Matt Leach is CEO of Local Trust.
Today marks one year since the Levelling-Up White Paper was published, while recently the Government announced £2.1bn funding for more than 100 projects to level up the UK. It triggered a debate, however, over how the money was allocated. Why did the south-east (£210 million) get almost twice as much as the north-east (£108 million)? Why did London (£151 million) receive more than Yorkshire (£121 million)?
But this debate ignored a bigger question: does funding large-scale “trophy” projects – usually in town centre locations – really address the needs of the most “left behind” neighbourhoods within those regions – those areas typically located on the edges of towns and cities which have suffered most. That’s because of the decline of traditional industries as well as the loss of social institutions such as the pubs, cafes, and community centres that support local civic life, define community identity, and foster local pride and identity.
Rather than being concerned over regional equity, we need to focus more on the significant disparities in outcomes that can be seen at a hyperlocal level. 225 neighbourhoods in England could be classed as “left behind”. They are in the top 10 per cent of areas most deprived on the Index of Multiple Deprivation and are the most lacking in social infrastructure.
People living in these areas experience worse outcomes across a range of indicators compared not just to the national average but to other equally deprived areas. Despite this, they have missed out on their fair share of help, typically receiving up to 70 per cent less charitable grant funding. If levelling-up is to succeed in these places, it needs not only to bring economic change but also to support the rebuilding of the social infrastructure of those communities.
To the Government’s credit, the Levelling Up White Paper made clear that pockets of affluence and deprivation often exist alongside one another, and the need to strengthen the social fabric in our most deprived neighbourhoods. But, one year on, we are yet to see concerted action on this front.
A significant problem is the competitive nature of most public funding bidding processes means that too often areas most in need of funding are at a structural disadvantage. Community-focused initiatives, such as the Community Ownership Fund, tend to skew funding towards areas with pre-existing organisations with ready-made projects that can be funded over the short-to-medium term. Those areas with the greatest need lack the capacity to put together, submit, and win bids. To level the playing field, they need sustained support to build social capital and civic infrastructure to help them compete for funding.
This could be addressed by re-evaluating the funding formula for an element of Levelling Up funding, and re-weighting it to allow for neighbourhood-level allocations, focused on benefiting areas lacking in social infrastructure. The Community Needs Index, referenced in the White Paper as an objective way of measuring social capital, would ensure funding is targeted at those areas that need it most, through the adoption of a ‘least first’ approach.
Secondly, local communities, rather than Whitehall or town hall officials, should be trusted to decide how money should be spent as they best know the needs of their areas. Communities should be supported with single, locally-managed grants to invest in the local priorities they decide upon, on a long-term basis, rather than through endless sub-pots, distantly held by central or local government. Support should be provided where appropriate to help communities make the most of that opportunity, and develop local community-led institutions capable of organising and advocating for their areas in the long term.
Research by the University of Cambridge has found the key ingredients to successful government investment in regenerating such communities include long-term funding of at least 10 years and community involvement embedded at every stage of design and delivery.
A Community Wealth Fund – advocated by over 600 charities and local authorities nationwide – would tick these boxes. Over the last decade, Local Trust has supported the delivery of a similar scheme called Big Local, which gave £1.2 million each to 150 neighbourhoods – identified on the basis that they were amongst the 20 per cent most deprived in the country and had missed out on funding – to spend on developing their community infrastructure over a 10-15-year period.
Rather than funding being allocated on a short-term, centrally-controlled basis, it represented long-term, patient funding with local communities themselves deciding how money was spent. And, despite the funding representing relatively small sums of money, the outcomes it has generated in many areas have been hugely positive.
In Whitley Bay, for example, a Big Local funded partnership of local residents has partnered with the local council and Mayoral Combined Authority to build a new community hub for their area. In Bexhill, local people have worked closely with Rother Council to improve social infrastructure in their area. And in northwest Bristol, a Big Local programme has helped improve access to affordable housing and provided training courses and apprenticeships to those out of work.
The Government has committed itself to tackling spatial inequality. As we approach a year since the White Paper, there’s no better time to look beyond arguments about regional funding allocations to re-address how neighbourhood-level communities that have been historically overlooked do not go unnoticed anymore.
