Rapid evidence review of community initiatives

Question 1

Executive summary

Accepted Answer

Objectives of this report

Levelling up is a core priority for the UK government. The recently published white paper Levelling Up the United Kingdom, defines it as “…giving everyone the opportunity to flourish. It means people everywhere are living longer and more fulfilling lives, and benefitting from sustained rises in living standards and well-being” (HM government, 2022, p1).

To drive towards these aims, several factors need to come together. These include six types of capital, as identified by HM government (2022): physical capital, human capital, financial capital, social capital, intangible capital and institutional capital. Existing evidence suggests that where these forms of capital and wider factors, including community infrastructure (a certain type of physical capital), come together, there can be a virtuous cycle of positive outcomes (HM government, 2022).

A preliminary assessment of the available evidence revealed that the definitions of the particular factors that enable communities to thrive are not consistent across studies, especially in relation to community infrastructure and social capital. There is also much still to be understood about how community initiatives can deliver community infrastructure effectively and enhance social capital.

Government is therefore interested in understanding the state of the current evidence base on these issues and where there are gaps or limitations in what is currently known. To build this understanding, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) jointly commissioned this study.

The objectives of this study are:

To explore the definitions and concepts of community infrastructure and social capital to help government determine how and when to use different terminology.
To understand the strength and breadth of the evidence base about what works to deliver successful community (including community-led) initiatives to improve local community infrastructure and social capital.
To understand what could be considered “success” in community-led infrastructure initiatives and how government can deliver value-for-money interventions in this space. This includes the outcomes that could be considered success and the inputs that determine success.
To understand the strength of evidence on these issues, and identify gaps and how they could be filled.

Approach

This rapid evidence review was undertaken over a period of three months. Every effort was made to align with best-practice approaches to reviewing the evidence. A pragmatic approach to include additional relevant material was also applied, given the fragmented nature of the evidence and the breadth of terminology used in this space.

In total, more than 200 items of relevant evidence were identified, with over 100 shortlisted for more detailed review and synthesis. Evidence was shortlisted where it was assessed to be relevant for the objectives of this rapid review. The assessment of the quality of the shortlisted evidence reflected the robustness and transparency of the methods used by the authors. The strength of the evidence was assessed on both the quality of the research and the quantity of the research to identify where evidence for specific findings was strong, medium or limited.

The headline findings are below, with more detail in the main report.

Findings from the rapid evidence review

Factors that enable communities to thrive

For communities to thrive and unlock their potential, there is strong evidence that many factors need to work together simultaneously (e.g. Slocock, 2018). Some of these are shown in Figure 1 below. If any factor is missing or inadequate, this can constrain a community’s economic and social potential and its resilience. The factors include six different types of capital as identified in the government’s Levelling Up White Paper (HM Government, 2022), and these support thriving communities when they have certain characteristics, such as physical capital being inclusive (Yarker, 2019) and accessible (Tulloch, 2016). These characteristics are considered in more depth in chapters 4 and 5.

Figure 1: Factors enabling communities to thrive

Source: Frontier Economics; six types of capital from Levelling Up the United Kingdom, HM Government (2022)

Core definitions

There are many definitions used in published evidence relating to the concept of social infrastructure, with some studies including occupants and organisers for places and spaces and some including public services. This rapid review therefore adopts a specific definition for community infrastructure which is more narrowly defined and with a clear focus. The transparency over what is being referred to when the term “community infrastructure” is used is important.

For the purposes of this review, community infrastructure is defined^{[footnote 1]} as the physical infrastructure within the community (including places, spaces and facilities) that supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships, either:

Directly: through how the physical infrastructure is purposefully used for bringing people together (for example, a green space or building where people and groups can meet for the purpose of participating in activities with other people from the community); or
Indirectly: by providing the infrastructure to enable individuals within a community to connect together. This includes physical connections (such as transport links) or complementary virtual connections (such as communication or digital technology that supports the physical meeting of people).

