Research and analysis

WeWalworth – Southwark Council

Published 10 April 2024

Applies to England

Partnership for People and Place

The PfPP programme has piloted a new approach to cross-government working to improve local outcomes and efficiency of policy and programmes designed and delivered in place. PfPP funded 13 local government partners to deliver pilot projects focusing on hyper-local issues that could be tackled through better central or local government coordination. The overall objective of the PfPP programme was to test whether closer working between different central government departments and local places can bring measurable benefits to people who live there.

Local background – Southwark

The WeWalworth project was designed to build a new model of deep community engagement drawing on approaches to bring the community, Southwark Council, and local VCS organisations together to support residents during COVID-19 and tackle food insecurity. The project had 3 primary aims:

• To develop new models of collaboration between local government, central government and the local community.
• To build resilience and increase social capital amongst the Walworth community, building understanding of the role of social capital in social change amongst central and local government. This was intended to increase trust and belonging and a sense of connection amongst the local community, as well as empowering residents to access services or networks.
• To develop new initiatives around food security, and build resident engagement in local policies that address food insecurity.

WeWalworth was initially focused on 3 hyper-local areas, although this was extended to the wider Walworth area during the life of the project.^{[footnote 1]} The approach involved 3 stages:

• Mass engagement: with a goal of speaking to 80% of the neighbourhood (4,240 of the 5,300 usual residents contacted in the initial target LSOAs), animating the community and the institutions which provide community structure. This took place through Neighbourhood Welcome events bringing people together to share food, learn about and practice an engagement technique; activation sessions that further engaged Neighbourhood Welcome attendees who were interested in getting more involved and receiving training on another engagement method; and one-to-ones with earlier event attendees to gauge interest in joining a more intensive phase of the programme.

• Working Group Challenge: focused on a specific food-related issue identified through the mass engagement process. Each Working Group spent 8 to 10 weeks understanding local perspectives and generating ideas to take to decision-makers at Southwark Council. This included further community engagement, creation sessions to develop a pitch to the community, sharing this at a local Ward Forum and presenting final ideas to decision-makers. Working groups contained a cross-section of individuals (central/local government, local residents and stakeholders) and were based in the neighbourhood at the Walworth Living Room.

• Implementation and stewardship: a smaller set of Working Group members took forward ideas by testing elements of the vision through implementation in the neighbourhood, in collaboration with local decision-makers.

Central government involvement

The WeWalworth team intended to bring central government into the project through part-time secondments, with civil servants based in the Walworth Living Room for an extended length of time. This was an option initially explored with central government departments in the early stages of scoping. However, this was not possible due to the extent of the time commitment required from civil servants to physically relocate to Walworth. The project faced several associated challenges engaging central government civil servants including perceptions of:

• Cultural barriers. The project team felt some central government civil servants saw local activities as outside of their policy work. Instead, they suggested that project participation was seen as volunteering or a learning and development opportunity to build their wider skill sets, rather than tasks that could benefit civil servants’ day-to-day roles.

• Social capital models as unfamiliar. The project team described how central government officials were often unaware of social capital models which do not fit neatly into policy areas. They felt this lack of familiarity combined with discomfort in more emergent ways of working made it more difficult to bring civil servants onboard with the project.

• Lack of time and resources combined with competing priorities and a high barrier to engagement, particularly amongst more senior civil servants.

In response, the Working Group model provided a lighter touch (compared with a secondment) but structured development opportunity for civil servants to learn more about a place and how to engage local communities. This was seen as helping to build engagement, especially where senior civil servants encouraged participation. In total, 7 central government officials participated in Southwark’s working groups. Members of the Working Group also presented during the DLUHC Development Week to raise awareness of the project and share reflections from their involvement.

