female, middle aged, white, with experience of similar work and educated to degree level. Also, over a third are also members of the areas’ decision-making group- the Big Local partnership. 

Who are Big Local workers? Resident and non-resident workers: 

Over a quarter of workers are also residents in their Big Local area (5). There are no major differences between these workers in relation to their age, gender or ethnicity. However, in other aspects being a resident in the area does make a difference. Resident workers are less likely to have previous experience in a similar role (6) and are less likely to have a degree (7). However, they are more likely to have been involved in Big Local before becoming a worker (8) (through volunteering, being a member of a Big Local partnership or being a chair of a Big Local partnership (9)), and they are more likely to be a current member of a partnership (10). 

Who are Big Local workers? Community development/​engagement (CD/CE) workers and non-CD/CE workers: 

Over a third of workers said the majority of their role involves ​‘community development/​engagement’ (11). The majority of these CD/CE workers do not have community development qualifications (12), are not residents in the area (13) and are not members of the Big Local partnership (14). Comparing CD/CE workers to other workers, we learn that they are similar in relation to their age, gender and ethnicity (15). Further, they are similar when it comes to their previous involvement in Big Local with the majority not previously involved (16). However, there is a difference between these two groups; CD/CE workers are more likely to have had previous experience in a similar role than other workers (17). 

Who are Big Local workers? Employees and self-employed workers:

Just under 85% of workers are employees of an organisation as opposed to self-employed (18). When comparing the two groups, we see that the majority of both employees and self-employed workers have previous experience in similar roles (19) but have not been involved in Big Local before (20). However, employees are more likely to be residents (21) and to have been in post for longer (a year or more) compared to self-employed workers. In addition, employees are more likely to be female (three quarters are female compared to just over half of self-employed workers (22)) but less likely to be from Black and Minority Ethnic groups (23).

Through these comparisons, we can see where being a resident, a CD/CE worker or an employee makes a difference. We know that residents have moved from volunteers within the programme into roles as paid workers, and that their journey into these roles is slightly different compared to other workers. Resident workers are more likely to have been involved in Big Local before through volunteering and being a partnership member, but they are less likely to have experience in similar roles or have a higher level of formal education. This may suggest that the skills, knowledge and experience gained through active participation in the programme helps residents gain paid work on Big Local later on. In contrast, CD/CE workers are less likely to be residents or to have been involved in Big Local before, but they are more likely to bring skills and experience from similar roles which other workers- for example, those working in project delivery or administration- do not. Employees are more likely to be female and to have been in post for longer than other workers, but they are also less likely to be from a Black or Minority Ethnic background. 

We asked a number of questions to better understand the roles, responsibilities and tasks carried out by workers.

Roles, responsibilities and tasks:

Firstly, we asked what the majority of their role involves (where only one option could be selected). Responses to this question were as follows:

• 39% (58) community development/​engagement (CD/CE).
• 20% (30) administration.
• 15% (22) delivering projects.
• 13% (19) management.

We asked about the main tasks workers perform in their role to get a sense of the types of activities they carry out on a day-to-day basis. In this instance respondents were able to select multiple options. Responses to this question were as follows: 

• 86% (129) carry out work to ​‘support the Big Local partnership’ (24).
• 83% (124) ​‘work face-to-face with the community (25).
• 75% (113) ​‘provide other support in the delivery of the Big Local plan’ (26).

We can broadly group workers roles under three main categories: supporting the Big Local partnership, networking and engaging the community, and supporting project delivery. Looking at responses, we see that the highest proportion of workers carry out CD/CE work. However, it is likely that for many their role involves a mixture of the different elements. Supporting the Big Local partnership (i.e. the decision-making group) is the most commonly cited activity, which is perhaps to be expected. 

Interestingly, workers carry out similar tasks to each other regardless of what they feel the majority of their role involves. In addition, irrespective of whether or not they feel that the majority of their role involves community development or engagement, over 80% of all workers said that they carry out tasks that involve some face-to-face work with the community. 

