Evaluation of Reaching Communities in England and Northern Ireland

Transcription

1 Evaluation of Reaching Communities in England and Northern Ireland Final Evaluation Report Nicola Smith, ECOTEC Research & Consulting

2 Contents Executive Summary... i 1.0 Introduction About Reaching Communities Background Methodology Structure of this report Background and overview Introduction Types of organisation Project size and length Programme outcomes Defining and identifying needs Introduction Defining and identifying needs Defining needs through target groups Activities to meet needs Researching need Involving beneficiaries Introduction How have beneficiaries been involved? Benefits of involving beneficiaries Challenges of involving beneficiaries Meeting need and reducing disadvantage Introduction Challenges of measuring effectiveness and assessing whether needs were met Meeting needs and the most in need Reducing disadvantage and exclusion Outcomes and impacts Longer term outcomes and impacts... 57

3 5.7 Comparing approaches to meeting need Added value from Reaching Communities Sustainability and future funding Dissemination Conclusions and Recommendations Introduction Conclusions Recommendations Annex One: Annual Survey Responses...A1 List of figures Figure 1.1 Evaluation objectives...4 Figure 2.1 Length of grants awarded, Reaching Communities England...11 Figure 3.1 All target groups, Reaching Communities England...18 Figure 3.2 Regions identified by projects, Reaching Communities England...24 Figure 3.3 Activities being delivered, Reaching Communities England...25 Figure 3.4 Case study: Music and Dance Education (MADET)...27 Figure 3.5 Case study: Compass Community Arts...27 Figure 3.6 Activities being delivered, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland...28 Figure 3.7 Case study: Mediation NI...29 Figure 3.8 Which did you use to investigate the need for your project?...30 Figure 3.9 Which strategies, policies, research or statistics did you use?...32 Figure 3.10 Case study: Couper Collection...35 Figure 4.1 How often were/are beneficiaries and local communities involved?...41 Figure 4.2 Case stud: Rehability...42 Figure 4.3 Case study: Broxtowe Single Homeless Action Group...42 Figure 4.4 Case study: Unemployed Centre Families Project...43 Figure 4.5 Outcomes achieved as a result of involving beneficiaries...44 Figure 4.6 Case Study: Off the Streets...45 Figure 4.7 Case study: RNID...46 Figure 4.8 Case study: West London Citizens...47 Figure 4.9 Case study: Diggin It...47 Figure 5.1 To what extent do you feel that your project has achieved the following?...51 Figure 5.2 Case study: Bradford Nightstop Project...53 Figure 5.3 What benefits/impacts have you seen as a result of your project?...54 Figure 5.4 Case Study: Devenish Community Support and Further Development Project...55 Figure 5.5 Case study: Catch Figure 5.7 Case study: Suffolk Family Carers...59 Figure 5.8 Case study: Youth Talk...61 Figure 5.9 If you have secured future funding from your project, where did it come from?...62 Figure 5.10 Do you plan to do any of the following to disseminate the results of your project?...63

4 List of tables Table 1.1 Northern Ireland programme outcomes, priorities and principles...3 Table 2.1 Organisation type, Reaching Communities England...9 Table 2.2 Project outcomes for all projects, Reaching Communities England...12 Table 2.3 Project outcomes for all projects, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland...13 Table 2.4 Underlying principles, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland...13 Table 3.1 All target groups, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland...19 Table 3.2 Meeting needs by geographic levels, Reaching Communities England...23 Table 3.3 Common project activities, Reaching Communities England...26 Table 3.4 Talking to people, Reaching Communities England and Northern Ireland...31 Table 3.5 Changes to needs of target groups, Reaching Communities England and Northern Ireland...34 Table 3.6 Changes to services in the target area, Reaching Communities England and Northern Ireland...36 Table 4.1 How were beneficiaries and local communities involved in identifying their own needs?...40 Table 5.1 Numbers of completed projects, Reaching Communities England...49

5 Executive Summary This is the final evaluation report for the Reaching Communities Programmes in England and Northern Ireland, presenting the findings of the evaluation from January 2007 to December Background Reaching Communities is Big Lottery Fund s open, demand led funding stream, running between in England and between in Northern Ireland. In England 1,391 grants were awarded to projects amounting to over million funding. Up until April 2009, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland had awarded 45 grants, with a total value of million. Both programmes primarily targeted voluntary sector led projects with grants of up to half a million pounds over up to five years. The programmes aimed to fund projects helping those most in need including people or groups who are hard to reach, across a range of programme outcomes, and in Northern Ireland two underlying principles. The evaluation aimed to assess the effectiveness of projects within the Reaching Communities programmes in identifying, defining and meeting the needs of the people they aimed to benefit. Specifically the evaluation explored how projects identified and defined need, involved beneficiaries and whether they met the identified needs. A range of evaluation evidence sources were used, including programme data on 1,436 projects provided by BIG, feedback from 804 projects via annual surveys, and 37 case study visits. Identifying and defining need and most in need Reaching Communities is an open, demand led funding programme and within this broad remit, it provides funding to projects targeting an incredibly diverse range of needs. Limitations with the programme data held by BIG and data transferred from project applications, and the challenges of getting projects to be explicit in evaluation surveys about the needs they had identified meant it was difficult to get to the crux of what needs the programme was addressing. In original applications to BIG and in survey responses projects generally defined needs as particular target groups and associated activities to meet those needs. For instance approaching 200 projects in England targeted young people but this description does not explain the precise need of those young people. The assumption was that members of such groups will have needs that were not met by existing structures or provision; however these are 'implied' needs and are not always explicitly described by projects or in the available BIG data. Evidence was limited as to how far projects were aware, or could demonstrate that the individuals or groups they worked with were the most in need. For instance if a project provided disabled facilities or roofing for a community centre projects did not generally state, and there was no way of knowing as evaluators, whether that was the priority need in that area among a range of competing needs. This suggests that the programme's open demand led funding structure was not the most effective approach for achieving positive change among the 'most in need' communities. Overall, the evidence indicated that an extremely wide range of more than 50 target groups with needs were targeted by Reaching Communities, with no more than 1 in 8 projects targeting any one group. The programmes targeted many groups that would be considered to be in need, most in need, or hard to reach, including homeless people, Travellers and Gypsies, offenders or substance mis-users. Other evaluation evidence suggested many organisations targeting these individuals/groups turned to BIG for i

6 funding because their target groups needs were not satisfactorily met through local statutory or voluntary provision; some organisations had done thorough local audits and worked with local partners to establish this. Many projects also identified needs that were defined economically as those with the lowest incomes or people in poverty. Again, evidence suggested that, in England, Reaching Communities was targeting those communities, with disadvantaged people living in urban and rural areas coming second and eighth respectively in the list of groups being targeted. Many applicants in both programmes used local deprivation data to demonstrate they were working in the most deprived areas of the two countries. Some projects were more explicit about the precise needs of the target groups they worked with. In these cases, they were working to support people from a range of groups to deal with specific needs such as reducing isolation, living independently or addressing educational underachievement. Projects were delivering a range of more than 50 different types of activity designed to meet those needs, with no more than 12% projects delivering any one activity. These ranged from advocacy to artwork; languages to life skills; recycling to respite care and youth diversion to volunteering. Both programmes had a particular focus on community-level work or on information, advice and guidance; and unique to Northern Ireland were projects tackling community mediation and reconciliation. In England, projects were working across the whole country, mostly locally (89%), rather than regionally or nationally (10% combined). In Northern Ireland projects worked across an average of 13 council areas with more than three quarters of targeted council areas (76%) located outside of Belfast Council area. Projects used a range of local knowledge to help them identify and define needs. Many projects relied on existing knowledge (86%); they had been working in the area and knew of a group with needs that were not met by existing statutory or other VCS or third sector provision. With two thirds of organisations having existed for more than a decade this indicates a wealth of on the ground experience being drawn upon. Some projects also employed consultative approaches (such as beneficiary focus groups) and more sophisticated or robust techniques to assess needs (such as local needs assessment). Northern Ireland projects in particular, demonstrated that they had reviewed local strategies to ensure strategic fit (78% compared with around half of all England projects). Involving beneficiaries Reaching Communities aimed to support projects which involved individual beneficiaries and the local community; this was a requirement of their application. Projects involved beneficiaries in a range of ways from helping to identify the original needs for the project through to various aspects of project delivery. Beneficiaries and local communities were involved in identifying their own needs in just under half of the projects (46%); and in two in five projects (19%) they were entirely responsible for deciding the needs. Involvement of beneficiaries was particularly strong among the Northern Ireland projects, approaching three quarters (72%) reported that needs were identified either entirely by beneficiaries or on equal terms with project staff. This meant that local concerns and knowledge were being applied in the design and application stages of the majority of projects. However a quarter of projects in both programmes simply informed beneficiaries of their options or did not involve them at all (26% combined) illustrating that involvement was either not always possible, or appropriate, or that not all projects had the capacity or skills to do so. Those projects that did involve beneficiaries felt that it helped them to identify needs more accurately and meant the local community had a say in the project. ii

7 Once projects were underway, virtually all projects involved beneficiaries in project planning (99% of projects 'always' or 'sometimes' involved beneficiaries) and in project evaluation (92% of projects 'always' or 'sometimes'). This tended to be through informal feedback or more formally such as via beneficiary surveys. Fewer projects involved beneficiaries or the local community in decision making (55%) and project management (52%), suggesting that projects continued to face challenges in involving communities in the more strategic and decision-making aspects of projects. However, good examples of methods to involve beneficiaries in these aspects included attending group meetings, or becoming board members, trustees or committee advisors. Involving beneficiaries brought some positive benefits or outcomes for the projects themselves, for the local community and for the beneficiaries. Project reported it helped them to meet identified needs and objectives more effectively (79% and 78% respectively) and allowed them to approach things in different, and more effective, ways. Local community involvement meant projects were better embedded and the community had a stake in the project succeeding; and for beneficiaries there were also personal benefits in terms of softer outcomes such as improved self confidence, reduced isolation or communication skills. Meeting needs Evidence as to whether the programmes had met the needs they identified and reached those most in need was evaluated. A range of factors made this difficult to assess. The timing of Reaching Communities and length of many projects (of up to 5 years) meant that many programme outcomes were yet to be realised. Additionally, as a result of the demand led, open nature of Reaching Communities funding, projects worked with over 50 target groups using at least as many different types of activity. In England only around 15% of projects were due to be complete at the time of writing, while in Northern Ireland no projects were complete. A significant proportion of projects said they were conducting their own self-evaluations and projects used this to inform their responses to the surveys for this evaluation. It is therefore too early to say that all intended outcomes of the Reaching Communities programmes have been met. Nevertheless, at this stage we can say that a diverse range of positive outcomes - both soft and hard - were taking place for individuals and within local communities as a result of this funding. Projects in both programmes were confident they reached the identified needs and met the programme outcomes (over 90% each) albeit with learning along the way on what worked well or not so well. Projects also demonstrated they were adaptive to changing local circumstances as required, due to the length of many of the grants. Some projects reported struggling to engage all the target groups they initially identified or in great enough numbers. Reducing disadvantage and exclusion was challenging for projects to achieve and for the evaluators to measure due to the problem of attributing local changes to this funding. However it was clear many projects were delivering benefits for individual people and communities and two thirds of projects said their work would not have taken place without BIG s support (65%). Outcomes were both soft and hard, including improvements in self confidence and wellbeing and also improving skills and access to the labour market. Capital investments made through the programme 1 had also led to improved local facilities. Again, the range of local outcomes reflected the diversity of the programmes. Projects reported that many of these benefits were expected to be sustained beyond the life of the funding, particularly at 1 Mainly in Reaching Communities England iii

8 the individual level for instance lasting improvements to people s skill levels but also at the community level such as levels of community capacity. Approaches to sustaining the benefits of the project and the programme more widely were variable. Some projects were proactive and had plans or even future funding in place; others had not given this much thought. A variety of alternate funding models were being considered including being self funding (via donations or charging fees); accessing statutory funding streams or social enterprise. Some dissemination activity was taking place, but generally this was fairly localised or linked to raising the profile of the project or recruiting beneficiaries and less about sharing learning. Overall it appears Reaching Communities broadly met the needs it identified. Conclusions The evaluation found overall, that Reaching Communities has supported a diverse range of projects to achieve a range of positive outcomes, for an extremely broad range of target groups and local communities. The programmes have particularly impacted communities at the local level through supporting voluntary sector led initiatives. Outcomes have most prominently been for fairly broad groups within local communities (such as young people, older people, unemployed people) and those with more complex, entrenched and multiple needs were less likely to have been assisted through the programmes. Conveying important messages to applicants and projects about identifying, describing and meeting those needs of those 'most in need' requires further thought and action by BIG. Broadly speaking, the nature of Reaching Communities with its open demand led structure and fairly open grant size and length restrictions, will generally lead to a huge diversity of local projects doing 'local good' rather than innovative or bespoke interventions or strategic projects targeting highly problematic individuals. Recommendations The following short series of recommendations, directed at Big Lottery Fund, look at the future of the Reaching Communities programmes and beyond. 1 Revisiting how need is defined and assessed at BIG BIG could revisit the way in which terms such as need and most in need are described in guidance to projects and how these terms are assessed in applications. For instance clearer guidance for projects around how they identify and define the needs they are meeting would be beneficial. It should encourage projects to be more specific about the needs of the target group they are working with, and give guidance on the use of robust data sources to provide evidence of those needs, including contextual evidence about other needs in the area. Staff assessing applications could also be given guidance on assessing projects' descriptions of need to ensure full account is taken of local contexts and the required level of detail is supplied on needs. 2 Continue to promote messages on the benefits of self evaluation Continued efforts might be made to bring all projects to a level playing field in terms of their understanding of the benefits of self evaluation. Sharing ideas and practice on methods that are proportionate and not burdensome would bring benefits. Further dissemination of the evaluation toolkit iv

9 and tools from this evaluation beyond the existence of the programmes, would be beneficial in extending the life of the benefits these and similar tools can deliver within Reaching Communities and beyond. 3 Support the sector to develop ideas and plans for sustainability Reaching Communities has provided long term funding (over 5 years) that is often unavailable elsewhere. This brings a responsibility for encouraging projects to think about sustainability and plan effective exit strategies. There may be scope for BIG to provide guidance / support to (applicants or) grantees in this programme and more widely, that will enable them (or increase their potential) to become self-sustaining. For example disseminating examples on how other projects have achieved this, sharing learning around when to start thinking about it, and/or sharing resources about alternative funding models. 4 Continue to share learning between projects to build sector capacity in a range of issues Sharing of learning among (potential applicants and) grantees in Reaching Communities around the benefits of involving local people and communities in identification of need and in project delivery and management on an ongoing basis is currently planned (and a publication is forthcoming). Other areas might be around a number of themes such as sustainability, marketing or dissemination. In the final year of the evaluation (2010), attention will be focussed on promoting opportunities for projects to interact and share learning via a shared learning events and a shared learning online social network. 5 Use learning from the evaluation to improve BIG s internal processes and data Learning from this evaluation will be beneficial in helping BIG to refine future processes. BIG might wish to consider reviewing the data captured from project applications to review whether any gaps exist. For instance, in the information available for this evaluation, no useful data on the location of beneficiaries (i.e. postcodes) was held, nor on numbers of beneficiaries helped. Guidance to projects about how they might report these two aspects may be necessary to ensure consistency in any data collected. During the final year of the evaluation (2010) planned activity will focus on providing advice to BIG on internal processes to help improve data collection and monitoring. For any details on the evaluation contact nicola.smith@ecotec.com. v

10 1.0 Introduction ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd is delighted to present this final report of our evaluation of the Reaching Communities Programme in England and Northern Ireland (NI). This report presents the findings of the evaluation between January 2007 to December About Reaching Communities The Big Lottery Fund (BIG) is the distributor of National Lottery funding in the UK. Reaching Communities is part of the Big Lottery Fund s current portfolio of programmes. It is designed to meet the needs of communities in England and Northern Ireland. Reaching Communities is operating in England and Northern Ireland between BIG has a stated undertaking to focus 60-70% of funding on the voluntary and community sector, and also to provide funding that is demand-led and lightly prescriptive. Reaching Communities encapsulates this approach, and in fact the programme in NI is only open to the voluntary and community sector (VCS) Reaching Communities England In England, the Reaching Communities programme was launched in December Reaching Communities England focuses on projects that target both geographic communities and communities with specific needs 2. The programme aims to fund projects that help those most in need including those people or groups who are hard to reach. The programme aims to support those projects which best meet their communities needs. It also focuses on projects that actively engage with local communities and involve them in the project from start to finish. Projects that complement local plans and strategic programmes or initiatives are also particularly relevant. Reaching Communities England is aiming to bring about the following outcomes: People having better chances in life, including being able to get access to training and development to improve their life skills; Strong communities, with more active citizens, working together to tackle their problems; Improved rural and urban environments, which communities are better able to access and enjoy; and Healthier and more active people and communities. Reaching Communities England is open to: registered charities; voluntary or community groups; statutory bodies (including schools); charitable or not-for-profit companies; and social enterprises 3. 2 Known as communities of interest. 3 Defined as a business that is chiefly run for social objectives, whose profits are reinvested in the business rather than going to shareholders and owners. 1

11 Reaching Communities England is now in its final year of grant allocation, with a further million being made available in By November 2009, nearly 1,400 grants were awarded to projects amounting to over million of funding. In summer 2008 the decision was taken to extend Reaching Communities for an additional 'bridging' year covering This was designed to act as a bridge between BIG s current funding programmes and the new Open Funding stream which will go live in Reaching Communities grants were awarded in a rolling monthly programme of grantmaking. The programme provided capital and revenue grants of between 10,000 and 500,000, including a maximum of 50,000 for capital grants. There was a maximum overall project size of 750,000 with a maximum of 200,000 for the total capital element where additional funds were raised. Projects ranging from one year in length, and up to five years were funded. This meant the size of grant available was larger than is common and over a time-frame of up to five years. Reaching Communities differed from its predecessors in that offered funding to existing projects rather than only new ones and that it could fund projects for five years. In addition, community involvement was a requirement for projects funded within the England programme Reaching Communities Northern Ireland Reaching Communities Northern Ireland was launched in Northern Ireland in April Around 19 million was made available between 2006 and The programme made grants to voluntary and community led organisations, where beneficiaries and the wider community were involved in all aspects of the project. The programme funded projects for between three to five years and the minimum and maximum grant sizes were 100k and 500k (the lower limit being significantly higher than in the England programme). Funding was mainly available for revenue funding; capital costs could not exceed 10%. Reaching Communities Northern Ireland funded projects that aim to achieve one or more of the programme outcomes; all of the priorities under each of the selected outcomes and at least one of the underlying principles, as Table 1.1 illustrates. 4 Source: Big Lottery Fund website, Jan