Delivery plans	Meetings	Visits	Involvement in delivery
DLUHC, DWP, DCMS, DHSC, NHSE, Defra, Cabinet Office were listed in WeWalworth’s initial delivery plan as departments with a potential interest in food insecurity or models of social capital.	Policy Lab, DHSC and DWP were involved in ad hoc meetings with the project team.	Policy Lab, HMT, DWP, DHSC, DLUHC, DCMS, Defra attended visits to the project including attending Neighbourhood Welcome events, and a central government Welcome event in June 2022 followed by a PfPP Place Board meeting held at the Walworth Living Room.	DLUHC, DCMS and DIT civil servants participated in the two Working Groups.

What was delivered?

The project has co-created an approach to community engagement. This involves bringing together a diverse group of residents, local businesses, housing associations, representatives from Southwark Council and central government to understand a local issue and develop solutions to take to decision-makers.

Two Working Groups were delivered, focused on outdoor eating in Burgess Park and creating a collective vision for East Street Market. The groups brought together 38 people in total including 12 residents, 2 Southwark councillors, 10 Southwark Council staff, 5 local organisations, 2 East Street Market traders and 7 central government representatives from DLUHC, DIT and DCMS.

Full delivery of the collective visions developed by the two Working Groups will take longer to fully realise, making it difficult to assess the impact on Burgess Park or East Street Market at this stage. However, the local evaluation has found that participation had positive benefits for those involved. For example, the evaluation found that participation in the groups resulted in “increased enthusiasm and confidence that iterative, bottom-up and relational ways of working could deliver new initiatives around food security.”^{[footnote 2]}

Over 1,000 in-person conversations about food and inequality took place in Southwark through Neighbourhood Welcome events and the Working Group challenges. This is 24% of the total number of conversations the project aimed to achieve (4,240). 112 residents engaged in the project more intensively through mass engagement activities, which the project team hoped would result in increased social capital.

The project documented their progress through an online learning log, providing a resource to share insights from their work with a wider audience. The project also commissioned an external evaluation which involved interviews with 79 people, collating survey responses from 109 individuals and 18 observation sessions at Working Group meetings, ward forums and Walworth Living Room.

Local communities Residents involved in the project described increased confidence through participation in the Working Groups, greater engagement with the community and increased understanding of how to reach local decision-makers. For example, activities such as facilitated learning opportunities, experiences speaking to community members through engagement events and listening to each other helped to build confidence and enthusiasm. The local evaluation report suggests residents valued how the first Working Group was structured to encourage members to share information and give local people a voice. Working Group members appreciated the opportunity to gather and share community priorities to potentially influence decision-making. However, residents noted that building trust in government is a long-term process that requires sustained engagement.

---

Delivery partners & local government

WeWalworth enabled a new partnership approach to delivery. This was based on a process of iterative learning and comfort with defining outcomes throughout the project, rather than working towards pre-defined goals. While this new way of working brought some discomfort, it has also helped to focus on local needs. Council staff attended Neighbourhood Welcome events, took part in the Working Group and supported the project with ad hoc tasks through a ‘change makers’ programme. However, the local evaluation found the identity of Pembroke House as an intermediary between local communities and the council created complications for Pembroke House.

The local evaluation report suggests that stronger networks that cut across groups and communities were developed throughout the project, although the sustainability of these relationships was unclear. The report also highlighted how some social infrastructure providers in Walworth that were less involved in the project described a lack of clarity about how local networks and the wider community were expected to feed into the work. They noted a need for better coordination across groups, a clearer long-term vision for relationship building and more frequent project updates.

Local activities sharing insights from the project resulted in the project team accessing additional funding for a third Working Group Challenge focused on building capacity amongst local communities.

---

Central government

The central government representatives involved in the Working Groups gained new experiences through participating in WeWalworth. They emphasised learning related to models of community engagement, the value of social capital and a greater understanding of the diversity of residents’ needs in Southwark. The local evaluation also found that central and local government officers who responded to an online survey showed an increase in knowledge about the challenges facing communities in Walworth compared to the baseline research. There was a perception this could be applied to future policy making, challenging individuals to think about engaging a wider range of views or not overly relying on a small number of representative groups to inform policy.