What do Big Local workers do? Resident workers and non-resident workers:

Slightly higher proportions of resident workers said the majority of their role involved community development/​engagement and administration compared to non-resident workers (27). In contrast, a lower proportion of resident workers said the majority of their role involved management or delivering projects (28). When considering the types of tasks workers carried out as part of their role, resident workers are less likely to provide ​‘other support’ to help the delivery of the Big Local plan, such as project management, evaluation and risk assessments compared to other workers (29).

What do Big Local workers do? Community development/​engagement (CD/CE) workers and non-CD/CE workers:

As expected, CD/CE workers are more likely to carry out work that is face-to-face with the community than non-CD/CE workers (30). They are also more likely to ​‘provide other support’ to help deliver the plan (31) such as project management, evaluation and risk assessments than other workers. 

What do Big Local workers do? Employees and self-employed workers:

There are few differences between employees and self-employed workers in relation to their roles and tasks, with workers in these groups broadly similar. The same proportion of employees and self-employed have roles that involve delivering projects (32). Just over a fifth of employees have roles involving administration- slightly higher than the proportion for self-employed workers (33). Over a third of employees have roles that involve CD/CE, compared to 41% of self-employed (34). A higher proportion of self-employed workers said that they carry out tasks providing ​‘other support to help the delivery of the Big Local plan’ (35). 

The main differences between the groups are found in relation to resident workers and CD/CE workers. As expected, CD/CE workers are more likely to carry out face-to-face work in the community. However, they are also more likely to provide ​‘other support to help deliver the Big Local plan’ (e.g. project management, evaluating activities and risk assessments). In contrast, resident workers are similar to other workers in terms of what they do in all but one respect; they are less likely to provide ​‘other support’ to help deliver the plan. One possible explanation for this could be linked to differences in their experience in similar roles. 

We know that relationships and networks are important for Big Local, particularly relationships amongst partnership members and local stakeholders. We were interested in the frequency and the quality of their networks and the contact between workers and others as part of their work. 

Contact with others:

Firstly, we asked how often they had contact with others as part of their role (options included within the Big Local partnership, residents in the community, their Big Local rep, other paid Big Local workers in their area or in other Big Local areas and Local Trust). We learned that the majority of workers have regular contact with others: 

• 86% (108) have regular contact with Big Local chairs
• 79% (100) have regular contact with other members of the Big Local partnership, and
• 70% (89) have regular contact with other residents outside of the Big Local partnership.

Positively, workers are connected and are in regular contact with others as part of their role; specifically members of the partnerships and residents in the community. They are also in contact with other workers in their area (where there is one). There is little evidence to suggest they work in isolation with little involvement from or contact with others. However, one group that they have little contact with is workers in other Big Local areas. Although over 56% (84) have regular contact with other workers in their own area, only 5% (7) have regular contact with workers in other Big Local areas. This is perhaps not surprising as, to date, centrally organised learning and networking events have focused on bringing together resident volunteers involved in Big Local, as opposed to workers.

We know that a large majority of workers carry out face-to-face work in the community, and that over a third carry out community development/​engagement. Through this work we can see that workers have built strong working relationships with others, both within the programme and outside of it. Almost all workers surveyed think they have a good working relationship with local stakeholders, including local voluntary and community groups, local residents and local government. They also have good working relationships with the Big Local partnerships that they support.

• 99% (140) have a good relationship with local voluntary and community groups.
• 98% (140) have a good relationship with their Big Local partnership.
• 96% (130) have a good relationship with residents in the community.
• 93% (121) have a good relationship with local authority officers, and 90% (119) with local authority councillors.

Information about Big Local:

To find out how connected workers are to wider Local Trust communications about the programme, we asked them where they went for information about Big Local. The most popular sources of information cited are:

• Local Trust website (82% — 124).
• Big Local rep (78% — 118).
• Local Trust newsletter (55% — 83).
• Local Trust staff (39% — 59).

Just under a third of workers get information from the Local Trust ​“working on Big Local” Facebook group; a higher percentage than those getting information from other Big Local paid workers (within their own area or in other Big Local areas). 

Over three quarters rely on the Local Trust website and their Big Local rep for information and updates. Despite regular contact with the chair and the partnership, workers do not go to them for information about the programme. This suggests that workers are more likely to be the source of information for the partnership as part of their task of supporting the partnership. 

