How did residents develop their own abilities to deliver Big Local?

Programme-level support was one component of the capacity building that occurred during Big Local. Alongside this, the resident-led design of Big Local encouraged residents to develop their own approaches to capacity building. This needed encouragement in the beginning, including additional funding for training and consultancy services, to overcome residents’ reluctancy to spend the £1m Big Local funding on themselves rather than the area. Many partnerships proactively sought opportunities to develop their capacity (and that of the wider community) outside of Local Trust’s support offer. 

Similarly, the long-term nature and flexibility of Big Local funding provided partnerships with time and space to experiment, identify local challenges, develop their confidence and skills, build networks, and address more complex issues (Local Trust, 2024a). Partnership members also developed their capabilities organically over time, through exposure to the programme (Wilson et al., 2023). In the 2024 partnership members survey, 84 per cent of respondents agreed that they’d learnt new things from people involved in Big Local in their area, and 85 per cent said that they’d provided support or given advice to people in their area. Building these mutual, reciprocal avenues of support contributed to wider capacity building in communities and resilience at a local level.

The nature of Big Local – long-term, resident-led, and non-prescriptive – encouraged residents to lead on decision-making in their communities. The 2024 partnership members survey revealed that 77 per cent of respondents had been involved with Big Local for four years or more, and 36 per cent were involved for over eight years. This length of time afforded many volunteers the opportunity to build capacity over time through exposure, something that is not possible for funding programmes operating on shorter cycles. 

In Brinnington, Big Local partnership members reflected on their journey where, in the early days of the programme, distrust among residents towards external funding schemes meant they struggled to engage residents and connect with local organisations. By the end of the programme, they had built a strong local presence and a thriving network of stakeholders, working in collaboration to create activities and support for residents. Some partnership members reflected that delivering projects themselves (like a community garden or small grants scheme) helped to develop practical skills (such as reading bids), confidence, and sense of purpose. 

Much of the capacity building in areas was evident in partnership members’ efforts. Across Big Local areas there are examples of partnerships that increased local activity, supported grassroots projects, and built networks that did not exist before. This did not happen by chance, but through the dedication, learning, and development of community leaders and volunteers. In other words, the journeys of Big Local areas are often themselves stories of capacity building – in both the skills and knowledge developed to make it happen, and in the legacy left behind. 

The effects of capacity building were felt beyond the programme. With the skills and knowledge acquired through their experience with Big Local, some volunteers took on similar roles elsewhere or established their own community groups. In North West Ipswich, three partnership members set up a community garden at their local allotments for residents to spend time outdoors, learn gardening skills, and socialise with their neighbours. By the end of the programme, the core group of volunteers who ran the garden felt confident enough to set up their own Community Interest Organisation (CIO) to ensure the community wellbeing benefits continued beyond Big Local. 

Although residents in many Big Local areas benefitted from opportunities to develop new skills and expertise, the process of acquiring these skills was rarely smooth. For example, many partnership members expressed frustration at bureaucratic structures in local authorities and found it challenging to navigate legislation about acquiring assets or delivering projects on council-owned land. These processes could be demoralising and while they sometimes offered learning opportunities, they could slow or stop delivery, limiting opportunities for partnership members and residents to develop their skills. 

Similarly, limiting bureaucratic burden on residents could both enable and slow capacity building. For example, the absence of rigid reporting requirements helped attract a more diverse group of residents, enabled partnerships to focus on delivery, and kept power in communities as residents decided if and how they evaluated their impact. However, as they worked towards legacy plans, many residents found it challenging to apply for alternative funding as, unlike Big Local, evidence of impact and evaluation practices were required. Partnerships had to adapt to the requirements of more prescriptive funding programmes to raise funds outside of Big Local, which required a new and different skillset.

Many partnerships focussed on building capacity and leaving a lasting legacy – they designed and delivered projects to increase local activity and build residents’ skills, knowledge, and networks, so that delivery and community benefit could continue beyond Big Local.

While there was an organic process of capacity building in many Big Local areas, many partnerships proactively sought out ways to accelerate that by upskilling partnership members, volunteers, and other residents. Employing workers was a common way partnerships did this. In 2021, 90 per cent of Big Local areas had at least one employee, freeing up partnership members’ time for overseeing activities and making funding decisions, and provided a source of support and professional expertise. In some instances, residents were employed as workers, providing paid employment to local people and opportunities to develop skills through delivering Big Local. 

Local Trust explores the role of Big Local workers in another article. 

To engage a diverse group of residents, specific skills or experience were not required to join a Big Local partnership. Recognising this, in some areas Big Local funding was allocated to training opportunities for partnership members, to help them navigate tasks and processes associated with community development work. For example, in Stoke North, Big Local funding was allocated for all partnership members to attend a three-day course in mental health first aid. Recognising that there was a need in the area, partnership members reflected that they were able to challenge their own stigmas and misconceptions surrounding mental health and felt more confident in their ability to support their community. The skills acquired will stay in communities long after Big Local, creating the potential for wider impacts beyond the immediate delivery of the programme.

