The Communities Fund Report of Evaluation Findings May 2021 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government © Crown copyright, 2021 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence visit http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/ This document/publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/mhclg If you have any enquiries regarding this document/publication, complete the form at http://forms.communities.gov.uk/ or write to us at: Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Telephone: 030 3444 0000 For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/mhclg May 2021 Contents Table of Contents 3 Glossary 4 Executive Summary 7 Introduction to the Communities Fund 25 Evaluation methodology 28 Outcomes and impacts 43 Project activities 35 Outcomes and impacts 43 Financial implications and cost benefit analysis 64 Key learning 72 Conclusions 85 Recommendations 89 Acknowledgements 96 Project Vignettes 98 Case studies 131 3 4 Glossary Glossary of key terms Term or phrase Definition / description VCS Voluntary or community sector organisation. Each project organisation had to involve at least one VCS organisation, working in partnership with the local authority. Logic model A visual representation of the expected inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of each project. The logic models all followed a standard template defined by DCLG, and also set out each project’s underpinning context, objectives and rationale. Project leads each developed a logic model for their project during autumn 2017. CBA Cost Benefit Analysis. Project leads were supported to undertake CBA of their own projects, using the New Economy CBA tool and guidance. Each CBA produced a return on investment figure and followed a standardised process. ROI Return on investment. This is the amount of value generated for every £1 invested in a project. This was calculated at project level by project leads, as part of the CBA process. Cashability Extent to which benefits can be realised as ‘cash’ savings, such that the funding could be reallocated elsewhere. The estimation of cashable savings is imprecise: estimates of what is cashable will be approximate and based on negotiations between commissioners and providers rather than solely on a formula or calculation.1 Financial (or Savings to the public sector due to a specific project (e.g. fiscal) reduced health service, police or education costs). These benefits should be informed by the cashability of the benefits. Economic or These are the economic and social benefits emerging from public value a project or intervention; this is a measure of the overall benefits value to society. 1 https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/media/1584/cashability_discussion_paper.pdf 5 Term or phrase Definition / description Attribution Extent to which any outcomes (positive or negative) can be causally linked or ‘attributed’ to a particular intervention or activity. Payback A payback period calculates the point at which the fiscal period costs of the programme have been recouped, hence this is only applicable to projects where the financial benefits are larger than the financial outlay. Only projects with an ROI over one (e.g. a positive ROI) have a payback period. Learning SQW designed and facilitated two learning share events, share event one in May 2018 and one in December 2018, to enable / workshop project leads to share emerging learning and reflections. Participation by all project leads was encouraged, and external speakers were invited to provide new insights to each event. Beneficiary / Terms used interchangeably throughout the report. This participant refers to local people who benefitted from or took part in project activities. Examples of beneficiaries include people with complex needs, or people out of work. This can refer to adults and/or children, depending on the project focus. Theme / Funded projects were categorised into ‘thematic areas’ by thematic the Department for Communities and Local Government, area following grant award. The themes corresponded with the main focus of project activity or target beneficiaries. Themes were not mutually exclusive, and many projects spanned more than one thematic area (although each project was only allocated to one theme). 6 Executive Summary Introduction to the Communities Fund and its evaluation The Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG, formerly known as the Department for Communities and Local Government, DCLG) launched the Communities Fund in December 2016. Local authorities, with neighbourhood, voluntary or community organisations (VCS), were invited to submit applications for grants of up to £70,000 to deliver solutions to entrenched social issues within their local communities. The Fund totalled £3.2million; its purpose was to finance new projects or to extend existing projects into new areas. The Communities Fund built on the legacy of the MHCLG’s previous programmes, including the Our Place and Delivering Differently in Neighbourhoods programmes, aiming to bring together local grassroots community groups to serve those with multiple and complex needs in delivering tailored, sustainable solutions to meet increasing and ever more complex needs. In total, 54 projects were funded through the Communities Fund programme; however, one project did not progress to delivery. Projects were funded up to 31 March 2018, with the expectation that delivery and monitoring would continue post- funding, and that interventions and approaches would be sustained where shown to have a positive impact. SQW, a research and consultancy organisation, was commissioned to undertake an independent evaluation of the Communities Fund programme. The evaluation ran from September 2017 to February 2019, generating process and outcome evidence, and providing evaluation capability building support to the funded projects. 7 The evaluation methodology followed a three-phase approach, outlined in the Table 1 below. Table 1: Methodology summary Phase 1 feeding into Phase 2 feeding into Phase 3 – concluding Phase 2 phase 3 research Inception meeting Cost Benefit Analysis Analysis and Report (CBA) Workshops X 2 Document Review CBA exemplars and MAXQDA and guidance (including FAQs) Excel/Stata Logic Model Review and Collate and quality assure Triangulation tailored feedback CBA from all projects Steering group meeting to Monitoring data gathering Validation workshop validate approach (4 waves) Site visits and consultants Case study write ups and – case studies X7 CBA verification Verification of the case Final report with summary study logic models Slide deck and data annex Final presentation Evaluation framework(s) Further events/workshops and protocol x 2; Thematic communities of practice Working style: All phases were associated with collaborative working, flexibility, tailored support, exploring sustainability, fortnightly updates and steering and management group meetings This report presents a snap shot of emerging outcome and impact data. Greater outcomes and impacts are likely emerge outside of the evaluation timescales. The key outcomes achieved, by project type and geographic location are presented in table 2 below. 8 Table 2: Key outcome for projects, by geographical area2 Region Outcomes North East Developed referral pathways with multi-agency partnerships Yorkshire Improved Community Cohesion Reduced substance abuse and increased employability Improved employment prospects Improved social inclusion and employment prospects Improved employment prospects North West Reduced anti-social behaviour Improved wellbeing and employability Reduced pressure on frontline services Improved employability prospects Reduced loneliness and improved mental health Improved access to community services Improved health and wellbeing skills Increased training and volunteer opportunities West Midlands Reduced social isolation Reduced Loneliness Increase access to services Improve employability and life skills East Midlands Improved health and wellbeing Improved mental and emotional health Increased apprenticeships Co-production of services East of England Reduced pressure on primary care Reduced isolation for disabled adults Increased access to transport services Improved physical health Improved health and wellbeing Improved access to services Improved access to volunteering South West Increased awareness of dementia Reduced rates of offending Reduced pressure on A&E and hospitals Improved employability prospects Developed employability skills Increased integration between services Improve social networks and soft skills Improved health and wellbeing South East Improved transitions from school Improved soft skills and wellbeing Improved employability for NEETs Access to apprenticeships for young people Improved life skills Improved physical and mental wellbeing 2 MHCLG developed the thematic categories following programme inception and project selection, based on project application forms and priorities for the Fund. 9 Reduced homelessness London Improved support networks Improved employability prospects for carers Improved pathways to employment Reduced mental health relapses and self-harm Increased integration between services Improved soft and employability skills Improved health and wellbeing