Relationships and networks: Resident workers and non-resident workers:

A higher proportion of residents have frequent contact with other workers in their area (36), compared to non-residents. Residents are also more likely to have contact with Local Trust (37). However, even though they are in situ, resident workers are less likely to have frequent contact with the partnership than non-residents (38). In addition, there are also differences between the two groups in relation to where they access information about the programme. Residents are more likely to access information from other Big Local workers (39) and from the Local Trust Twitter feed (40). They are also more likely to be in networks for professional support than non-resident workers (41). 

Relationships and networks: Community development/​engagement (CD/CE) workers and non-CD/CE workers: 

CD/CE workers are similar to other workers in terms of their relationships and networks. Over 80% of both groups of workers said they have frequent contact with the chair (42) but little contact with workers in other Big Local areas (43). Both groups also said they have good relationships with others, although CD/CE workers are more likely to think they have good relationships with community practitioners (44). Just over a third of both are members of professional networks for support (45). 

The significant differences between the two groups relates to how and where they carry out their work- and the differences here are to be expected. For example, CD/CE workers are more likely to have frequent contact with residents in the community (46) and carry out their work in the community than other workers (47). CD/CE workers are also less likely to carry out their work from their hub (48) or their employers’/contractors’ offices (49). 

Relationships and networks: Employees and self-employed workers:

Employee and self-employed workers are similar in relation to their relationships and networks. There are no major differences between the two groups with regards to how often they had contact with others, although a higher proportion of employees have regular contact with workers in their area than self- employed workers (50). Further, the two groups are similar in terms of the quality of their relationships with others. Interestingly, almost half of employees and self-employed workers do not know if they have a good relationship with national membership organisations (51), and a higher proportion of self-employed workers do not know if they have a good relationship with local and voluntary groups (52).

There are few differences between the two when exploring where they access information about Big Local. A slightly higher proportion of self-employed workers get their information from Local Trust staff (53) and a higher proportion of employees get their information from their employer/​contracting organisation (54).

There was a difference between the two groups in relation to where they carried out their work- again, the findings here are perhaps not surprising. Employees are more likely to work at their employers’ office and the Big Local hub (55); and self-employed workers are more likely to work from home (56) or from somewhere else.

In general, there are few differences between the groups when it comes to their relationships and networks. However, residents are less likely to have regular contact with the partnership, which is surprising as they are more likely to be members of the partnership than other workers. They are also more likely to be in regular contact with Local Trust; perhaps a result of previous relationships and trust built up whilst volunteering on Big Local before becoming a worker. Other differences between the groups are to be expected. CD/CE workers are more likely to have regular contact with residents in the community and are more likely to carry out this work in the community. They are also less likely to work from an office or from the hub. In contrast, employees are more likely to work from an office but less likely to work from home. 

To date, Local Trust’s support has been directed towards volunteer, resident partnership members. However, there is a recognition that the majority of workers are employed (or contracted) by a Locally Trusted Organisation (LTO) (57), and that LTOs (and Big Local partnerships) differ across areas in relation to how they work, their skills, expertise and capacity. It was therefore important to understand how workers are currently being supported and what their support needs might be.

Formal and informal support:

We asked a number of questions to identify the different types of support that workers accessed. Key responses to these questions are as follows: 

• 86% (118 workers) have a line/​contract manager. 
• 63% (92) are recognised for good work.
• 85% (126) feel they have the support and resources they need to carry out their role.
• 57% (83) get feedback on their performance.
• 80% (114) have a workplan (58).
• 56% (68) have supervisions/​contract review meetings.
• 74% (112) have regular meetings with someone to discuss work/​progress.
• 53% (80) have received training in the previous 12 months.

We can see that the majority of workers receive some type of ​“formalised” support, such as through a line/​contract manager or having a plan for their work. Just under three quarters also meet someone regularly to talk about their work and progress. The majority also feel that they have the support and resources that they need to do their job.