12 Table 1.1 Northern Ireland programme outcomes, priorities and principles Outcomes Outcome A People have the opportunity to achieve their full potential Outcome B People can actively participate in their communities to bring about positive change Outcome C Community ownership of better and safer rural and urban environments Outcome D Improved physical and mental health for all people Related priorities Improve essential skills to meet social and economic needs Increase opportunity for community based learning Build community capacity Increase opportunity for volunteering and engagement within and between communities Build community and voluntary/statutory partnerships Improve community facilities, access and services Increase community involvement in protecting, restoring and sustaining the urban and rural environment Help individuals and communities to develop skills to make healthier lifestyle choices Promote mental health and emotional wellbeing at individual and community level Underlying Principles Addressing disadvantage and promoting tolerance and social inclusion Contributing to the reduction of poverty Source: RCNI Programme Guidance Notes, Sept 2007 The fund was distributed in five discrete tranches over the period. Overall 45 projects have been awarded funding 5 with a value of around million. The final set of awards was made in April As with Reaching Communities England, the programme was heavily over-subscribed. With a success rate of around one in ten this often resulted in very good projects not being funded. Following a programme review in June 2007, community involvement became a strict requirement for projects funded within the Northern Ireland programme and projects were required to clearly state why their project is needed, in the context of other services within the local area. A support and development contract, provided by the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), operated to offer assistance to funded Northern Ireland programme projects. Unlike the England programme, the Northern Ireland programme was not extended for a further year in tranche one, 5 in tranche two, 16 in tranche 3, 5 in tranche 4 and 9 in tranche 5. 3

13 1.2 Background In January 2007 ECOTEC Research & Consulting in conjunction with Boyd Associates in Northern Ireland were commissioned to evaluate Reaching Communities in England and Northern Ireland between January 2007 and December This final report presents the findings of the evaluation. The central aim of the evaluation was: The specific objectives of the programme evaluation were: Figure 1.1 Evaluation objectives Evaluation Objectives To assess how projects have identified and defined: need, people most in need and hard to reach groups and individuals To examine how projects have considered local strategies to produce evidence of need To examine how projects have involved beneficiaries and local communities in identifying their own needs To consider how beneficiaries and local communities have been involved in project planning and delivery To assess if projects have met the needs of hard to reach groups and the most in need To look at the effectiveness of projects and the programme in reducing disadvantage and exclusion To compare different project approaches to identifying and addressing need in order to reduce disadvantage and exclusion for hard to reach groups and the most in need To compare the different approaches for addressing need in Northern Ireland and England 4

14 1.3 Methodology The methodology for the evaluation involved the following quantitative and qualitative research methods: An evaluation framework outlined the evaluation questions and key indicators. The evaluation framework was designed following consultation with programme stakeholders 6 and initial desk research. It was used to design all research tools. Projects in England and Northern Ireland were invited to complete an annual web survey 7. This took place in November of 2007, and was repeated in 2008 and Overall the annual surveys received 804 responses: 768 from projects funded by Reaching Communities England and 36 from projects funded by Reaching Communities Northern Ireland. This breaks down as follows. In year one (2007), there were 325 respondents: 319 from the England programme and 6 from the Northern Ireland programme. In year two (2008), there were 196 respondents: 128 were from the England programme and 5 were from the Northern Ireland programme. In 2008, 133 respondents in total were new and 63 were repeat respondents from the year one survey. In year three (2009), there were 501 respondents, of whom 345 were new respondents and 156 were repeat respondents. Of the new respondents, there were 320 from the England programme and 25 from the Northern Ireland programme. For year three, this represents a 37% response rate overall (based on 1,359 projects in total). To boost survey responses, reminders were sent by , and in some cases by telephone, to projects who were invited to participate. Programme management data provided by BIG on all projects in England and Northern Ireland, collected from application and monitoring data, was analysed. This data was primarily quantitative. For Reaching Communities England, data received up to 30 November 2009 has been used as the basis for this report. For Northern Ireland data on all funded projects (namely tranches 1-5) has been used. Qualitative project case studies took place throughout the evaluation in England and Northern Ireland to reflect the diversity of projects and communities being supported through the programmes. These involved desk research and one day face-to-face visits, including research with project managers, staff, partners and beneficiaries. Case study visits took place to 23 projects in England and 6 projects in Northern Ireland. These combined a mixture of snapshot case studies and longitudinal case studies where projects were visited two or three times over the course of the evaluation 8. 6 Feedback from stakeholders was included as a separate section in Annex One of the year one report. The year one report is available at 7 Only the 1,359 England projects funded up to end of October 2009 were invited to complete the year three survey. All 45 RCNI projects were invited to participate in the year three survey. Due to the small numbers of projects funded through the Northern Ireland programme there are naturally only small numbers in the survey. 8 In total 37 visits took place across 29 projects. In Northern Ireland the minimum project length was three years therefore snapshot case studies were weighted towards the end of the evaluation. 5

15 Throughout the evaluation, projects were encouraged and supported to self-evaluate through an evaluation toolkit which was sent to all projects. A version is available at our evaluation website ( The website also contains examples of research tools for projects to download and use, and links to further advice and materials. ECOTEC provides self-evaluation support to projects through a series of annual networking events, 9 an helpline (reaching.communities@ecotec.com) and regular newsletters. Projects that completed any form of selfevaluation were encouraged to send this to ECOTEC for secondary analysis and inclusion in the annual report. Feedback from an analysis of these is included in this report 10. Some methodologies and activities will continue for a final year of the evaluation, which is intended to have a focus on sharing learning and dissemination activities. Activities to be continued will include some of the longitudinal case study visits and networking events to share learning. For more details on the methodology contact Nicola Smith at ECOTEC (nicola.smith@ecotec.com) Presentation of data This report combines qualitative and quantitative evidence collected by the research. All figures are rounded to the nearest whole %. Figures relating to annual survey data in some tables and charts may not sum to 100% due to multiple or non-response or rounding. An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than half a per cent. Responses to the annual survey from England and Northern Ireland have been analysed together but separate responses for each programme have been presented where this is possible 11. The full results from the annual surveys are available in Annex One. Throughout the report we also make use of programme data provided by the Big Lottery Fund. The qualitative feedback from case studies is also presented to illustrate findings. Where this is the case, it is important to note that qualitative research is designed to explore issues in detail and be illustrative. However it is not statistically representative, and views presented by participants are based on perceptions and opinions and may not always reflect the views of the whole group. Findings from the qualitative and quantitative evidence are presented alongside each other throughout this report, and sources are identified where appropriate. 9 The outcomes from the event are available at 10 At the time of writing, 9 self-evaluation reports from 8 projects were received and analysed. 11 Due to the small numbers of responses from Northern Ireland results cannot be considered statistically reliable on their own. 6

16 1.4 Structure of this report This remainder of this report contains four main sections which address the evaluation questions outlined above: Annex One contains the results from the annual surveys. 7

17 2.0 Background and overview 2.1 Introduction By November 2009 Reaching Communities England had awarded 1,391 grants to projects amounting to over million of funding. Reaching Communities Northern Ireland awarded 45 grants, with a total value of million 12. The two programmes aimed to fund projects helping those most in need including people or groups who are hard to reach. This report starts with a brief overview of the two programmes including numbers of grants awarded, types of organisations, and outcomes that projects were working towards (Sections 2.2 to 2.4). 2.2 Types of organisation Reaching Communities England supported a wide range of organisations which was clearly in line with BIG s wider organisational commitment to deliver 60-70% of its funding to the third or voluntary and community sector. BIG s programme data indicates that while only around 3% of funding was directed towards statutory organisations (including 22 educational institutions, 19 local authorities and 3 statutory health bodies), the major share of Reaching Communities funds in England were distributed to third or voluntary sector bodies, in the region of 89% (see Table 2.1). This included around one in five projects which were run by limited companies (22%); which included a wide range of ventures including community enterprises, social enterprises, credit unions and local branches of national charities; as well as a wide range of clubs, societies and not for profit groups (for instance village hall committees and locally based community groups). Annual evaluation survey results also confirmed that the vast majority of funding was directed to the voluntary sector (93%) with a small proportion directed to the statutory sector (approaching 4%) Source: Big Lottery Fund programme data up to 30 November Source: based on survey responses base = 804 8

18 Table 2.1 Organisation type, Reaching Communities England Organisation type Number of projects % Company limited by guarantee/shares Third sector / VCS Charitable incorporated organisation Community based organisation/group Other VCS organisation Not specified in BIG data/not known Unincorporated club or association 21 2 Local authority/government 19 1 School 17 1 Charitable trust/trust established by trust deed 12 1 Industrial and provident society 10 1 Philanthropic or benevolent organisation 9 1 Friendly society, industrial and provident Society 9 1 Parish council 7 1 Social enterprise/community business 6 * Further or higher education 5 * Other 4 * Statutory health body 3 * Religious organisation 3 * Other public / public corporation or private sector 3 * International/national NGO 2 * Mutual aid/self-help group 1 * Total 1, Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) Organisations funded via Reaching Communities England were generally small, with less than ten full time and/or part time staff (71% and 70% respectively). However, a few were large organisations employing over 250 employees (3%) 14. The range of experience amongst organisations in the England programme was fairly evenly spread with over a third existing for less than ten years (35%), a third existing for over 21 years (34%) and the remainder somewhere in-between those ranges. 14 Source: based on survey responses base = 789 projects 9

19 Reaching Communities Northern Ireland only funded voluntary sector based organisations with the majority being registered charities (42 of the 45). Two organisations were unregistered and one was awaiting registration, but all were from the VCS 15. In Northern Ireland the organisation sizes varied greatly, from very small organisations to much larger ones. For instance, the Drumgor Detached Youth Work Project is a small VCS organisation that works with marginalised and at risk young people between the ages of Drumgor works across two wards and has up to five full time and up to three part time staff. 16 Other projects were run by much larger organisations. For instance, one of the largest, The Cedar Foundation, has 139 full and 116 part time staff and is a VCS organisation that offers training and runs programmes for disabled people across Northern Ireland 17. In Northern Ireland while two organisations had existed for nearly 100 years (being established in 1911), the majority (27 of the 45) were established since 1990 onwards. Projects in Reaching Communities Northern Ireland could deliver their project through a partnership (although this was not a programme requirement), and around a quarter of the projects responding to the annual surveys indicated they were in a partnership delivering a project (nine projects) 18. Of those, five projects said they were leading the partnership. Partnerships varied greatly; including upwards from one, to more than 20 voluntary sector partners. Other partnerships incorporated joint working between the voluntary and statutory sectors with some projects working with between one and four partners from the statutory sector Project size and length The average project size in Reaching Communities England was over 225,000 per project, and grants ranged from around 10,000 to the uppermost limit of 500,000. The smallest grants were generally to support small scale local projects such as re-roofing, re-wiring or upgrading local village halls, installing play facilities or purchasing a minibus to provide community transport. The largest projects included three grants to tackle domestic violence and abuse (Leeds, Preston and Brighton and Hove); two grants to support refugees and asylum seekers (in Manchester and in the wider north west); two large scale employment advisory and advocacy projects (one in London and one covering the whole of Greater Manchester); and a project to address multiple outcomes around health, environmental and social problems in the disadvantaged area of South Ockendon, Thurrock. In the Northern Ireland programme the average grant size was much larger at over 425,000 per project. This is because the programme funding parameters include minimum grant sizes in Northern Ireland which, at 100k, are much larger than in the Reaching Communities England, and projects are funded for a minimum of three years. This means Reaching Communities Northern Ireland projects tended, on average, to receive greater sums of funding. 15 Source: Big Lottery Fund programme data up to 30 November See 17 See 18 Source: based on survey responses base = 36 projects 19 Source: based on survey responses base = 9 RCNI projects working with partners 10

20 Three quarters of projects in Reaching Communities England were three year or five year projects (75% combined). The length of grant generally reflected the amount of funding awarded (i.e. larger grants were generally for a longer time period) and this pattern remained constant as the programme grant making continued during the course of the evaluation (see Figure 2.1). Fewer than one in ten projects were one year grants; those that were tended to be short-term projects such as creating or upgrading community facilities or delivery of a short series of sessions such as health advice, fun days, sports or arts workshops. Figure 2.1 Length of grants awarded, Reaching Communities England % of projects year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years unknown Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) In Northern Ireland around half the funded projects (24 of the 45) were five-year projects, 11 were threeyear projects and seven were four-year projects Source: Big Lottery Fund programme data up to 30 November Data was missing for 3 projects 11

21 2.4 Programme outcomes Projects funded through Reaching Communities in England and Northern Ireland worked towards a range of programme outcomes with a very broad scope, as identified by BIG. Projects in both programmes worked across all the programme outcomes, addressing on average more than two outcomes each 21. In Reaching Communities England four in five projects (81%) worked towards people having better chances in life, with a further three quarters promoting stronger communities, with more active citizens (77%), (see Table 2.2). Approaching two thirds of projects addressed the outcome supporting healthier and more active communities (62%), yet only one in ten projects aimed to improve rural or urban environments (10%). While these proportions have remained broadly consistent as the programme s grant making progressed, the focus on healthier communities grew during the course of the programme (62% compared with 53% after the first year of the evaluation). Table 2.2 Project outcomes for all projects, Reaching Communities England Number of Outcome projects % 1. People having better chances in life Stronger communities, with more active citizens Improved rural and urban environments Healthier and more active people and communities Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) Projects in the Northern Ireland programme are also well spread across the four programme outcomes and related priorities 22. As in Reaching Communities England, projects were least likely to be working towards 'Community ownership of better and safer rural and urban environments' (see Table 2.3). Northern Ireland projects also targeted more than two outcomes on average 23. Overall the majority of projects targeted two outcomes (predominantly outcomes one and two) while 13 projects tackled three outcomes and four projects targeted all four outcomes. Those projects tackling all four outcomes tended to be holistic projects with a focus on either regenerating a local area or working with a specific target group thus working across a range of outcomes. For example; while the Mount Vernon community development forum works in a specific local area to create a more vibrant local and sustainable community through a range of activities including environmental and health related work; the Creggan Education and Research Services project works specifically with older people and people with disabilities across a range of outcomes linking physical activity, healthy eating and environmental outcomes. Another project worked specifically with people in the taxi industry across a range of outcomes including pathways to employment, enhancing skills and improving health outcomes. 21 Average score = 2.3 outcomes per project (based on 1,391 projects addressing 3,213 outcomes) 22 RCNI projects funded in tranche 1 can meet any of the programme priorities as outlined in Table 1.1; RCNI projects funded in latter tranches have to meet the priorities associated with the programme outcomes. 23 Average score = 2.2 outcomes per project (based on 45 projects addressing 100 outcomes) 12

22 Table 2.3 Project outcomes for all projects, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland Number of Programme outcome projects 1. People have the opportunity to achieve their full potential Active participation in communities to bring about positive change Improved physical and mental health for all people Community ownership of better and safer rural and urban environments 8 Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) Projects in Reaching Communities Northern Ireland also had to meet one or both of the programme's underlying principles (Table 2.4). Of the 45 Northern Ireland projects nearly all of them (42 of the 45) target the underlying principle addressing disadvantage and promote tolerance and social inclusion. In contrast 19 of the 45 projects target the underlying principle contributing to the reduction of poverty (with 16 projects addressing both principles). Table 2.4 Underlying principles, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland Underlying Principle: 1 Underlying Principle: 2 Both Principles Addressing Disadvantage and promoting tolerance and social inclusion Contributing To The Reduction Of Poverty 26 projects 3 projects 16 projects Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) 13

23 3.0 Defining and identifying needs 3.1 Introduction Reaching Communities in England and Northern Ireland aimed to fund projects that help those most in need including people or groups who are hard to reach. This section explores how projects identified and defined those needs. Section 3.2 looks at how projects have identified and defined need, including looking at some of the issues around defining need. It looks at the target groups and activities that took place (Sections 3.3 and 3.4) and what methods or information projects used to identify those needs (Section 3.5). 3.2 Defining and identifying needs Reaching Communities is an open, demand led funding programme and within that broad remit, it provides funding to projects targeting an incredibly diverse range of needs. In their applications and in the annual surveys and case studies, projects were asked to define and explain the needs they set out to address. Evidence on the nature of the needs addressed by the programme was triangulated from these sources to help assess how projects have identified and defined: need, people most in need and hard to reach groups and individuals 24. However the data collected had a number of limitations which are described below; before presenting findings around how projects defined need and people most in need Definitional and data issues Projects in their applications to BIG and in their survey responses generally defined needs in terms of particular individuals or target groups and associated activities to meet those needs. It is not uncommon for voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations and, likewise, social theorists or researchers, to use such groups or categories to define need 25. The assumption is that many members of such groups will have needs that are not met by existing structures or provision (implied needs). The programme data held by BIG provided information about need through a series of proxy indicators taken from project application forms, namely: beneficiaries (or target groups) and project work (or activities undertaken). These were proxy because there was no specific data field called need. A limitation of the programme data held by BIG is that it does not detail the evidence submitted by applicants to describe or evidence the need for their project. For instance, it cannot necessarily be assumed that because projects are targeting particular target groups that these groups have a defined or identified need, particularly in the case of broadly defined target groups such as young people, families, or women and girls. The BIG information provided no detail on what those groups explicit needs might be. In some cases, it may be reasonable to assume that a specific target group has implied 'needs' for example where a specific factor places that group at a disadvantage to others (for example young people with a disability, or women who have suffered domestic violence or abuse). 24 Taken from the evaluation objectives in Section One. 25 Young Foundation, 2008 Deep and persistent exclusion: interrogating the idea of the bottom 2.5% - Thoughts in progress and see for example Princes Trust (2004) "Reaching the Hardest to Reach" which defines disadvantaged young people as those leaving care, educational underachievers, unemployed, and ex offenders and serving prisoners. 14

