Our policy recommendations

We need a revamped devolution model that takes better account of the specific needs of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. As part of this, central government must clarify and establish clear responsibilities for how different layers of local government should work together in the interests of communities, as part of a more granular and localised devolution agenda.

Where Combined Authorities are in place or are being created, making improvements in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods should be a key part of mayoral accountabilities and the deal-making process. This might include reductions in unemployment, measures of local satisfaction and pride in place, or increased access to quality education. This would incentivise Combined Authorities to further devolve their powers and resources closer to neighbourhoods.

The radical next step would be to finally broach genuine fiscal devolution for English local government. This would empower local authorities with the raising, redistribution, and targeted allocation of resources to address area-specific issues and needs, and capitalise on distinctive local assets. Of course, this would need to be partnered with a national redistribution model that fairly accounts for differences in revenue-raising capacity. Fiscal devolution, with sufficient clarity in its underpinning philosophy and principles, could turbo- charge the transformation of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods (Studdert, 2023).

Government must also commit to ‘double devolution’, that is, devolution below the level of combined and local authorities. This would better address the specific challenges faced by ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods in England – a point emphasised in written evidence submitted to our inquiry from Power to Change (2023). Double devolution would mean giving decision-making powers and resources to the residents of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. In turn, this would build local confidence and capacity as a foundation for the development of new resident-led neighbourhood councils or forums.

“People in communities are the experts in their own lives. It’s just a fact. Somebody from a Unit or Council just can’t see the complexity of things in the community.”

_{Billy Dasein, East Marsh United, oral evidence to inquiry session four}

To facilitate collaboration between local stakeholders, the government should deliver on its commitment in the White Paper to develop and pilot community covenants. These should establish a cohesive vision for building stronger local communities in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. Public, private, civil society and local community organisations should all be involved in the vision setting and decision-making process.

Government should also develop its promised Community Spaces and Relationships Strategy. The Strategy’s objective should be to mainstream investment in social infrastructure and to facilitate resident involvement in community and neighbourhood governance in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. It should incorporate capacity building and support for effective community-led action. Specific funding should be provided for developing and implementing plans for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, in recognition of the urgent need to develop social infrastructure and community capacity in these places (The Cares Family, 2022).

Research and thinking from the Levelling Up Advisory Council’s Local Communities and Social Infrastructure sub-group should underpin efforts to centre community perspectives in the design of levelling up policies and neighbourhood strategies (NPC, 2023). This sub-group could be given wider responsibility to provide advice on the development of a holistic approach to community-led change. Such an approach would build connections between the range of existing policies and programmes to address place-based inequality, establish a clear role for community action within them, and set out how community-led approaches might best be resourced in very economically challenging times (Bennett et al., 2019).

The government should also refresh and recommit to its Communities Framework. A revised framework should recognise the importance of civic infrastructure for strong, resilient neighbourhoods, particularly in light of the pandemic and rising cost of living. It should explicitly outline how deprived and ‘left behind’ areas can be supported to take part in, and benefit from, its broader aspirations around active citizenship, local control and shared community spaces.

Finally, tangible progress should be made on creating a Community Wealth Fund before the next general election, so that ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods start to receive the benefits of this investment without further delay.

“With local residents making decisions, that means no one is telling us what we should do or how we should do it. We don’t spend all of our time asking permission, chasing funds or jumping through funding hoops. Instead, we have developed plans that really matter to us, plans that we really care about making happen, that we get on with delivering, because we really care about our community.”

_{Rebecca Woods, Ewanrigg Big Local, oral evidence to inquiry session one}

One explicit feature of the new Community Spaces and Relationships Strategy should be a roadmap to boost community ownership of assets of local importance. This should be based on existing approaches, including learning from the ‘open doors’ pilot programmes that have enabled communities to make use of temporarily unused properties (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2019). It will also require legislation to establish a strong community right to ownership and control of local assets (We’re Right Here, 2023).

A Community Right to Buy would help communities to save local assets like pubs, clubs and green spaces and support the provision of new local amenities and facilities. This would strengthen the existing ‘community right to bid’ created by the 2011 Localism Act, and give community groups the right of first refusal in acquiring registered Assets of Community Value at a fair, independently assessed value. The current proposal for a UK Community Investment Bank could help accelerate the impact of these expanded powers; such a bank could offer flexible loans at favourable terms to community groups and civil society organisations for investing in local civic infrastructure.

“The big thing I think that’s missing is the Community Right to Buy. And I think we could do a huge amount more just to give communities the power and the ability to acquire assets in their neighbourhoods, especially those underused high street assets that could really help across so many of these missions.”

