Executive Summary

We are at a crucial moment for England’s ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, and decisions made in the next few years will define their prospects for decades to come. Decisive action is now urgently needed to save levelling up from the strategic drift which threatens to waste the significant political will generated in recent years to transform the fortunes of these places.

How can we ensure that the communities that have long missed out on their fair share of services and opportunities are no longer ‘left behind’?

This report makes a compelling case for remaking the levelling up agenda to put ‘left behind’ areas front and centre of a new mission of national renewal. Evidence heard over the course of the APPG’s inquiry emphasised that community-led change can transform a neighbourhood’s fortunes.

To be successful and sustainable, levelling up must:

• Be led by local people – the experts best placed to know what needs to be done to improve local outcomes
• Reflect local needs and circumstances – not follow a national template
• Entrust decision-making – including funding – to communities, not Whitehall or the town hall
• Invest long-term in communities – to build capacity, social infrastructure, opportunity and resilience.

Improving outcomes in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods will bring benefits far beyond their boundaries. By addressing the challenges resulting from high levels of socio- economic deprivation and community need, policymakers can turbo-charge existing efforts to disrupt cycles of disadvantage,

reduce demand on public services, and allow individuals to contribute meaningfully to their communities and the wider economy.

About the APPG’s inquiry

The APPG began a major inquiry into the government’s levelling up agenda following the publication of the Levelling Up the United Kingdom White Paper in the spring of 2022. The White Paper set out four main objectives for government:

• Boosting productivity, pay, jobs and living standards
• Spreading opportunities and improving public services
• Restoring a sense of community, local pride and belonging
• Empowering local leaders and

It was accompanied by funding schemes to develop local infrastructure, boost community ownership of local assets, promote town centre regeneration, and drive investment in deprived places.

This report is the final output from the APPG’s inquiry, which examined how closely this ambitious policy programme aligns with the needs and aspirations of the 2.4 million people living in 225 ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods across England. It sets out proposals to realise a better future for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, gathered from the insights and evidence yielded by the inquiry process and the perspectives of communities themselves.

‘Left behind’ neighbourhoods – why we need a ‘least first’ approach to levelling up

The APPG uses ‘left behind’ to describe a particular set of local authority wards: those facing the dual disadvantage of high levels of deprivation and community need, and low levels of investment and resources.

These are neighbourhoods ranked in the ten per cent most deprived on both the Community Needs Index and the Index of Multiple Deprivation.

‘Left behind’ communities face multiple challenges that limit their opportunities compared to other places. They have worse socioeconomic outcomes than the English average – as well as other, equally deprived areas. They lack places to meet, such as pubs, community centres and village halls. Many are in areas of low economic activity, making it difficult to find work or access services. Poor public transport and weaker digital connectivity leave them isolated.

Children in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods are more likely to attend underperforming schools.

As the APPG has heard, recent political and economic developments have hit these neighbourhoods particularly hard. High levels of debt, financial insecurity and fuel poverty make them more exposed to the cost of living crisis (APPG for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods, 2022a). Local authority funding has fallen faster and further in more deprived places than in more prosperous ones (Williams, 2023a). Charitable and third sector organisations are less than half as likely to have a presence here.

And the decline in local newspapers and radio leaves communities with little reliable information about their area (Macroscope, 2023; Charitable Journalism Project, 2023).

The current context

As the inquiry heard repeatedly, the current model of levelling up is not well-tailored to the needs of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods. We identified three main causes:

1. The failure to consider important sources of disadvantage that are either specific to ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods or have specific impacts there
2. The absence of sufficient collaboration with people living in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods whose experiences and perspectives will be necessary to develop the right policy and funding models
3. A basic lack of sufficiently detailed data to guide policy decisions and ensure levelling up reaches the ‘left behind’ communities it is supposed to prioritise

Our evidence also highlighted the risk that, in its current form, levelling up will not make a difference in the areas that need it most. Existing initiatives don’t fully recognise the scale of the issues these neighbourhoods face, and economic instability and the rising cost of living could undo much of the progress made so far.

What should we do differently?

Many factors make solving place- based inequality difficult; in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods these combine to create serious barriers to change. We have distilled what needs to be done to overcome these barriers in three key areas.

We are at a critical point

We see three possible futures for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods: worst-case, where they fall further behind; base-case, where – despite huge efforts – they are only running to stand still; and best-case, a re-imagined levelling up agenda – with policies co-produced with communities, and powers meaningfully devolved to allow tailored local approaches – which sees ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods leaping forward.

The best case requires the most ambition, imagination and political will. Here:

• Government rethinks current policy, underpinned by new principles designed to benefit ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods
• Funding reflects the very different starting positions of these neighbourhoods, ensuring early investment in the necessary building blocks for change
• New processes harness the experience and capacity of local people at every stage of policy development
• Local residents are engaged in making decisions and take ownership of their community’s development
• Long-term investments create a solid foundation for sustainable growth and regeneration
• Young people get a fair chance through quality education and training programmes
• Adults gain new employment opportunities through tailored adult education and high- quality technical qualifications
• Good jobs become available where people live
• Quality healthcare and social services help address long-standing health disparities.

Policy recommendations

Policy programmes must start from where these places, and the people who live in them, are now, harnessing local strengths and measuring progress according to local needs and priorities. This means moving decisively away from centralised control, coupled with a new emphasis on building capacity so communities can lead decisions over what happens in their local area. We make the following recommendations for action across central and local government, and for established community organisations working to make a difference in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods.

This new model of levelling up could provide a very different future for ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods: supporting communities to mobilise, unlocking resources, and addressing entrenched sources of disadvantage. This is a scenario where ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods begin to flourish, becoming vibrant communities where residents can access quality services and economic opportunities. Enhanced devolution of power to local authorities, and to communities themselves, leads to a more efficient and targeted use of resources, ensuring that those with the most experience and expertise lead initiatives and make decisions about provision for each area. Long-term investments in both physical and social infrastructure create a solid foundation for regeneration and renewal. As the lives of people in ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods improve, the benefits are felt both regionally and nationally.

In this future, ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods emerge as models of resilience. Faced with global challenges like climate change, these communities are better equipped to adapt. Their success showcases the power of collaboration between different levels of government, the private sector, and civil society in driving sustainable, inclusive growth.

The decisions we make now will define which future the residents of ‘left behind’ neighbourhoods can expect over the coming decades. They can continue to be places where human flourishing is limited and potential squandered. Or these places can become a cornerstone of our national recovery from a decade of challenges, and a new source of resilience for the even greater challenges ahead.

The next few moves will be decisive.