The Big Local programme supported 150 hyperlocal place-based communities across England. As a dispersed programme, it wasn’t possible for Local Trust to provide support centrally. So, each area was provided with ‘on the ground’ support throughout the programme. There were different types of in-area support, and this article focuses on the support provided through Big Local reps (and the advisors and coordinators who came later in the programme).
Local Trust has explored partnership capacity building and the support provided in other articles.
Reps were individuals appointed by Local Trust to offer tailored support to Big Local areas, and share successes, challenges and news with the organisation. These roles ended in 2022, replaced by Big Local Area Advisors. Advisors were a specialist pool of people contracted to Local Trust, who delivered specialist and technical assignments to support the partnerships.
A Big Local partnership was a group made up of at least eight people that guided the overall direction of delivery in a Big Local area.
A key aim of the Big Local programme was to strengthen the skills, confidence, and capacity of residents. To enable this, residents in Big Local areas controlled over £1m in funding (through resident-led partnerships) and had access to varied programme support, including opportunities for learning, networking, and technical support.
In addition to this optional programme support, every partnership was provided with in-area support through Big Local reps and Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs). These were the main support mechanisms provided to all 150 areas (Wilson, et al. 2023). LTOs were chosen by partnerships to support with governance and manage funding, often delivering activities and employing paid workers appointed by partnerships, who increased their capacity.
Local Trust has explored the roles of Locally Trusted Organisations and Big Local workers in other articles.
Big Local reps were freelance consultants appointed by Local Trust. Their role was designed based on learning from previous community-based programmes, to provide each partnership with support to build their capacity. Reps were a key part of Big Local, and were a significant, long-term investment.
A locally trusted organisation (LTO) was the organisation chosen by people in a Big Local area or the partnership to administer and account for funding, and/or deliver activities or services on behalf of a partnership. Areas might have worked with more than one locally trusted organisation depending on the plan and the skills and resources required.
Many Big Local partnerships funded workers to support the delivery of Big Local. They were paid individuals, as opposed to those who volunteered their time. They were different from Big Local reps and advisors, who were appointed and paid by Local Trust.
The first 50 Big Local areas were announced in 2010 before Local Trust was established. As a result, these areas received interim support from individuals within the Big Lottery Fund (now the National Lottery Community Fund) and local stakeholders (including local authorities and voluntary sector infrastructure bodies – Councils for Voluntary Services) until a consortium was chosen. In 2011 a consortium was appointed to deliver the programme. It recruited a network of Big Local reps, largely from the associates of its lead organisation (the Community Development Foundation) and another consortium member with community regeneration expertise (Renaisi). As soon as the consortium established Local Trust, Renaisi managed and supported reps to deliver their contracts. Renaisi managed Big Local reps until mid-way through the programme in 2019, when Local Trust brought management in-house.
The main purpose of Big Local reps was to build residents’ skills and confidence, and enable resident-led decision-making and action. Their role was to help partnerships, LTOs, workers and collaborators deliver Big Local plans and achieve partnerships’ visions for their communities. Reps did this through advising, facilitating, and challenging, aiming to enable residents to “manage Big Local themselves” (Local Trust, 2018). In addition to this, Local Trust expected reps to uphold the programme values and represent the organisation.
A Big Local Plan set out what changes the partnership planned to make, how they planned to deliver on this and how funds were to be allocated. It was written for themselves, their community and Local Trust, as a guide and action plan.
Support changed over time and adapted to the different phases of the programme and needs of partnerships (Wilson, 2024). As part of this, rep support also changed, introducing and emphasising additional expectations and responsibilities over time. However, after 10 years, Local Trust changed their approach to delivering in-area support through reps. In 2022, they introduced a new role – area advisors – who replaced the rep role and were contracted to provide partnerships with in-area support that was more time limited, targeted, and tailored.
