Community-led regeneration approach: review

Appendix C: Additional Primary Research Findings

Self-identified Outcomes and Results

Participants were asked to identify what effects/outcomes and achievements they had experienced through participating (delivering or receving services) in the PCF funded project. Each participant could identify as many as he/she felt relevant (it is for this reason that the numbers in Figure C.1 do not equal the number of participants).

The most commonly identified outcomes across all three participant types were broadly similar: more friends/community involvement, new skills and improved relationships. Community members were the most likely to identify improved confidence whilst partners most commonly identified expanded services and improved relationships, Figure C.1 .

Figure C.1: Outcomes identified by Participant Type

Partners N=19, Community Anchors N=34, Community Members N=56

In terms of themes, advice/support and volunteering/mentoring was likely to result in improved relationships and community interaction, while training and upskilling resulted in new skills, Figure C.2.

Figure C.2: Outcomes identified by Theme

Advice/support service N=29, Training and upskilling N=44, Volunteering and mentoring N=36

The progression model tended to yield the most outcomes across the board, but also had the most participants, Figure C.3.

Figure C.3: Outcomes identified by Co-Production Model ^[15]

Traditional N=30, Employability and Skills N=20, Two level support N=12, Progression N=56

Context

The contexts which interviewees most commonly experienced were generally around the initial stages common to most projects, such as being made to feel welcome, needs assessment and being encouraged to take up opportunities, Figure C.4.

Figure C.4: % Experiencing Each Context

N=120

Community members were most likely to experience social contexts such as being made to feel welcome and being able to socialise and network. Community anchor staff emphasised the greater levels of opportunities and diversity of services which they were able to offer, while partners identified awareness training and co-delivery opportunities, Figure C.5 .

Figure C.5: % Experiencing Each Context by Participant Type

Partners N=16, Community Anchors N=39, Community Members N=65

With regard to the project themes; training and upskilling, and advice/support services projects have more identified contexts than volunteering and mentoring projects. This is not surprsing given the diversity of local service provision, Figure C.6.

Figure C.6: % Experiencing Each Context by Theme

Advice/support service N=31, Training and upskilling N=44, Volunteering and mentoring N=45

In terms of the models of co-production; workshop participants were more likely to identify contexts the further along the co-production ladder they were, particularly with regard to the social contexts such as being made to feel welcome and socialising, Figure C.7.

Figure C.7: % Experiencing Each Context by Co-Production Model

Traditional N=29, Employability and Skills N=15, Two level support N=15, Progression N=43, Double progression N=18

Mechanisms

The two most commonly reported mechanisms were concerned with relationships with others, trust/relationship building and belonging connectedness, whilst most of the others concerned personal development, such as confidence and pride, Figure C.8 .

Figure C.8: % Experiencing Each Mechanism

N=120

Regarding the mechansims experienced by community members (service users and volunteers) there is a more or less even split between relationship and personal benefits, however, partners almost all identified trust/relationship building as a key mechanism, Figure C.9.

Figure C.9: % Experiencing Each Mechanism by Participant Type

Partners N=16, Community Anchors N=39, Community Members N=65

Broken down by project theme; training and upskilling, and volunteering and mentoring programmes generally achieved a greater prevalence of identified mechanisms than advice/support services, particularly around issues such pride, ownership, empowerment and self-esteem, Figure C.10 .

Figure C.10: % Experiencing Each Mechanism by Theme

Advice/support service N=31, Training and upskilling N=44, Volunteering and mentoring N=45

By co-production model, we can broadly see a greater prevalence of mechanisms experienced as we move from the traditional model (Model 1) to models with greater levels of co-production, with the two level support (Model 3) and double progression models (Model 5) experiencing the most mechanisms, Figure C.11.

Figure C.11: % Experiencing Each Mechanism by Co-Production Model

Traditional N=29, Employability and Skills N=15, Two level support N=15, Progression N=43, Double progression N=18

Short-Term Outcomes

The most commonly identified short-term outcome is an increase in skills, knowledge or understanding, followed by more social outcomes such as increased engagement and improved connectedness with local community, Figure C.12 .

Figure C.12: % Experiencing Each Short-Term Outcome

N=120

Community members are the most likely to identify an increase in skills, knowledge or understanding and improved aspirations, whilst partners identified increased engagement, improved connectedness and better partnership working as key outcomes , Figure C.13 .

Figure C.13: % Experiencing Each Short-Term Outcome by Participant Type

Partners N=16, Community Anchors N=39, Community Members N=65

Considering the three PCF themes; training and upskilling projects have a greater level of short-term outcomes, having the highest levels of increase in skills, knowledge and understanding, increased engagement and life changing experiences, Figure C.14 .

Figure C.14: % Experiencing Each Short-Term Outcome by Theme

Advice/support service N=31, Training and upskilling N=44, Volunteering and mentoring N=45

In terms of the co-production models; there is a clear difference between the different models of co-production, with traditional methods having a relatively low-level of short-term outcomes and the two level support and double progression models having a higher number of short-term outcomes, Figure C.15 .

Figure C.15: % Experiencing Each Short-Term Outcome by Co-Production Model

Traditional N=29, Employability and Skills N=15, Two level support N=15, Progression N=43, Double progression N=18

Long-Term Outcomes

In general a lower number of long-term outcomes was identified than short-term outcomes, which is unsurprising given that long-term outcomes by their nature take time to become apparent. The most common long-term outcomes identified were improved well-being and improved social capital, Figure C.16 .

Figure C.16: % Experiencing Each Long-Term Outcome

N=120

The most common outcomes identified by community members were improved well-being and improved life chances, while for partners improved social capital and improved service provisions were more prevalent, Figure C.17 .

Figure C.17: % Experiencing Each Long-Term Outcome by Participant Type

Partners N=16, Community Anchors N=39, Community Members N=65

In terms of the projects themes; advice and support generally has the fewest long-term outcomes identified, but with strengths in improved service provision and improved social capital. Training and upskilling generally has the highest level of long-term outcomes with improved wellbeing, improved life chances and employment the most common, Figure C.18 .

Figure C.18: % Experiencing Each Long-Term Outcome by Theme

Advice/support service N=31, Training and upskilling N=44, Volunteering and mentoring N=45

With regard to the co-production models; similar to short-term outcomes, the traditional model sees comparatively few long-term outcomes, whilst the two level support and double progression models have the largest impact, particularly on employment and improved social capital, Figure C.19.

Figure C.19: % Experiencing Each Long-Term Outcome by Co-Production Model

Traditional N=29, Employability and Skills N=15, Two level support N=15, Progression N=43, Double progression N=18