_{Toby Lloyd, housing and regeneration policy expert, oral evidence to inquiry session three}

To optimise the allocation of resources and bring funding within reach of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, the multiple funding pots for tackling place-based inequality should be amalgamated into more flexible levelling up funds held and managed closer to where they will be spent. Consolidation and localisation should be expanded beyond the existing local authorities named as pilot areas for streamlined funding; this would reduce the current complexity associated with different funds with varying terms of reference and reporting requirements.

This consolidated, place-based funding model could draw upon a rich history of experimentation and piloting of ‘whole- place’ and neighbourhood-level budgeting across the UK. These innovative trials have shown promising results in terms of fostering community engagement and enhancing local decision-making processes. However, so far they have tended to be short lived (House of Commons, 2013). Funding arrangements like these should use transparent and accountable needs-based frameworks, such as the Community Needs Index, to identify where investment should be targeted and at what appropriate geographic scale.

“It’s about prioritising the most vulnerable communities in levelling up spend, investing long term in communities and investing so residents themselves hold the purse strings and are empowered to create and deliver projects that best work for them.”

_{Reece Pocklington, Ewanrigg Local Trust, oral evidence to inquiry session one}

As ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods have historically missed out on their fair share of funding (due to a lack of both existing networks and the experience to successfully bid for grants), funds should be allocated to them on a non-competitive basis, with a portion dedicated to building community capacity for the future.

Another advantage to this approach would be the possibility of longer-term funding strategies in any given place, creating the conditions for more predictable and stable local development over longer timescales. Funds would be more flexible, allowing local actors to address the specific needs of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods more effectively. Multi-year funding commitments would allow programmes to be adapted as local needs evolve, and would encourage the development of shared agendas between local stakeholders, in contrast to potentially wasteful zero-sum processes that undermine opportunities for collaboration (City-REDI, 2023).

“There’s a lot of competition between voluntary, statutory, even private organisations for funding. I’ve got some really good examples of where five organisations were working in silo, and our residents have actually brought them all under one roof around the table and all singing from the same hymn sheet, even though they’re coming from slightly different backgrounds or agendas and funding regimes.”

_{Barbara Slasor, Gaunless Gateway Big Local, oral evidence to inquiry session four}

Finally, to address acute capacity constraints in many ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, this new funding model should support a better balance between capital investment and revenue funding. Capital funding can play a vital role in improving physical infrastructure and access to wider opportunity; revenue funding enables the provision of essential services, support programmes, and capacity-building initiatives tailored to the specific needs of each community.

By including both capital and revenue funding in programmes, policymakers can foster sustainable, inclusive growth that empowers local communities and addresses multi-faceted challenges in a more comprehensive way. Ultimately,
this will put ‘left behind’ communities in a better position to apply for and benefit from remaining public and third-sector funding distributed via competitive bidding, and to attract private investment.

“It’s incredible how much capital money with lots and lots of zeros at the end can be spent relatively easy, compared to revenue money… because of the way that it shows up on the government books… But we’re then fighting over pennies on the revenue for the staff to support the work because people fear, they have this dread, of letting anything on the revenue side creep up, especially when it’s for staff. … I think joining up capital and revenue and understanding that one requires the other is a start.”

_{Ben Lee, Shared Intelligence, oral evidence to inquiry session three}

“There’s not a single template that covers everything for regeneration.
Each project should be guided by existing knowledge, expertise of grassroots organisations in the neighbourhood. Top-down management of regeneration is a waste of existing resources and expertise.”

_{John Angell, Dover Big Local, oral evidence to inquiry session two}

If we are to capture what works in deprived and ‘left behind’ areas, re-evaluating metrics of success and impact is essential. Frameworks for assessing impact should be revised, recognising the ‘evidence paradox’ that community-powered approaches are often evaluated through measures that do not adequately capture their value (New Local, 2021).

Local people and organisations should be empowered to go beyond the national framework for levelling up and involve their communities in identifying appropriate local measures of success for regeneration programmes. This will ensure a more context-specific and nuanced understanding of local challenges and opportunities. Engaging local actors in the process of defining success will also promote local ownership and accountability of actions, as communities become more actively involved in shaping their own futures. This will ultimately mean that policy and funding decisions address the diverse needs of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods more effectively.

“If we really do think levelling up is by consensus addressing the structural issues of the country, and there’s some weight behind that, there needs to be some weight behind the metrics that define that. … [W]e have to start holding public money to account on a broader set of outcomes, I think.”

_{Henry Kippin, North of Tyne Combined Authority, oral evidence to inquiry session four}

To support these changes, more granular, neighbourhood-level data must be collected and made publicly available (Vizard, 2022). Data on community satisfaction or educational performance are two examples.