Matt Leach is CEO of Local Trust.
Today marks one year since the Levelling-Up White Paper was published, while recently the Government announced £2.1bn funding for more than 100 projects to level up the UK. It triggered a debate, however, over how the money was allocated. Why did the south-east (£210 million) get almost twice as much as the north-east (£108 million)? Why did London (£151 million) receive more than Yorkshire (£121 million)?
But this debate ignored a bigger question: does funding large-scale “trophy” projects – usually in town centre locations – really address the needs of the most “left behind” neighbourhoods within those regions – those areas typically located on the edges of towns and cities which have suffered most. That’s because of the decline of traditional industries as well as the loss of social institutions such as the pubs, cafes, and community centres that support local civic life, define community identity, and foster local pride and identity.
Rather than being concerned over regional equity, we need to focus more on the significant disparities in outcomes that can be seen at a hyperlocal level. 225 neighbourhoods in England could be classed as “left behind”. They are in the top 10 per cent of areas most deprived on the Index of Multiple Deprivation and are the most lacking in social infrastructure.
People living in these areas experience worse outcomes across a range of indicators compared not just to the national average but to other equally deprived areas. Despite this, they have missed out on their fair share of help, typically receiving up to 70 per cent less charitable grant funding. If levelling-up is to succeed in these places, it needs not only to bring economic change but also to support the rebuilding of the social infrastructure of those communities.
To the Government’s credit, the Levelling Up White Paper made clear that pockets of affluence and deprivation often exist alongside one another, and the need to strengthen the social fabric in our most deprived neighbourhoods. But, one year on, we are yet to see concerted action on this front.
A significant problem is the competitive nature of most public funding bidding processes means that too often areas most in need of funding are at a structural disadvantage. Community-focused initiatives, such as the Community Ownership Fund, tend to skew funding towards areas with pre-existing organisations with ready-made projects that can be funded over the short-to-medium term. Those areas with the greatest need lack the capacity to put together, submit, and win bids. To level the playing field, they need sustained support to build social capital and civic infrastructure to help them compete for funding.
This could be addressed by re-evaluating the funding formula for an element of Levelling Up funding, and re-weighting it to allow for neighbourhood-level allocations, focused on benefiting areas lacking in social infrastructure. The Community Needs Index, referenced in the White Paper as an objective way of measuring social capital, would ensure funding is targeted at those areas that need it most, through the adoption of a ‘least first’ approach.
Secondly, local communities, rather than Whitehall or town hall officials, should be trusted to decide how money should be spent as they best know the needs of their areas. Communities should be supported with single, locally-managed grants to invest in the local priorities they decide upon, on a long-term basis, rather than through endless sub-pots, distantly held by central or local government. Support should be provided where appropriate to help communities make the most of that opportunity, and develop local community-led institutions capable of organising and advocating for their areas in the long term.
Research by the University of Cambridge has found the key ingredients to successful government investment in regenerating such communities include long-term funding of at least 10 years and community involvement embedded at every stage of design and delivery.
A Community Wealth Fund – advocated by over 600 charities and local authorities nationwide – would tick these boxes. Over the last decade, Local Trust has supported the delivery of a similar scheme called Big Local, which gave £1.2 million each to 150 neighbourhoods – identified on the basis that they were amongst the 20 per cent most deprived in the country and had missed out on funding – to spend on developing their community infrastructure over a 10-15-year period.
Rather than funding being allocated on a short-term, centrally-controlled basis, it represented long-term, patient funding with local communities themselves deciding how money was spent. And, despite the funding representing relatively small sums of money, the outcomes it has generated in many areas have been hugely positive.
In Whitley Bay, for example, a Big Local funded partnership of local residents has partnered with the local council and Mayoral Combined Authority to build a new community hub for their area. In Bexhill, local people have worked closely with Rother Council to improve social infrastructure in their area. And in northwest Bristol, a Big Local programme has helped improve access to affordable housing and provided training courses and apprenticeships to those out of work.
The Government has committed itself to tackling spatial inequality. As we approach a year since the White Paper, there’s no better time to look beyond arguments about regional funding allocations to re-address how neighbourhood-level communities that have been historically overlooked do not go unnoticed anymore.