What was the role of paid workers in Big Local?

The Big Local programme was designed to be different. Unlike other funding approaches, a core feature of Big Local was that residents led decision-making about the use of funding. Funding was non-prescriptive to allow residents to choose their priorities and how to address them, and Local Trust’s role as funder was to provide flexible and responsive support to help communities achieve their ambitions. 

In the early years, partnerships typically began with small-scale activities run entirely by volunteers. Once community consultation informed the partnership’s priorities and they became more confident, projects became more complex and ambitious. In most areas it was no longer practical for projects to be delivered entirely by volunteers, and partnerships recognised that the volume and complexity of the work exceeded what volunteers could sustain. Local Trust did not prescribe the use of workers – partnerships could decide if and when to employ them. As a result, there was variation: some decided early on to employ workers, others took longer, and a small number chose not to employ workers at all.

Big Local areas were characterised by high levels of deprivation (relating to health, income, housing, and employment) and a lack of social funding and local investment (Dallimore et al., 2019). Often, partnerships were using Big Local funds to address complex needs caused by these systemic issues, like the closure of youth services and clubs, the loss of community centres and spaces, and the erosion of local support infrastructure. This context led to some residents’ initial resistance to spending money on staff costs, rather than putting it directly into the community.

By 2018, 245 workers were employed across 136 out of 150 Big Local areas, and by 2021 this increased to 265 (Local Trust, 2018; 2021; 2022a). The scale at which partnerships employed workers – to align available capacity with meeting community needs – highlights the limits of volunteers’ time and capacity, and the complexity of work required to deliver the programme. 

For the 90 per cent of areas where workers were employed, some partnerships hired early in the programme, while others first delivered their plans through voluntary efforts and hired workers later. For the 10 per cent of Big Local areas where workers were not employed, partnerships often had a staff member from their Locally Trusted Organisation (LTO) performing the role unofficially (Dobson, 2025). Where partnerships were resistant to employ workers, it was often because there was a reluctance to spend the significant portion of the £1m necessary for paid employees, instead of direct delivery in the community. It took time for partnerships to see staff costs as necessary for delivering on their priorities, rather than taking money away from the community.

Workers were appointed and their work directed by partnerships, and most were employed or subcontracted by the Locally Trusted Organisation (LTO) (Dobson, 2025). This arrangement with LTOs continued throughout Big Local, however, some partnerships became incorporated bodies and took on the role of employer later in the programme (partnerships were generally unincorporated bodies so could not legally employ people). 

Training and development of workers is lawfully the responsibility of employers. So, with workers’ development accounted for, Local Trust initially focused their resources exclusively on the development of residents leading Big Local through their local partnership. However, two emerging factors led to Local Trust later changing its approach. 

First, Big Local ran across a period where funding for community development work was increasingly cut and fiscally austere local authorities concentrated on providing statutory services (Haves, 2024). The closure of the Community Development Foundation and Federation for Community Development Learning (in 2016 and 2017 respectively) were symptomatic examples of ongoing funding cuts. This led to a reduction in training and opportunities for workers to network and learn from one another in this field. Second, Local Trust saw that there was an increasing reliance on workers to progress partnerships’ plans. These combined factors led to Local Trust adapting their approach by offering more development support and learning opportunities to workers.

Big Local workers were predominantly non-residents (73 per cent), female (72 per cent), aged between 45 and 54 (54 per cent), and white (87 per cent), with experience in similar work (73 per cent) and educated to degree level (59 per cent) (Local Trust, 2019). 

Although resident workers contributed clear benefits – such as stronger local knowledge, community connections, and passion for the area – only about 25 per cent of Big Local workers lived in the communities they served. Those who did, were more likely to have previously volunteered with or been involved in the partnership. Resident workers were less likely to have degrees or experience, so Big Local helped develop a new pool of community development workers across England (Local Trust, 2022a). While challenges included gaps in professionalism, confidentiality, workplace skills, and difficulty separating work from personal life, resident workers were seen as an example of how skills and capacity were built in the community (Local Trust, 2022a). 

In a 2018 survey of Big Local workers, 72 per cent said they were female (Local Trust, 2022b). This matches a wider trend in the programme, where almost 78 per cent of partnership members were also female (Local Trust, 2022b).

While many workers focused on community development, others were employed to provide administrative support or specialist skills, like youth work or running community cafés. In some areas, volunteers took on greater responsibilities and their roles evolved into paid work. For example, in Arley and Ansley Big Local, one worker began as a volunteer, later joined the partnership to support the local youth club, and became a youth support worker funded by the council to gain formal youth work qualifications. 

Responding to local needs, each Big Local area was distinct in the projects and activities that were funded. While specific initiatives varied, partnerships were often addressing similar underlying challenges, such as difficulties engaging the community, navigating relationships with local authorities, and responding to the effects of long-term deprivation. As a result, there were similarities in workers’ roles and responsibilities. Key skills included project management, administration, and relationship building, which enabled them to support partnerships and free up partnership members to focus on strategic decisions and areas of interest. Workers also needed to be flexible and adaptable, to respond to shifting priorities or external events like the Covid-19 pandemic. A crucial part of their role was to provide stability and continuity for the partnership, helping them manage change while keeping momentum. As partnerships became more confident over time, workers’ responsibilities became increasingly complex. Other (but equally important) tasks that workers went on to support with included managing community assets, fundraising, and providing governance support (Local Trust, 2018; 2021). 