24 However one cannot assume that all young people or all women are in need or indeed most in need and the BIG programme data did not indicate more precisely what needs those groups might have had. A further source of information about 'need' were the project descriptions held in BIG's programme data. However, many of these descriptions followed a similar pattern of defining a target group, or groups, and describing activities to target those groups. For example: 'This project will provide a specialist facility for young adults with mental illness, leaving care, ex hospital patients, leaving education early and young refugees. They would receive help and advice in order to relearn living skills at their own pace in a safe environment and promote social inclusion. The facility will use creative workshops such as pottery to engage the beneficiaries and encourage social interaction whilst also offering one to one help and advice.' (Reaching Communities England project) 26 'This project will benefit this three year project that will benefit a total of 1,200 older people from 40 local groups across Northern Ireland, The project will specifically focus on involving older people from rural and deprived areas and older men. Additionally, the project will seek to encourage cross-community groups and smaller, emerging groups. The project aims to build capacity in local groups and will deliver activities that encourage physical activity, good mental health and healthy eating.' (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland project) 27 In these (randomly selected) examples, the needs of the specific target group [i.e. young adults with mental illness, early education leavers, older people etc] are implied but not given explicitly, whereas activities to target those groups are more clearly defined [i.e. workshops, advice, training, local groups]. The needs of the target groups in this case might be inferred as a need to learn life skills (due to an inability to live independently) or to improve their health and a lack of statutory provision in the local area to provide that sort of intensive or targeted support. Other project descriptions held in BIG data were more explicit about the precise needs of their target groups. For instance: This project is to continue and extend a two year scheme which addresses the needs of adults with learning difficulties. The organisation has produced a programme of work experience, specially adapted learning courses, healthy lifestyle classes and theatre based opportunities in arts, crafts and drama. These activities tackle issues such as isolation, low self-esteem and social wellbeing from within this minority group. (Reaching Communities England project) 28 'This project will benefit 500 people affected by cancer in North and West Belfast. The overall aim of the project is to reduce the risk of serious mental and physical ill health among people affected 26 Source: BIG programme data, Source: ibid 28 Source: ibid 15

25 by cancer by helping people access support services. The project will provide training, information workshops, library services, awareness raising and peer support.' (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland project) 29 Again the examples highlight a broad target group [adults with learning difficulties or people with cancer] and activities to be undertaken [courses, classes, workshops] but is also more explicit about the needs those activities will address: namely tackling feelings of isolation, low self-esteem and improving mental and physical health and wellbeing which is broadly about improving soft outcomes and physical and mental health. We can therefore infer that useful information may be contained in a proportion of the project descriptions, however given the scale of the two programmes (approaching 1,450 projects) it was beyond the scope and resources of the evaluation to be able to extract or analyse useful responses. Instead a question was put in the annual surveys to try to gather more specific information from projects about identifying and defining need 30. Projects were asked to describe the needs they set out to address. The question was worded to target need, so for example if projects were targeting young people, what was the young people s specific need they were trying to address? Results from the more than 800 responses received to this question are presented later. The evaluation also aimed to identify how projects identified the most in need. However there was limited evidence, from the BIG data or from the annual surveys of how far projects were aware, or could demonstrate that the individuals or group they worked with was the most in need. For instance if a project was providing disabled facilities or roofing for a community centre in a local area projects did not generally state, and there was no way of knowing as evaluators, whether that was the priority need in that area among a range of competing needs 31. Again, as a proxy, research suggests that groups that could be identified as being the 'most in need' 32 might include offenders, those with functional literacy problems, children excluded from school, people with mental health issues, undocumented migrants, Travellers, the homeless, and drug and alcohol abusers. 33 Evidence presented below indicated a proportion of Reaching Communities projects do identify these groups among their beneficiaries. 3.3 Defining needs through target groups As mentioned previously, projects in the programme data held by BIG and in their annual survey responses generally defined needs as particular individuals or target groups and associated activities to meet those needs, using the assumption that some members of such groups will have implied needs 29 Source: BIG programme data, After year one survey results, question wording was also adjusted to further ask projects to identify not just target groups but their need. 31 It should be noted that to tackle this issue, advice from BIG regional teams across England at the stage of making funding decisions is designed to inform the process of selecting successful projects based on local level knowledge. However regional teams cannot be expected to have detailed knowledge at the scale required for a programme of the scale of Reaching Communities in England. In Northern Ireland the smaller scale of the geographical area covered may mean local knowledge is more effective. 32 The so-called bottom 2.5%. Young Foundation, 2008 Ibid. 33 Young Foundation, 2008 Deep and persistent exclusion: interrogating the idea of the bottom 2.5% - Thoughts in progress based on Social Exclusion Unit Task Force definitions of deep and persistent exclusion. Pg 4. 16

26 that are not met by existing structures or provision. Evidence collected on how projects identified and defined target groups is now explored. Programme data held by BIG classifies the 'beneficiaries or target groups' projects identified in their applications. The BIG programme data for Reaching Communities England illustrated in Figure 3.1 shows the very wide variety of target groups that projects were targeting. The list of target groups is extremely long and varied which reflects the open, demand led format of the programme. More common target groups included young people (around 14%); families (around 12%) and disadvantaged people living in urban areas (around 11%) however the programme targeted groups as diverse as people leaving care, victims of disasters, lone parents and people with a variety of illnesses or mental and physical disabilities. BIG programme data suggested that a third of projects were targeting at least two target groups (484 projects or 35%) and a further 15% were targeting three target groups (215 projects). A minority (79 projects) were targeting four target groups. As mentioned previously many of these target groups suggest implied needs, as some are very broadly defined (for instance men and boys or black and minority ethnic groups ). 17

27 Figure 3.1 All target groups, Reaching Communities England Victims of disaster Men/boys Organisations w ith five staff or less People living in residential care People w ith hidden disabilities People w ho have been bereaved Young people leaving care/in care School refusers Not specified Physical illness Families/people living w ith HIV/AIDS People in debt People on benefits Gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgender Non settled groups VCS organisations Other illnesses English as a second language Victims of abuse/bullying Long term/acute/chronic illnesses Educationally disadvantaged People w ith no particular need Lone parents Victims of crime Women/girls Physical disabilities/imparment Substance misusers People w ith learning disabilities Offenders/ex-offenders/ at risk of offending Disadvanted living in rural areas People w ho have no/low income Unemployed people Carers Older people Homeless people Refugees & asylum seekers Black and minority ethnic People w ho are isolated Disadvantaged people living in urban areas Mental health issues/concerns Young people Families Other Number of projects Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) 18

28 In Northern Ireland, BIG programme data (Table 3.1) illustrates that a similarly broad range of target groups were targeted, with a particular emphasis on carers and people with an illness or disability. This again reflected the open, demand led style of funding and, again, broad definitions of need were used including families and older people. Table 3.1 All target groups, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland Target group Number of projects Carers 7 People with learning disabilities 7 People with a physical illness/terminal illness 5 People with physical disabilities 5 Families 4 People who have no or low income 4 People with mental health issues/concerns 3 Young people 2 Disadvantaged people living in urban areas 2 People with a hearing impairment 2 Risk of offending/offenders/ex-offenders 1 Alcohol or drug users 1 People from BME groups 1 Older people 1 Homeless people 1 Not settled groups 1 People who have been bereaved 1 Victims of crime 1 People with no particular need 1 Other 8 Not specified/not answered 2 Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) 19

29 Needs might also be defined economically as those with the lowest incomes or those facing poverty. The presumption here is that those who are poorest in society are more likely to have additional or unmet needs 34. Again, programme data from BIG suggests that in England, Reaching Communities is to some extent targeting those communities, with disadvantaged people living in urban and rural areas coming second and eighth respectively in the list of groups being targeted. People with low or no income and unemployed people also feature in 14 th and 15 th place respectively (see Figure 3.1 above). In Northern Ireland six of the 45 projects were specifically targeting disadvantaged groups or those with low or no income and while many of the target groups explicitly mentioned in both programmes are not specifically identified as 'disadvantaged' or 'low income' they are also more likely to be economically disadvantaged (for example people with disabilities, or homeless people). A further approach to defining need is to view those in need as lacking particular resources or facing certain barriers in accessing the support, information or care they need 35. For instance individuals or groups may have needs because they cannot readily access or negotiate service delivery systems (perhaps due to a lack of language/communication skills) or because they do not live in close proximity to the services they need (lack of transport). Additionally people may have needs because of barriers to accessing help such as language or cultural barriers, discrimination or a lack of trust in (statutory) organisations. Evidence from BIG data and the annual evaluation surveys indicated that Reaching Communities projects in both programmes were certainly tackling needs in all of the above areas. Examples included projects helping beneficiaries with language or ICT skills. For example the Highway to Opportunities project in Oldham, which supports Asian women (Bangla and Urdu speakers) with little English, to access vocational information, advice, guidance, ICT tasters and job search activities. Many of the smaller one-year projects are providing transport to enable remote communities to get access to services, for example, the Suffolk Family Carers project provides outreach support to those who are isolated and cannot access mainstream services. West Belfast's Suicide Awareness and Support Group (SASG) funded through Reaching Communities Northern Ireland targets those at risk of suicide and those bereaved by suicide. These are both difficult groups to reach due to the isolation often experienced and the stigma attached to suicide. This is also attested to by formal government support of community interventions relating to suicide, recognising that in these circumstances statutory services are often inappropriate or inadequate. Finally, evidence on involvement of beneficiaries (see Section 4) demonstrates that by delivering through VCS and third sector organisations which are embedded in local communities, the programme may be overcoming fear and mistrust of statutory or public services and reaching those in greatest need. Both programmes contained a small number of projects that targeted people with no particular need (40 in England and one in Northern Ireland). Further analysis of those projects indicated they were generally projects that benefited an entire local community, for instance upgrading a local community facility or providing local minibus transport, rather than targeting the specific needs of a particular group, as in the following example: 34 For example see Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2003) "Tackling disadvantage: a 20 year enterprise." 35 For a full explanation see Young Foundation, 2008 ibid. 20

30 The village hall is the only remaining community building in the village since the closure of the chapel and its school room. This project will ensure the future of this remaining community building for the residents of the village and surrounding area. Improvements to the outside area will provide the possibility of more activities for the community. The activities will help to reduce isolation and improve community relationships. (Reaching Communities England project) Alternatively these were projects that aimed to build capacity within an organisation, such as to recruit and train volunteer coordinators or volunteers, who would then go on to achieve impacts more widely in their community or with specific target groups, as in these examples: Funding from BIG will employ a volunteer co-ordinator who will develop the opportunities for achievements and qualifications in volunteering. This co-ordinator will bring together volunteers across the farm, improve their inclusion into farm activities and enable them to create their own activities. Volunteers range from disabled children, to those excluded from school, to adults who want to learn about animals. The development of the volunteer programme will improve community cohesion by bringing together people from different ages, ethnicities and abilities. (Reaching Communities England project) 'The overall aim of the project which focuses on volunteering is to promote recovery for people with direct experience of mental health issues and encourage them to ultimately access mainstream services. The project seeks to break down barriers and increase coping skills and self-confidence as well as build capacity and encourage beneficiaries to engage with the broader community. Eighty per cent of the beneficiaries will have direct experience of mental illness (i.e. have mental illness themselves or are carers) and the remaining 20 per cent of volunteers will be from the general public and this make-up of beneficiaries is designed to break down barriers between the mental health community and the wider community through active integration and interaction.' (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland project) The annual evaluation survey also illustrated the wide range of groups being targeted by Reaching Communities in both programmes: projects identified around 55 different groups in the annual survey and any one group was targeted by no more than 13% of projects 36. Annual survey data also confirmed that many projects targeted more than one target group as BIG data presented above suggested. Survey data indicated several groups emerging: local communities/community relations (13%), vulnerable/ disadvantaged/marginalised groups (12%) and children and young people (11%). But in addition to this a wide range of groups were targeted including BME groups, parents/families, carers, people with physical or mental disabilities and gypsy communities/travellers. Deprived geographical areas also featured. As with BIG programme data, the annual survey data also showed that projects tended to define need in terms of a target group and tended not to define a specific need. For example 'young people', white groups or 'adults' were commonly identified as need the project was targeting. In these cases the groups being targeted may have specific needs but these were not made explicit by projects in the surveys. 36 Source: based on survey responses base = 796. A full breakdown is given in Annex One. 21

31 Some survey responses provided additional detail to provide an overview of need (for example 'young people' with 'drug problems'), but again without being specific about what their need was (i.e. was it specific health issues or developing softer skills such as self confidence). Throughout the evaluation, only very small numbers of projects were explicit in survey responses about the need they were addressing as opposed to a target group and these included: Tackling isolation (4%) Dealing with substance abuse e.g. alcohol, drugs (2%) Improving wellbeing/health (2%) Tackling low participation or involvement (4 projects) Increased opportunities/creating opportunities for those without them (3 projects) Addressing lack of skills/educational underachievement (3 projects) Helping people who cannot live independently to do so (1 project) Addressing a lack of service provision in the area (1 project) Targeting the most in need (or multiple needs) The evaluation also sought to establish how projects defined and identified the most in need. The Young Foundation research 37 suggests that most in need groups include those suffering from multiple (three or more) needs or problems or those in 'deep exclusion'. Such groups of people with entrenched needs, it is suggested, include: people with moderate to severe mental health problems, young problem drug users, young offenders, children in care, those lacking numeracy and literacy and year olds not in employment, education or training (NEET). The authors also note that groups including offenders and exoffenders, excluded and 'missing' children, Traveller communities, sex workers, mental health and the homeless, as well as others might be added to the list 38. It is worth considering whether projects in either programme identified or targeted groups fitting that definition of need. While neither Reaching Communities programme was designed explicitly to target multiple needs, there is evidence that they certainly targeted some groups that might be defined as such. Programme data for Reaching Communities England indicated that people with physical and mental health issues featured in the range of groups projects work with. However there was no indication or description of the severity of their problems. More than 80 projects targeted homeless people and a further more than 40 projects targeted offenders. School refusers, and people with English as a second language who might be considered to lack numeracy or literacy skills also featured to a small extent (less than 20 projects overall). Offenders and drug or substance abuse were also being targeted though to a lesser extent and at least three projects explicitly targeted NEETs 39. People with mental health issues were also prominent in groups targeted by Northern Ireland funded projects and one project targeted drug/alcohol users. Annual survey data for both programmes also confirmed that homeless people, people with learning difficulties, mental health (all around 40 projects each), people with a disability (56 projects) featured and two projects in England targeted children in care. Overall however projects targeting groups that might be 37 Young Foundation, 2008 Deep and persistent exclusion: interrogating the idea of the bottom 2.5% - Thoughts in progress based on Social Exclusion Unit Task Force definitions of deep and persistent exclusion. 38 See full list on ibid page 3-4. Note the list given is not exhaustive. 39 Source: based on survey results base =

32 considered most in need represented a relatively small proportion of the projects funded 40. Overall it appeared that the Reaching Communities programmes were generally targeting quite broad groups of needs, and were less likely to be specialising on the more challenging to tackle problems of the most excluded or 'most in need' groups. That might be because Reaching Communities projects appeared less likely to be offering the more complex or targeted one-to-one interventions and approaches. It might also be because programme guidance at the application stage and projects in their applications were not clear on what 'most in need' groups might be or how they might be defined and tackled Geographic patterns of need Within Reaching Communities England, nine in ten projects (89%) were targeted at a local level, with less than one in ten focused at regional levels (8%). National scale projects were less common, with only 26 projects in total operating at this scale (see Table 3.2). This illustrates the very local scale of much of the work funded via the programme in England. Table 3.2 Meeting needs by geographic levels, Reaching Communities England Number of projects % Local level (for example a specific town or city) 1, Regional level (for example West Midlands, South West) National (England-wide) 26 2 Not known 20 1 Total 1, Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) Regionally, Reaching Communities funding in England was evenly spread across the regions, with London and the North West receiving the largest share of funds, and Eastern regions receiving slightly smaller proportions of funding (see Figure 3.2). 40 Because projects can target more than one target group in BIG programme data, and because the list given in the Young Foundation report cannot be seen as exhaustive it is difficult to suggest the precise proportions targeting multiple needs. 23

33 Figure 3.2 Regions identified by projects, Reaching Communities England 8% 2% 1% 17% London 7% North West 8% 10% 15% Yorkshire and Humber South East West Midlands South West East East Midlands North East National 12% Not know n 10% 10% Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) In Northern Ireland the annual survey results indicated that projects were evenly spread across the council areas, with projects working across an average of 13 council areas 41. More than three quarters of council areas being targeted (76%) were council areas outside of Belfast Council area 42 and at least two projects were working with beneficiaries across the whole of Northern Ireland, including a project benefiting deaf children and their families across the country, being delivered by the National Deaf Children s Society. Annual evaluation survey data for both programmes shows programme funding was broadly aiming to reach needs in rural and urban areas, with seven in ten projects working in urban areas (71%), over a third (38%) working in rural areas and a further third working in urban fringe areas (32%) Activities to meet needs Reaching Communities projects used an extremely wide range of activities to tackle the identified needs in their local communities. BIG programme data for Reaching Communities England illustrates the wide range, with no more than one in six (18%) projects delivering any one activity. While common activities included services such as information, advice, guidance and counselling and practical activities such as youth or recreational activities, community services or amenities and education and training, the programme also covered as diverse a range as mentoring, arts and cultural activities and victim support (see Figure 3.3). 41 Source: based on survey responses base = 23 projects. See full breakdown of survey results in Annex One. 42 Belfast area covers Belfast, Castlereagh, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Newtownabbey and North Down. 43 Source: based on survey responses base = 451, multiple responses allowed therefore percentages do not sum to 100%. 24

34 There is also some overlap between BIG programme data categories. For example the BIG data categories 'IAG' (Information, Advice and Guidance) and 'advice, education and counselling' are very similar and when combined account for activity being delivered by one in five projects (around 21%). Similarly, delivery of activities to young people also accounts for a significant proportion of all activity if the similar categories of 'education, training and youth development' and 'youth or recreational activities' are combined (16%). There will, however, be great diversity within those categories, for example, the difference between educational work (e.g. training) versus recreational work (e.g. play) with young people. However this information clearly reflects the focus of many projects on IAG activities and on young people, and suggests that some Reaching Communities projects that were funded via this stream might have been signposted to other BIG funding that was more specifically directed towards these types of needs/target groups. Figure 3.3 Activities being delivered, Reaching Communities England 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Advice, Information & Counselling Community services or amenities Ed, training & youth development Health, social care or medical services Youth or recreational activities/services Not specified/ not known Volunteering Self development Healthy eating, wellbeing/exercise IAG human rights or advocacy Arts & culture Family support and parenting skills Childcare/nurseries Community Education Community transport Environmental or conservation day care, home care, residential care or hostels HR services Older people services Community relations and cohesion Basic skills or life skills Other Community Development Financial literacy/services Mentoring Social support Social activities Helpline Rehabilitation of Offenders Organisation development & support English as a Second Language Religious and cultural education Special needs or supplmentary Victim support Ec & social development Anti drug & alcohol service social research Recruitment Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) Annual survey data for England provided greater detail on project activities; with more than 50 different types of activity being delivered and no more than one in eight projects delivering any single activity (12%). Projects were generally delivering one or two main activities. Activities ranged from advocacy to artwork; languages to life skills; recycling to respite care and youth diversion to volunteering. The top ten most popular activities are listed below (Table 3.3) each with over 30 projects delivering these activities Source: based on survey responses base size =

