Why was networking significant in the Big Local programme?

Big Local partnerships, the unincorporated resident-led bodies guiding the direction of an area, were themselves networks. They brought together individuals, mostly residents, and sometimes selected representatives of local organisations (like local authorities or faith-based organisations). While some partnership members brought existing networks and relationships to the table, this article focusses on the networks created by Big Local partnerships. It explores how they supported and coordinated networks and connections, to build relationships with voluntary sector organisations, public agencies, and local businesses, in turn strengthening resident voice and influence (Wilson et al., 2022a). 

To collaborate and achieve meaningful change, people need to find potential allies and partners, connect with those who share their concerns, and build links with service providers and decision-makers who hold power and resources (Gilchrist and Taylor, 2022). Networks, whether formal or informal, can make this happen, by enabling people to share ideas, learn from each other, build respectful relationships, and collectively take action. Many Big Local partnerships described themselves as community sign-posters and networkers, understanding that they were more likely to influence change and achieve their vision through broadening their community connections, networks, and structures (Gregory, 2024). Thus, networking was a significant feature of Big Local, at both community and programme levels. Investment in creating and maintaining community networks allowed for meaningful and sustained resident engagement and consultation, and encouraged distributed leadership through a collective community voice.

Local Trust’s partnership surveys indicated that developing positive relationships with other organisations allowed partnerships to overcome many challenges, with some partnerships bringing a range of organisations together to benefit the community. In the 2024 survey, 84 per cent of respondents agreed that different people and organisations were working together towards shared goals.

Furthermore, networking and the creation of networks contributed to the social, cultural, and institutional capital of an area; this is explored further below. 

Local Trust has explored the different forms of capital and the impact of Big Local on local economies in a series of other articles.

Gilchrist (2019) differentiates between organic networks (those that result from increasing interactions between people) and those that are engineered for a specific purpose. In the Big Local context, organic networks were developed through occasional and light-touch interactions, such as community activities and events. They helped with information sharing, activity promotion, and cultivation of deeper connections. 

By contrast, deliberately established networks tended to be more purposeful in forging relationships with and between groups and organisations. This helped build strength through working together, and narrow the divide between residents and other agencies working in, or with influence over, Big Local areas (Wilson et al., 2022a). For example, a consortium of social enterprises formed to bid for health and wellbeing contracts in Birchfield; while residents, community organisations, and health and care providers were regularly brought together to address health priorities in Hackney Wick. In some Big Local areas, stakeholders collaborated to stimulate local economic activity or create community assets, as seen in North Ormesby and Dover.

Network creation helped partnerships draw in more resources, be more inclusive, and be more effective than if any one organisation had worked alone (Baker et al., 2022). This went beyond improved collaboration between groups at the local level, to something more strategic where Big Local partnerships could influence change.

Many Big Local partnerships took on a coordination role in their communities, to avoid possible duplication and competition. For example, the Northfleet North partnership developed a loose network of arts organisations to get them working together rather than replicating effort or competing for limited resources. In Ramsey, the partnership facilitated a meeting of local heritage groups and challenged them to find ways of working more collaboratively. Subsequently, a network of heritage groups was formed, which led to a tourism project, benefiting community groups and local traders (Wilson et al., 2022a).

A holistic approach involves addressing all aspects of people’s wellbeing, in a coordinated and integrated way. For example, Scotlands and Bushbury Hill Big Local partnership consistently supported local activity and services that sought to meet residents’ financial, social, and health needs. They helped to form a consortium with eight community-led organisations, local centres, and city-wide organisations to explore collaboration and ensure there was no duplication of services. The consortium went on to secure additional resources for a range of local services, including funding for mental health support and increased community control of local assets. 

Villages Together Big Local trialled a community hub, bringing together 15 organisations who saw it as an opportunity to connect with residents, work with each other, and make services easier to reach. The co-location of agencies aimed to increase understanding and mutual respect; promote joint working; enable real-time information sharing, decision making, and communication; and develop the area’s social infrastructure.

The majority of Big Local partnerships developed relationships with public agencies – most commonly with local authorities, as well as housing and health services (Baker et al., 2022). Effective working relationships between Big Local partnerships and council members and officers across departments helped bridge a gap between senior leadership teams in public agencies and community organisations. Sometimes, local councillors played an important role in bringing together resources (both money and in-kind) to support relationship building, and drawing on their influence to build relationships among their wider networks (Hashmi and Davis, 2025). 

Local Trust has explored what enabled effective collaboration between local authorities and Big Local partnerships in another article.

There were examples of projects where partnerships collaborated with multiple stakeholders to maximise use of local resources. The Grassland Hasmoor Big Local partnership worked with several local authorities and organisations to improve the green environment, and estimated that they had secured investment of over £1m. Another successful initiative was established by Ambition Lawrence Weston (the Locally Trusted Organisation for Lawrence Weston Big Local), who facilitated a community network which helped deliver the partnership’s vision. This saw 45 organisations work together to create more wealth and ensure that money remained within the local economy (Local Trust, 2020). This community economic development approach involved working with voluntary, public, and private sector organisations around community energy initiatives. It led to the construction of a wind turbine set to power over 3,000 homes and generate over £100,000 annually for the community. 

Local Trust has explored the impact of Big Local on local economies in a series of other articles.

The Covid-19 pandemic demonstrated to resource- and power-holders that resident networks could be responsive in times of crisis (Baker et al., 2022). During the pandemic, many Big Local partnerships drew on existing community networks to identify need and recruit volunteers, and collaborated with organisations to provide food and support to residents. For example, a Big Local worker in one area coordinated a consortium of youth groups, churches, and community groups which successfully bid for additional funding, and volunteers from across the consortium’s networks delivered a community response.