However, almost half of workers had not been on a course or received training in the last 12 months (including on the job training). In addition, although the majority of workers have a line/​contract manager, when exploring the type of support received from these relationships the picture is more mixed. Just over two thirds of these workers received recognition for good work from managers, but almost half do not have a formal supervision/​contract review meeting with them. 

Being supported by others:

As well as understanding the types of support workers receive, we asked how supported workers felt. Overall, the responses to these questions were positive, in that over three quarters of all workers feel supported by others as part of Big Local: 

• 84% (117) felt supported by the organisation that employs/​contracts them.
• 89% (128) felt well supported by the Big Local chair, 79% (117) by the Big Local partnership, and 78% (114) by the Big Local rep.

We also learned that workers feel more supported by other workers in their area than by workers in other Big Local areas, which supports previous findings in relation to their lack of contact with workers in other areas (59). 

Clarity of role and responsibilities:

Despite the potential ​‘messiness’ of being employed by an LTO but working closely to support the work of the partnership, the majority of workers know what is expected of them and are clear about their role and responsibilities.

• 93% (136) know what is expected of them.
• 80% (116) have clear targets and objectives.
• 85% (129) are clear about their role and responsibilities.

How are workers supported? Resident workers and non-resident workers:

Both residents and non-residents are similar in relation to the type of support they receive. There is little difference between the groups in terms of their likelihood of having a line/​contract manager (60), although a higher proportion of residents have one. Both groups are also similar with over 70% having a formal workplan (61) and feeling that they have the support and resources needed to do their job (62). There are no major differences between residents and non-residents in relation to how supported they feel by their employer/​contracting organisation (63), the Big Local chair (64), the partnership (65) or Big Local rep (66). Being a resident does not make a difference to how clear they are about their role (67) or what is expected of them (68). 

One area where being a resident does make a difference is with regards to training, with residents less likely to have received training in the last 12 months compared to other workers (69). 

How are workers supported? Community development/​engagement (CD/CE) workers and non-CD/CE workers: 

CD/CE and non-CD/CE workers share a number of similarities in relation to how they are supported. There is little difference between the two groups regarding their likelihood of having a line/​contract manager (70), although a slightly higher proportion of non-CD/CE workers have one. Similarly, both groups have the support and resources needed to do their job, with over 80% saying this was the case (71). Further, the majority of both CD/CE and non-CD/CE workers have a workplan (72) and know what is expected of them (73). The majority are clear about their role and responsibilities and have clear objectives and targets (74). In relation to training received, a higher proportion of CD/CE workers received training in the last 12 months, with two thirds of CD/CE workers receiving training compared to less than half of other workers (75).

The most significant difference between CD/CE and non-CD/CE workers relates to the type of support they receive from line/​contract managers (where they have one). In this area, CD/CE workers are more likely to receive specific support from their line/​contract manager than nonCD/​CE workers, such as feedback, recognition of good work and supervisions (76). Although the majority of CD/CE and non-CD/CE workers feel supported by the chair, CD/CE workers are less likely to feel supported (77). 

How are workers supported? Employees and self-employed workers:

There are a number of similarities between employee and self-employed workers in relation to the support they receive. The majority feel that they have the resources and support needed to do their job, with over 80% feeling this way (78). The majority also feel supported by their employer/​contractor although this is the case for a higher proportion of employees (79). Although employees are less likely to feel they have clear targets and objectives than self-employed workers (80), the majority of both feel that they know what is expected of them (81) and are clear about their roles and responsibilities (82). 

However, there are differences between these groups in other areas. Employees are more likely to have a line/​contract manager (83) and to receive specific support from them, such as recognition of good work and feedback on performance (84). Employees are also more likely to have received training in the last 12 months (85) than self-employed workers. Alternatively, self-employed workers are more likely to feel supported by the Big Local rep (86) and a higher proportion also feel supported by Local Trust (87). 

Being a resident, CD/CE worker or an employee does not make a noticeable difference to the support that workers receive in most cases and, where there were differences, there are not necessarily a cause for concern (i.e. is there the same expectation that self-employed workers would receive training?). That not is to say there are no significant differences between these groups of workers at all. We see that resident workers are less likely to have received training, and that although CD/CE workers are more likely to receive specific support from line managers, they are also less likely to feel supported by the chair of the partnership. 

