How did the long-term, flexible Big Local funding support and enable community power?

The Big Local programme aimed to build capacity in communities that had historically received less funding than other areas in England. It did this by transferring decision-making power and control over a financial resource directly to local residents. The programme, beginning in 2012 and concluding by 2026, provided over £1 million in non-prescriptive funding to 150 communities. Big Local differed fundamentally from previous initiatives by giving money straight to communities, rather than channelling it through local authorities or other organisations. Resident decision-makers chose local organisations to work with who held the funding on their behalf. Local Trust has explored the role of Locally Trusted Organisations in Big Local, and how effective the Locally Trusted Organisation model was in greater detail in other articles.

Research on the Big Local programme shows a web of interrelated components that come together to generate and sustain community power (Diagram 1). No one component led to the transfer of power to residents; a systematic and ongoing effort to build, maintain, and strengthen the whole web was necessary. These components are explained in more detail below. How they were supported and restricted, and how they could be facilitated into the future, highlights the value of non-prescriptive funding controlled by residents – especially for designers of community-led programmes.

Introducing non-prescriptive funding to areas that historically had less funding than other places tended to expose underlying inequities in local power. Consequently, Big Local partnerships often experienced early challenges with existing powerholders, including local councils and public bodies. 

Local authorities’ openness to the Big Local ethos and willingness to relinquish control would often dictate a community’s development. One partnership described councillors sceptical of community power as the ​“old guard”, and those who believed that well-resourced residents could make change as the ​“new guard”. The same partnership believed that both existed in their local authority – and crucially, that power lay in forging connections with the so-called new guard, who were more likely to advocate for the community and help resident leadership flourish. 

Many partnerships therefore dedicated resources to identifying and building relationships with local powerholders they felt would welcome the Big Local ethos. Some partnerships felt that more early input from Local Trust could have helped facilitate these difficult conversations and paved the way for greater community control. However, had Local Trust stepped in to prime powerholders, residents may have missed out on valuable experience and not developed the necessary skills to recognise and navigate local power dynamics – such as negotiation, conflict management and consensus-building. Overall, in many areas where there were preexisting tensions between residents and councils, these relationships did change for the better over the long timeframe of the programme.

The transfer of power to residents within Big Local hinged not only on communities’ skills and expertise, but recognition of where to buy in support to help them meet their priorities. As long as resident-led initiatives and enabling (rather than taking) community power remained at the forefront, paid workers came to be considered by many partnerships as essential – even for those initially resistant to spending money on such support. 

The role of paid workers in the Big Local programme is explored in another article.

Partnerships partially developed community power through creating strong community identities – often in places where no collective identity had previously existed. This involved new branding, merchandise and prominent publicity of Big Local. Identity-building helped engage more community members, raise awareness of the programme, strengthen connections in and between fractured communities and widely demonstrated the value of the programme’s ethos. Local Trust’s podcast episode on community pride explores these themes further.

In many Big Local areas, well-funded community assets offered residents a welcoming space to gather, plan, and run activities tailored to their needs. Revitalising these spaces with Big Local funding not only kept important community buildings open, but made the success of resident-led projects more visible. 

During the cost-of-living crisis, investments in local spaces (such as initiatives involving efficient energy that helped to reduce running costs) enabled many of these key assets to remain open for the community. Local Trust has explored why investing in physical assets was so important for many Big Local areas, and how Big Local areas increased community control over community assets and spaces in other articles.

Resident networks were essential during the Big Local programme. These networks – which included volunteers, activists, engaged residents, community-asset employees, community organisations, and partnership members – had direct, often long-term experience of life, challenges, and crises in their area. They therefore generally knew what was needed locally without extensive consultation, and access to non-prescriptive funding allowed Big Local partnerships to quickly allocate or reallocate money accordingly. This efficiency demonstrated to funders and powerholders that empowered resident networks could be responsive and resilient even in times of crisis. 

Partnerships that prioritised and invested in resident networks saw them develop and grow during the programme. On the other hand, areas that invested less in local networks often found that engaging residents in funding decisions became a struggle, leaving decisions to be made by a few partnership members rather than a more representative cross-section of their communities.

Investment in local networks partly went towards consistently engaging and skilling-up residents – particularly volunteers. These increasingly confident partnership members and seasoned volunteers could often pass their growing skills and expertise on to others through teaching and mentoring. For example, volunteers who became confident in public speaking could help other residents speak out and demand change from a place of greater strength to the point where they could advocate for themselves as a community. In one area, a group of 10 community members attended a council meeting to successfully request an asset transfer of a community building that faced being torn down. Knowledge of their access to Big Local funding, as well as confidence in the strength of their network, bolstered these residents’ ability to collectively take action to save a valuable asset.

Communities tended to develop power only when they actively engaged in work to create local change. Investments in social and cultural activities and events (especially those suggested by residents) helped create opportunities to participate in Big Local, growing local networks, and in turn facilitating community power. As a result, some partnerships actively encouraged local people to come up with new activities and present them to other residents and partnership members. This approach promoted learning and agency, improved community inclusion and cohesion, and helped communities develop a sense of ownership and power.

Big Local funding facilitated positive relationships between local organisations (including charities, businesses and public bodies) and communities. Collaborative events and activities helped residents influence and make decisions regarding the use of local resources. Some partnerships also used shared community venues to bring together different service providers and sources of support for residents, such as advice services, local authority representatives, and councillors, all in one place.

Having money could also bring community voices into decision-making boards within local businesses or development enterprises. However, the limitations of Big Local funding sometimes became visible in these settings; some organisations could not be swayed in their plans by Big Local work, leaving some partnerships feeling powerless to address certain local issues.

For example, in one area, substantial community development funds (far greater than Big Local funding) were offered to resident groups by a private development project to offset a negative environmental impact initiative. This money might have supported community power by providing further funding for resident-led activities and community spaces in the area. However, partnership members felt that the development’s principles did not align with those of local residents and declined the offer. In this instance, the Big Local funding was unable to influence change, and at the time of writing, the initiative may still go ahead. This situation highlights that there are limitations to what can be achieved even with access to over £1 million in funding, and why partnerships felt it was important to be cautious when building relationships with certain organisations and initiatives.

Money allowed many Big Local areas to develop a reputation for success, in turn helping communities gain power through positive recognition and additional funding. In one example, a Big Local area secured significant additional funding from the National Lottery Community Fund so that they could take ownership of delivering a local support service. The partnership believed this was enabled by their initial Big Local investment, which had allowed them to secure the asset transfer of a community building and funded collaborative projects with smaller groups and resident networks.

Different partnerships established reputations in different ways. While smaller-scale grant-giving was often a manageable way for partnerships to demonstrate their ability to effect local change, larger, so-called ​‘flagship’ projects produced impressive track records in some Big Local areas. These larger projects were typically more challenging to bring to fruition and required careful community consultation in order to keep residents engaged, particularly if plans had to change as the project progressed.

Sustaining community power requires mechanisms to bring in additional funding and embed community leadership into local power structures. For this to be effective, the funding ecosystem must prioritise community-led infrastructure, and work to create a sustainable and community-driven approach to development. How money was spent to establish new organisations, spaces and projects during the time of the Big Local programme played a key role in each area’s future.