Did the Big Local approach work in all areas?

The Big Local programme distributed £1m in non-competitive funding to each of the 150 hyper-local areas using an experimental approach of resident-led decision making. Across the 150 areas, different interpretations and preferences unlocked different ways of delivering on this approach.

Resident-led partnerships made decisions on how to use funding for community benefit. Many partnerships relied on their Locally Trusted Organisations (LTO) or paid workers to lead on engaging the wider community to inform Big Local plans or volunteer; delivering projects and events; and supporting or encouraging residents to access small grants and develop their own projects – all based on partnership priorities and plans. Some partnerships chose to be involved in these activities – to varying degrees within and across partnerships according to availability and interests – while others chose to lead these activities, and others focused exclusively on decision-making.

Local Trust has explored how residents made decisions in Big Local, how paid workers supported Big Local, and how the values of Big Local informed its design and delivery in other articles.

Local Trust and its network of specialist individuals and organisations provided significant support for residents making decisions on behalf of their communities, to build their capacity and confidence. All Big Local partnerships faced challenges, though some were better able to navigate and overcome them than others, depending on the circumstances and people involved. Most partnerships were able to solve problems and use the challenges they faced to grow as a team. While some faced challenges that disrupted their ability to make decisions and deliver projects, with support they were mostly able to pause, re-group, and get back on track.

Towards the end of the Big Local programme, Local Trust took particular action in seven areas facing significant ongoing challenges, to ensure the full funding allocated would be spent to benefit that community before the end of the programme. This became known internally as the alternative delivery model.

In alternative delivery areas, the resident-led decision-making group (the partnership) no longer met to oversee delivery or make decisions, and the way forward was decided by Local Trust in collaboration with local organisations. The approach taken in each of these areas ensured the funding was spent for community benefit and aligned with previous community feedback or previously assessed and endorsed Big Local plans.

This article draws on learnings from these seven areas, alongside several other areas that faced significant ongoing challenges, to explore where the Big Local approach did and didn’t work, and why.

All partnerships received support from Local Trust. This included in-area support from community development practitioners known as reps/​advisors who acted as a critical friend and provided the day-to-day support required by residents. In-area support was developed further mid-way through the programme, with the introduction of area co-ordinators employed by Local Trust who worked with reps, Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs), workers, and partnerships to develop tailored support offers and act as an additional critical friend.

This core support offer was the main way to prevent challenges becoming disruptive to the delivery of Big Local. The support provided by the LTO was also important in helping residents to navigate difficulties, make decisions, and deliver projects. Beyond this core support were opportunities to attend events with guest speakers and residents from other areas, and access varied specialist support offers.

Local Trust has explored the support needs of Big Local partnerships, how Big Local increased the capacity of residents, how the in-area support developed over time, and the role of LTOs in other articles.

The most prevalent challenges in resident-led decision-making were interpersonal. Conflict in partnerships could, on occasion, be so significant that decisions about how to use funding and progress projects could not be reached. This caused ongoing delays with delivering plans along with frustration and fatigue among residents involved in dysfunctional meetings – both those actively involved in conflict, and those who were not but couldn’t move forward with Big Local without a resolution. Complaints raised to Local Trust also slowed delivery, which had to be paused to allow for review.

These interpersonal challenges sometimes exacerbated, and were exacerbated by, capacity challenges, with a limited number of residents willing to come forward and join the partnership. Poor governance and conflicts of interest could also cause or add to tensions in an area. Behind these problems was a range of contexts and drivers, some of which are highlighted below. Notably, in a few instances, social media contributed significantly to fuelling or reigniting conflict in an area.

Local Trust has explored what conflict looked like in Big Local in another article.

The availability of community development workers (for Local Trust or partnerships to employ) and organisations (to act as LTOs or delivery partners) varied significantly across areas, which meant there were sometimes limited options for the specialist support required. Big Local was also being delivered against the backdrop of austerity, losses in the community development sector, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the cost of living crisis, putting additional pressure on skilled practitioners to prioritise and protect their wellbeing.