At the end of the survey, we asked open questions about the challenges workers face and what would help them to carry out their role. All responses were coded and categorised into themes. The following are the most common themes in relation to these questions, along with examples of the types of responses given. 

• Challenges relating to the Big Local partnership: conflict on the partnership, difficult relationships between members, wanting members to be more ​“outward looking”, wanting more involvement and engagement from members, conflicts of interest on the group.
• Engaging and outreach: engaging residents in Big Local, getting more people involved in Big Local activities and attracting volunteers to Big Local.
• Capacity and workload: feeling that they don’t have enough time, working to tight project timelines, difficulty balancing projects and dealing with a high volume of work.

Other (less pronounced) themes include challenges in relation to: specific activities, relationships and networks and challenges with the LTO.

Unsurprisingly, the suggestions workers made in relation to what would help them to carry out their role are closely related to the challenges experienced. As before, the following are the most common themes and examples.

• Changes to the culture of the Big Local partnership: more involvement from partnership members, a change in members thinking or approach, an improvement in relations between members.
• Resources to carry out the role: more people (either paid staff or volunteers) and more time to carry out their role.
• Changes to their role/​support: Improved support structure (e.g. regular review meetings or a workplan), more clarification of their role.

Again, other (less pronounced) themes included: access to information, support and guidance, and opportunities for personal and professional development.

Potentially, there are a number of ways in which workers could be supported to do their job. Based on responses and the overall themes identified, support for workers could be grouped as follows: 

• direct support to workers
• indirect support to workers through the Big Local partnership, and
• indirect support to workers through the LTO.

Potential examples of ​“direct” support to workers could include facilitating greater networking between workers across areas through opportunities or events (these could help to build networks between them and encourage peer support). Indirect support through the partnership could include more support for partnerships in relation to their ways of working, relationships between members, roles and responsibilities and how to engage others. Supporting workers through the LTOs could involve facilitating networking between LTOs to encourage peer support and the sharing of knowledge and resources across areas. It could also include building a closer relationship between Local Trust and LTOs, making sure they are aware of their role (and responsibilities) within the programme overall, and specifically in relation to any workers paid to support the Big Local partnership. 

As a result of the survey we know more about the paid workers on the Big Local programme. We know who they are, what they do, what their relationships are like and how they are currently being supported. For the majority, the findings are generally positive; workers feel valued, supported, clear about what they are doing, and that they have what they need to do their job.

However, the picture is not positive for all and there are clear areas where workers could be better supported. Almost a quarter don’t meet with someone regularly to talk about their work, almost half of those with a line/​contract manager don’t have a supervision or receive feedback on their performance, and a fifth don’t have a workplan for their work on Big Local. In addition, almost half have not received any training in the 12 months prior. We also learned that they are not in touch with workers in other Big Local areas- limiting opportunities to learn from each other, share experiences and solutions to help them do their job and support Big Local partnerships. Engaging or working face to face with the community is part of the job for most workers, but many find getting people involved and attracting volunteers to Big Local a challenge. Although common in voluntary programmes, this can impact on what workers can do, their workload and their overall capacity.

As a resident-led programme, it is also worth mentioning the experiences of workers who are also residents in the Big Local area. We learned that residents are progressing as volunteers on Big Local into paid employment as workers, and that their experience is slightly different from other workers. They are less likely to have previous experience in similar roles or to have the highest level of formal education, but unlike other workers they bring experience, knowledge and skills from previous involvement with Big Local. However, resident workers are more likely to be in specific roles and carry out specific tasks than other workers. They are not as likely to be in management or project delivery roles; and are less likely to have roles that involve tasks such as project managing, risk assessing and evaluating. In addition, they are also less likely to have received training than other workers. Their route into employment and their specific experiences are important to keep in mind.

Big Local was envisioned as a volunteer, resident-led programme and volunteers across Big Local (on Big Local partnerships and outside of Big Local partnerships), are delivering plans and making a difference. Much of this work is not done without the support of others and that for the majority of Big Local areas, using some of their Big Local funding to pay for support to help them deliver their plans is more common than not. Being a paid worker on a volunteer led programme brings opportunities and also challenges. But as a result of the first survey of Big Local workers, Local Trust can better understand what it is like for them and what can be done to help them within Big Local. 