At the same time as replacing reps with area advisors, Local Trust employed a new team of regionally based area coordinators who worked directly with partnerships, providing support and guidance. In addition, they coordinated the specialist support needed by partnerships, provided Local Trust with a direct link to areas, and shared insights on what areas needed. After three years, as more areas spent all their funding and completed the programme, this role was further consolidated. Area advisors remained in place but worked with a smaller pool of senior programme coordinators at Local Trust, who supported areas across regions to close out the programme.
At the start of the Big Local programme, Local Trust and consortium partners had multiple priorities. They were taking over the programme from the Big Lottery Fund, developing infrastructure for delivering a programme in 150 areas across the country, and developing systems and processes for a new organisation. In turn, 50 areas had been announced and started, with another 100 areas expected to join. With that in mind, a priority for the consortium was to ensure all areas had support to engage with and start delivering the programme. This would be provided by Big Local reps.
In 2011, the consortium recruited over 80 freelance consultants as Big Local reps (James et al., 2014). They had skills and experience in community development, regeneration, community engagement, and working directly with communities. Reps were the most constant support in Big Local areas. Once appointed, they joined a pool of reps and were matched to areas based on their location.
The purpose of rep support was to raise awareness of the programme in areas, get local delivery started, and bring interested residents and organisations together (James et al., 2014). As part of this, residents were supported to create a vision for their area, form a decision-making group, and create their first plan. Whilst doing so, reps were expected to work in a way that aligned with the programme ethos and values, supporting residents to lead. Their approach was defined as enabling – not directive or delivering for residents – with a focus on facilitating, advising, and challenging appropriately (James et al., 2014).
In addition to getting the programme started in areas, reps were also expected to represent the programme and provide feedback to Local Trust. They were “the face of Local Trust” in areas (James et al., 2014). As Local Trust’s only contact in each of the 150 areas, they were described as the organisation’s ‘eyes and ears’ and were expected to report back on progress and raise issues (James et al., 2014). Reps were a crucial mechanism for Local Trust’s management of a dispersed programme.
The model of providing local support through a network of reps was effective in the early years, and the support provided by those reps was valued by partnerships (James et al., 2014). Partnerships valued reps for their expertise, knowledge, and skills, and for being a source of ideas. They also appreciated the way reps supported them, for example being encouraging and highlighting achievements to build confidence. The support was varied, but fell broadly into the following tasks (James et al., 2014):
The role required reps to have a range of skills and knowledge to respond to areas’ different needs and contexts. In addition to drawing on their facilitation, community development, and mediation skills, reps were also project managing, problem-solving, and coaching (James et al., 2014). In the early years, a small number of reps took on additional roles and attended training so they could support partnerships interested in social investment (James et al., 2014).
Reps needed to be flexible in providing support (James et al., 2014). They had the same amount of time to work in each area but gave more or less support based on what was needed and when, balancing out their time across different areas. Big Local partnerships also had different skills, strengths, and preferences for how they wanted to be supported – all of which influenced the amount of support reps provided (James et al., 2014).
Resident control over funding was a new approach, and so reps spent time explaining the programme values, ethos, and purpose with agencies and residents (Wilson et al., 2023). However, it was common for reps and the communities they supported to experience conflict with local power holders who wanted more control, and time was spent managing relationships and trying to re-establish the resident-led ethos.
The facilitative nature of rep support also sometimes caused tensions. Reps were expected to enable, facilitate, and support, but not deliver for residents. Their assignment allocated a certain number of days to avoid residents becoming reliant on them, but some reps and partnerships felt more support was needed specifically during (and after) conflict (James et al., 2014). There were reps who felt it was too soon for ‘light touch’, facilitative support and that this was only possible once partnerships had built more capacity (James et al., 2014).
The Big Local programme was also non-prescriptive – residents were to decide what they wanted to do and how. Some partnerships found this flexibility liberating, while other partnerships and reps wanted more direction and practical guidance about what they could do and what Local Trust expected (James et al., 2014). The lack of structure sometimes created a vacuum and some reps stepped in, influencing the structure, focus, and direction of partnerships more than the programme intended.