Some partnerships also began in settings with existing conflict, which was then reflected in partnership ​‘factions’ and led to deep-rooted interpersonal problems, while others started with a history of community development, civic engagement, and working together. Some areas had geographic boundaries that felt aligned with the community, while others didn’t. Areas announced in the first wave were also more likely to experience conflict early on, as the clarity of communications was refined over time as the programme and Local Trust formed and found their feet.

Other stressors included ambitious flagship projects that proved to be either unexpectedly slow-moving or unviable, and the level of understanding in the partnership of the market value for skilled paid workers.

Local Trust has described the three waves of areas and different stages of Big Local, including how it began with a consortium before Local Trust was set up, on the timeline page.

Particularly early in the Big Local programme, before in-house co-ordinators (with direct relationships with residents) were introduced, Local Trust had to navigate interpersonal challenges and complaints with limited or second-hand information. While residents in areas experiencing persistent interpersonal problems often wanted a representative from Local Trust to take a particular position, Local Trust staff strived to stay neutral and support a shared resolution. This did not always feel satisfactory to those involved in, or affected by, conflict.

Navigating challenges and complaints was especially challenging for Local Trust staff in instances relating to differences in culture, ethnicity, age, or class, given a lack of direct information to go on. Particularly because, throughout much of Big Local, most Local Trust staff and in-area reps were white and relatively privileged, and shared limited life experiences with residents.

Local Trust has explored inclusion in Big Local in another article.

While rare, when complaints were raised or ongoing challenges were impacting delivery, Local Trust staff first encouraged the partnership to address it themselves, with support from their in-area rep and LTO, in line with their local policies. This was mostly effective in resolving conflict and supporting partnerships to develop their capacity. However, it was sometimes unsuccessful, for example due to capacity barriers, a lack of the right specialist skills among reps and the LTO, or governance processes being unclear or not followed. In these instances, Local Trust took more targeted action.

Local Trust’s response often involved providing additional capacity for in-area support, such as reps from other areas with particular skills or an independent chair who ran meetings and helped residents find a way to work together and reach decisions. This was a high-cost intervention which could not be sustained throughout the programme. It also, at least to begin with, felt somewhat uncomfortable for Local Trust staff as it was a different approach to the resident-led model that had been adopted in most Big Local areas. While it meant residents participated in rather than led meetings, they still made collective decisions, and it was an effective way to break through a period of high-level conflict.

Other key support included governance reviews and mediation. Deploying people with the right skillset to mediate was crucial to resolving conflict-driven problems. While governance reviews were important, these were difficult to engage with before tensions had begun to be resolved.

In some cases, Local Trust allocated resource to help partnerships find new paid workers to add capacity for delivery, and new residents to bring into the partnership. Bringing in new people helped temper previous problems by addressing tensions caused by a lack of capacity or by adding voices that had not been involved in the conflict.

In a few areas, failure to meet Local Trust’s core criteria (due to a lack of resident-members or membership not reflecting the wider community) meant partnerships were derecognised by Local Trust. In these cases entirely new partnerships were built, effectively re-starting Big Local in the area. This was followed by intensive support, to build the capacity of the new partnership quickly and begin delivery. Some of these partnerships continued to struggle with conflict and decision-making throughout Big Local.

Throughout this work, Local Trust staff built relationships with residents, with senior staff sometimes visiting to provide advice and deal with blockers. Local Trust staff reflected that organisations delivering specialist support (such as help with community engagement or assets) were well placed to work with partnerships dealing with limited conflict, as those in active conflict struggled to meaningfully engage with these sessions. However, specialist support offers which focused on creating delivery strategies and evaluation tools such as Theories of Change, were sometimes deployed as a way of helping partnerships to re-focus.

Local Trust staff also reflected that they should have gone into some areas to build direct relationships and develop their understanding of the issues sooner. Though, capacity constraints early in the programme were significant. While support was sometimes effective, it wasn’t always, and Local Trust decisions, interventions, or findings from complaints reviews were sometimes rejected or criticised by residents. For staff working at Local Trust, it was sometimes challenging to differentiate between unacceptable behaviour that took place in Big Local settings, and behaviour or relationship challenges that were simply part of daily life in a community.

Where Local Trust’s interventions worked, delivery and spending increased, sometimes with strengthened governance, a new plan, or a new LTO. The success, or not, of these interventions was underpinned by the people involved in engaging with and delivering them, and the context they were in.