Deal-making within existing devolution processes has left some ambiguity as to the different roles for various tiers of local government. There is now a strong case for strengthened cooperation between tiers of local government. Shared objectives to transform life chances in one neighbourhood – and the considerable benefits of doing so – can incentivise neighbouring and nested local authorities to overcome differences and collaborate more effectively (Kaye et al., 2022). Better collaboration should involve public bodies creating joint strategic plans that outline areas of shared effort and clarify the allocation of resources between them (APPG for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, 2023b). These plans must include community voices, allowing local priorities and expertise to guide decisions about resources and redevelopment from the earliest stages (Community Land Trust Network, 2023).

“I think there is a responsibility on us locally to make sure that when we are designing and delivering projects, we are equally mindful of the wellbeing and the social impact of those projects. I don’t think that’s always necessarily been the case. And I think we have to make sure there’s a high degree of co-production in terms of how those projects come through.”

_{Henry Kippin, North of Tyne Combined Authority, oral evidence to inquiry session four}

Local authorities seeking to improve outcomes in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods should adopt a collaborative and enabling stance when they engage directly with the people in those communities. This would incorporate a greater emphasis on co- production, delegation of decision-making and budgets, and trust in community leadership.

“You can deliver improvements relatively quickly with relatively small amounts of money by catalysing investment and enabling communities to take ownership of civic assets, potentially. It happens when the professional capacity works in partnership, or very closely with, the community.”

_{Professor Sarah Pearson, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, oral evidence to inquiry session three}

To disentangle the layers of complexity in England’s system of local government, local authorities should identify someone who is responsible for community liaison across all policy and service areas in any jurisdiction containing a ‘left behind’ neighbourhood. These single points of contact can support local communities as they seek to navigate their relationships with different parts of the local government ‘machine’, presenting a united and simplified portal for these crucial relationships. Community liaison officers or champions who are specifically trained to serve as intermediaries between local government and people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods would ensure effective communication and collaboration.

“What we see in successful neighbourhood planning is not an over reliance necessarily on one or two people. It has to be a more co- produced kind of effort where local authorities also play a part alongside third sector bodies and consultants and community leaders.”

_{Gavin Parker, University of Reading, oral evidence to inquiry session four}

Local authorities should use clear and accessible language to communicate policies and initiatives, so that all stakeholders, including people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, can easily engage with information and decision- making processes. This may involve, for example, creating plain language summaries of policy documents or providing translation services for residents who speak languages other than English.

“It’s like speaking a foreign language. I’ve had to learn a whole new way of talking. I have to sort of translate. It’s like, “We’re going to invest in building a transport corridor from east to west.” And a resident will say, “What’s a transport corridor?” “Well, it’s a road.” “Well why don’t they just say it’s a road?” Then people might actually come out and find out a little bit more about the road they’re building down the street.”

_{Barbara Slasor, Gaunless Gateway Big Local, oral evidence to inquiry session four}

Local authorities must also meet the highest standards of transparency in decision-making and resource allocation if they are to build trust and foster a sense of ownership of decisions among people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods.

“Think about the message. I only paraphrase slightly, people are being told that their numeracy level is less than the average nine-year-old, and that the answer is to send them to a bootcamp. That is not going to fly in the communities that we work with. Yes, the intention’s right, but let’s really think about the language.”

_{Simon Parkinson, WEA, oral evidence to inquiry session one}

Progress in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods fundamentally relies on building community capacity. Local authorities should dedicate significant effort and resources to this goal (Tiratelli, 2020). This report outlines numerous strategies for benefitting from and enhancing local knowledge, skill sets, capacity, and a sense of community stewardship. Cultivating these essential building blocks for change in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods will often require dedicated actions or strategy.

To support this, councils should allocate resources to mapping existing local assets and existing community efforts within ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. More detailed data like this will inform targeted interventions. This process could involve conducting comprehensive asset inventories (including physical, social, and cultural resources), as well as leveraging local knowledge and expertise to identify unique challenges and opportunities. Local people themselves should be brought into the process as volunteer ambassadors to hold informal conversations within their own communities – sharing information and helping to foster community leadership in the process (Big Conversation Wakefield, 2023; University of Central Lancashire, 2023).