By March 2016, all 150 areas had been supported to form a Big Local partnership and create their first plan. For Local Trust, once areas had a partnership and plan, the focus of reps expanded to include supporting partnerships to deliver their plans and achieve their vision, as well as to engage communities. Their assignment continued to be purposefully broad, and it was up to reps to decide which tasks were needed to support partnerships, enabling support to be flexible and responsive to each area. As before, Local Trust expected reps to build residents’ skills and confidence, ensure partnerships were leading decision making, offer challenge and remind LTOs and partnerships of Big Local’s ethos and values.
In this peak period, plan delivery looked different across the programme. Partnerships were at varying stages, pursuing diverse projects, and taking different approaches. Some projects were particularly complex, high value, and involved multiple partners. As a result, the support needed during peak delivery was different and more varied than the support needed during the early years. Reps continued to support partnerships to work as a team and manage relationships with LTO and workers (Wilson et al., 2023), though, recognising that residents couldn’t deliver their plans alone, reps also helped partnerships to understand how to work with councils, identified potential partners and brokered relationships (Wilson, 2025).
Reps continued to be contracted to Local Trust and managed by Renaisi. The arrangement drew on Renaisi’s experience and saved Local Trust the capacity needed to manage reps’ day to day. However, a lack of direct relationships created a barrier between Local Trust, the areas and those supporting them. Information didn’t always reach Local Trust, and it wasn’t always clear whose responsibility it was to deal with complaints or challenges reported by reps. Local Trust wanted to establish closer relationships with areas and reps, and to ensure that partnerships felt connected to the wider programme, with information and opportunities shared consistently.
Local Trust reviewed the overall support offer in response to the increased scale of delivery, complexity and diversity of projects, and changing needs in areas. They consolidated and broadened their support offer and increased opportunities for learning, networking, and peer support (Macmillan et al., 2024). Reps continued to be the main source of in-area support, and aspects of their role were particularly valuable. This included face-to-face contact with areas, which linked them with Local Trust and vice versa while supporting the flow of information, and helping partnerships, LTO’s and workers to stay on top of programme guidance and communications (Local Trust, 2018).
In 2019, Local Trust revised the rep role. Although the assignment remained broad to capture a variety of tasks, it expanded to emphasise certain responsibilities, such as supporting partnerships with governance, ensuring they met programme criteria, and encouraging them to learn from each other and to network. Their assignment also emphasised having more financial oversight and supporting LTOs to understand their role (Local Trust, 2020). Expectations to provide information on area spend, progress, risks and insights to Local Trust, and sharing programme messages and opportunities with partnerships, were introduced. It therefore became more important for reps to be connected to the growing programme and aware of information and opportunities, so the role included time for Local Trust’s online networking forum and rep days.
The minimum number of areas reps were expected to work with was increased to improve the quality and consistency of rep support, while the number of reps in the pool was reduced. This meant all reps were provided with a substantial piece of work across multiple areas, incentivising deeper engagement with programme material. Many reps were re-appointed, with some new appointments to fill gaps. Local Trust also formalised policies for reps to provide specific, targeted support to additional areas, drawing on their individual expertise and knowledge of the programme.
At the same time as revising the rep role, Local Trust decided to take over management of reps from Renaisi. This decision was made to counter some of the challenges of managing through a third party, and to strengthen Local Trust’s relationship with reps and improve information sharing. Local Trust increased its staff team to take on responsibilities for rep recruitment, area allocation, management, and contracts.
During peak delivery, reps increasingly took on a mentoring role for residents and partnership chairs, and supported and supervised the growing number of Big Local workers (Wilson et al., 2023). As partnerships progressed plans, reps supported them to look ahead and think strategically about achieving and sustaining change (Wilson, 2025). Reps actively connected areas to each other and to the wider, national programme, and shared learning and practice across areas (Wilson et al., 2023). They encouraged partnership members and Big Local workers to take up learning opportunities, brought in support providers to work with partnerships, and facilitated events on topics to share their own knowledge and expertise across the programme. Between 2016 and 2022, rep support was consistently highly rated by partnership members in Local Trust surveys, with an average of 89 per cent of respondents finding their support helpful.