Sometimes many people were involved in the conflict, other times just a small number. Sometimes partnership members no longer wanted to continue, other times at least a few still wanted to make it work. Sometimes particular people leaving the partnership meant the remaining members could quickly recover and continue, other times key individuals involved in conflict remained and the erosion of trust and goodwill was too difficult to re-build from. And sometimes the people with the right skills were available in or near the area at the time they were needed, while at other times not.

Regardless of the varied circumstances in areas with persistent challenges, for Local Trust, it was important to try different approaches and interventions for as long as possible. In navigating this, Local Trust staff had to be particularly mindful of the hyper-local nature of the programme – partnership members lived in the same area and would likely interact with each other whether they remained in the partnership or not.

First and foremost, whether Local Trust implemented an alternative delivery approach boiled down to timing. If significant conflict showed up early in the programme, there was enough time left to work through problems, or to form an entirely new resident-led group. If the same level of conflict showed up or persisted through to the final years of Big Local, there was less time available to recover and re-focus on delivering projects. Reflecting at the end of the programme, Local Trust staff felt that, with more time, some of the seven areas on an alternative delivery path in the final years of Big Local could have returned to resident-led decision-making.

However, even with more time, Local Trust staff felt that a few areas could not have completed the programme using the Big Local model for resident-led decision making. This was, at least in part, down to resident capacity in the area. Some areas had relatively small populations, which influenced the number of potential new partnership members and the likelihood that they were already aware of the problems, which (paired with a smaller pot of money left to distribute) was off-putting.

Notably, Local Trust staff reflected that many of the areas that eventually became the seven alternative delivery areas, didn’t engage with the optional learning, training, and networking support offers early in the programme. Peer networking in particular helped partnership members to recognise that conflict was normal, pick-up tips about running meetings effectively, reflect on problems, and re-energise their appetite to tackle them. These sessions also helped Local Trust staff to understand problems in areas and build relationships with residents, particularly before in-house co-ordinators were in place.

In 2019, mid-way through the programme, research and discussions informed an assessment of which areas were at risk of not spending out. A difference was identified between areas where progress was behind others but still on track, and areas where delivery was continually stalled and there was a high risk of not spending all the funding. Decisions about which areas would follow an alternative delivery approach were often based on adherence to the core criteria for partnerships and ongoing conflict, rather than the amount of money left to spend. Though, conversations about the risk of not spending out sharpened the meaning and focus of risks more broadly as Local Trust approached the end of Big Local.

The following year, Dartford Big Local was the first partnership to be derecognised by Local Trust without being replaced. Local Trust staff trialled several approaches to ensure remaining funds were spent in resident-led ways, including participatory budgeting events. Though, due to a lack of engagement from residents, Local Trust allocated the remaining £170,000 to a local organisation with the remit of supporting projects aligned with community priorities.

The alternative delivery model was shaped by this experience, alongside a strategic drive for all areas to receive all the funding allocated and use it for community benefit. On balance, when choosing between letting partnerships continue as they were (potentially losing out on the funding, but learning from it and retaining ownership of the process), and making sure the community as a whole received the full pot of funding (through removing the resident-led decision-making group), it felt more important to senior leaders at Local Trust to ensure the wider community received the funding they were promised.

The alternative approach was introduced in two more areas – Barnfield and Bountagu. While moving away from the resident-led decision-making model was uncomfortable, Local Trust paused partnership meetings due to ongoing challenges that were not improving, and concerns for the wellbeing of both residents and staff. After a period of reflection, support staff recommended to the Local Trust Senior Management Team and the Board of Trustees that these partnerships should not continue and alternative arrangements should be made. This recommendation was accepted and approaches were devised to spend the remaining funds. The existing Locally Trusted Organisation (LTO) continued to deliver Barnfield’s final Big Local plan, using the remaining £130k available. While in Bountagu, a local community organisation was appointed to deliver a small grants scheme aligned with community priorities using the remaining £330,000.