Typical examples of community infrastructure include sports facilities, libraries, some eating establishments, some places of worship (for example, if they have a community hall), gardens and parks. Some community infrastructure can be purpose built or can be a re-deployment of infrastructure delivered for another purpose. Some examples of community infrastructure are given below. This is not an exhaustive list but is intended to illustrate some of the different uses of community infrastructure.

The evidence suggests that core to identifying whether infrastructure is “community infrastructure” is how it is used (for example, Sinclair, 2019; Slocock, 2018). Section 3.1.2 discusses different examples. A common aspect of community infrastructure found across the literature is that it is often used for more than one purpose (for example, Archer et al., 2019; Henderson et al., 2018; Parsfield, 2015; What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2018; South et al, 2021).

The definitions of social capital tend to be less diverse in the published evidence and, a commonly cited definition is from Putnam (1995):

…social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.

– (Putnam, 1995, p66)

Factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure

There is strong evidence that community infrastructure is a necessary but not sufficient factor for thriving communities, as it provides a place in/at which people can meet and, in some cases, it can be a focal point of the local area. For this infrastructure to support the community effectively, it needs to be utilised for purposes that facilitate community networks and interactions (i.e. to provide opportunities for bridging, bonding and linking groups of people), often led by activity organisers or community-based institutions.

Medium to strong evidence suggests that the factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure include:

responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the infrastructure being designated to people with the right skills, including paid staff and volunteers (charismatic local leaders can play an important role in enabling success)
responsibility for taking a longer-term view of the infrastructure being designated to an appropriately skilled and committed person. This includes developing and working towards the longer-term vision, securing funding/income streams, succession planning and working to ensure longevity of the community infrastructure (financially and as a focus for the community)
accessibility, visibility, safety and inclusivity of the infrastructure itself and the activities within it
local empowerment engendered through effective partnerships involving local partners and local authorities, and co-production of projects where feasible.

A summary of the evidence and its relative strength is given in the following table.

Common factors for effective community infrastructure	Evidence rating	Scheme-specific factors for effective community infrastructure	Evidence rating
People with the necessary skills (including those paid to be responsible for the infrastructure and volunteers).	Strong	A lack of consideration of the time and resource commitment of projects	Limited
Charismatic leaders to create and drive forward a vision for community infrastructure, and to encourage interactions between different groups	Medium	Awareness of the opportunities at local infrastructure	Limited
Accessibility and location of infrastructure	Medium	Over-optimistic risk appraisal leading to initiatives being cancelled	Limited
Ability to generate income	Medium	The quality of data and analytical input	Limited
Stability and horizon of external funding such as grants, loans, and investments, which support initial investment and ongoing repair and maintenance	Medium	Professional marketing and an online presence to attract new users	Limited
Effectiveness of engagement with local community	Strong	New forms of ownership facilitating additional funding or better financial terms	Limited
Local government partnerships to support the delivery of projects	Strong	Cross-government department split of responsibilities resulting in an unclear policy framework	Limited
Local non-government partnerships to create new opportunities and receive advice	Medium
Utilised purposefully and over a sustained period to bring people from the community together	Medium
Legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks can appropriately empower local communities	Limited
External advice and advisory support to navigate complex matters such as technical regulation and processes	Limited
Strategic planning for the longer term, including appropriate targets and timeframes, and sustained funding or income	Medium
Professionalism and expertise of board members and paid staff	Strong
Continued investment in physical infrastructure	Limited

Understanding the factors relevant to enhance social capital requires careful attention to the type of social capital. For example, factors which bolster only “bonding” social capital (interactions within_ groups or networks) could in some cases act as a barrier to “bridging” social capital (interactions across groups or networks) if they lead to non-inclusive behaviours or perceptions. It is important to establish and maintain awareness of opportunities to connect with other people locally, whether through social prescribing, local leaders, digital networks or by using venues for multiple purposes.