1. An online survey was distributed to Big Local workers, through Big Local Reps. The survey was open between 16 July- 14 September 2018.
2. In 2018, Local Trust learned that there were 250 workers in 136 Big Local areas. Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs) directly employed 73% of all workers in areas. In addition, the majority of areas (127) had a worker who carried out some sort of ​“community development or engagement work”. Source: Area Information Tool.
3. Differences between subgroups are statistically significant p<0.05 unless stated. Because all figures are rounded up, the totals in some cases may exceed 100%. Not all 151 respondents answered all the questions asked. 
4. 1% (2) are ​‘other’.
5. 27% (40) workers are residents in the Big Local area. 73% (110) of workers are non-residents. 
6. Statistically significant: 55% (22) of resident workers worked/​volunteered in a similar role before, compared to 79% (86) of non-resident workers.
7. Statistically significant 40% (16) of resident workers have one degree or more, compared to 65% (71) of non-resident workers.
8. Statistically significant: 50% (20) of resident workers were involved in Big Local before, compared to 25% (27) of non-resident workers.
9. Statistically significant. Compared to non-residents, resident workers are more likely to have been: a partnership member (60% [12] of resident workers, compared to 30% [8] of non-resident workers); a partnership chair (20% [4] of resident workers, compared to 0 non-resident workers); a volunteer with Big Local (40% [8] of resident workers, compared to 15% [4] of non-resident workers).
10. Statistically significant 50% (18) of residents are on the partnership, compared to 29% (31 ) of non-residents.
11. Community development/​engagement workers (CD/CE). Responses and analysis are based on the question in relation to what the ​“majority” of their role involved. 39% (58) of workers responded, ​“Community development/​engagement”. 58%/ (80) of workers gave an alternative response. 
12. No statistical significance. 67% (39) of CD/CE workers do not have a Community development qualification.
13. No statistical significance. 29% (17) of CD/CE workers are residents.
14. No statistical significance. 65% (35) of CD/CE workers are not members of the Big Local partnership, compared to 70% (54) of other workers.
15. No statistical significance. 71% (40) of CD/CE workers are female, compared to 73% (55) of other workers. 89% (48) of CD/CE workers are white, compared to 87% (65) of other workers. 50% (28) of CD/CE workers are aged 45–64, compared to 56% (42) of other workers. 
16. No statistical significance. 67% (39) of CD/CE workers were not involved in Big Local before becoming a worker, compared to 71% (57) of other workers.
17. Statistically significant 83% (48) of CD/CE workers have worked/​volunteered in a similar role before, compared to 66% (53) of other workers.
18. Employee and self-employed workers. 84% (127) of workers are employees of an organisation. 15% (22) of workers are ​“self-employed”.
19. No statistical significance. 91% (20) of self-employed workers worked or volunteered in a similar role before, compared to 70% (88) of employees.
20. No statistical significance. 69% (87) of employees were not previously involved in Big Local, compared to 64% (14) self-employed workers.
21. Statistically significant 29% (37) of employees are residents, compared to 14% (3) of self-employed workers.
22. Statistically significant. 75% (90) of employees are female and 25% (30) are male. 55% (12) of self-employed are female and 46% (10) are male.
23. Statistically significant. 29% (6) of self-employed workers are from Black and Minority ethnic groups, whereas 10% (12) of employees are from Black and Minority ethnic groups.
24. ‘Support the Big Local partnership’, e.g. develop the Big Local plan, review the Big Local plan, help with budgeting and monitoring plan spending, support Big Local partnership members, support Big Local partnership meetings. 
25. ‘Work face to face with the community’, e.g. engage local residents and groups, consult the community, deliver activities and projects, deliver community drop in, build relationships and networks.
26. “Provide other support to help the delivery of the Big Local plan”, e.g. project management, trouble shooting, evaluating activities and projects, risk assessments etc.
27. No statistical significance. 43% (17) of resident workers have a CD/CE role, compared to 37% (40) of non-residents. 25% (10) of resident workers have a mainly administration role, compared to 18% (20) of non-residents.