35 Table 3.3 Common project activities, Reaching Communities England Number of projects % Education / training / qualifications / skills provision Information, advice, guidance / signposting Community involvement / empowerment / engage citizens Support services 65 8 Health promotion / wellbeing 54 7 Counselling / emotional support 40 5 Promote rights / raise awareness 40 5 Volunteering 40 5 Building confidence / self esteem 39 5 Social activities / social clubs / day trips 37 5 Employment support / financial awareness 33 4 Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, base 796 projects This table shows some parallels with BIG programme data. Topping the list are information, advice and guidance type activities (which have been coded together into one group amounting to 11%) and educational activity (12%). Support services and community engagement featured more explicitly in the survey sample than in the BIG programme data (this was probably because of the open coding method used for the survey data whereas BIG data is taken from a pre-selected list). Activity was also determined to some extent by target group. For instance some activities clearly link to specific target groups. For instance, work with carers as a target group tends to be respite care, and work with children and young people tends to be educationally focussed, or IAG based. However other activities such as health promotion work could be with a range of groups, from older people to homeless people 45. The diversity of activity is illustrated by the below project examples: This project is to provide an outreach service to the neighbouring districts of Harton, Nook, Hebburn and Jarrow comprising the provision of mobility support equipment, education, training and recreational activities. These include courses in IT, first aid, form filling, book-keeping, digital photography and are designed to combat isolation and loneliness whilst increasing selfconfidence and social interaction. (Reaching Communities England project) The project s primary focus will be to deliver a non profit gardening service to elderly and disabled residents who are experiencing poverty and social isolation. The project will provide a low cost service to community groups and organisations that would like to manage their green spaces themselves. (Reaching Communities England project) 45 However sample sizes were too small to conduct any meaningful cross tabulation given the wide range of responses (n = >50). 26

36 We use music as a tool to help people who have experienced homelessness move forward in their lives and to create positive public awareness about homelessness. [We] run two programmes a year-round music programme Streetwise Live in homeless centres around the country involving weekly singing/drama workshops, theatre trips, small performances and work placements. Building from this regular programme we stage one large, annual production giving participants the chance to work alongside some of the best artists in the world.' (Reaching Communities England project) Figure 3.4 Case study: Music and Dance Education (MADET) Location: West Cornwall Figure 3.5 Case study: Compass Community Arts Location: Eastbourne 27

37 In Northern Ireland, annual survey results and BIG s data indicated that a wide range of activities were also being delivered (see Figure 3.5). 'Community based services or amenities' was the most commonly delivered activity for around a quarter of projects (25%) and this description covered a wide range of work including befriending, advocacy and social events with groups as diverse as deaf children, people with learning disabilities or mental health issues and lesbian women. As in the England programme, many Northern Ireland projects had a focus on information, advice and guidance and counselling (18%). One project was working in a specific local community to deliver activities to improve community relations, partnership working and build up a sense of local community (Cross Glebe in Coleraine) while another is undertaking (amongst other activities) cross community and conciliation/mediation work (Farset project in Belfast). There were also a number of community development projects, one of which aimed to build capacity within the voluntary sector across Northern Ireland (a project being run by Community Place). Figure 3.6 Activities being delivered, Reaching Communities Northern Ireland Adult and community education 23% 4% 4% 18% Advice/Information and Counselling Advocacy, campaigning and aw areness raising Children and youth services 2% 7% 25% 2% 4% 11% Community Development Community services/amenities Education, training and youth development Family support and parenting skills Health, care or medical services Support to volunteers/netw orking support Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) 'The Bytes Project in partnership with The Simon Community Belfast Foyer will engage with 550 disadvantaged unemployed and homeless years olds with learning and education difficulties through the use of information and communication technology.' (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland project) The Mediation Northern Ireland case study (Figure 3.6) below illustrates some of the activities taking place in Northern Ireland. 28

38 Figure 3.7 Case study: Mediation NI Location: Northern Ireland Summary Mediation NI (MNI) is an independent social enterprise that aims to develop and promote mediation skills and practice to facilitate conflict resolution and good relations. With the Northern Ireland Assembly about to come back online, peace-building efforts in the region were reinvigorated, and MNI felt that their experience in facilitating social partnership and their first hand knowledge of local areas could be used to assist communities in re-building their internal cohesion and helping to address divisions in place following 30 years of conflict. In 2007 MNI originally applied for 337,000 of RCNI funding to be spent over the subsequent five years. After further project development the grant awarded was actually 478k to be spent over the same period. The total project cost will be just over 1m over five years, with the rest of the funding coming from a variety of sources including the NI Community Relations Council, EU Peace Programmes, private foundations and some of the participating local authorities. The project targets eight local authority areas across NI and is administered through a multi-tiered structure. The project overall is guided by a strategic multi-agency Board of Reference, while in each of the eight areas steering groups will be established drawing in representation from elected, statutory, civic and community leadership. Each of these steering groups will in turn broker the population of a mediation team of people who already work at the coal face within their local community, who will be trained up to apply mediative approaches both within their existing roles and within any additional initiatives that the steering group decide to undertake. It is important to note that MNI are only the facilitators and advisors to the steering groups, with the membership taking responsibility for driving the process forward and dictating its local direction. Work has begun in six areas with the following four step activity taking place: Civic Diplomacy initial contact with local stakeholders to build agreement for the process to be initiated Infra-structure establishment of the local steering group, identification of areas for action and identification of potential mediators at the coal face Training in mediation skills and associated disciplines Practice Development supporting mediators in putting their skills into practice. In some cases the innovative and independent nature of the activities has taken a lot of getting used to by the existing establishment and in those cases a great deal more effort has had to be put in at the civic diplomacy stage than originally envisaged. 29

39 3.5 Researching need The evaluation aimed to understand how projects initially researched or investigated needs through the specific objectives to examine how projects have considered local strategies to produce evidence of need and to compare different project approaches to identifying and addressing need in order to reduce disadvantage and exclusion for hard to reach groups and the most in need 46. Projects in both programmes also involved beneficiaries in researching or investigating need; this is explored in greater detail in the next section of this report (see Section 4.2). Evidence from the annual surveys indicated that Reaching Communities projects in both programmes used a range of mechanisms for researching the needs they set out to address, with most projects using three different ways of considering local needs in tandem. Most commonly, projects tapped into their existing organisational knowledge with the largest proportions relying on 'informal' resources such as local knowledge via 'talking to people' (86%) and 'previous knowledge or experience' (85%). As the programmes could fund existing projects, as long as they were developed or built on in some way, this accounts for the high levels of previous knowledge or experience that projects were capitalising upon (see Figure 3.7). In these cases projects were already being funded to deliver services and sought funding to be able to continue to do so. Figure 3.8 Which did you use to investigate the need for your project? % of projects Talking to people Previous experience / similar w ork / know legde Research reports, statistics or data Strategies and policy documents Other Don't know Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, Base all projects, 804 Talking to people covered a wide range of activities as a means of evidencing the need for the project. It included methods which ranged from relying on anecdotal feedback to more formal mechanisms. Table 3.4 highlights some of the examples provided demonstrating the range of approaches taken. 46 Taken from the evaluation objectives in Section One. 30

40 Table 3.4 Talking to people, Reaching Communities England and Northern Ireland Anecdotal / Informal Formal Anecdotal feedback collecting during other work Asking local people or (potential) beneficiaries what we should do or what could be improved Local impetus a coming together of people in need and proactively feeding that back to project organisers/staff Community audit or needs assessment In response to a business plan Community consultation (e.g. via an event or community planning day) Consultation with beneficiaries / service users Annual beneficiary surveys / interviews / focus groups Commissioned research or consultancy from independent consultant Consultation with other professionals (e.g. health professionals, primary schools), and stakeholders Talking with neighbouring charities or other local agencies doing similar work to identify gaps Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, base 32 projects Some projects built on existing work in their local area to ensure their work fitted with wider priorities, as below: A comprehensive community audit identified major issues that needed to be addressed. After two visits in 2006 by the, then, Minister for Social Development a task force was set up to put in place an action plan to address the issues that local residents were raising. The audit also involved a Planning for Real day which local residents had good input to. (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland project) 47 Overall, many projects relied on existing knowledge to investigate the need for their project; they had been working in the area and knew of a group with needs that were not met by statutory or other VCS or third sector provision. With two thirds of organisations having existed for more than a decade prior to accessing this Reaching Communities funding which indicates a wealth of on the ground experience being drawn upon. However the table above also illustrates that some projects also employed consultative approaches (explored in more detail in the following section) and more sophisticated techniques for instance liaising closely with other delivery organisations across public and voluntary and community sectors or employing external consultants to ensure local needs were being accurately identified. 47 Source: based on survey responses base size =

41 Three quarters of projects combined talking to people and using their existing knowledge with looking at some form of external data to help inform the need for their project. Three quarters of projects in both programmes used research, data or methods such as looking at relevant or statistics (77%). For instance, many projects in England used census data or deprivation data for their local area to demonstrate that their project and its beneficiaries were located in the most deprived communities. Significantly fewer projects were taking account of the strategic fit of their project within local policy contexts with around half using 'strategy and policy documents' to help define the need for their project (51%). In Northern Ireland this figure was slightly higher with three quarters of projects responding to the survey saying they used strategies (28 projects or 78%) to help design their project and ensure it shows complementarity with other local plans. Of those projects using strategies or research and statistics, the most commonly used sources were local level resources including community plans, neighbourhood statistics and local authority level plans (e.g. Local Area Agreements 48 ) (Figure 3.8). Deprivation data was also used by nearly 400 projects (53%) to demonstrate need in the local area. Regional strategies were less likely to be referred to (19%), unsurprising since only a small proportion of projects were targeted at the regional level (8%). Figure 3.9 Which strategies, policies, research or statistics did you use? No. of projects Don't know Other Regional Economic Strategies National surveys (e.g.household surveys) Census 2001 Indices or measures of deprivation Local Development Plans / LAA's Neighbourhood statistics Community plans / strategies Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, Base all projects using strategies, policies, research or statistics, All used by 400 or more projects responding to the survey. 32

42 The case studies illustrate some of the 'informal' and 'formal' means of identifying need employed by projects. York and District Mind, one of the case studies, identified a gap locally in services for people with mental illness and applied for Reaching Communities funds to set up a volunteer befriending service to provide emotional and practical support, advocacy and information. Staff felt strongly that the service they developed was meeting previously unmet needs of local people with mental health needs. The LATCH case study whose 'Hands On' project delivers work experience for homeless people and NEET 49 young people in construction industry used questionnaires in local schools to explore the level of demand and potential take up for their project. The Couper's Collection case study also illustrated how one community organisation worked closely with local partners to identify a local need for work experience placements that delivered practical skills. This demonstrates that close consultation with local stakeholders including public agencies can provide a closer understanding of local need. West Belfast's Suicide Awareness and Support Group (SASG) funded in Northern Ireland used more formal mechanisms to identify the need for its work. In drawing up its strategy, SASG undertook a formal community and statutory consultation to assess local demand and to prioritise services to be delivered. Finally, this was augmented by participation in the Department of Health s implementation body tasked with delivering the NI government s Suicide Prevention Strategy Protect Life. This allowed SASG to formally gauge relative need in West Belfast and to ensure complementarity with the existing strategy and adequate quality assurance of its proposed services Identifying changes in need Given the length of Reaching Communities funding of up to five years, many projects experienced changes in the needs they were seeking to address or local circumstances altered during the course of the project leading to changes in the approaches to meeting those needs 50. Annual survey results indicated that the proportion of projects that reported a change in the needs they set out to address grew from 3% to 15% 51. The proportion grew each year as projects got further into their period of delivery. For a third of projects the change in needs was due to a response to an increase in demand or volumes of beneficiaries (23 projects) or needing to expand the service for other reasons (13 projects). 'The same need is there but there has been an increased need, meaning that now that we have a good working of the need they now bring even more issues through our door. For example, we assist with tax credit and self assessment - some now bring in other forms or ask for further assistance with DLA, rent or rates rebate, cross border vehicle forms (taxi) or other forms.' (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland project) 49 NEET means Not in Education Employment or Training 50 The Big Lottery Fund accepts that it is possible that the focus of funded project might change during your funding. There is no problem with this, as long as the outcomes projects are working towards remain the same. 51 Source: based on survey responses = (2007) 3% base, 195 (2008) 12% base, 325 and (2009) 15% base,

43 Table 3.5 Changes to needs of target groups, Reaching Communities England and Northern Ireland Number of projects Increase in demand / number of beneficiaries 23 Need for extended / expanded service 13 Change in requirements of target group 12 Economic downturn 10 Target group has a more specific need 8 Issues have become more acute 4 Change to policy 5 More information/advice to be given 5 Decrease in demand 4 Demographic changes 1 Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, Base all reporting a change in needs, 72 The economic downturn was increasingly a factor affecting the types of needs projects in England identified 52. Projects working particularly in the areas of employment and financial support/advice noted changes in the needs of their beneficiaries. For instance, some were experiencing an increased need / demand for employment or debt related services. Projects reported they are either dealing with this demand themselves or referring beneficiaries to other, more specific, support agencies. 'Due to the credit crunch we have found an increase of requests for support and assistance and find we now signpost a large number of local residents to other services or have increased our support to these were possible.' 'The recession has impacted on families and we are making more referrals to agencies such as Citizen's Advice, we are also providing information on credit unions.' (Reaching Communities England projects) Some projects also reported that rising unemployment as a result of the recession was also having knock on effects in terms of soft outcomes among their beneficiaries, which projects were having to tackle as in the example below and the Couper's Collection case study (Figure 3.10). 'The impact of the recession has meant there has been increased concern/increased competition from/for disabled poeple finding work.' 'Due to the recession we are dealing with a much higher rate of unemployment which has had a knock on effect of low self esteem and low aspirations.' (Reaching Communities England projects) No projects in Northern Ireland responding to this question specifically identified this as an issue. 53 Source: based on survey responses = base 72 34

44 Figure 3.10 Case study: Couper Collection Community Work Experience Project Location: Battersea, London Needs had also changed qualitatively in other ways, during project delivery. For example projects had identified needs among a wider age range than previously or noted that needs had become more acute over time. In addition, projects gained a greater understanding of the needs of their target group as they delivered the project, as these examples illustrate: 'Following research with the youngsters we provide holidays for, we found that the 25 plus age group were suddenly moved into adult services within their hospitals and at the same time deemed too 'old' to enjoy a [youth centre] holiday where they could be with peers going through a similar experience. They became a 'lost tribe' with little or no familiar support. We have [therefore] increased the age range from 14 to 30 (it was previously 14 to 25).' (Reaching Communities England project for youth cancer patients) Source: based on survey responses = base 72 35

45 'There is an increasing trend of minor and some major mental difficulties being experienced by youngsters in our local school. We are meeting more pupils with acute educational needs which are at best being managed rather than attended to.' (Reaching Communities England project for young people who are excluded from school) 55 Previous survey data also illustrated that projects were responding to demographic changes which affected local needs, for example as people migrated into the area and the local population composition altered, bringing with it new needs. 'We have identified that migrant workers (mainly Eastern European) are now being joined by older relatives. These are often unable to speak English, and many have severe hearing loss problems. We are seeking ways of overcoming this, through partnership with the East of England Faiths Council and the Catholic Church.' (Reaching Communities England project working with carers) As the programme developed, projects also experienced and had to deal with, changes in the services provided in the target areas where they were delivering. The proportion noting a change in local service provision rose during the course of the evaluation period, from 5% to 24% 56 (see Table 3.5). Table 3.6 Changes to services in the target area, Reaching Communities England and Northern Ireland Number of projects % Response to changes in statutory provision Introduction of new / expanded / improved services Financial / legislative changes Increase in demand Adjustment according to changing need Lack of help elsewhere 8 7 Monitoring and adjustment 7 6 Response to improved knowledge / understanding 4 3 Demographic / beneficiary changes 2 2 Partnership with other voluntary groups 1 1 Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, Base all projects reporting a change in services, 115 For nearly a third of those reporting a change to local services; this was specifically a change to local statutory provision which affected what Reaching Communities was delivering (36 projects). Specifically this included increases or decreases in national or local level funding for local services (for example social care or services for refugees, Traveller and Gypsy populations); and introduction, removal or changes to services working in areas similar to the funded project which affected the flow of beneficiaries into the project. 55 Source: based on survey responses = base Source: based on survey responses = (2007) 5% base, 195 (2008) 21% base, 325 and (2009) 24% base,

46 'During year two [of our project] another organisation was awarded the RIES [Refugee Integration and Employment Service] contract which meant that beneficiaries stopped accessing our service; at the same time the UK Border Agency changed its strategy and began to use Leeds over Bradford as a key dispersal area for refugee and asylum seekers.' (Reaching Communities England project) 'The local authority in Leeds redirected statutory funding which made working with local partners incredibly difficult as they viewed us as competitors rather than strategic partners, despite the work not duplicating theirs and being of benefit to those living with HIV.' (Reaching Communities England project) Some projects also reported having to respond to financial or legislative changes (18 projects) including service reform for instance in local social services. 'Due to the Social Services reform programme initiated over the past two years, there are no longer any specialist social services teams working with separated children in Newham and its surrounding boroughs. This signifies that there is a greater need for [our] direct services, illustrated by higher referral rates. There is also an increased importance and urgency around delivering training and consultancy to statutory services, who no longer receive guidance on how to work with separated children.' (Reaching Communities England project) 57 Reflecting the very localised nature of many of the projects, some projects reported that changes in staffing in local statutory services (such as skilled staff moving on) impacted upon the demand for Reaching Communities projects' services Responding to changes in need Of those who have seen a change in the needs they are addressing, four in five projects had already, or planned to; change their project to meet those needs (83% combined). The remainder (17%) did not plan to do so. Of those projects that had changed or planned to change their projects key changes included: offering adapted or additional services (24 projects) for instance opening up the eligibility criteria of their project to enable more people to benefit; extending the service availability (5 projects) for instance changing the times or frequency of sessions; or looking outside the organisation for more support either in the form of additional funding (5) or working with other agencies in the area (4) or do more for the same level of funding (1) 58. 'It's the same need - people struggle with red tape. We are hitting our targets; we are just stretching ourselves further.' (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland project) 57 Source: based on survey responses = base Source: based on survey responses = base 37 37