The decision to take over management brought Local Trust and reps closer, but some challenges remained. Direct contact with reps enabled Local Trust staff to build a more comprehensive understanding of each area. However, this largely relied on the information shared by reps in quarterly reports, which meant information sharing was not immediate and staff weren’t always aware of issues or support needs.
The level and nature of rep support continued to vary, along with the extent to which it built residents’ capacity and met area needs. The broadness of their role provided flexibility to tailor support to each area, but — while most reps supported residents to build their confidence and capacity — support wasn’t always as enabling and facilitative as it could have been. Some stepped into roles and responsibilities beyond what Local Trust expected, taking on what should have been the remit of workers or Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs). Though, this was often done to fill gaps so partnerships could continue delivering their plans. Others potentially did not provide enough support or were silent partners, rather than proactive and facilitating (McCabe et al., 2020). Further, as a large network of individuals, reps had different skills and strengths which influenced the support they provided. For instance, there were aspects of the role some reps felt more comfortable with than others, such as managing conflict. Finally, areas had varying expectations of their rep and wanted to be supported in different ways, while a few partnerships did not understand the purpose of the rep role (Wilson et al., 2023).
In the final phase of Big Local, there was an increased emphasis from Local Trust to ensure partnerships spent their remaining funding, secured their legacies, and closed out well. With four years remaining, areas were at different stages of delivery and facing diverse challenges. Partnerships continued to need flexible support, but the type and level of support was increasingly specific to their context. Therefore, Local Trust needed a greater awareness of what was happening in areas, to ensure they were provided with the right tailored support to make the most of their funding.
From 2022, Local Trust moved away from providing support through reps and introduced two new support roles: area advisors and area coordinators.
For the first time, the organisation employed a small in-house team for in-area support. These area coordinators worked directly with partnerships to provide general guidance and support. They were Local Trust’s contact for areas (sharing key messages and information with partnerships, and vice versa) and coordinated all area support. To help develop a deeper understanding of local context, coordinators worked with a smaller number of areas. Local Trust staff previously supported 50 to 75 areas each, while the new co-ordinators supported approximately 15 areas each.
Unlike area coordinators, area advisors were freelancers, contracted to provide tailored and time limited support based on areas’ specific needs. While reps had a broad remit with rolling, flexible contracts, advisors were contracted for specific purposes, for shorter periods of time. This enabled Local Trust to draw on individual expertise and skill as needed. Many existing reps took up the advisor roles.
Moving from reps to area coordinators and area advisors better supported partnerships to overcome barriers, spend their funding, and close out. Area coordinators played an important role in working with Local Trust colleagues and advisors to identify and respond to partnerships’ support needs.
Several advisors worked with areas to progress projects involving physical assets, supporting related financial and business planning. In areas with issues around group dynamics and conflict, advisors brought new energy and momentum to the partnership, and sometimes took on more formal roles, like independent chairs. Depending on local context, some areas did not have an advisor, while others were supported by multiple advisors. A few areas, usually those closest to spending all their Big Local funding, saw very little change to the in-area support they received.
The introduction of new in-area support roles in the final years required Local Trust, support-providers and partnerships to build new and different relationships with each other. Some partnerships had been supported by the same person for years and were initially confused or unhappy about losing their rep. In addition, when a coordinator was introduced to an area this could cause tension if this new role wasn’t clearly explained to partnership members or if the advisor (as their former rep) had an established relationship with the group. Despite these challenges, Local Trust felt the introduction of coordinators successfully strengthened their connection to areas and built new and supportive relationships between coordinators and advisors.
In 2025, the support provided to areas changed one last time, in response to the decreased number of areas in the programme and smaller team at Local Trust. In-area support was consolidated into a smaller pool of senior programme coordinators, who focussed on closing out the remaining areas from the programme.
In-area support was needed throughout the Big Local programme, but the skills and experience needed changed over time as areas’ needs evolved. In the beginning, areas needed general support, but when they started to deliver more complex or bigger projects, they needed more bespoke and technical support to deliver their plans.