Local authorities should resist the temptation to predefine the agenda when engaging with communities in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. Conducting blank-sheet conversations with communities will generate a far better understanding of genuine local priorities and concerns, while also uncovering local expertise. This approach involves starting from a position of openness and curiosity, seeking to understand the experiences, needs, and aspirations of people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods before and while designing interventions (Kaye, 2020). The specific approach taken will vary from place to place, but should be informed by innovative practice from across the community and civil society sectors. For example, the People’s Health Trust has developed its ‘The Local Conversation’ approach, drawing together local government, partners from the private and third sectors, and other important local figures via neighbourhood forums and regular public meetings. This should be supported by good use of social media to reach as many people as possible and to engage communities more effectively (People’s Health Trust, 2023).

A new Communities First graduate and apprenticeship programme (based on the Teach First and Police Now concepts) should be set up to enable local communities to take advantage of new powers, build capacity in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, and to help develop the next generation of community development workers (Community Organisers in oral evidence to the APPG for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods’ session on dormant assets funding, 2023).

People give enough up themselves but they have to have support in building their capacity. People desperately want to do it. My experience is people want to be a part of their community. They want to make a change for people like themselves. They don’t want it done to them or for them.”

_{Trisha Bennett, Whitley Big Local, oral evidence to inquiry session one}

With the flexibility afforded by broader, localised funding, local authorities should target investment towards specific areas of need for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. This should include developing social infrastructure, such as community centres, hubs, libraries, parks and other green spaces. Social infrastructure provides essential spaces for residents of ‘left behind’ places to gather, share resources, and access services (APPG for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, 2023b). It provides some of the crucial building blocks for, and maximising the benefits of, innovative approaches to meeting health and social care needs, like social prescribing initiatives (Coalfields Regeneration Trust, 2023). Investment could be designed to support such new approaches, building up support services and social infrastructure where they are missing.

Investment in social infrastructure also creates scope for new, more ambitious community initiatives, including capacity- building workshops and leadership training. These could empower people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods to mobilise, engage in decision-making processes, and advocate for their needs.

Investment in local media will help to ensure that people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods are well-informed about the opportunities and resources available to them, while also providing a platform for community voices to be
heard (Macroscope; Charitable Journalism Project, 2023).

Tailoring adult education to provide accessible routes to high-quality technical qualifications should be a priority. This could involve working with local employers to identify what skills they require and to develop bespoke training programmes that lead to sustainable employment opportunities (Social Mobility Commission, 2023). With some supporting resource, local authorities and ‘left behind’ communities could co-produce new skills pathways connected to existing and new employment opportunities, including apprenticeships. Adult learning opportunities and basic skills provision should be developed and delivered in the community, for example through the development of peer-led learning programmes tailored to the needs of residents in ‘left behind’ areas.

Improving local public transport is a critical issue for many ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods: many are peripheral and cut off from local centres of economic activity (Renaisi, 2023). Support, including investment, from local authorities to fill gaps in local transport provision is a precondition for improving access to jobs, training, healthcare and other services in many ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods.

Investment in social infrastructure helps to develop social capital — the relationships and connections which lay the foundations for people to flourish. This makes places more pleasant to live, and means that skilled people are more likely to want to stay there. However, it also means that communities are more resilient to shocks, and the social problems we discussed above are less likely to occur—lowering health and other support costs in an area.

_{New Philanthropy Capital, written evidence submission to the inquiry}

In everything they do to address place- based inequalities in the UK, community and third sector organisations should work closely and collaboratively with people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. This should be underpinned by the same commitment to clarity, simplicity and transparency in language and decision making as we have recommended above for local government.

“Whilst the communities we work with look statistically similar, the asset base, the local culture, the local challenges and opportunities and even the personalities you encounter are completely different from community to community. So you can’t take the same approach, but you can follow the same process and the same principles to define and deliver the change. The solution that comes out will be unique to each community, but what is important is the agency and support for that community to get it right for them.”

_{Graeme Duncan, Right to Succeed, oral evidence to inquiry session one}

Well-established community and third sector organisations should proactively adopt, innovate and showcase community-led and co-production approaches in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods (Kaye, 2020). Such organisations operating within or adjacent to these areas could provide mentoring, wraparound support, and guidance for more informal community groups and emerging neighbourhood leaders. This could include offering training and in- kind support to encourage grassroots initiatives, as well as facilitating connections between community leaders and relevant stakeholders, such as local government officials and private sector partners (Volunteering Matters, 2023).

Deepening local collaboration will improve resilience over time in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. To support this, more established civil society organisations should prioritise regular forums for communication and knowledge-sharing between local stakeholders, and should create and engage in joint planning, skills sharing, and decision-making processes with people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods (NPC, 2023). With the right support and resources, this could fill the gaps left by the decline in local civic institutions in ‘left behind’ places, establishing new models for residents and partners in a local community to take the lead in creating a vision for their neighbourhood, seeding new civic organisations and driving the sort of change needed.