It builds trust both ways, so it probably builds trust from local people for local authorities and central government. It builds local authority trust for central government, but it also builds the other way. It’s a lot easier to be sceptical of whoever the end users are, the local people I’m doing policy for, or not understand them if I haven’t met them.

[Central government partner]

However, the local evaluation found that central and local government officers who completed an online survey were doubtful that the project would change the way their department or organisation works, referring to resistance to change, limited support from senior staff and resource constraints.

Snapshot: Breakeven analysis

Breakeven analysis provides an estimate of the level of change in outcomes that would be necessary for the pilot’s benefits to meet costs. Where there is an absence of medium- or long-term person-level outcomes data, a breakeven analysis can provide an indication of how many beneficiaries would need to achieve specific outcomes for the programme to achieve a net positive economic value. Breakeven analysis has been completed on outcomes identified in each pilot’s Theory of Change, for which monetisable benefits could be estimated through the Understanding Society Survey.^{[footnote 3]}

Based on the evidence available to date, it appears unlikely that the WeWalworth project will have achieved breakeven in terms of person-level outcomes. This breakeven does not account for intended outcomes which could not be monetised including outcomes related to improved understanding among central and local government staff of neighbourhood working, inner city diverse neighbourhoods, and how social capital supports neighbourhoods. WeWalworth’s key objectives are part of a longer-term vision to improve trust and belonging in neighbourhood among residents which are not yet captured by the time this analysis was conducted.

The pilot initially targeted a small area of Walworth within central Southwark made up of 3 target LSOAs with a population of 5,300 residents. This area was selected as a place of high-income inequality and rapid redevelopment that surrounds the Walworth Livingroom, where the WeWalworth project is based.^{[footnote 4]} Through a new model of community engagement, activities aimed to result in local communities having stronger community networks and increased knowledge about local support. As set out in the WeWalworth Theory of Change, the long-term outcomes for residents aimed to increase social capital across the community. This includes increased trust in government, an improved sense of connection, trust and belonging, influence and control amongst participants from the local community and a greater use of social infrastructure by residents. The extent to which the above outcomes are associated with marginal changes in life satisfaction was explored through statistical analysis of the Understanding Society survey.

In consultation with the WeWalworth pilot team, the following outcomes from Understanding Society were utilised within the breakeven analysis.^{[footnote 5]} These align with specific person-level outcomes specified in the WeWalworth Theory of Change, as highlighted below.

Outcomes specified in WeWalworth Theory of Change	Outcomes used in breakeven analysis
Local communities have strong community networks and increased knowledge about local support	Reduced loneliness
There is an improved sense of connection, trust and belonging, influence and control amongst participants from the local community	Perceptions of living in a good neighbourhood; Feeling belonging to neighbourhood; Talking to neighbours regularly

The outcomes targeted by WeWalworth were used in a breakeven calculator to estimate the number of beneficiaries that would need to be impacted by the pilot to break even (with a range presented between the highest and lowest number of people that would need to benefit from the pilot outcomes to breakeven). The analysis accounts only for outcomes to beneficiaries or participants. The analysis does not account for wider impacts.

The breakeven analysis provides an upper and lower bound range which accounts for some of the uncertainties inherent in predicting social value improvements for these outcomes, which can be calculated without direct primary data collection (out of scope of the evaluation). The table below displays the results of this breakeven analysis for the WeWalworth project.