47 'We found a need through our existing training and employment programme to support individuals into the transition from a young person to an adult. We have therefore introduced a separate training scheme for young people as well as a youth club. We have also extended the activities at the centre socially as we found a great need from our service users for more social activities such as disco's and evening social clubs.' (Reaching Communities England project targeting adults and children with learning disabilities) 59 This demonstrates that many projects had the awareness, skills and capacity to renegotiate or redesign their offer locally to ensure changing local needs were consistently met. 59 Source: based on survey responses = base 37 38

48 4.0 Involving beneficiaries 4.1 Introduction The Reaching Communities programmes in England and Northern Ireland aimed to support projects which involved individual beneficiaries and the local community. This was a requirement for projects in both programmes, assessed as part of the application process. Evidence from the annual survey, case study visits and project evaluation reports has been used to examine the evaluation questions: how projects have involved beneficiaries and local communities in identifying their own needs and 'how beneficiaries and local communities have been involved in project planning and delivery 60. This section looks at the different ways beneficiaries were involved in Reaching Communities projects (Section 4.2) and looks at the benefits and challenges of involving beneficiaries effectively (Sections 4.3 to 4.4). 4.2 How have beneficiaries been involved? Involving beneficiaries focuses on enabling the people that use the services, or live locally, to have a role in the design, planning, delivery or management of the project. The evaluation identified that Reaching Communities supported projects which involved beneficiaries and local communities at all stages of a project from the identification of needs, through project planning to delivery, to management and evaluation. The nature of this involvement at the different stages of a project is examined below Involving local communities in identifying need Beneficiaries and local communities were involved in identifying their own needs in just under half of the projects (46%). Indeed, beneficiaries or the local community in two in five projects across both programmes (19%) were entirely responsible for deciding the needs. In a further third of projects (27%), beneficiaries or the local community worked on equal terms with the project team to contribute ideas of which needs the project should address. In Northern Ireland, active involvement of beneficiaries was particularly strong with approaching three quarters (72%) of projects reporting that needs were identified either entirely by beneficiaries or on equal terms with project staff. These figures remained consistently high throughout the course of the evaluation (see Table 4.1). 60 Taken from the evaluation objectives in Section One. 39

49 Table 4.1 How were beneficiaries and local communities involved in identifying their own needs? Number % They were not involved at this stage We gave them information about the needs the project was setting out to address We gave them options for what needs the project could address and they were invited to give feedback They worked with the project team on equal terms to contribute their ideas of which needs the project should address The needs were entirely decided by beneficiaries and local communities Don't know 15 4 Total Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, Base all projects, 334 The project case studies demonstrated examples of the different ways in which beneficiaries were actively involved in identifying needs. For example, a survey of users was used at the start of the Reaching Communities project by the Ashford Women's Centre to determine the type of services the centre should deliver; and direct consultation with young people was used by the Soapbox project in Liverpool to identify potential participants and the focus for the upcoming film session course. However, in the year three survey, as in previous year s surveys, four in ten projects (40%) demonstrated less active forms of beneficiary participation in identifying needs, including a quarter (24%) who gave beneficiaries options for what needs the project could address and a further 16% of projects that simply informed beneficiaries what needs the project would address without any direct consultation. Finally, one in ten projects did not involve beneficiaries at all (10%). This 40% demonstrates a lower level of beneficiary participation, illustrating that involvement was either not always possible, or appropriate, or that not all projects had the capacity or skills to be able to do so. The evaluation reports received from projects and the case study visits highlighted the various benefits of involving beneficiaries in identifying the needs for the project. By involving beneficiaries, projects felt they could more accurately identify needs and were positively influenced by the very people they were trying to help. The SIFA Fireside Day Centre project, for example, consulted with users individually and in small groups to help shape the volunteer organiser s role which was to be funded by the Reaching Communities Programme. As a result of their input, the volunteer organiser was able to deliver targeted and appropriate services that specifically responded to user needs. Overall there was a sustained commitment demonstrated through the Reaching Communities Programmes to listen to local communities' needs and utilise local experience and knowledge to determine needs. However scope remained in the Reaching Communities Programmes for projects to facilitate further opportunities for beneficiary or local community involvement in identifying needs, and projects that were less likely to be doing so could learn from those that were Involving local communities in project activity Once projects were underway, Reaching Communities projects in England and Northern Ireland were involving beneficiaries in a variety of ways. Projects were involving the local community and beneficiaries 40

50 in various aspects or stages of their projects including planning; delivery; decision-making; project management and evaluation to varying degrees (see Figure 4.1). Figure 4.1 How often were/are beneficiaries and local communities involved in the following aspects of your projects? Always involved % of projects Sometimes involved Rarely involved Never involved Project planning Project delivery Project decisionmaking Project management Project evaluation Source: ECOTEC survey Bases vary (466,463,462,460,461) Annual survey results indicated that involvement was consistently high across all aspects of a project's delivery, but particularly, in terms of project planning (99% of projects either always or sometimes involved beneficiaries), project evaluation (92% always or sometimes) and to a lesser extent, project delivery (84% always or sometimes). The survey results indicated that projects in both Reaching Communities programmes were making continued efforts to actively involve beneficiaries in project delivery which in turn generated positive benefits for the projects and beneficiaries themselves (see Section 4.3 below). Fewer projects involved beneficiaries or the local community in decision making and project management, suggesting that projects continued to face challenges in involving communities in the more strategic management and decision-making aspects of projects. For instance only 55% of projects involved beneficiaries in project management and in decision making the majority of projects only 'sometimes' involved beneficiaries (52%). However, the case study visits identified several examples of projects that demonstrated effective involvement of beneficiaries in the management of projects, as in this case study example from Northern Ireland. 41

51 Figure 4.2 Case stud: Rehability Location: Northern Ireland The annual survey data showed that where beneficiaries were involved in project management and decision making (150 projects), they were doing so through attending group meetings and networks or becoming board members, trustees or committee advisors, inputting to management committee meetings and taking decisions. The annual survey feedback highlighted another common area of involvement was in evaluation; through activities such as formal feedback, surveys, questionnaires and interviews (254 projects). Beneficiaries were also getting actively involved in project delivery (72 projects) for instance, undertaking volunteering or training programmes to help deliver projects' services or becoming project coordinators, peer trainers or peer educators as in the example below: Figure 4.3 Case study: Broxtowe Single Homeless Action Group Location: Nottinghamshire, England 42

52 Involvement in project planning included the use of user forums and focus groups (59 projects) and meetings (64 projects). One example of this was the 'Routeways Diggin It' project in Reaching Communities England that held a planning event for all its volunteers which generated a number of ideas of how the project could develop and identified potential volunteers to take ownership of activities. Other projects (27) were keeping beneficiaries informed through regular, although more informal, feedback of key decisions, for example via letters, s, newsletters or posters. Although these types of activities appeared to be less active forms of involvement, they were important to facilitate the informing and involving of the wider local community. Reaching Communities projects that tried to involve beneficiaries overall highlighted that there was no 'one size fits all' approach and that it was important to tailor the level or type of involvement to meet the needs and situations of their beneficiaries. The activities projects planned and the degree of time input required needed to vary to address different peoples' situations. For example, the project case studies highlighted that it was often more challenging to involve busy parents or people with dementia, learning difficulties or disabilities. The example below shows how an unemployment project in Brighton has worked with service users to encourage them to get involved, despite busy lives. This has been done through providing high levels of support and appropriate training. The centre runs an accredited volunteer support programme which results in personal outcomes for the volunteers, many of whom are long term sick or have mental health problems; and the organisation recognises that investment has to be made in people to enable them to give their time (Figure 4.4). Figure 4.4 Case study: Unemployed Centre Families Project Location: Brighton, England 43

53 4.3 Benefits of involving beneficiaries The case study research and survey results suggested that involving beneficiaries brought many positive benefits and outcomes for the projects, for the local community and for the beneficiaries themselves (see Figure 4.5). Figure 4.5 Outcomes achieved as a result of involving beneficiaries % of projects To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Don t know 0 Our project meets the identified needs more effectively Project delivery has improved Project is more likely to meet its objectives Improvement in confidence for beneficiaries Communities feel empowered Other Source: ECOTEC survey Bases vary (454,453,452,453,448) The surveys indicated that the key positive outcomes for projects throughout the two programmes were that the project met the identified needs more effectively (79% to a large extent) and that the project was more likely to meet its objectives (78% to a large extent). Just under two thirds of projects (62%) reported that project delivery was improved by involving beneficiaries. Specifically, involving beneficiaries was felt to bring benefits in terms of the quality of the services or activities delivered with beneficiaries sharing their insight and experience of what does and doesn't work. This allowed projects to approach things in a different and more effective way. Other positive outcomes reported included: a greater sense of ownership of the project for beneficiaries and increased awareness on the part of project staff of the needs of beneficiaries, which in turn allowed projects to provide more tailored activity that more closely met beneficiary needs. In Northern Ireland, the Off the Streets project has seen some positive impacts from involving their beneficiaries, particularly around enabling them to tailor their interventions more precisely to needs and becoming more relevant to local young people (see Figure 4.6). 44

54 Figure 4.6 Case Study: Off the Streets Location: Derry / Londonderry, Northern Ireland Just over half of projects (54%) also believed communities feel empowered as a result of beneficiary involvement. Some projects see beneficiary involvement as a way of embedding the project more closely in the local community. Involvement in a project in turn encourages local people to have a stake in the project which can bring benefits in terms of the security and sustainability of project facilities. The Madeley Community Orchard, for example, has an open gate policy to promote the site as a community space. This could have potentially put the site at risk of vandalism but the site has only experienced one incident. This result has been attributed to respect for the site amongst the local community generated through their involvement in the project. 45

55 There were also benefits for beneficiaries themselves of getting involved. Some 78% of projects reported that involving beneficiaries resulted in improvement in the confidence of beneficiaries. The case study visits and project evaluation reports highlighted that getting beneficiaries involved brought other personal benefits for them. For example, getting involved brought personal benefits for beneficiaries in terms of learning a new skill, for example computer literacy, which in turn brought benefits such as introducing them to further training, education and employment opportunities. In addition to improved soft outcomes such as confidence and self-esteem, and harder outcomes like new skills, involvement also contributed to beneficiaries personal development, reduced their feelings of isolation and improved their health. The potential benefits for beneficiaries are demonstrated by the following case study (Figure 4.7). Figure 4.7 Case study: RNID Location: Northern Ireland 4.4 Challenges of involving beneficiaries Reaching Communities projects reported some challenges in effectively involving beneficiaries. Some projects found it difficult to manage the expectations of all beneficiaries and to deal with suggestions which were not feasible for the project to pursue. Projects reported this could be overcome by having an honest up front discussion with beneficiaries about the scale and scope of their involvement (agreeing it together beforehand) and explaining clearly why a suggestion wasn't feasible. Project staff and beneficiaries then often worked together to develop a more viable approach. Other projects had a perception that project staff may need comprehensive support and training to facilitate beneficiary involvement. Others recognised that this could be overcome through use of the wide range of manuals and guidance available online and by utilising existing skills and expertise. The case studies demonstrated that support did need to be provided to beneficiaries to allow them to be more actively involved in projects. For example, the West London Citizens project (see Figure 4.8) encouraged young people to represent the project by speaking at or running meetings. Prior to their involvement in this activity the beneficiaries - a group of young people - were coached by the community organisers to help them build confidence to undertake this role. 46

56 Figure 4.8 Case study: West London Citizens Location: West London Where projects were able to provide a more in-depth and structured programme of support for beneficiaries who were involved in the project, this was felt to work well, with added benefits for the individuals involved. For example, volunteers at the 'Routeways Diggin It' project (see Figure 4.9) were assessed and supported by the project manager to develop specific skills in an area of the project that they were most interested in and which in turn benefited the delivery of the project. Figure 4.9 Case study: Diggin It Location: Plymouth 47

57 5.0 Meeting need and reducing disadvantage 5.1 Introduction The Reaching Communities programmes in England and Northern Ireland aimed to provide funding to help improve local communities and the lives of people most in need. Reaching Communities aimed to help those most in need, especially people or groups who are hard to reach 61. In this section, evidence from the annual surveys, case study visits and project evaluation reports has been used to examine the evaluation questions have projects met the needs of hard to reach groups and the most in need' (Section 5.3) and 'to look at the effectiveness of the programme in reducing disadvantage and exclusion' (Section 5.4). The evidence of any outcomes projects have already delivered for beneficiaries and local communities and the longer term impacts that might be anticipated are explored (Sections 5.5 and 5.6). The section also 'compares different project approaches to identifying and addressing need ' to look at what worked or did not work in practice (Section 5.7) 62. Finally the section considers the added value, sustainability and dissemination of the programmes (Section 5.8 to 5.10). Firstly the chapter describes some of the challenges of measuring whether the programmes met the needs they identified (Section 5.2). 5.2 Challenges of measuring effectiveness and assessing whether needs were met Within the scale and scope of this evaluation, there were several challenges in assessing whether the needs projects had identified had been met and whether the programme had reached those most in need, explored below. In Reaching Communities England, grants were awarded in a monthly rolling format. Coupled with the length of funding available (of up to five years), this meant the vast majority of projects (85%) were still ongoing at the time of the final evaluation report. In Reaching Communities England, of the 1,391 funded projects, approximately 216 were due to have finished at the time of the final survey and case study visits which amounted to one in seven (15%) 63. This proportion was fairly evenly split between one, two and three year projects (see Table 5.1). None of the four or five year projects funded through the programme were completed. Outcomes from longer term projects (over 4 or 5 years) would therefore be as yet unrealised. 61 See Section One for more details. 62 Taken from the evaluation objectives in Section One. 63 This figure is calculated from committee award dates, and will probably be lower due to lead in time for projects to set up and start claiming their grant; projects have 12 months to draw down their first payment from BIG. 48

58 Table 5.1 Numbers of completed projects, Reaching Communities England Number % One year Two year Three year Total completed projects Source: ECOTEC, based on programme data from Big Lottery Fund (2009) All projects in Reaching Communities Northern Ireland were running for a minimum of three years 64 and therefore none were complete at the time of writing 65. The majority of completed projects tended to be smaller and shorter projects of one or two years in length. This affected the types of needs that had potentially been addressed through the programme, since shorter projects tended to focus on practical or capital type projects such as building or renovating community buildings (e.g. refurbishment, re-roofing or re-wiring of village halls), projects to deliver children s play areas or skate parks and projects to provide community transport (e.g. minibuses). These projects generally worked towards outcomes linked to improving local urban and rural environments. A small number of shorter projects were 'one-off' type projects with a wider range of potential outcomes, such as one that was developing a DVD to promote tolerance towards lesbian, gay and bisexual communities, plus several arts and theatrical projects. Those projects had broader outcomes such as beneficiaries having better chances in life or being healthier. The three year projects nearing completion targeted longer term, and more varied, outcomes including examples such as an out of hours service for people with a mental illness and a project supporting substance misuse and ex-offenders to help them access voluntary work and build life skills and confidence. Projects nearing completion covered a range of more than 35 target groups 66 illustrating the wide range of outcomes that might be being delivered and the range of needs that were being potentially being met. Additionally, as a result of the demand led, open nature of Reaching Communities funding, projects identified their own project level outcomes to work towards. Given the range of more than 1,300 projects and in the region of 100 intended beneficiary groups and activities (as described in Section 3.3) it was not possible within the remit of the evaluation, to develop, and measure against, a comprehensive evaluation framework of intended outcomes or defined measurable impacts 67. Bearing the above challenges in mind, it was therefore necessary to rely on projects self-assessment via the surveys combined with triangulation from feedback in case studies to assess whether the programmes had met the needs they set out to address. Projects, in the annual surveys, reported that they used a range of evidence sources to assess their project's effectiveness in meeting needs, and few 64 Of the 45 projects, five will have finished by the end of 2010 (i.e. those running for 3 years which started on or before December 2007). 65 However it was possible that activity commissioned by BIG in the final year of the evaluation might be designed to capture further information about impact, particularly through case study visits. 66 Source: BIG programme data (2009) 67 Note: A similar exercise was attempted for the equivalent programme in Wales 'People and Places' by external consultants Wavehill. This evaluation found that for a sample of 15 projects had 79 indicators to measure whether they were reaching their outcomes. The evaluation found there were no consistent outcomes which all projects report on and no way of easily defining the outcomes of the programme as a whole. 49

59 relied on just a single source. Forms of evidence used included informal (or anecdotal) feedback from beneficiaries (89%), records of attendance at activities/meetings/events (79%) and level of demand for activities or services or monitoring of performance against outcomes (73% each) 68. A further third (66%) had undertaken their own self-evaluation or collected more formal feedback from beneficiaries (e.g. via a questionnaire) (64%). Rather smaller proportions of projects had attempted more complex or costly types of evaluation such as external evaluation (30%) or tracking beneficiaries (27%) 69. Approaching two in five projects said they planned to track the progress of beneficiaries after they had left the project (38%) 70 through mechanisms such as follow up surveys, informal follow up or via a series of phone calls. While little of this evidence was directly available to the evaluators it provided some form of evidence base for self-reporting by projects. Projects were regularly encouraged during the course of the evaluation to submit the findings of their evaluations for inclusion in the final evaluation, yet very few were received (9 reports) and it was not therefore possible to assess the robustness of the methods used. Additionally 28 of the 45 projects in Northern Ireland were planning to undertake some form of self-evaluation evaluation (the Northern Ireland programme projects also have access to a support and development programme that includes support for self-evaluation). While many of these were internal evaluations undertaken by managers for ongoing improvement purposes, some evaluation plans included commissioning independent external evaluators. However none of these evaluations had concluded and data was not available at the time of writing. This remainder of this section presents the qualitative and quantitative evidence that was available on whether need was met. This included survey responses, collected during the three annual surveys from a total of 136 England projects that were finishing or nearing completion 71 (including those with six months or less left of funding) 72 and case study findings from both programmes. Survey data should therefore be treated with caution given the small numbers of projects in England that were finished. 5.3 Meeting needs and the most in need The evaluation aimed to explore whether projects met the needs of hard to reach groups and the most in need'. Feedback from the sample of projects that had finished (136 projects) indicated that projects were positive in their belief that they have met the needs they had originally identified; with 91% agreeing to a large extent and a similar figure also saying they had met the programme outcomes they had originally specified (92%) 73. This suggested that - broadly speaking - the majority of projects felt they had met the needs they originally identified (see Figure 5.1). However given the small number of completed projects (136) it was not possible to analyse results by project activity or by target group to assess whether the needs of any one target group had been met to a greater extent than any other. 68 Source: based on survey responses base = Source: based on survey responses base = Source: based on survey responses base = Note: all projects in Reaching Communities Northern Ireland were running for a minimum of three years and therefore none were eligible to answer the annual survey questions relating to project completion. Survey data in this chapter therefore related only to England projects. 72 Including all those due to be finished by summer This question was not asked in year 1. Base = all projects ending summer 2010 =