28. No statistical significance 15% (16) non- residents and 8% (3) residents said the majority of their role involved ​“management”. 17% (18) of non-residents and 10% (4) residents said the majority of their role involved delivering projects.
29. Statistically significant. 81% (88) of non-resident workers felt their main tasks were to provide other support to help the delivery of the Big Local plan compared to 63% (25) of resident workers.
30. Statistically significant. 98% (57) of CD/CE workers carry out tasks involve ​“working face to face” with the community, compared to 74% (59) of non-CD/CE workers.
31. Statistically significant p< 0.07. 83% (48) of CD/CE workers carry out tasks providing other support to help deliver the plan, compared to 69% (55) of non-CD/CE workers.
32. No statistical significance. 14% (18) of employed workers deliver projects, compared to 14% (3) of self-employed workers. 
33. No statistical significance. 21% (26) of employed workers have roles that involve ​‘Administration’, compared to 14% (3) of self-employed workers. 
34. No statistical significance 41% (9) of self-employed workers have roles that involve CD/CE, compared to 39% (49) of employed. 
35. No statistical significance. 86% (19) of self-employed workers carried out tasks the ​‘provide other support to help the delivery of the Big Local plan’ compared to 74% (93) of employees.
36. No statistical significance 67% (26) of residents have frequent contact with other workers in their area, compared to 53% (58) of non-residents.
37. Statistically significant. 89% (34) of residents and 88% (97) of non-residents had little contact with Local Trust.
38. Statistically significant at p< 0.06. 84% (92) of non-residents have frequent contact with the partnership compared to 73% (29) of residents.
39. Statistically significant. 43% (17) of residents go to another paid worker on Big Local for information, compared to 20% (22) of non- residents.
40. Statistically significant. 20% (8) of residents get information from the Local Trust Twitter feed, compared to 8% (9) of non-residents. 
41. Statistically significant p< 0.07. 46% (16) of residents are in networks for professional support, compared to 29% (31) of non-residents. 
42. No statistical significance 87% (69) of non-CD/CE workers have frequent contact with the chair compared to 83%(48) of CD/CE workers.
43. No statistical significance 97% (56)of CD/CE workers have little contact with workers in other Big Local areas, compared to 94 % (73) of non-CD/CE workers. 
44. Statistically significant at 0.07. 92% (34) CD/CE workers felt they had good relationships with community development practitioners, compared to 77% (37) of non-CD/CE workers.
45. No statistical significance 36% (20) of CD/CE workers, and 34% (26) of non-workers are in networks for professional support. 
46. Statistically significant 86% (50) of CD/CE workers have frequent contact with residents in the community, compared to 58% (46) of non-CD/CE workers.
47. Statistically significant 32% (18) of CD/CE workers carry out their work in the community through outreach, compared to 4% (3) of non-CD/CE workers.
48. No statistical significance 27% (15) CD/CE workers carrying out their work from a hub, compared to 25% (20) of non-CD/CE workers. 
49. Statistically significant 43% (34) of non-CD/CE workers carry out their work from their employers/contractor’s offices, compared to 13% (7) of CD/CE workers. 
50. No statistical significance. 58% (73) of employees have regular contact with workers in their area, compared to 41% (9) of self-employed/non-employees.
51. No statistical significance. 49% (61) of employees and 48% (10) of self-employed did not know if they had a good relationship with a national membership organisation.
52. No statistical significance. 14% (3) of self-employed and 4% (5) of employees did not know if they had a good relationship with local and voluntary groups.
53. No statistical significance. 50% (11) of self-employed get their information from Local Trust staff compared to 37% (47) of employees.
54. No statistical significance 25% (30) of employees and 14% (3) of self-employed get their information from their employer/​contracting organisation. 
55. Statistically significant 62% (77) of employees work from their employers’ offices or from the Big Local Hub, compared to 27% (6) of self-employed. 