Workers often performed multiple roles for a partnership, and it was common for areas to have between one and three workers (mostly in part-time roles), depending on the volume of work or required skills. For example, some partnerships needed general administrative assistance to support meetings or monitor spending, or more specialist support to fundraise, set up legal entities, or lead community outreach. Both specialist and general support freed up time for partnerships to focus on strategic decision-making (Local Trust, 2022a).

While workers generally had a positive impact on the programme, their skills and capacity varied. As Big Local progressed, challenges emerged, like the need to sustain community engagement while managing increasingly complex projects (like buying a building). In some cases, workers took on too much decision-making responsibility, particularly when partnerships lacked capacity to meet, faced internal conflicts, or struggled with decision-making. A 2024 survey of partnership members found that 23 per cent did not agree their Big Local workers provided an appropriate level of influence, compared with 15 per cent for Local Trust advisors and delivery support staff, and 39 per cent for their Locally Trusted Organisation (LTO) (Local Trust, 2022b). Overreliance on workers often began as a way to keep projects moving when partnerships faced difficulties, but in some areas it resulted in dependency and workers dominating decision-making.

Workers received support, not only from their employers or Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs), but from Local Trust reps. When Big Local areas were first defined, reps did the initial community development work by helping to set up steering groups of residents that later became the partnerships. When areas started to employ workers, reps shared their own knowledge and experience of community development work to support workers in their role. reps were an important link between Big Local areas and Local Trust as they were able to advise Local Trust on the need for further or different support for partnerships and workers. Reps were a valuable resource to workers, especially those with less experience in community development. 

Local Trust has explored the role of reps in the Big Local programme in another article.

Aside from this on-the-ground support, Local Trust initially aligned with the legal position that the training and development of workers was the responsibility of their employers – as their employers, the LTOs were responsible for support. So Local Trust focused its modest available resources on direct, tailored programme support for resident partnership members (including learning events in 2018 and 2020). However, as the programme progressed and the reliance on workers to deliver Big Local increased, Local Trust became aware that support provided by LTOs to workers was inconsistent. The Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 also prompted Local Trust to provide additional support to Big Local workers, recognising the need for a dedicated space where workers could connect and support one another during the difficulties of lockdowns. 

From this point, targeted support for workers was developed to supplement local support and address an increasing scarcity of training opportunities for community development work. This was done to ensure workers could effectively carry out their roles, in turn supporting the resident partnership members. At this point, Local Trust had also grown its workforce and had greater capacity to extend worker support. 

Acknowledging the uniqueness of the worker role in Big Local, Local Trust initiated a peer support group – Workers Support Network – through regular online meetings, providing a space for workers to discuss learning and challenges. As workers often worked on similar projects and faced similar challenges, collective problem-solving was valuable. The peer network laid the foundation for Local Trust’s later inclusion of workers in the broader support offers to areas. 

As time went on, Local Trust observed that partnerships were increasingly allocating large amounts of funding to capital projects, from refurbishing or building community hubs to building a wind turbine. Local Trust recognised a need to support workers in increasingly technical roles, with more specialised support. In 2024, the workers development programme was launched – formal support developed by Local Trust, Peas in a Pod Consulting, and Koreo. The programme offered coaching and events across six months, to address the unique challenges faced by workers leading up to the closure of Big Local. Support was bespoke and practical, including wellbeing and employability coaching, peer sessions, and workshops. Participants reflected that the programme helped to boost confidence, skills, peer connections, and clarity, leaving participants feeling empowered and motivated (Prentice-Jones, 2024). The support offer ran once more in 2025.

Across Big Local, most partnerships decided to employ workers early on. This was because the capacity required to deliver the work was significant and often exceeded what volunteer members could take on alone. Whilst the role of Local Trust as funder was to be non-prescriptive, future programmes could be more proactive with support and engagement for workers, once communities decide to have them. This is particularly true where community development work is largely absent or under-resourced. However, resources for support in funding programmes is also scarce, so this could mean diverting resources to support non-resident workers instead of building the capacity of resident volunteer decision-makers.

The role of a Big Local worker was highly specific. People in these roles needed strong community values and a passion for empowerment, with a flexible and adaptable approach, building trust and offering support while maintaining the leadership of residents (Local Trust, 2022a). Even in general support roles, workers needed specific skills to support resident-led work, particularly being enabling without taking over. Even experienced community development workers may need support to develop the necessary skills for resident-led work. 

In a resident-led programme like Big Local, as resident leadership evolves and ambitions require more specialist support, the support provided to enabling staff must also evolve. Local Trust’s own journey shows that in long-term resident-led programmes, funder support should be flexible and responsive, complementing rather than replacing the employer’s responsibility for staff development and management. Funders should review the employing organisation’s development policies to ensure their contributions add value and support programme delivery.

Big Local workers played a vital role in supporting partnerships and decision-making, while also helping to build community confidence and power. In doing so, they became a legacy themselves by contributing to a new, locally rooted community development workforce – leaving a lasting impact across Big Local areas. In 2018, a survey by Local Trust found that 27 per cent of workers were in their first community development role. This speaks to Big Local also leaving a legacy of new community development practitioners against a backdrop of reduced funding in this space (Local Trust, 2022a).