What does success mean in Big Local?

Big Local was designed to be radically different from other programmes, in that funding could be spent over a decade or more, at communities’ own pace, and according to their own plans and priorities. Beyond the creation of a resident-led partnership and the production of a community-led vision and accompanying Big Local plan for each area, the programme had four broad overarching outcomes: 

1. communities will be better able to identify local needs and take action in response to them
2. people will have increased skills and confidence, so that they continue to identify and respond to needs in the future
3. the community will make a difference to the needs it prioritises
4. the area will be an even better place to live.

From 2015 to 2025, a multi-media, longitudinal evaluation – Our Bigger Story – worked alongside the programme, following the progress of 15 case study Big Local areas. As the programme drew to an end, the evaluation examined how success was and could be understood by different stakeholders in Big Local, and what factors or conditions might have helped or hindered progress towards each of the four broad outcomes (Wilson et al, 2024). Given the non-prescriptive and flexible nature of Big Local, the researchers leading this study had to carefully consider how best to judge success. The research involved conversations with residents and workers in Big Local areas to ask about their perceptions of success; interviews with key individuals who had been involved in the funding, management and delivery of the Big Local programme; and re-analysis of data collected for each case study area since the evaluation began. This article draws out the main conclusions from the evaluation on how success is understood in a programme like Big Local.

Success in a programme like Big Local is inevitably a multi-faceted and complex matter. The 150 areas were all highly distinct in terms of their histories, contexts, starting points, and particular visions for success. Conversation about ​‘success’ within Big Local soon surfaces a variety of perspectives on what it means and looks like, depending on stakeholders’ position within the programme (for example as residents, on Big Local partnerships, or as Local Trust staff and trustees), the level at which success is viewed (programme, community, or individual), and assessments made at different points in time.

All 15 areas included in the Our Bigger Story evaluation made progress against the four outcomes in one way or another. In each, a broad community vision was sustained over many years – even in areas that had been more challenged in delivering their aspirations with residents who struggled to see themselves as successful. Across the board there was evidence of an increase in skilled and confident individuals, and some stronger community groups, as a result of Big Local. 

Success can also be considered in terms of whether steps towards achieving the four Big Local outcomes have in turn led to increased agency, or power, at the local level. There is some evidence to support this proposition across the 15 evaluation case study areas. Those that made the greatest progress against the outcomes were also, as they reached the end of the programme, more able to demonstrate agency. While some success can be identified in all areas, however, some made far less progress against the four outcomes, and relatively little seems to have shifted for these areas in terms of power and agency – the Big Local journey has clearly been smoother for some than for others. Understanding why this variation exists is essential for understanding what enables or constrains success in resident-led change.

Some of the 15 case study areas in the evaluation were able to make more of the opportunities available to them through the Big Local programme. Consequently, they illustrated greater progress than others towards the four outcomes, and towards having greater agency. The evaluation explored seven conditions and four ways of working that were instrumental in shaping the prospects for success. These seven conditions could also be considered sets of resources that Big Local areas either already had or were able to build through the programme, which together shaped the possibilities of success. No one condition alone could account for the success or otherwise of a Big Local area, and the presence or absence of one may be offset by another.

1. Basic demographic and socio-economic characteristics

There was no clear pattern between an area’s ability to make progress towards the four Big Local outcomes and its area type (rural, urban, or coastal), existing levels of deprivation, or predominant type of housing. While deprivation can have real implications for the resources communities have to hand, the evaluation suggested it was not a significant factor distinguishing areas that were more or less able to make progress on Big Local outcomes. None of the most deprived communities were among those that had made least progress towards the four outcomes, but equally none were within those that had progressed furthest. 

2. Levels of community activity

The number and connectedness of active groups, organisations and individual volunteers within an area were important to the success of Big Local. In general, those areas that were deemed to be most successful in terms of progress towards the four Big Local outcomes all had high levels of community activity. Conversely, those areas that were least able to make progress tended to have much lower levels of community activity. 

3. Community leadership

An area’s chances of success in achieving the four outcomes were related to the strength of community leadership, meaning more than just the presence or absence of individual community leaders. Community leadership in this context encompasses the wider groups of people, structures, and collaborative processes involved in making things happen. Although it was not always the case that the most successful areas had distributed leadership across a wide group of residents, leadership in these areas was mostly configured in such a way that there was clear direction from the partnership, some devolved decision-making, and sharing of power.

4. Relationships with others

The nature and quality of relationships that areas, particularly Big Local partnerships, had with other bodies, including local authorities and larger voluntary sector organisations, also proved to be important. Areas that were most successful in terms of achieving the four outcomes tended to have strong relationships with such external organisations. Few areas started off with strong relationships, but a clear difference emerged between those areas that were able to build these relationships over time and those that struggled to do so, with this in turn affecting their ability to make progress.