The 2024 partnership members survey found that 85 per cent of respondents had provided support or given advice to other people in their area. This process of skills-sharing was prevalent across the programme, so it was not just those directly involved in Big Local partnerships who benefitted from capacity building, but the wider community as well. 

In 140 out of 150 areas, Big Local funding was used to deliver small grants programmes to build local capacity and community infrastructure (Local Trust, 2020). Grants varied in amount, from hundreds to tens of thousands of pounds, with the most common being around £1,000. These often targeted new initiatives or small groups and individuals working at a grassroots level, who might otherwise find it difficult to access funding. Grants helped people to kickstart their own projects and a process of building skills, knowledge, and experience. Many partnerships also used them as an opportunity to share skills and learning by assisting with writing applications, offering guidance on setting up community projects, and signposting to further funding and support (Davis et al., 2022). 

Some community groups that received grants went on to become self-sustaining. For example, in Winterton, a group of residents received Big Local funding to host a lantern parade. After two successful years, the founding members established Light Up Winterton as a Community Interest Company (CIC), initially supported by Big Local funding but going on to run independently with the 2023 parade attracting 300 people. In Aberfeldy, a resident received a £15,000 grant to set up a boxing club in a disused unit on the high street. By 2025, five years after its inception, the club had attracted over 200 members, with classes for young people, one-to-one coaching, women-only sessions, amateur sessions, classes for neurodivergent children, and a summer school programme. 

Local Trust will explore the role of small grants in an upcoming article.

Many of the activities designed and delivered by Big Local partnerships were created with capacity building in mind. As of 2025, across all Big Local areas, approximately £5.6m had been spent on skills development, training, and employment opportunities for residents. For example, language classes, financial planning and debt advice, computer literacy, sports lessons, gardening, self-defence classes, and hobby development (like knitting and crafting). 

Local Trust has explored how Big Local areas spent their funding in more detail in another article. 

Noel Park Big Local​’s Changing Gears programme hired young people through the Kickstart Scheme (a government programme which funded employers to create jobs for 16 to 24 year olds on Universal Credit). The partnership worked with local organisations to train young residents in various skills, including bike repairs and maintenance, community development, carpentry, plumbing, and window fitting. 

Brereton Big Local ran the Vysions Youth Service, aimed at encouraging young people to get involved with volunteering. This programme built the capacity of young residents by giving them responsibility to lead activities, conduct risk assessments, and design and deliver surveys for Vysions holiday camps.

As well as directly providing development opportunities for residents, many partnerships also built infrastructure to support increased local activity. As of 2025, at least £23m had been spent on developing community assets and spaces (like green spaces and community hubs). This provided infrastructure for new local groups and organisations to form, connect, develop ideas, and deliver work. 

Little Hulton Big Local secured over £950,000 in additional funding to renovate a park pavilion into a successful community hub – CommUNITY. Since opening in March 2025, the hub has been used as a base for youth activities, community workshops and training, and to connect community groups.

Capacity building initiatives funded by Big Local had varying degrees of success across areas. The extent to which new skills, knowledge, and connections were developed was largely dependent on the extent to which partnerships were able to engage with the wider community. Where take up was low, the local impact was minimised. This was often due to less successful local consultation and communication. Partnerships may have invested in delivering projects to build capacity, but if residents were unaware of these opportunities, the possibility for impact was limited. 

Capacity building, and its benefits among the wider community, relied on partnerships’ availability, resources, and abilities to engage residents. This highlights the importance for future programmes to invest in enabling residents leading community-led work to develop their community engagement skills, and their networking skills. 

Local Trust explores networking within the Big Local programme in another article. 

There were also external challenges that were outside of partnerships’ control. For example, the size and infrastructure of the areas, and the size and distribution of the populations often impacted partnerships’ abilities to engage residents in capacity building. Big Local areas with larger populations often had better and more existing infrastructure and local networks, creating more opportunities for collaboration and capacity building, while smaller or rural populations were often more isolated, with weaker foundations for capacity building. In other cases, large populations and a prevalence of community groups made it challenging for partnerships to create a local profile, while visibility was easier in smaller areas with less infrastructure. 

Generally, increased engagement of partnerships with capacity building initiatives positively correlated with the success of Big Local in an area (Wilson et al., 2024). However, the paradox of capacity building is that it often required considerable time and resources, potentially leaving out those most in need of it (Dobson et al., 2022). There were many partnership members who did not take up training, learning, and networking opportunities, often citing time constraints or accessibility issues for those opportunities that required travel. Similarly, some partnerships were reluctant to use funding on upskilling their members or employing workers, due to a desire to keep funds local and for the community. However, while it seemed counterintuitive to some residents, a lack of engagement in learning and development could slow the pace of delivery. Where partnerships allocated resource to learning and development opportunities, they were generally better equipped to deliver and manage projects which led to greater benefits for the wider community.