These marked the first formal decisions to take alternative delivery approaches, in March 2023. Decisions were then taken on a case-by-case basis in four other areas (Conniburrow, Dewsbury Moor, Hill Top and Caldwell, and Kingsbrook and Cauldwell) by August 2024. Where available, local organisations delivered Big Local plans using the remaining funding. Where Big Local plans were not in place, grants schemes were delivered in line with community priorities, sometimes involving residents from the partnership and wider community as decision-makers.

Where extensive support had been provided but a partnership was consistently not following the programme’s core criteria or facing ongoing problems making decisions, case-by-case decisions were made about moving to an alternative delivery model. Local Trust staff described this as ​‘an art not a science’. This approach was a last resort, to be used only if all other options had been explored and exhausted.

A few areas were considered but not selected, as other ways forward were found. For example, in one area only one or two people were behaving outside of the programme values. These values were set out in core guidance provided to partnerships, requiring members to behave in open, constructive, inclusive, and respectful ways, avoiding hurtful or damaging behaviour. These people were removed from the partnership and the group continued. In another area, a small number of partnership members were able to find the focus needed to allocate their remaining funds to a local organisation to deliver their projects, with no further role for the partnership in delivery.

For areas where no other ways forward were found with residents, proposals were made by Local Trust support staff and presented to the Senior Management Team and a sub-group of Trustees for sign off. While Local Trust was able to derecognise a partnership (due to not meeting core programme criteria), there was a period of reflection before moving to an alternative delivery approach, allowing for a recommendation to be formed, considered, and signed off. A condition for sign off was a clear plan that aligned with resident wishes; either a Big Local plan or previous community consultation.

Local Trust staff reflected that residents in the alternative delivery areas responded surprisingly positively to the decisions. While some people disagreed with it and requested more information, this was a small number. Many more seemed to be relieved that the money would still be spent on their community’s priorities – and sometimes their most recent Big Local plan – but without the pressure and unpleasantness of meeting as a group to make decisions. While no longer being recognised as the decision-makers was disempowering, it was a gentler way of stewarding residents’ projects to the finish line for those experiencing high-levels of ongoing conflict or struggling to meet the criteria for a resident-led partnership.

It takes patience and determination to enable resident-led work. Not least because the reality of hyper-local programmes is that those participating are neighbours. While challenges were extensive in the seven areas that ultimately took an alternative approach, in the context of 150 areas in an experimental programme, this number being so small reflects how successful the Big Local approach was.

The quality of support needed to deliver resident-led change should not be under-estimated. It is skilled work that requires significant investment to build resident capacity, dependent on finding the people with the right skills and offering competitive rates for employment. Ensuring the workforce is diverse, and reflective of the communities they are working with, can help with staff confidence and understanding when navigating conflict relating to cultural differences and ethnicity, and is worth prioritising from the outset.

For staff working to enable the delivery of Big Local, the introduction of alternative delivery approaches reduced pressure. This helped staff to collectively focus on resolving issues wherever they could and letting go where they couldn’t, to focus on finding other ways to deliver Big Local. Senior staff reflected on the importance of building a culture that values different skillsets and experience across a team, so that those managing delivery day-to-day do not see drawing on senior staff as an escalation. Many of the problems faced throughout Big Local were closely linked to a lack of capacity in Local Trust in the early stages of the programme. With a bigger delivery team from the start, relationships and understanding could have been built early, making it easier to understand and address support needs, and ensure messaging and expectations were clear and consistent across all areas.

Local Trust staff initially took the position that they should work with all residents who came forward to be on a partnership, as they all had a right to be there. However, on reflection, staff felt that stronger boundaries could have been set so that an entire group did not have to be affected by one or two people’s behaviour. Clear guidance on acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in meetings was felt to be particularly important. Though, staff also reflected that no amount of guidance will see you through; judgment and common sense must be used in implementing guidance, while always retaining a focus on how decisions, communications, and actions would impact residents.

The learning in this article could shape the design of future resident-led programmes and projects. Initiatives should prioritise:

• early engagement in peer learning
• building direct relationships between funders and residents
• having clear guidance from the start about conflict and complaints
• setting expectations for behaviour and the roles and responsibilities of different actors (residents, staff in the funding body, Locally Trusted Organisations, and reps/​advisors), particularly those involved in conflict and complaints processes.