Medium to strong evidence suggests that the factors common to community initiatives that enhance social capital include:

Community infrastructure which fosters social interactions between visitors and
Community infrastructure which is inclusive.

A summary of the evidence and its relative strength is given below.

Common factors for enhancing social capital	Evidence rating	Scheme-specific factors for enhancing social capital	Evidence rating
Community infrastructure which fosters social interactions between visitors	Strong	Subsidising the cost of using community infrastructure to boost participation	Limited
Appropriate choice of venue for a given activity to boost participation	Limited
Inclusivity of community infrastructure	Medium
Social prescribers can remove barriers which stop patients from participation	Limited
Designated managers can facilitate interactions between different members of the community	Limited

Outcomes when community initiatives are effective

Where initiatives deliver effective community infrastructure and enhance social capital, there are a range of positive outcomes including economic, health, social and civic outcomes. There is medium evidence that likely outcomes include, from an economic perspective, employment opportunities, skills development, economic output (gross domestic product (GDP)) and, potentially, savings in public spending. Health outcomes can include improved mortality rates, improved health-related quality of life and health-related behaviour (such as reducing smoking). Social outcomes include community resilience, improved wellbeing and reduced loneliness and crime. Finally, civic outcomes include social cohesion, social inclusion and a greater sense of belonging, ownership and pride.

The potential outcomes are summarised below. Economic, health, social and civic outcomes have medium evidence, while there is limited evidence for some unintended outcomes.

State of the evidence and research priorities

The findings are highlighted in this rapid evidence review as a synthesis of existing evidence. They also identify where there are limitations and gaps in what is currently published. What is clear is that local context is important and that communities differ significantly, and therefore there is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, the evidence of these local contextual characteristics is currently lacking.

The most notable gap in the evidence relates to robust evaluation of the outcomes of community initiatives, and how the initiatives were selected, what local need they were meeting, how financially sustainable they were and, importantly, what would have happened without them. To address this, robust evidence which considers what would be expected without the community infrastructure intervention (i.e. the counterfactual) would help with understanding the extent to which outcomes can be attributed to the community initiative, and the particular conditions under which this is more likely.

Further research to address the gaps and limitations in the evidence identified in this rapid review would also be helpful. These include suggested priorities such as:

Placed-based evaluation to understand the local (and wider) impacts of community infrastructure, including process evaluation to enable learning about governance and funding structures.
Process evaluation to determine the actions and factors that enhance the financial sustainability of community infrastructure, including options for income generation.
Fieldwork to understand how community members in different groups experience community infrastructure (to understand the barriers and enablers of utilisation, and barriers and enablers of enhancing bonding and bridging social capital) and how best to enhance the inclusivity of community initiatives.
Process evaluation to understand the partnerships that bolster the effectiveness of the planning, delivery and operation of community infrastructure, with a particular focus on the roles that local authorities and central government could play.
Impact evaluation to understand the channels through which community infrastructure and social capital can deliver outcomes for the community and more widely, with a particular focus on economic, social and resilience outcomes.

Question 2

1.  Introduction

Accepted Answer

This chapter provides the context for this rapid evidence review and outlines the approach taken and the structure of this report.

1.1 Context

Levelling up is a core priority for the UK government. The recently published white paper Levelling Up the United Kingdom (HM Government, 2022), defines it as “…giving everyone the opportunity to flourish. It means people everywhere are living longer and more fulfilling lives, and benefitting from sustained rises in living standards and well-being” (HM Government, 2022, p1).

To drive towards these aims, several factors need to come together. These include six types of capital, as identified by HM Government (2022): physical capital, human capital, financial capital, social capital, intangible capital and institutional capital. Existing evidence suggests that where these forms of capital come together, including community infrastructure, which is an example of physical capital, there is a virtuous cycle such that positive outcomes increase the likelihood of further positive outcomes (HM Government, 2022).