56. Statistically significant 32% (7) of self-employed workers worked from home. Compared to 3% (4) of employees work from home.
57. 83% (125) are employed/​contracted by the LTO, 16% (24) are not employed/​contracted by the LTO.
58. 20% (29) do not have a work plan.
59. 81% (83) felt supported by workers in their area, and 26% (24) felt supported by workers in other Big Local areas. 
60. No statistical significance. 90% (35) of residents and 78% (83) of non-residents have a line/​contract manager.
61. No statistical significance. 77% (85) of non-residents have a workplan compared to 74% (29) of residents.
62. No statistical significance. 90% (35) of residents and 83% (90) of non-residents feel they have the support and resources to do their job.
63. No statistical significance. 90% (35) of residents and 79% (82) non-residents felt well supported by their employer/​contracting organisation.
64. No statistical significance. 86% (94) of non-residents and 85% (34) of residents felt well supported by the Big Local chair. 
65. No statistical significance 81% (87) of non-residents and 73% (29) of residents felt well supported by the Big Local partnership.
66. No statistical significance. 77% (84) of non-residents and 75% (30) of residents felt well supported by the Big Local rep.
67. No statistical significance. 92% (36) of residents and 87% (93) of non-residents were feel their role and responsibilities are clear. 80% (86) of nonresidents and 77% (30) of residents had clear targets and objectives.
68. No statistical significance 95% (37) of residents and 93% (99) of non-residents knew what was expected of them.
69. Statistically significant at p< 0.07. 54% (59) of non-residents and 53% (21) of residents had received training in the last 12 months.
70. No statistical significance. 89% (49) of CD/CE workers have a line/​contract manager, compared to 83% (60) of non-CD/CE workers.
71. No statistical significance. 86% (50) of CD/CE workers and 83% (65) of non-CD/CE workers feel they have the resources and support needed to do their job. 
72. No statistical significance 79 % (44) of CD/CD workers and 78% (58) of non-CD/CE workers have a workplan. 
73. No statistical significance. 95% (72) of non-CD/CE workers and 90% (51) of CD/CE workers know what is expected of them. 
74. No statistical significance. 89%(69) of non-CD/CE workers feel that their role and responsibilities are clear compared to 81% (47) of CD/CE workers. 77%(45) of CD/CE workers and 77%(60) of non-CD/CE workers have clear targets and objectives.
75. No statistical significance. 62% (36) of CD/CE workers and 45% (36) of non-CD/CE workers had received training in the last 12 months.
76. Statistically significant 70% (40) of CD/CE workers and 48% (37) of non-CD/CE workers receive feedback on their performance. 75% (43) CD/CE workers and 56% (43) of non-CD/CE workers receive recognition of good work. 75% (36) CD/CE workers and 41% (26) of non-CD/CE workers have supervision.
77. Statistically significant 19% (11) of CD/CE workers and 8% (6) of non-CD/CE workers feel unsupported by the Big Local chair.
78. No statistical significance 86%(19) of self-employed feel they have the support and resources needed to do their job, compared to 85% (105) of employees.
79. No statistical significance. 83% (101) of employees and 67% (14) of self-employed feel supported by their employer/​contractor.
80. Statistically significant at p< 0.06. 95% (19) self- employed felt that they had clear targets and objectives, compared to 77% (95) of employees.
81. No statistical significance. 92% (114) of employees and 100% (20) of self-employed workers felt that they knew what was expected of them.
82. No statistical significance. 95% (19) of self-employed and 87% (108) of employees feel that their role and responsibilities are clear to them. 
83. Statistically significant 91% (107) of employees have a line/​contract manager compared to 50% (9) of self-employed workers.
84. Statistically significant 68% (83) employees receive recognition of good work, compared to 32% (7) of self-employed. 62% (76) of employees receive feedback on their performance, compared to 23% (5) self-employed. 
85. Statistically significant 58% (73) of employees receive on the job training in last 12 months, compared to 27% (6) of self-employed. 
86. Statistically significant. 95% (20) off self-employed felt supported by the Big Local rep, compared to 74% (92) of employees.
87. No statistical significance. 64% (14) of self-employed and 49% (62) of employees felt supported by Local Trust.