5. Collective identity

Those areas that achieved the most expressed a strong sense of collective identity with the designated Big Local area. For some, this was evident at the outset of the programme, but for others it was enhanced through concerted efforts to develop such an identity. For example, organised Big Local events (such as galas, carnivals and markets), alongside flagship projects (such as parks and community hubs), helped to build a sense of belonging and pride in the area. By the same token, areas that struggled to achieve the outcomes tended to have a noticeably weaker sense of collective identity. These were either Big Local areas that were harder to delineate and had little meaning to residents, or were a collection of separate communities, each with a strong existing sense of identity. In both scenarios, residents showed little desire for or commitment to creating a new Big Local area-wide identity, or else experienced considerable barriers experienced when trying to do so.

6. Community controlled spaces

Areas considered to be most successful in terms of achieving the four outcomes had or created access to community spaces (generally buildings) that were, to some extent at least, under their control, if not ownership. Those areas that struggled were less likely to have access to or control over community buildings or other useable spaces. While this pattern is evident, it is also clear that having a building was no guarantee of success.

7. Individuals’ skills and capabilities

Across all case study areas it is possible to identify individuals whose skills and capabilities developed through Big Local. However, the areas that were most successful tended either to have a network of skilled individuals actively involved in the community already, or such a network was generated through the programme. Some Big Local areas specifically gave individuals the opportunity to develop personally and professionally, and in these cases this was counted as one of the area’s own self-defined success criteria.

Even when taken together, these seven conditions do not account for all the variation in the success of Big Local areas in meeting outcomes. Additionally, it was apparent that the ways in which residents approached and delivered Big Local served to enable or constrain a partnership’s chances of success. The evaluation identified four important ways of working in Big Local in this respect:

Governance structures

The establishment of robust governance structures through a Big Local partnership – facilitating collective decision-making, encouraging wider forms of resident engagement across the area, and effectively devolving power – was a key enabler of success.

Operating strategically

Areas differed in the extent to which they acted strategically by working collectively and flexibly to develop and then be guided by a clear vision for their area, building and drawing upon research and evidence on local needs, and identifying actions that would meet those needs and fit within the vision.

Support

How Big Local areas engaged with effective support through the programme mattered for their chances of success in relation to progress on the four outcomes, as well as how they made the most of the resources and opportunities available to them. Less engagement with effective support could get in the way of progress towards outcomes, even when other conditions were favourable.

Conflict

How areas managed conflict and the inevitable tensions that arise in the process of long-term, resident-led change could have a significant influence on their chances of success. Some areas were able to work with or around any tensions in a way that became less disruptive of progress towards achieving outcomes. For others, entrenched conflicts made it more difficult to make progress, regardless of the wider resources available.

Local Trust explores the support provided to Big Local areas in another article, alongside an article exploring how conflict was managed in the Big Local programme.

Big Local gave communities the space to build, and in some cases rebuild, structures, plans and action. It also changed mindsets in communities. Residents involved demonstrated an understanding of what long-term investment can look like, and what it can contribute at the hyper-local level. 

Analysis of success in Big Local through the Our Bigger Story evaluation demonstrated three things. First, that all 15 areas in the evaluation had made progress towards each of the Big Local outcomes, namely: identifying and responding to local needs, increased skills and confidence, making a difference to priority needs, and making a better place to live. Second, those areas making the clearest progress against the outcomes were also those with increased agency, suggesting that these outcomes are important steps along the way to greater power and agency for communities, which can be seen as the ultimate outcome of Big Local. Third, ​‘success’ in these terms was variable over time and between areas. Some areas were able to make and sustain greater progress against more of the outcomes, which helped in influencing wider local decisions. 

No one condition or way of working alone can explain why certain areas were more successful than others in terms of progress against the four Big Local outcomes. It is the combination of factors interacting in complex ways that is influential. Even when partnerships seemed to have everything stacked in their favour – high levels of community activity, skilled individuals, and access to community buildings, for example – progress towards the four outcomes could be disrupted by not establishing robust governance structures, not acting strategically, or ongoing conflicts. Similarly, areas that might be lacking in some of the influential resources might build them through acting strategically after engaging with effective support, and those growing resources may then support their progress towards the four Big Local outcomes. This point also illustrates the cumulative and iterative nature of many of these different factors – they can be seen as both resources that areas needed, and as early outcomes of their engagement with the programme. 

While no one factor alone could account for variations in success, arguably the most critical success factor was the engagement of skilled, capable individuals. There were individuals that other participants would point to as being particularly instrumental in the success of the programme locally. These individuals included residents (usually partnership members) and workers paid through the programme as the people who drove Big Local, but who also took a wider group of residents with them on the journey. They helped to ensure that the community vision was collectively held and developed pathways enabling residents to grow community activity, build relationships, configure leadership, create community-controlled spaces, and generate a sense of collective identity.