Local Trust has explored how partnerships addressed crisis and urgent need in articles about the Covid-19 pandemic, and the cost of living.

Towards the end of the Big Local programme, many partnerships set up their own organisations to continue their work, thereby becoming part of a more formal structure of voluntary and community organisations. Some partnerships, however, chose to create more informal legacy bodies. 

Rastrick Big Local organised networking events to consult and involve key organisations in shaping and informing its final plan, which grew into an ongoing network to coordinate collaborative working beyond Big Local. One outcome of this group was an energy efficiency scheme, as those involved in the network were worried by rising energy costs. The partnership accessed government funding to install energy saving measures in community buildings and reduce future running costs, contributing to both their future financial and environmental sustainability.

Whatever the starting point, involvement in Big Local led to new relationships for most partnership members. Most partnership members (91 per cent) who responded to Local Trust’s 2024 survey had personally built positive relationships with others directly involved in Big Local, such as other residents and volunteers. While 77 per cent had built relationships with those who supported their Big Local efforts, such as their Locally Trusted Organisation or local authorities. Some of these partnership members (including some who had not been involved in anything like Big Local before) extended their networks beyond Big Local, for example becoming charity trustees, school governors, or councillors.

Some residents who joined Big Local partnerships already had networks, bringing community knowledge and a breadth of skills, networks, and experience (including experience with the public sector). They knew who did what or who to approach, and could quickly network with those holding resources and decision-making powers. For example, partnership members in Gaunless Gateway and Devonshire West were well-connected through involvement in other groups and organisations, and could quickly link Big Local to existing activity. 

However, existing individual links to local networks could have downsides. For example, partnerships could be seen as closed off to new relationships and opportunities, which could lead to (perceived or actual) conflicts of interest when awarding money. However, links to local networks provided a strong starting point for partnerships to develop wider networks. 

Local Trust has explored conflict in the Big Local programme in another article.

The majority of paid workers (62 per cent) identified their main task as building relationships with local stakeholders in the public and voluntary sectors, and between community organisations and the partnership. They also signposted residents to existing local networks (Local Trust, 2022).

Equally, Locally Trusted Organisations (LTOs) often played an important role, drawing on long-standing relationships with local organisations to bolster partnerships’ activities and facilitating access to networks. In the early stages of Big Local, residents highlighted the role of LTOs in building their skills and confidence through supporting their involvement in local networks (Dobson et al., 2022).

Local Trust has explored the role of Big Local workers and LTOs in building networks in more depth in another article.

Small grant schemes were a way for partnerships to build relationships, giving community organisations a reason to connect with the partnership and each other. Grants awarded to residents and community organisations provided a reason for partnerships to reach out to community groups, connect and familiarise themselves with community activity, and expand their network (Davis et al., 2022). Growing Together Big Local partnership members talked about the local knowledge and relationships that came from connecting with a variety of grant-applicants (Wilson et al., 2022a).

Local Trust explores small grant schemes in an upcoming article.

Not all Big Local partnerships were as successful at networking. The reasons varied and were sometimes outside the partnership’s control. For example, relationships were difficult to sustain where there was a high turnover of partnership members or of people in the target organisations. Sometimes, a lack of understanding of the benefits of collaboration or distrust of external organisations was a barrier, with some partnerships and stakeholders holding an insular, ​‘we can do it alone’ attitude. Sometimes stakeholders saw partnerships as having poor governance, a slow pace of decision-making, and a lack of accountability as unincorporated bodies, or were sceptical about resident-led change.

Further, Big Local areas with physically divided or separate communities sometimes struggled to create a strategy for collaborating with other organisations, particularly when they had nothing in common. Similarly, Big Local did not always align with the broader geographical remit of public agencies – they were seen as just another community group wanting to be heard (McCabe et al., 2019).

Yet, in most areas, Big Local’s long timeframe led to established relationships. Council members and officers began recognising that there could be a strategic fit between Big Local plans and council agendas, and that local authorities and partnerships could work together in a complementary manner.

In many areas, these emerging relationships were enhanced by the ability of Big Local to be fast, be relevant, and join (or lead) other organisations in response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

Networks are systems of connectivity and at their best they spread involvement; create trusting and respectful relationships; and build mutual learning. They can unleash creativity and maximise effectiveness – more can be achieved when groups and organisations work together than when they work alone. Responding to local issues, Big Local partnerships created new collaborative projects – community buildings were opened and made sustainable, policies were shaped to improve access to services, and more resources were brought into hyper-local areas. 

For example, the partnership in Stoke North saw themselves as community connectors – supporting collaboration and impact. They strengthened local networks and opened access to community spaces by building relationships with schools, youth clubs, local charities, and the local authority. The partnership estimated that an additional £1m in funding was brought into the area through collaborative working. In 2019, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) selected Stoke North Big Local to help deliver Together for Childhood (TFC), noting the partnership’s strong collaborative work and community network. Through TFC, the partnership supported public awareness campaigns, workshops, and direct services. 

In some areas, investment in network-building supported strong and embedded community-led infrastructure (Wilson et al., 2022b), with networking contributing to the development of social, cultural, and institutional capital. Networks and networking are significant for building skills and confidence and strengthening collective action for social change, suggesting that networks are drivers of social capital development (Gregory, 2024). 

In many areas, Big Local was a focal point for improving representation of community needs among institutions serving a wider area. Partnerships, workers, and LTOs helped build local capacity for organisations to work together to meet those needs, for example, providing the time needed to build relationships and work towards shared goals. 

Local Trust has explored the different forms of capital and the impact of Big Local on local economies in a series of other articles.

Local Trust has explored the Locally Trusted Organisations model in another article.