60 Figure 5.1 To what extent do you feel that your project has achieved the following? 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Don't know Not relevant Not at all To a small extent To a large extent 30% 20% 10% 0% Met programme outcomes originally specified Used innovative approaches Reduced disadvantage / social exclusion Met need of most in need Reached hard to reach Met needs of all target groups Met original needs Source: ECOTEC survey 2009, Base all completed projects, 136 Projects were generally less confident that their project had met the needs of all target groups with around two thirds stating they had managed to do this to a great extent (61% compared with the scores of over 90% described above). This was possibly because some projects had struggled to engage and include all their initially stated target groups, or because the needs of target groups had changed during the course of their project. It may also have been because some projects had unrealistic expectations about the target groups they could effectively reach. Section 3 previously illustrated that Reaching Communities projects were aiming to reach people in need, and in some cases, groups that might be described as 'most in need'. Projects were relatively less confident that their project had reached the 'hard to reach' or met the needs of the 'most in need' (Figure 5.1). Given the broad range of target groups being worked with, and the difficulties projects experienced in defining these two concepts, this is to be expected. Many projects worked with target groups with a range of types of needs and severity of needs. Some worked with very broad target groups (such as 'older people') where specific needs were not identified, or with small localised geographical communities (e.g. rural villages) where the aim was to benefit the community as a whole. This is also relevant given that environmental type projects tended to be over-represented in the sample of 136 completed projects. It is worth noting that the programme supported improvements to whole communities, or geographical 51

61 areas which projects themselves may not have viewed as being hard to reach as they are on their doorsteps. 5.4 Reducing disadvantage and exclusion The evaluation aimed 'to look at the effectiveness of the programme in reducing disadvantage and exclusion'. Feedback from projects suggested only around two thirds believed their project had reduced disadvantage and social exclusion (69% to a large extent ) and again, this was a lower result than other indicators tested (see Figure 5.1). This was probably lower because achieving a reduction in disadvantage in a local area was very challenging, first, for projects to define and find evidence for; and second, to attribute to their project. Attribution at project level was difficult due to the complexity of funding streams and other external factors that operated in any given area. Furthermore it was not possible to compare BIG data about completed projects with data on local deprivation levels to assess whether the programme as a whole reduced disadvantage. This was because geographical data that BIG held about projects was linked to organisations mailing address rather than location of target beneficiaries 74. However, during the application stage many projects used deprivation data to demonstrate that they were working in some of the most deprived areas of both countries (see Section 3.5.); and given that nine in ten projects felt they met the original needs they set out to address (see figure 5.1), there is some evidence that the programme has at the local scale started to contribute to reducing disadvantage for specific individuals and target groups. Since many projects within the programme were ongoing, these types of localised benefits were set to continue for several more years. The following case study, Figure 5.2, illustrates ways in which one project, targeting homeless individuals, is meeting their beneficiaries needs and reducing disadvantage for homeless young people. 74 BIG data only provided address and postcode of applicant organisation and this was held in one cell in excel and not easily extractable. It is likely that beneficiary locations may have been different from applicant postcode, particularly for national and regional organisations. 52

62 Figure 5.2 Case study: Bradford Nightstop Project Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire Summary of project Bradford Nightstop (BNS) was awarded 86,571 of Reaching Communities funding for a 3 year project. They are a community based organisation primarily working with homeless young people in Bradford providing safe overnight accommodation via their host homes and in one room at the Bradford City Centre Project Hostel. BNS delivers preventative educational work to young people aged 13 to 25. Meeting the Need One of the key issues identified by BNS before starting the project was that young people often don t think about the reality of homelessness or make a plan when they leave home. One of BNS s key activities was therefore to deliver accessible education sessions to school students with the aim of making young people think about the reality of being homeless. BNS has received feedback from schools that the sessions made the young people reflect on the issue of homelessness. "The feedback we've got from teachers is that it just makes the children think." Local young people are well able to recall the session and could recall the video and its message. BNS have run a poster competition at the special schools they work with to help beneficiaries remember the session. One teacher was surprised by how much of the session the pupils remembered. Schools were very positive about the presentation of the education sessions which are presented in an accessible manner to help the students engage with the subject and retain the information they are given. The project helps students focus on thinking of others and helps improve students self esteem, aspirations and broaden their outlook on life. The project has fully met these needs and students who previously would not get involved in activities have been very enthusiastic about the project and how they could help. One student who used to be very disruptive and disinterested in school really enjoyed the project and her behaviour and achievement has greatly improved. Another young person at a different school was so affected by an education session that he asked his family to be a host for BNS. BNS's statistics suggest that the number of referrals they receive from schools where the education worker has visited were lower after they had worked there, than in the previous year. In addition BNS found more young people were aware of their service. However they anticipate seeing greater impact of the education work in 2009 and into 2010 as the 15 year olds the education worker worked with last year will now be within the BNS target age. 53

63 5.5 Outcomes and impacts In meeting needs and reducing disadvantage, projects supported a wide range of outcomes (or impacts) for beneficiaries and local communities. As discussed above, the outcomes achieved were incredibly diverse, reflecting the breadth of the four programme objectives. The most common impacts related to beneficiaries better able to manage life (69%), improved physical and mental health (57% and 55%) and being better equipped for work (54%) (Figure 5.3 below). Improvements to community spaces and new or improved community facilities (around a third each) were also evident given the relative focus of shorter term projects on outcome three: improving local rural or urban environments. Figure 5.3 What benefits/impacts have you seen as a result of your project? % of projects Don't know Other Better able to manage life Improved phys health Improved mental health Better equipped for work Improved community capacity Greater community cohesion New partnership collaboration Improved org capacity New improved community facilities Tools/approaches dev'd that are use to others Better-used community spaces Environmental improvements Source: ECOTEC Survey 2009, Base all completed projects, 136 There were also community level benefits taking place including improved community capacity and greater community cohesion (over 50% each). The following case study in Northern Ireland demonstrates how one project achieved impacts both for the local community and other local groups and for the organisation itself (Figure 5.4). 54

64 Figure 5.4 Case Study: Devenish Community Support and Further Development Project Location: Fermanagh, Northern Ireland Soft outcomes Three quarters of projects responding to the survey across both programmes reported they were measuring soft outcomes in terms of improvements to self-esteem, confidence, self-image, awareness of community and a greater feeling of inclusion (78%). 75 Within that proportion, 20 of the 25 Northern Ireland projects (80%) reported they were planning to measure soft outcomes Source: based on survey responses base = However further analysis of the responses suggested not all descriptions were purely of soft outcomes and some projects had described the wider outcomes they were evaluating or measuring (e.g. number attending events, or reductions in crime rates). 55

65 'We are measuring increased confidence and more positive self image as well as diminishing fears and more empowerment to manage grief through parents', children's and young people's evaluation forms which they return after they have received [our] support.' 'We are measuring, through feedback and evaluation, levels of empowerment among the new trained advocates including involvement in their own recovery, increased confidence and selfesteem, challenging stigma and attitudes and self advocacy around mental health issues.' (Reaching Communities Northern Ireland projects) The most common outcomes projects in both programmes were measuring included confidence and self esteem (54%), with wellbeing (19%), social skills, empowerment and personal development all featuring. However, some projects also stated improving health, improving skills and improving education levels or understanding (32% of projects combined) as outcomes they would be measuring, however these would not usually be described as soft outcomes, suggesting that projects tended to define soft outcomes in a variety of ways or lacked a clear understanding of soft outcomes, and were more likely to be measuring a range of outcomes depending on the nature of their project. Soft outcomes were generally being measured through baseline surveys with follow up after 3 or 6 months, end of year/end of project comparisons, or, in some cases, via case studies. The Catch22 project below illustrates how practical help (in finding accommodation) lead to improvements in soft outcomes including confidence and motivation to find work (see Figure 5.5). Figure 5.5 Case study: Catch22 Location: Gainsborough There were also various examples of positive outcomes from projects from the project evaluation reports but again, these included a variety of soft outcomes as well as what might be viewed as 'hard' outcomes. The Youth Cancer Trust project - through its provision of social activities for young cancer sufferers - helped beneficiaries to feel more positive about their illness, gain confidence and make new friends (social skills). They also benefited from being able to have a break in a welcoming environment. Within the Making Waves project, the evaluation report showed that most beneficiaries felt more confident (a 56

66 soft outcome) but also fitter (a harder outcome) as a result of their involvement in the water based activity programme. The MUFFIN project worked particularly around softer outcomes including the empowerment of individuals and improvements to their self esteem as a result of involvement in the employability based project. Within the RNID s empowerment project, the volunteers gained in confidence, they felt supported, and the project gave them a reason to get out of bed and feel able to do things". 5.6 Longer term outcomes and impacts The annual surveys highlighted that the majority of projects (84%) expected to see the benefits they had created continuing beyond the lifetime of the project. These were predominantly longer term benefits at the individual level for individual beneficiaries themselves but also to a lesser extent at the local community level and for the funded organisation itself. Specifically, the long-term benefits projects expected to see for individuals included beneficiaries better able to manage life (82%), improved mental health among beneficiaries (74%), beneficiaries better equipped for work (63%) and improved physical health among beneficiaries (57%). Projects also identified benefits to the community that they expected to see maintained including greater community cohesion (52%) and improved community capacity (51%). Projects, to a lesser extent, expected to see benefits for the organisation or project itself in terms of new partnership and collaborations (47%) and improved organisational capacity (35%) for example staff gaining new skills or new volunteers being trained up. 5.7 Comparing approaches to meeting need Completed projects identified a range of activities that were more or less effective in meeting the identified needs. Projects found that different approaches to meeting need worked in different circumstances, and these reflected the diversity of the programme outcomes and target groups 77. Projects suggested 85 different approaches that they felt had worked well. The most commonly reported successful activities were training/workshops (19%) and social activities (18%). Effective activities could be broadly classified into those delivered at either the: individual level such as one to one sessions, peer support, helpline, information, advice or guidance, counselling, signposting; or community level such as services in rural areas, social activities, community groups, media and promotional activities, or education and training. Aside from naming specific activities that had worked well, some projects commented that activities had worked best where they had adapted activities to meet the needs of their target groups and where they had worked with local partners. When projects involved wider stakeholders and beneficiaries this led to projects being able to better meet the needs they identified. There was also learning from where project activities had not been effective in meeting needs 78. Many of these issues centred on the challenge of reaching their intended target groups or engaging or connecting with their target groups effectively (20 projects overall). For instance the most commonly reported 77 Source: based on survey responses base size = Source: based on survey responses base size = 68 57

67 learning point was that when activities did not exactly match the needs, beneficiaries were not engaged (15 projects). This further highlights the potential benefits of involving beneficiaries in service design and delivery to ensure it is fit for purpose. There were also difficulties: where partnership working with other organisations (statutory or voluntary) did not work as well as expected (13 projects); where promotion or marketing efforts failed and did not lead to take up (7 projects); and in managing the business or administrative problems which limited projects' ability to deliver intended activities (5 projects). These might all be areas where projects might learn from each other and where BIG could share learning in future. 5.8 Added value from Reaching Communities Annual survey results suggest Reaching Communities is supporting activities that expanded existing provision. Two thirds of completed projects said that their project would not have taken place without Reaching Communities support (65% or 88 projects) suggesting that organisations felt the statutory sector would not have supported their activity. A further 26% indicated that their project may have taken place, although in a reduced form. Figure 5.7 illustrates one Reaching Communities project working with family carers, highlighting the added value of the project and the ways in which it is considering its longer term future. 58

68 Figure 5.6 Case study: Suffolk Family Carers Location: Ipswich, Suffolk 59

69 5.9 Sustainability and future funding The Reaching Communities Programmes have clearly supported the delivery of project activities that have the potential to continue beyond the lifetime of the funding and continue to deliver benefits. This means that a proportion of the capacity built up within local communities will not be lost. However, the limited sustainability or exit planning undertaken by individual projects is posing a significant risk to maintaining and achieving longer term benefits through the programme. The majority of Reaching Communities projects in both programmes (73%) expected their project to continue beyond the lifetime of the Reaching Communities Programme. Projects expected to achieve this through a number of mechanisms. A significant number (192 projects) reported that they needed to secure further funding to maintain their activity, while others (50 projects) expected to maintain their activity through the projects' own income generation and self sufficiency. Smaller numbers also suggested other models for sustaining their project including training up volunteers with a view to reducing paid staff, working with partners to share funding or being commissioned locally to deliver services (i.e. obtaining statutory sources of funding) (28 projects). For example, one project reported in the survey that all aspects of their project were being mainstreamed via contracts with the local NHS. Other projects were already in a position to sustain the benefits of their project for example because they had already secured future funding for all or part of the project; because the project was a one off capital spend (which would continue to benefit people locally even after funding ended); or because they were a social enterprise (for example, a charity shop) which could generate an income source (25 projects). Where projects acknowledged a need for further external funding, the majority of projects (84) expected to access this funding from private trusts or grant giving organisations or charities. Others reported to be seeking further funding from the statutory sector (26) or specifically from local authorities (23) 79. Smaller numbers expected to have to pass on costs directly to beneficiaries (perhaps through fees or charges) (20 projects) or intended to do future fundraising activity (15 projects). We are hoping to secure extra finding from either the local authority or a trust. The local authority agrees the clients we are supporting must continue to be supported; however they say they have no money to fund the service. (Reaching Communities project, England) The case study evidence largely confirmed the survey findings, highlighting that many projects had a strong desire to continue their project activity, but as described above, not all had necessarily formally begun a process of sustainability or exit planning. Some projects however, were identifying longer term plans and expansion opportunities for their activity. In the example below, one project used a self evaluation method to evidence the financial benefits of their work which led to them sourcing future funding. 79 See a full breakdown for Q18a in Annex One. 60

70 Figure 5.7 Case study: Youth Talk Location: St Albans However, the case studies also highlighted the realities of project continuation, particularly in terms of securing additional funding. Amongst the case study projects, there was significant variation in terms of the extent to which projects had developed a robust exit strategy to support the sustainability of the project. Some projects acknowledged the need to secure further funding but had not taken any active steps to address this, while others had not given much thought to their sustainability. Knowing when to start seeking future funding was an issue, and some projects, with two years or less to run had not begun to address this. Where projects had developed an exit strategy at the early stages of project planning, there was a realisation that these strategies were no longer fit for purpose. For example, Routeways' Diggin It project had developed an exit strategy at the time of application which focused on delivering accredited training and producing enough organic produce to make a profit and provide future funding for the project. This was now felt to be unrealistic given the nature of the beneficiaries who accessed the project who required greater support than anticipated and as a result did not have the capacity to support the project to generate the required level of produce. As with other projects, project staff were now looking to secure funding from external sources to sustain the project. The annual surveys found that two in five projects (41%) reported to have already secured future funding, although it was not possible to ascertain the level of this funding. In the main, this was secured from fundraising activity (13%), local authorities (12%) or private trusts, grant giving organisations or charities (10%) (See Figure 5.9). The remainder of projects (more than half, 56%) had not sourced future funding. 61

71 Figure 5.8 If you have secured future funding from your project, where did it come from? Fundraising activity Private trusts/grant giving organisations/charities Charging / raising income from chargeable activities Unitary / Local Authority Private donations NHS / Primary Care Trusts Further Big Lottery Funding Town Council Central Government department Local public agencies (other than local authority) Regional public agencies Other Don't know % of projects Source: ECOTEC survey Base all projects in year three survey, 501 An example of this from the case studies was the Highways to Opportunities project which had secured a Service Level Agreement with Children's Centres for ongoing provision of vocational IAG, English language training, job search activities and work tasters for Asian women. Reaching Communities projects in Northern Ireland also have access to a support and development programme that is helping them to win contracts, encourage collaboration and partnership, and to develop social enterprises. 62

72 5.10 Dissemination Whilst dissemination was not a required aspect of the Reaching Communities programmes, many projects did carry out dissemination activities although projects interpretation of the definition and purpose of the dissemination varied greatly between publicity and marketing activities to the sharing of promising/effective/good practice. Based on annual survey responses, completed projects generally undertook at least one or two forms of what they described as dissemination activity, as illustrated below (Figure 5.10). In particular, some form of written evaluation report (68%) or web-based publicity (57%). Other evidence collected during the evaluation suggested while many of these evaluation reports were relatively informal, some were more robust or thorough in their approach, for example involving annual surveys or follow up of beneficiaries after leaving the project to track outcomes. Figure 5.9 Do you plan to do any of the following to disseminate the results of your project? Other Written report / Evaluation report Publicise through website Media publicity Distribute flyers/brochures Hold an event/workshop Present at conferences % of projects Source: ECOTEC survey Base all completed projects, 136 While on the whole, dissemination activity was seen by projects to be an important and beneficial activity, one of the case studies however realised that successful dissemination, at times, did distract project staff from the core business of project delivery. There had been significant media attention in Routeways' Digging It project, which has helped enormously with dissemination but also led to numerous requests for information or help from other organisations wanting to set up similar projects. These requests have had to be weighed against managing the day to day project delivery. 63

73 The case studies highlighted the range of dissemination activity that projects undertook. For some projects dissemination was a core aspect of project delivery. For example RNID's Outreach Volunteer Project demonstrated high levels of ongoing dissemination. For RNID this included information events delivered to local schools, businesses and community groups about how to support people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Other projects used dissemination activity more as a means of promoting and marketing the project to encourage new beneficiaries to attend the activities being delivered or to raise the profile of the project amongst the local community. The Madeley Community Orchard, for example, produced and distributed a leaflet to residents living near to the orchard to promote it and the activities that were taking place there. They similarly, produced a poster and advertised in parish newsletters and the regional newspaper. Other projects were undertaking dissemination activity to simply promote the project and the positive outcomes achieved. The Soapbox project, for example, organised a celebration event to coincide with the screening of the films produced by young people who participated in the project. These events promoted the project to stakeholders at the same time as rewarding the hard work and achievements of the young people who participated in the project. 64