A preliminary assessment of the available evidence revealed that the definitions of the particular factors that enable communities to thrive are not consistent across studies, especially in relation to community infrastructure and social capital. There is also much still to be understood about how community initiatives can deliver community infrastructure effectively and enhance social capital.

Government is therefore interested in understanding the state of the current evidence base on these issues and where there are gaps or limitations in what is currently known. To build this understanding, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) jointly commissioned this study.

The objectives of this study are:

To explore the definitions and concepts of social infrastructure and social capital to help government determine how and when to use different terminology.
To understand the strength and breadth of the evidence base about what works to deliver successful community (including community-led) initiatives to improve local social infrastructure and social capital.
To understand what could be considered “success” in community-led infrastructure initiatives and how government can deliver value-for-money interventions in this space. This includes the outcomes that could be considered success and the inputs that determine success.
To understand the strength of evidence on these issues and identify gaps and how they could be filled.

1.2 Approach

A rapid evidence assessment (REA) was selected as the evidence review methodology, as the time available for this study was less than three months. This REA was undertaken in line with best-practice guidance published by the government (Collins et al., 2015).

The first decision was to define the scope of the work. Through collaboratively working on the scope with DCMS and DLUHC, it was agreed that, for the purposes of this evidence review, the direct provision of public services (such as health, education) would not be within scope. Infrastructure whose primary purpose is to deliver those public services but which is also used for another purpose as community infrastructure to bolster social capital would, however, be in scope.

The stages of the approach are shown below.

Figure 2 Five-stage approach

Source: Frontier Economics

For stage 1 of this approach, the governance and collaborations were swiftly identified and a Steering Group comprising members from DCMS and DLUHC, which met (virtually) weekly, was set up. Stage 2 was undertaken over a period of three weeks and resulted in a review protocol that was discussed and agreed with the Steering Group. This was important as it confirmed the scope, approach and actions to fulfil the remaining stages of our approach.

For stage 3, the operationalisation of the search strategy recognised the fragmented nature of the evidence, and therefore involved two steps: firstly, talking to eminent academics and experts in this field to seek their guidance on navigating the evidence base; and, secondly, developing a longlist of search terms, and rapidly narrowing the search to the most relevant for this study.

Snowballing was applied to expand the search where appropriate. Further details are provided in Annex A.2.

A longlist of search terms, consistent with the aims of the rapid evidence review, was generated. The evidence base included academic literature from credible databases such as Google, Google Scholar and JSTOR, alongside grey literature including reports and documents published by DCMS, DLUHC and other organisations active in these areas, such as the Bennett Institute, Onward and Local Trust. No date range was set so as not to constrain the evidence, but most of the shortlisted papers are from the most recent 10-15 years. Older papers were included where the findings continue to be relevant and where a robust methodology had been used.

All longlisted documents were screened for their relevance, based on their abstracts and conclusions, and their robustness, based on the method adopted. More detail on how robustness, or “high-quality” evidence, was identified is described in the following section. Studies did not need to be of high quality to be included but it was important to understand both the quality and quantity of the evidence to assess the strength of the evidence base.

Stage 4 involved the detailed review of all shortlisted papers. These shortlisted papers are provided in the bibliography in Annex A.4. Stage 5 outputs were generated in the form of this report.

1.2.1 Assessing the strength of the evidence

The strength of the evidence was assessed on both on the quality of the research and the quantity of the research to identify where evidence for specific findings was strong, medium or limited. This was done in line with the Department for International Development’s (2014) “Assessing the Strength of Evidence” framework. Very strong evidence indicates both high quality and a large quantity; strong evidence indicates high quality and a medium to large quantity; medium evidence indicates moderate-quality evidence and a medium quantity; and limited evidence indicates moderate-to-low quality studies and a medium quantity. This is set out in the following table and the full framework is set out in Annex A.3.