Outcome	Good neighbourhood	Loneliness	Feel belonging to neighbourhood	Talks to neighbours regularly	Range
Value Per Beneficiary	£3,754	£3,287	£2,313	£1,849	£1,849-£3,754
Number of Beneficiaries to Breakeven	109	125	178	222	109-222

The breakeven analysis highlights that for the social welfare benefits of the WeWalworth pilot to offset its cost, between 109 and 222 residents need to realise at least one outcome in scope.^{[footnote 6]} The estimated range accounts for the difference between highest and lowest values assigned to each outcome. For example, perceptions of living in a good neighbourhood has an associated value of £3,754. Should this outcome be realised for 109 residents, the total benefits would equal the cost of the programme. This presents the lowest number of beneficiaries required to achieve breakeven and the outcome with the highest assigned value. Likewise, to ‘talk to neighbours regularly’ has an associated value of £1,849. If 222 residents report increased wellbeing associated with ‘talking to neighbours regularly’, the total benefits would equal the cost of the programme. This presents the highest number of beneficiaries required to achieve breakeven and the outcome with the lowest assigned value.

Based on the evidence reviewed so far, it appears unlikely that the WeWalworth project will have achieved breakeven in terms of person-level outcomes. For breakeven to be achieved, all 112 participants who engaged more intensively through Neighbourhood Welcome events and Working Group challenges will have to report at least one outcome in scope and attribute this to their involvement with WeWalworth. As an example, this means all 112 participants will need to agree they live in a good neighbourhood or talk to neighbours regularly because of taking part in WeWalworth activities.

Without a commitment from Southwark Council to take forward the ideas generated by the first Working Group, we can only associate outcomes to participation from attendance at in-person events. There is limited data captured so far on the extent and duration of resident engagement. Findings from the internal evaluation highlighted that it was difficult to determine the impact of events on the wider community, with community stakeholders acknowledging that changing perceptions and trust in the community is a long-term process.^{[footnote 7]} The report highlighted that while events were helpful in bringing people together and allowing residents to exchange views, there was no longer-term vision for this relationship building.

Note that the application of the breakeven calculator to a full business case would require data to be collected that evidences the number of beneficiaries who experienced these outcomes, either through primary surveys (e.g. by replicating the Understanding Society or Community Life survey question on which this analysis was based in a survey on the target population) or administrative data (e.g. administrative records of the number of residents who take part in financial education activities provided by Southwark Council).^{[footnote 8]}

1. The project initially planned to focus on 3 Lower Layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs): Southwark15 A, B and D. ↩

2. WeWalworth (2023). BBQs Working Group case study. Accessed 4 August 2023. ↩

3. Following the methodology set out in HMTs supplementary Green Book guidance for wellbeing appraisal, changes in reported life satisfaction can be used to monetise the social welfare implications of a policy. ↩

4. Baseline analysis of Understanding Society (wave 12) data shows that the mean reported life satisfaction score in Southwark had a value of 8.00 (when converted to an 11-point scale, uprated from 5.30 on a 7-point scale). This is higher than the national average of 5.22 and may reflect the diversity of the Southwark population. ↩

5. Baseline analysis of Understanding Society wave 12 data shows that the mean reported life satisfaction score in Liverpool had a value of 7.42 (when converted to an 11-point scale, uprated from 4.72 on a 7-point scale). This is lower than the national average of 8.20 (5.22 on a 7-point scale). ↩

6. The breakeven total cost of the WeWalworth PfPP programme in Southwark was £410,729, which was covered by £335,000 in direct funding and administrative costs of £75,729. ↩

7. Social Life (2023). WeWalworth evaluation – Building the evidence base for a new way of working across central and local government and local communities. ↩

8. It may also be possible to assess the wellbeing impacts of the programme through primary survey collection of life satisfaction questions. However, because this requires direct evidence through primary data collection before and after (outside of the scope of this evaluation), we do not provide breakeven analysis in the main body of this report. If it were possible to evidence how an intervention led to an improvement in life satisfaction (through direct primary survey questions compared to baseline levels of life satisfaction, recall 8.00 when converted to the 11-point scale) then a 1-point improvement in life satisfaction among 45 beneficiaries would lead to a breakeven in costs. Note the analyst should take care to ensure that the measure of life satisfaction refers to an 11-point scale, following the guidance set out in the Green Book Supplementary Guidance (2021). ↩