74 6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 6.1 Introduction This section presents the conclusions and recommendations arising from the evaluation findings. 6.2 Conclusions Together, the two Reaching Communities programmes made grants worth over 330 million to approaching 1,450 primarily voluntary sector led projects across England and Northern Ireland. The evaluation aimed to assess the effectiveness of projects within the Reaching Communities programmes in identifying, defining and meeting the needs of the people they aimed to benefit. A range of evidence sources were used to do this, including programme data provided by BIG, feedback from three annual surveys, case studies, and feedback from projects self evaluations Identifying need Reaching Communities in England and Northern Ireland aimed to fund projects that help those most in need including people or groups who are hard to reach. The evaluation aimed to understand how projects have identified and defined: need, people most in need and hard to reach groups and individuals. Projects in their applications to BIG and in their survey responses generally defined needs as particular individuals or target groups and associated activities to meet those needs, with the assumption that those groups had needs that were not being met by other provision (implied needs). For a variety of reasons including limitations with data held by BIG and difficulties in eliciting detailed enough information from projects it was challenging to identify needs explicitly. The evaluation also aimed to identify how projects identified the most in need. However few projects were able to demonstrate that the individuals or groups they worked with were the most in need. For instance whether a project was targeting older people or re-roofing a community centre, projects did not usually state, and there was no way of knowing as evaluators, whether that was the priority need in that area among a range of competing needs. However using proxy data (such as information on target groups) it was evident that Reaching Communities projects were targeting an incredibly diverse range of target groups, many of whom might be described as being amongst the most in need groups (e.g. people with multiple needs such as homeless people or substance mis-users). Other evaluation evidence suggested many organisations targeting these individuals/groups turn to BIG for funding because their target groups needs were unmet by local statutory or other voluntary provision and some organisations had done thorough local audits and worked with local partners to establish this. Some more specific needs were identified, and there was evidence that to some extent the programmes were reaching some of the most in need groups. For example the programme was working with people who lacked skills, resources or faced particular barriers, such as those with language or learning difficulties or groups that are particularly isolated whether geographically or socially as with work in Northern Ireland around those who are isolated due to their experiences of suicide. However the evaluation findings suggest that the programme's open demand led funding structure was not the most effective approach for achieving positive change among the 'most in need' communities. 65

75 To meet the needs of target groups, projects were delivering a range of more than 50 different types of activity, no more than 12% of projects delivering any single activity. Both programmes had a focus on community level work and information advice and guidance; and unique to Northern Ireland, projects were tackling community mediation and reconciliation. Needs were initially identified from a wealth of local level knowledge. To identify needs, many projects relied on existing knowledge; they had been working in the area and knew of a group with needs that were not met by statutory or other voluntary and community sector provision. Many also involved beneficiaries in identifying local needs (see 6.2.2). With two thirds of organisations having existed for more than a decade prior to Reaching Communities funding this indicates a wealth of on the ground experience being drawn upon. Some projects also employed consultative approaches and more sophisticated or robust techniques to assess needs. Northern Ireland projects in particular demonstrated that they had reviewed local strategies to ensure strategic fit. To get a greater understanding of the needs the programmes are addressing, projects could be encouraged to identify and define need more clearly through a number of mechanisms. Projects could be encouraged to show linkages to relevant local strategies or local area agreements (in England) and be asked to demonstrate how their projects fit strategically with other similar local VCS and statutory provision so that additionality is made clear. In Northern Ireland projects could be encouraged to highlight both alignment with government objectives (regional and local) and complementarity with existing or planned public or non government intervention programmes (i.e. to provide reassurance that the project will not counteract wider development aspirations and will not overlap with existing service coverage). At the regional level in Northern Ireland, projects might be encouraged to highlight their alignment with relevant local government strategies (which is likely to become more significant with the amalgamation of local authorities). Referencing a local needs assessment or public consultation on need would be useful to evidence need. In application forms, good practice example answers could be provided as guidance. Separating out questions on target group and project activity from the 'need' the project is addressing might help projects to focus on what the specific need is of the target group they are reaching Involving beneficiaries The evaluation also explored: how projects have involved beneficiaries and local communities in identifying their own needs and how beneficiaries and local communities have been involved in project planning and delivery. Reaching Communities supported projects in both programmes which involved beneficiaries and local communities at all stages of a project from the identification of needs, through project planning to delivery, and then management and evaluation. There was evidence of a sustained commitment demonstrated through the Reaching Communities Programmes to listening to local communities' needs and utilising local experience and knowledge to determine needs. Beneficiaries and local communities are involved in identifying their own needs in just under half of the projects (46%). However, a sizable proportion of projects (40%) demonstrated less active forms of beneficiary participation in identifying needs, suggesting there was scope in the Reaching 66

76 Communities Programmes for projects to facilitate further opportunities for beneficiary or local community involvement. The survey results indicated that Reaching Communities projects in both programmes made continued efforts to actively involve beneficiaries in project delivery which in turn generated positive benefits for the projects and beneficiaries themselves. Specifically projects involved the local community and beneficiaries in various aspects of their projects including planning; delivery; decision-making; project management and evaluation. Reaching Communities projects that tried to involve beneficiaries overall highlighted that there was no 'one size fits all' approach and that it is important to tailor the level or type of involvement to meet the needs and situations of their beneficiaries. The key positive outcomes for projects through involving beneficiaries were that the project met the identified needs more effectively (79% to a large extent) and that the project is more likely to meet its objectives (78%). The case study visits and project evaluation reports highlighted that getting beneficiaries involved also brought direct personal benefits for them such as increased confidence or self esteem (softer outcomes) and other social and work related skills (harder outcomes). Communicating with projects about the benefits of involving beneficiaries is an important way of encouraging applicants and projects to understand and ultimately see their projects benefit from involving beneficiaries. Publishing and sharing learning about involving beneficiaries is helpful, including sharing tools about how it could be done and case studies demonstrating impacts and countering concerns. Encouragement could be given to projects to 'go beyond' simply informing beneficiaries towards a model of prolonged and sustained involvement and beneficiary-led project models. A learning document on this subject is planned for publication very shortly. Through mechanisms like social networking, and at events projects could speak to each other about overcoming the challenges and benefiting from involving beneficiaries Meeting needs The evaluation aimed to establish whether projects met the needs of hard to reach groups and the most in need' and 'look at the effectiveness of the programme in reducing disadvantage and exclusion'. The timing of Reaching Communities and length of many projects (of up to 5 years) meant that many programme outcomes were yet to be realised. Additionally, as a result of the demand led, open nature of Reaching Communities funding, projects identified their own project level outcomes to work towards meaning a patchwork quilt of needs were being addressed. It is therefore too early to say that all the intended (and unintended) outcomes of the Reaching Communities programmes have been delivered. However, at this stage it appears that an incredibly diverse range of positive outcomes - both soft outcomes such as improvements in confidence and harder outcomes such as beneficiaries being better equipped for work - were taking place for individuals and within local communities as a result of this programme. To date, completed projects (from Reaching Communities England only) tended to be shorter projects with outcomes centred on small scale community projects or improving the local environment, and early outcomes reflected this. Encouragingly a significant proportion of projects reported to be self-evaluating. While little of this evidence was available at the time of writing it provided some form of evidence base for self-reporting by projects. 67

77 Reaching Communities appeared to have met the needs it set out to meet, based on feedback received. Projects were confident they achieved what they intended to do, albeit with learning along the way around what worked or did not work so well for them in doing so. Projects also demonstrated they were adaptive to changing local circumstances as required due to the length of many of the grants. Some projects reported struggling to engage all the target groups they initially identified or in great enough numbers. Reducing disadvantage and exclusion was challenging for projects to achieve and for the evaluators to measure due to the problem of attributing any local change to this funding. However at the individual level it was clear many projects were delivering benefits for individuals and communities and two thirds of projects said their work could not have taken place without BIG s support (65%). Outcomes were both soft and hard in nature, including improvements to self confidence and wellbeing and also to improving skills and access to the labour market. Capital investments made through the programme also led to improvements in many local facilities. Again the range of local outcomes reflected the diversity of the programmes. Projects reported that many of these benefits were expected to be sustained beyond the life of the funding, particularly at the individual level for instance lasting improvements to people s skill levels but also at the community level such as levels of community capacity. Approaches to sustaining the benefits of the project and the programme more widely were variable. Some projects were proactive and had plans or even future funding in place; others had not given this much thought. A variety of alternate funding models were being considered including being self funding (via donations or charging fees); accessing statutory funding streams or social enterprise. Some dissemination activity was taking place, but generally this was fairly localised or linked to raising the profile of the project or recruiting beneficiaries and less about sharing learning. Projects could be supported in a variety of ways to better meet the needs of their beneficiaries and ultimately enhance the outcomes of the programme. Supporting projects to more closely involve beneficiaries as discussed above, will lead to projects having a better understanding of the local needs they are trying to address and may make them more responsive to changes in need. It will also lead to positive outcomes for beneficiaries including improved soft outcomes which will make projects more effective in reaching their overall outcomes. Helping projects to develop things like self-evaluation methodologies or volunteer recruitment or training tools and build these into their day to day business would help streamline processes enabling more time to be spent on delivery. Helping to link up projects locally so they can talk to other projects in their local area or via social networking so they can learn from other projects from across the wider programme(s) might also prove beneficial and linking these projects to BIG's regional offices and to other national resources would help, so they can better access the support or information they might need. The evaluation found overall, that Reaching Communities has supported a diverse range of projects to achieve a range of positive outcomes among wide-ranging target groups and particularly among local communities in both countries. The programmes have particularly impacted communities at the local level through supporting voluntary sector led initiatives. Outcomes have mainly been among fairly broad groups within local communities (such as young people, older people, unemployed people). Yet while those with more complex, entrenched and multiple needs were less likely to have been assisted through the programmes, some projects were tackling these extremely challenging issues. Conveying important messages to applicants and projects about identifying, describing and meeting those needs of those 'most in need' requires further thought and action by BIG. Broadly speaking, the nature of Reaching 68

78 Communities with its open demand led structure and fairly open grant size and length restrictions, has generally led to a huge diversity of local projects doing 'local good' rather than innovative or bespoke interventions or strategic projects targeting highly problematic individuals. 6.3 Recommendations The following series of recommendations, directed at Big Lottery Fund, look at the future of the Reaching Communities programmes and beyond. 1. Revisiting how need is defined and assessed at BIG BIG could revisit the way in which terms such as need and most in need are described in guidance to projects and how these terms are assessed in applications. For instance clearer guidance for projects around how they identify and define the needs they are meeting would be beneficial. It should encourage projects to be more specific about the actual needs of the target group they are working with, rather than simply listing broad target groups, and give guidance on the use of robust data sources to provide evidence of those needs, including contextual evidence about other needs in the area. Staff assessing applications could also be given guidance on assessing projects' descriptions of need to ensure full account is taken of local contexts and the required level of detail is supplied on needs. The way that this more detailed data is then captured and made available internally at BIG for later analysis and evaluation work should be reassessed. 2. Continue to promote messages on the benefits of self evaluation BIG encourages all Reaching Communities projects to self evaluate but this is not a requirement of this programme. Continued efforts should to be made in the area of self evaluation to bring all projects to a level playing field in terms of their understanding of the benefits of self evaluation and sharing ideas and practice on means of doing it that are proportionate, yet that bring benefits. Continued dissemination of the evaluation toolkit and tools provided by this evaluation beyond the existence of the programmes, would be beneficial in extending the life of the benefits these tools can deliver within Reaching Communities and beyond. 3. Support the sector to develop ideas and plans for sustainability Reaching Communities has provided long term funding (over 5 years) that is often unavailable elsewhere. With this, BIG has a responsibility for supporting and encouraging projects to think about sustainability and plan effective exit strategies. There may be scope for BIG to provide guidance or support to (applicants or) grantees in this programme and more widely, that will enable them (or increase their potential) to become self-sustaining. This might take the form of disseminating information about how other projects have achieved this, when to start thinking about it, and/or sharing resources about alternative funding models. 4. Continue to share learning between projects to build sector capacity in a range of issues BIG has identified a key organisational priority going forwards to be the effective sharing of learning. This is particularly applicable for Reaching Communities. There is potential for sharing of learning among (potential applicants and) grantees in Reaching Communities as well as more widely across the voluntary 69

79 and community sector. BIG already plan to share learning from this evaluation around the benefits of involving local people and communities in identification of need and in project delivery and management on an ongoing basis (and a publication is forthcoming). Other areas where learning might be shared either through the final year activity of this evaluation, or more widely, is around providing projects with further opportunities to meet and interact with each other on a number of themes such as building in sustainability to your project or how to make marketing and dissemination work. In the final year of the evaluation (2010), attention will be focussed on promoting opportunities for projects to interact and share learning via shared learning events and a shared learning blog. 5. Use learning from the evaluation to improve BIG s internal processes and data Learning from this evaluation about how projects identify and define need will be beneficial in helping BIG to refine future programming design. Steps are already being taken to ensure learning is not lost. BIG might wish to consider reviewing the data captured from project application documentation to review whether any gaps exist. For instance, in the information available for this evaluation, no useful data on the location of beneficiaries (for instance postcodes) was held 80, nor were data available on (intended or actual) numbers of beneficiaries helped. Guidance to projects about how they might report these two aspects may be necessary to ensure consistency in any data collected. During the final year of the evaluation (2010) part of the planned activity will focus on providing advice to BIG on internal processes to help improve data collection and monitoring. 80 See Section

80 Annex One: Annual Survey Responses Technical Note A1

81 Annual Survey Responses - Technical Note The following results are based on surveys carried out online in 2007, 2008 and 2009 with Reaching Communities grantees in the England and Northern Ireland programmes. Overall 804 projects responded to the survey over three years. In year one (2007), there were 325 respondents, of whom 319 were from the England programme and 6 were from the Northern Ireland programme. In year two (2008), there were 196 respondents, of whom 133 were new respondents and 63 were repeat respondents from the year one survey. 128 were from the England programme and 5 were from the Northern Ireland programme. In year three (2009), there were 501 respondents, of whom 345 were new respondents and 156 were repeat respondents. Of the new respondents, 320 were from the England programme and 25 were from the Northern Ireland programme. In year one, the survey took place from 1 st to 30 th November, in year two, between 21 st December and in year three from 18 th November to 16 th December. October and 1 st In year one, 783 projects were invited to participate in the survey, this included grantees from the England programme (with May 2006 to October 2007 award committee dates) and 10 projects from the first tranche of Northern Ireland funding. In year two, 1,080 projects were invited to participate in the survey, this included grantees from the England programme (with May 2006 to October 2008 award committee dates) and 31 projects from the tranches 1-3 of Northern Ireland funding. In year three, 1359 projects were invited to participate in the survey, this included grantees from the England programme (with May 2006 to October 2009 award committee dates) and 45 projects from the first tranche of Northern Ireland funding. Where appropriate, the responses from year one, year two and year three have been combined to give overall results. All individual results are rounded to the nearest whole percent. Where question results do not sum to 100%, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of don t know/not stated response categories. An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than half a percent, but not zero. 'Tick all that apply' or multiple responses mean that respondents can give more than one answer to a question and results therefore total more than 100%. Figures are given in % unless the sample is less than 100; in which case figures are given refer to number of respondents. A2

82 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Please enter your unique project reference number (this is the number beginning RC/ which is stated on all the project documentation from Big Lottery Fund). 2. Which part of the programme was your project funded under? (Please tick one only) (Total base = 804) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Reaching Communities England Reaching Communities Northern Ireland Total YOUR ORGANISATION 3. Which, if any, of the following characteristics describes your organisation? (Please tick all that apply) (Total base = 804. Multiple responses allowed) Independent voluntary sector organisation Local organisation - part of wider national/regional voluntary sector body Umbrella organisation or network Statutory organisation Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Parish Council A3

83 Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Town Council Virtual network None of the above/other Total Specified as other at Q3 (Total base all specifying at Q3 = 28) Number Community organisation 7 Charity 7 Not for profit organisation 3 Social registered landlord/ not for profit Housing Association 3 Local financial co-operative 2 Social enterprise 2 Council 1 Incorporated Further Education College 1 Faith based organisation 1 Voluntary/community groups/ statutory agencies partnership 1 Total 28 A4

84 4. Please indicate the following details about your organisation. Number of years your organisation has existed for (Total base = 796) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % 0-5 years years years years years or more Don't know Total Number of full time staff your organisation employs (Total base = 789) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % or more Don't know Total A5

85 Number of part time staff your organisation employs (Total base = 789) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % or more Don't know Total Which if any of the following describes the areas you work with? (Tick all that apply) (Total base = 796. Multiple answers allowed) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Located in urban areas Located in rural areas Located in urban fringe areas Don't know/not applicable Total A6

86 6a. [Northern Ireland projects only] Are you part of a partnership delivering a Reaching Communities project? (Please tick one) (Base all Northern Ireland projects, total = 36) Year one number Year two number Year three number Total number Yes No Not answered Total b. [Northern Ireland projects only] If yes, please indicate if your organisation is the lead partner or not? (Please tick one) (Base Northern Ireland projects who are part of a partnership, total = 9) Year one number Year two number Year three number Total Number Lead partner Not lead partner Total c. [Northern Ireland projects only if yes at Q6a] Please indicate how many partners there are in your project partnership in each of the following categories? Multiple answers allowed (Please insert the number of each type of partner) (Base all Northern Ireland projects in a partnership, total = 9) Year one number Year two number Year three number 1 partner in voluntary or community sector partners in voluntary or community sector partners, all in voluntary or community sector partners in voluntary or community sector partners in voluntary or community sector partners in voluntary or community sector - don't know partners in VCS statutory sector partner statutory sector partners Statutory sector partners don't know other partner other partners Other partners don't know No reply A7

87 7. [Ask all Northern Ireland projects only] Which of the following Council areas are your target groups from? (Please tick all that apply) (Base all Northern Ireland projects, total = 36, Multiple answers allowed) Year one number Year two number Year three number Total number Antrim Borough Council Ards Borough Council Armagh City and District Council Ballymena Borough Council Ballymoney Borough Council Banbridge Borough Council Belfast City Council Carrickfergus Borough Council Castlereagh Borough Council Coleraine Borough Council Cookstown District Council Craigavon Borough Council Derry City Council Down District Council Dungannon & South Tyrone Borough Council Fermanagh District Council Larne Borough Council Limavady Borough Council Lisburn City Council Magherafelt District Council Moyle District Council Newry and Mourne District Council Newtownabbey Borough Council North Down Borough Council A8

88 Year one number Year two number Year three number Total number Omagh District Council Strabane District Council Northern Ireland wide project Other (please specify) Don't know IDENTIFICATION OF NEED 8. Please briefly describe (one or two sentences) the need which your project sets out to address? (200 words max) (Total base = 791 projects, all respondents) Year one Year two Year 3 Total Target Group Number % Number % Number % Number % Local community / community relations Vulnerable/ disadvantaged /excluded/marginalised /hard to reach groups Children and young people Disability Black and minority ethnic groups Older people Children and families * Deprivation / deprived areas / multiple deprivation Learning difficulties and / or disability Mental health Homeless people Responses included: This is a NI wide project that will work across all boroughs - both urban and rural areas and this project benefits deaf children and young people and their families living anywhere in Northern Ireland. A9