Table 2

Categories of evidence	Quality, size, consistency, context
Very strong	High-quality body of evidence, large in size, consistent and contextually relevant.
Strong	High-quality body of evidence, large or medium in size, highly or moderately consistent and contextually relevant
Medium	Moderate quality studies, medium-size evidence body, moderate level of consistency. Studies may or may not be contextually relevant
Limited	Moderate-to-low quality studies, medium-size evidence body, low levels of consistency. Studies may or may not be contextually relevant
No evidence	No/few studies exist

Source: Department for International Development (2014), Assessing the Strength of Evidence, How to Note

Evidence ranged from being entirely theory based to vignettes and observations, to robust evaluation which sought to assess the outcomes of community-led interventions relative to what would have been anticipated absent the intervention. The quality of evidence was not straightforward to discern for every paper or had not been published. In such cases, a pragmatic and transparent approach was applied, indicating the extent to which the evidence can be considered credible. This was based on the method used in the study; the sample sizes used to generate evidence; the period over which evidence was collected; the extent to which outcomes assessed were considered relative to what would have happened without the intervention (or before implementation); and the extent of transparency in the approach, contextual factors and findings.

High-quality, robust quantitative evidence is studies that are able to meet at least level 3 on the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (the recognised benchmark for evidence quality).

1.3 Structure of this report

The rest of the report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 focuses on the factors necessary for communities to thrive
Chapter 3 defines community infrastructure and social capital
Chapter 4 describes the factors needed to deliver effective community infrastructure
Chapter 5 describes the factors needed along with community infrastructure to enhance social capital
Chapter 6 presents the outcomes that effective community infrastructure and enhanced social capital can lead to
Chapter 7 describes the overall state of the evidence and recommended research priorities to fill evidence gaps
Chapter 8 concludes

The annexes provide a glossary of commonly used terms, details on the review protocol, the strength of evidence framework and a bibliography for all shortlisted papers reviewed in detail for this work.

Question 3

2.  Factors necessary for thriving communities

Accepted Answer

This chapter explores what the evidence says about the factors that are common to thriving communities. The outcomes that could emerge are considered in chapter 6.

Key findings from this chapter are summarised in the box below.

Summary

For communities to thrive and unlock their potential, there is strong evidence that many factors need to work together simultaneously (e.g. Slocock, 2018).
If any factor is missing or inadequate, this can constrain a community’s economic and social potential, and its resilience.

2.1 What do we mean by thriving communities?

To thrive means to grow and be successful: to prosper and to flourish.^{[footnote 2]} In the context of communities, where they are considered to be thriving, one would expect to observe a number of outcomes. These could relate to economic outcomes (such as employment, skills, innovation); social outcomes (such as wellbeing); health outcomes (such as mortality) or civic outcomes (such as social cohesion) (What Works Centre for Wellbeing and Happy City, 2019).

Thriving communities are also likely to be resilient communities (South et al., 2018; The British Academy, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of resilience in communities to deal with challenges and unexpected change and has brought attention to the role that community infrastructure plays in bringing people together (Kelsey, 2021; Wilson et al., 2020).

The evidence on these outcomes, including community resilience, is discussed in chapter 6. The rest of this chapter considers the factors that create the conditions for communities to thrive.

2.2 Factors that together unlock thriving communities

Strong evidence demonstrates that, for communities to thrive and unlock their potential, there are many factors that need to work together simultaneously (Slocock, 2018). Where one or more factors fall short, this could hold back the community’s potential. This suggests that for a community to thrive, a holistic community-wide perspective is needed.

Figure 3: Factors for thriving communities

Source: Frontier Economics; six capitals framework from Levelling Up the United Kingdom, HM Government (2022)

Factors that need to come together include the six types of capital identified in the Levelling Up White Paper (HM Government, 2022). These are not the only factors but they are commonly identified across the literature. Figure 3 shows how these types of capital are centred around people: people are at the heart of a thriving community. However, exactly what the people in the community care about and need is likely to differ across areas and communities, so what works for one community may not work for another. Context-specific factors are therefore vital to consider.