Despite shifts in support over time, certain support was needed throughout the programme, like support for community development and engagement. There was also a consistent need for support with building skills and confidence among the partnership, and for someone to challenge them and act as a critical friend. Support to build relationships – both externally and within the partnership – and with mediation were also needed throughout, along with someone to assess needs (particularly in terms of technical support or expertise) and help with accessing appropriate support.
Local Trust having a close and direct relationship with in-area support providers encouraged good communication and enhanced the support provided. Third party rep management and limited staff capacity had previously made it difficult for Local Trust to develop a connection with areas and a deeper understanding of what they needed support with. This was addressed through the introduction of the area coordinator and advisor model, which enabled Local Trust to develop a closer relationship and more direct communication with areas. Coordinators made it easier to understand needs and manage support, ensuring it remained effective and locally relevant. In turn, coordinators and advisors working alongside one another helped to improve communication and encourage closer relationships.
Finally, there were significant benefits in bringing in-area support providers together for training and networking, to enhance programme-wide thinking and learning. In a long-term programme delivered across 150 communities, those providing support to communities on the ground have access to information, insight, and learning that was important to share. Local Trust invested in regular, face-to-face gatherings and online spaces to bring reps and other support providers together. For Local Trust, these spaces were an opportunity to share information consistently and update in-area support providers on programme developments. They were also opportunities for providers to share information, learning, successes, and challenges with each other. Bringing in-area support providers together provided an opportunity for practical peer learning and support, problem solving, and relationship building, particularly important within a dispersed programme such as Big Local. In addition, these spaces were important opportunities for Local Trust to understand the realities of delivering a programme in communities and hear about achievements and barriers. They offered an opportunity for Local Trust staff and support providers to share learning that contributed to the development of the programme and the support needed to deliver it successfully.
James, D., Jochum, V., Kane, D., Curtis, A., Ockenden, N., Johnston, L., Mendez Sayer, E., and Vanson, T. (2014) ‘Big Local: The early years’ (National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Institute for Volunteering Research, and Office for Public Management). Available on Learning from Big Local. (Accessed 5 December 2025)
Local Trust (2018) ‘The role of the rep in the Big Local programme’. Available on Learning from Big Local. (Accessed 5 December 2025)
Local Trust (2020) ‘Rep Research – Summary report’. Unpublished internal document.
Macmillan, R., and Wells, P. (2024) ‘How was support delivered in the Big Local programme?’ (Local Trust and Sheffield Hallam University). Available on Learning from Big Local. (Accessed 5 December 2025)
McCabe, A., Wilson, M., Macmillan, R., Morgans, P., Ware, P., and Creative Media (2020) ‘Big Local as Change Agent’ (Local Trust and Third Sector Research Centre). Available at: ourbiggerstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/OBS-Big-Local-as-Change-Agent-Feb-20.pdf (Accessed 5 December 2025)
Wilson, M., McCabe, A., Ellis Paine, A., and Macmillan, R. (2023) ‘A delicate balance: national support provision in the Big Local programme’ (Local Trust, Third Sector Research Centre, Bayes Business School, and Sheffield Hallam University). Available at: ourbiggerstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/TSRC_A-delicate-balance_.-Full-report-2023_.pdf (Accessed 5 December 2025)
Wilson, M. (2024) ‘What were the support needs of Big Local areas, and how were they identified?’. Available on Learning from Big Local. (Accessed 5 December 2025)
Wilson, M., Munro, E., Ellis Paine, A., Macmillan, R., Wells, P., and McCabe, A. (2024) ‘Understanding success in Big Local’ (Local Trust, Sheffield Hallam University, and Bayes Business School). Available at: ourbiggerstory.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Our-Bigger-Study-What-is-Success.pdf (Accessed 5 December 2025)
Wilson, M (2025) ‘How did Local Trust support Big Local areas to build networks?’. Available on Learning from Big Local. (Accessed 5 December 2025)