89 Year one Year two Year 3 Total Carers Women and girls Isolation Domestic violence sufferers/rape victims Young people Financially excluded / debt / low income / unemployed Medical condition / genetic disorder/chronic condition Parents and families Adults Asylum seeker / refugees / migrant workers Rural needs / rural areas Anti social behaviour / crime / binge drinking / violence Blind/visually impaired/partially sighted Drug / alcohol / substance misuse / addiction Volunteers Improve wellbeing Ex-offenders / prisoners Social enterprises / charities HIV / AIDS Bereavement Gypsy / Traveller communities * 4 1 Lesbian / gay / bisexual / transgender people * 4 1 A10

90 Year one Year two Year 3 Total Low participation / involvement Organised crime / violence / torture Bullying * Increase opportunities * NEETS 1 * * Teenage mothers * Grandparents * Lack of skills / educational underachievement 1 * * 2 * Lone parents * 2 * Professionals 1 * * 2 * Social enterprises / charities / organisations * Tackling racism * Truancy/excluded from school * Deaf / hearing impaired * Education and training / qualifications / skills provision Encourage independence/living independently 1 * * 1 * * Lack of service provision 1 * * Men and boys * Stress / depression / anxiety 1 * * Sport / physical activity / sport coaching 1 * * White groups 1 * * Total A11

91 Year one Year two Year three Total Activity Number % Number % Number % Number % Education / training / qualifications / skills provision Information, advice, guidance and signposting Encourage community involvement / empowerment / engage citizens Support services Health promotion / wellbeing Counselling / emotional support Promote rights / raise awareness Volunteering Building confidence / self esteem Social activities / social clubs / day trips Employment support / financial awareness Advocacy Life skills / social skills Encourage independence / living independently Increase opportunities Access to services Improve access to services Creative arts/cultural activity / arts Sport / physical activity / sports coaching Parenting support / groups A12

92 Year one Year two Year three Total Facilities / spaces Restoration / renovation / refurbishing of community buildings / facilities Consultations / one to one sessions Horticulture / gardening / farming / conservation Practical help Running groups / sessions * 16 2 IT training / computer literacy Befriending Mental health Transport Respite * 11 1 Accommodation/somewhere to stay Extending existing services New equipment Outreach Crisis service / welfare 1 * Debt advice / accessing benefits Personal development Research / prevention Building tolerance and respect Youth diversion Childcare 1 * Helpline / telephone support / A13

93 Year one Year two Year three Total forums / website / Recycling Mentoring / coaching * 4 1 Self help Language learning 1 * * 3 * Legal advice 1 * * Reduce crime * Drug and alcohol treatment / support One to one sessions / consultation 1 * * * Spaces / facilities 1 * * Total Which of the following did you use to investigate the need for your project? (Please tick all that apply) (Total base = 792 multiple answers allowed) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Talking to people Previous experience/similar work/knowledge Research reports, statistics or data Strategies and policy documents Other Don't know 1 * Total A14

94 9a. [Ask only those who used strategies, policies and research/statistics in investigating the need; who ticked options iii and iv at Q9] Which of the following did you use? (Please tick all that apply) (Total base = 718 Multiple answers allowed) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Community Plans/Strategies Neighbourhood statistics Local Development Plans/Framewor ks / Local Area Agreements Indices or measures of deprivation Census National surveys (e.g. household surveys) Regional Economic Strategies Other Don't know Total How were beneficiaries and local communities involved in identifying their own needs? (Please tick one box) (Total base = 779) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % They were not involved at this stage We gave them information about the needs the project was setting A15

95 out to address We gave them options for what needs the project could address and they were invited to give feedback They worked with the project team on equal terms to contribute their ideas of which needs the project should address The needs were entirely decided by beneficiaries and local communities Don't know Sub-Total No reply Total A16

96 11. During the life of your project, have there been any changes to services available in the target area which have had/will have an impact on how you will address the needs of your target group? (Please tick one box) (Base all = 501) Number % Yes No Don't know 42 8 No response 18 4 Total a. If yes, please describe? (200 words max) (Base all describing changes to services = 115) Number % Response to changes in statutory provision Introduction of new / expanded/improved services Financial / legislative changes Increase in demand Adjustment according to changing need Lack of help elsewhere 8 7 Monitoring and adjustment 7 6 Response to improved knowledge / understanding 4 3 Demographic / beneficiary changes 2 2 Partnership with other voluntary groups 1 1 Total 128 A17

97 12. During the life of your project so far, have there been any changes in the needs of your target groups? (Please tick one box) (Base all = 501) (The Big Lottery Fund accepts that it is possible that the focus of your project might change during your funding. There is no problem with this, as long as the outcomes you are working towards remain the same.) Number % Yes No Don't know 18 4 No response 20 4 Total a. If yes, please describe? (200 words max) (Base all describing a change in target group needs =72) Number Need for extended / expanded service 13 Increase in demand / number of beneficiaries 23 Demographic changes 1 Change in requirements of target group 12 Target group has a more specific need 8 Issues have become more acute 4 Change to policy 5 Economic downturn 10 More information/advice to be given 5 Decrease in demand 4 Total 85 A18

98 12b. If yes, have you changed your project to meet these emerging needs? (Please tick one box) (Base all those who have seen changes in needs at Q12 = 76) Number % Yes Plan to do so No No response 0 0 Total c. If yes, please describe? (200 words max) (Base all describing changes to projects to meet the needs = 37) Number Adapted services 17 Additional services 7 Extended service availability 5 Sought additional funding 5 Partnership with other agencies 4 Additional staff training 1 Total 39 A19

99 INVOLVEMENT OF BENEFICIARIES 13. How often were/are beneficiaries and local communities involved in the following aspects of your project? (Please tick one box for each) Base sizes vary, given below. % % % % % Always involved Sometimes involved Rarely involved Never involved Don t know Project planning (Base, 466) Project delivery (Base 463) Project decisionmaking (Base 462) Project management (Base 460) Project evaluation (Base 461) a. [Ask all those answering all those who answered always/sometimes to Q13] Please briefly describe (one or two sentences) how you are involving beneficiaries e.g. 'They are involved through regular meetings with the community; they are included as members in our management committee; they are involved through a survey'. (Base all those answering at Q13 always/sometimes = 450) (** Equates to number of projects doing each activity, please note each project has up to 2 codes allocated) Number % Formal feedback (this includes evaluations, surveys, questionnaires, interviews) Project Management (i.e. on board as trustees, involvement in management committee) Informal feedback (including 'discussion') Active involvement (beneficiaries involved in delivery, recruitment, day to day running) Meetings User forum (including forums, focus groups) Consultation 28 6 A20

100 Number % Planning group 27 6 Publications (including newsletters, website etc) 27 6 Generic involvement 22 5 Partnership working (continuing contact with beneficiaries through a partner e.g. a school) 18 4 Mentoring 7 2 Other techniques to be developed 2 0 Formal consultation at beginning of project (e.g. needs analysis) 2 0 Follow up contact (contacted after project) 1 0 Don t know 2 0 Not applicable 8 2 Total Please specify what other outcomes have been achieved as a result of involving beneficiaries? (Please tick one for each) Base sizes vary, indicated below. % % % % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Don t know Our project meets the identified needs more effectively (Base 454) Project delivery has improved (Base 453) Project is more likely to meet its objectives (Base 452) Improvement in confidence for beneficiaries (Base 453) Communities feel empowered (Base 448) Other (please specify see below) (Base 103) A21

101 Other, please specify. (Base all specifying at Q14 = (101) Number % Greater ownership More tailored offer / meets beneficiaries' needs 9 9 Raised awareness of beneficiaries' needs 9 9 Gained skills / knowledge 8 8 Confidence / self esteem / wellbeing 6 6 Beneficiaries more able to communicate 4 4 Community engagement 4 4 Increased number of users / improved access 4 4 Empowerment 3 3 Expanded services offered 2 2 Other Don't know / too early Not applicable Total A22

102 SOFT OUTCOMES Soft outcomes from your project are those which cannot easily be directly 'counted' or quantified such as improved levels of community engagement or changes in attitudes of participants. 15. Are you measuring soft outcomes and/or distance travelled (e.g. increased confidence, changed feelings about local community) as part of your project? (Please tick one only) (Base all = 501) Number % Yes No 39 8 Don't know 15 3 Not applicable 11 2 Not answered 47 9 Total a. If yes, please describe what you are measuring? (e.g. 'Measuring improvements in confidence of young people through surveys' (200 words max) (Base all measuring soft outcomes = 354) Number % Confidence / self esteem Wellbeing Improved health Skills 30 8 Community engagement 29 8 Social Skills 28 8 Reduction in isolation 26 7 Relationships 25 7 Educational improvement / knowledge gain 19 5 Understanding 18 5 Empowerment 18 5 Independence 17 5 Soft outcomes 17 5 A23

103 Number % Communication skills 17 5 Attitudes 16 5 Personal development 15 4 Participation 15 4 Behaviour 14 4 Employability 12 3 Feelings 10 3 Motivation 10 3 Increased Opportunities 9 3 Ability to access services/information 9 3 Safety 7 2 Financial capability 4 1 Perceptions 3 1 Long-term benefits 3 1 Experiences of project 2 1 No examples given Total A24

104 16. Are you/do you plan to track the progress of beneficiaries once they leave your project (Base all = 501) (Please tick one only) Number % Yes No Don't know Not applicable Not answered Total a. If yes, please describe how you are tracking beneficiaries? (200 words max) (Base all tracking beneficiaries = 169) (multiple options okay) Number % Follow up survey Other informal contact Continue on project/other services/volunteer Inviting to/attending project events/activities Telephone calls Tracking database Via partners 15 9 Former beneficiary visits project 13 8 Newsletters 8 5 Letter Face to face visit 5 3 Social networking sites 1 1 Will track but no planned methods yet) 3 2 Don't track 3 2 Total A25

105 PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY 17. Are you seeing/expecting to see benefits continuing beyond the life of the project? (Please tick one only) (Base all = 501) Number % Yes No 8 2 Don't know 22 4 Not answered Total a. If yes, what sort of long-term benefits do you expect to see/are you seeing? (Please tick all that apply) (Base those seeing long term benefits at Q17 = 450.) Number % Beneficiaries better able to manage life Beneficiaries better equipped for work Improved mental health among beneficiaries Improved physical health among beneficiaries Greater community cohesion Improved community capacity New partnership and collaboration Improved organisational capacity Tools/materials/approaches developed that are of use to other projects Better-used community spaces New or improved community facilities Environmental improvements Other 19 4 Don't know 1 0 Total A26

106 18. Are you expecting your project to continue beyond the life of the Reaching Communities funding? (Please tick one only) (Base all = 501) Number % Yes No 21 4 Don't know Not answered Total A27

107 18a. If yes, please describe how you will do this and from where you intend to secure future funding. (200 words max) (Base all answering yes at Q18 = 367) Method of continuing effects of project No. Where will funding be secured from No. Need to raise further funding 192 Private Trusts / grant giving organisations / charities 84 Self sufficient / sustainability / develop income generation 50 Statutory Sector 26 Commission services / enter service agreements 11 Unitary / Local Authority 23 Project complete / one off capital spend 11 Multiple (statutory, and trusts) 21 Work with other organisations / partnership working 10 Participants/users of service 20 Already have funding from other organisations 9 Fundraising 15 Cut costs (staff, i.e. train up volunteers) 7 PCTs 12 Funding for individual projects / parts of projects 5 Specifically Big Lottery 9 Social enterprise 5 NHS 5 Generate income and need grant 2 Other local organisations 5 Promote success of project 2 Central Government 4 Networking 0 Regional public agencies 1 Appoint staff member for funding 0 European Funders 1 Not yet decided 24 Town Council 0 Not valid 1 Note: For each response potential for one 'how' code and one 'where' code. For each category only one code allocated per answer. The 'how' and 'where' on each row do not relate to the same answer. A28

108 PROJECT COMPLETION [Asked to England projects only] 19. Is your project due to be completed by summer 2009? (Please tick one only) (Base all England projects = 476) Number % Yes No Don't know 2 0 Not answered Total FOR PROJECTS FINISHING THIS YEAR ONLY If your project is due to be completed by summer 2010, please answer the following questions. 20. To what extent do you feel that your project has achieved the following? (Base year one, all projects that will finish by summer 2008 = 24; year two, all projects that will finish by summer 2009 = 14; year three, all projects that will finish by summer 2010 = 98.Over all base = 136; Base sizes vary, see below) (Please select the statement which most applies) We have met the needs that we originally identified (Base = 136) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Not relevant Don't know Total A29

109 Our activities have met the needs of all our target communities (Base = 136) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Not relevant Don't know Total We have reached hard to reach groups (Base =134) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Not relevant Don't know Total A30

110 We have met the needs of the 'most in need' (Base = 134) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Not relevant Don't know Total Our project has reduced disadvantage and social exclusion (Base = 134) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Not relevant Don't know Total A31

111 Our project has used innovative approaches / activities (Base = 132) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Not relevant Don't know Total Our project has met the programme outcomes we originally specified (NB this question asked only in year 2 and 3 only, base all projects ending summer 2009 and summer 2010 =112) Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % To a large extent To a small extent Not at all Not relevant Don't know Total a. Which groups or types of people mostly benefited from your project? (200 words max) NB this question was not asked in A32

112 21. What sources of evidence have you used to assess the extent to which needs have been met? (Please tick all that apply) (Base year one, all projects that will finish by summer 2008 = 24; year two, all projects that will finish by summer 2009 = 14; year three, all projects that will finish by summer 2010 = 98 Total base = 136 Multiple answers allowed) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Informal feedback from beneficiaries Level of attendance Level of demand for activities Self-evaluation Performance against programme outcomes Formal feedback from beneficiaries (e.g. responses from beneficiary questionnaire) Performance against programme milestones External evaluation Tracking beneficiaries Other Don't know Total A33

113 22. What benefits/impacts have you seen as a result of your project? (Please tick all that apply) (Base year one, all projects that will finish by summer 2008 = 24; year two, all projects that will finish by summer 2009 = 14; year three, all projects that will finish by summer 2010 = 98 Total base = 136 Multiple answers allowed) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Improved physical health among beneficiaries Improved community capacity Beneficiaries better able to manage life Greater community cohesion Better-used community spaces New or improved community facilities Beneficiaries better equipped for work Improved organisational capacity New partnership and collaboration Improved mental health among beneficiaries Tools/materials/approa ches developed that are of use to other projects Environmental improvements Other Don't know Total A34

114 23. Which of your activities were most effective in meeting the needs you identified? (Base all projects that will finish by summer 2010 responding = 85) Most effective Number % Training Programmes/workshops Social Activities Physical activities 8 9 One-to-one support 6 7 Promotion / marketing 6 7 Information, advice, guidance, signposting 5 6 Support services 5 6 Activities adapted to need of beneficiaries 4 5 Creative / arts based activities 4 5 Developing partnerships with voluntary / statutory organisations 4 5 Educational opportunities 4 5 Volunteering opportunities / progression 4 5 Advocacy 2 2 Community groups 2 2 Employment support / career development 2 2 Health related activities 2 2 New equipment 2 2 Outreach 2 2 Activities for children and young people 2 2 Activities that extend services to rural areas 1 1 Campaign work 1 1 Counselling / emotional support 1 1 Helpline 1 1 Life skills 1 1 New facilities 1 1 Peer support 1 1 Respite 1 1 Transport provision 1 1 Total 104 A35

115 23. Which of your activities were least effective in meeting the needs you identified? (Base all projects that will finish by summer 2010 responding = 68) Least Effective Number % Activities that did not exactly match the needs of beneficiaries / lack of engagement Developing partnerships e.g. with voluntary / statutory organisations Promotion / marketing 7 10 Activities for children and young people 5 7 Business management / administration 5 7 Connecting / engaging with vulnerable / hard-to-reach / marginalised groups 4 6 Physical activities 3 4 Employment support / career development 2 3 Outreach 2 3 Volunteering activities / progression 2 3 Advocacy 1 1 Community groups 1 1 Creative / arts based activities 1 1 New facilities 1 1 One-to-one support 1 1 Training Programmes/workshops 1 1 Language learning 1 1 Recruitment / involving beneficiaries 1 1 Total 66 A36

116 24. Do you plan to do any of the following to disseminate the results of your project? (Please tick all that apply) (Base year one, all projects that will finish by summer 2008 = 24; year two, all projects that will finish by summer 2009 = 14; year three, all projects that will finish by summer 2010 = 98 Total base = 136 Multiple answers allowed) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Media publicity Written report / Evaluation report Distribute flyers/brochures Publicise through website Hold an event/workshop Present at conferences Other Total Would your project have taken place without support from Big Lottery? (Please tick one only) (Base year one, all projects that will finish by summer 2008 = 24; year two, all projects that will finish by summer 2009 = 14; year three, all projects that will finish by summer 2010 = 98 Total base = 136 Multiple answers allowed) Year one Year two Year three Total Number % Number % Number % Number % Yes Yes but in a reduced form No Don't know Not answered Total A37

117 26. Please describe any good practice relating to how you have met or addressed need, that you have identified through your project. (200 words max) (Base = all describing examples of good practice, 85) Number % Working in partnership/team working Communication/empowerment Innovative/delivery Management/monitoring Staff/volunteer training organisation 9 11 Dissemination 8 9 Evaluation of need 7 8 Involving beneficiaries /community / volunteers 7 8 Feedback/evaluation / research 5 6 Costing/time budgets 2 2 Embedded in community 1 1 Reintegration/inclusion 1 1 Promotion/marketing 1 1 Total 104 A38

118 27. If you have secured future funding from your project, where did it come from? (Base all projects completing year 3 survey only as this is a new question = 501, multiple responses allowed) Number % Unitary / Local Authority Private Trusts / grant giving organisations / charities Further Big Lottery Funding 26 5 Central Government department (e.g. DCSF, Department of Health) Regional public agencies (e.g. regional development agency) Local public agencies (other than local authority) 8 2 NHS / Primary Care Trusts 31 6 Town Council 15 3 Private donations 47 9 Fundraising activity Charging / raising income from chargeable activities Other 18 4 Not applicable / No future funding has been found Don't know 13 3 Total Your responses have been saved. Thank you for your feedback. A39

119 Nicola Smith ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd Vincent House, Quay Place, Edward Street, Birmingham, B1 2RA Tel +44 (0) Fax: +44 (0) ECOTEC ECORYS in the UK