For the types of capital to be effective in unlocking people’s potential to build thriving communities, there are certain characteristics that need to be present. Commonly referenced characteristics include:

Shared norms and values (Coyle et al., 2019);
Public services which support people, aligned to the capitals of the community (Sinclair, 2019);
Time offered by volunteers (MacMillan, 2020);
A long-term viewpoint so that the community is sustained (Gregory, 2018);
Continued accessibility of places and spaces (Tulloch, 2016); and
Inclusivity (Yarker, 2019).

For instance, there is medium evidence showing that shared priorities and norms are important for unifying communities. An example of this is the response to COVID-19 in which a single issue can unify many groups (Frontier Economics et al., 2020; McCabe et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2020).

The evidence base uses different terminology for the forms of capital and their characteristics which help communities to thrive. Figure 3 and the above list are intended to provide a general synthesis of the evidence base.

All the factors shown in Figure 3 and listed above interact (Slocock, 2018). Therefore, a lack of one or more of these factors could cause a “vicious spiral” such that outcomes that once benefitted the community gradually start to dissipate, whereas sufficient presence of all factors can cause a “cycle of strength” (HM Government, 2022). Furthermore, the factors need to be sustained over time to facilitate longevity in community outcomes. A challenge often referred to in the evidence is that of inadequate financial capital brought about through funding cuts, for example. Such declines in funding can lead to degradation of physical capital (CRESR, 2010; Mayor of London, 2020; Morrison et al., 2020b) and a decrease in voluntary sector infrastructure (McCabe et al., 2021). In such cases, the likelihood of a vicious spiral increases.

Of the types of capital shown in Figure 3 and listed above, DCMS and DLUHC have a particular interest in understanding how community initiatives can best deliver community infrastructure and enhance social capital. These are discussed in more detail in the next chapters.

Question 4

3.  Defining community infrastructure and social capital

Accepted Answer

Chapter 2 demonstrated that community infrastructure and social capital are necessary for thriving communities. These are not the only factors needed but this report focuses on these two aspects.

This chapter focuses on what the evidence suggests are appropriate definitions for community infrastructure and social capital.

The glossary in Annex A.1 identifies other terms which are common in the literature.

Findings from this chapter are summarised in the box below.

Summary

The definitions of social infrastructure and social capital vary across the evidence base.
There is strong evidence that, for community infrastructure to support the community effectively, it needs to be utilised for purposes that facilitate community networks and interactions (i.e. to provide opportunities for bridging, bonding and linking groups of people in communities) (South et al., 2021), often led by activity organisers or community-based institutions that host and provide interaction opportunities.
Some definitions of social infrastructure refer only to the physical capital characteristic of community infrastructure (places, spaces and facilities), whereas others also include the occupants or activity organisers who utilise those places and spaces.
What is clear is that both aspects are necessary to enable social capital formation. What is of importance is transparency over what is being referred to when. For the purposes of this review the term “community infrastructure” is therefore used as it refers to a narrower focus and is defined in this chapter.
The definitions of social capital tend to be less diverse in the evidence and a commonly cited definition is from Putnam (1995).
Community infrastructure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for social capital.

3.1 Defining community infrastructure

There are many definitions used in published evidence relating to the concept of social infrastructure, with some specific examples set out in the following section. This rapid review therefore adopts a specific definition for community infrastructure which is more narrowly defined and with a clear focus.

Some definitions of social infrastructure refer only to the physical capital characteristic (places, spaces and facilities), whereas others also include the occupants or activity organisers who utilise those places and spaces. What is clear is that both aspects are necessary to enable social capital formation.

Additionally, some definitions of social infrastructure include public services but this is not consistent across the evidence base. For instance, public services such as health provision and education are excluded by Frontier Economics (2021) while Mayor of London (2020) analysis includes these public services.

Public services per se are excluded from the definition of community infrastructure in this review because public services have much broader objectives than enhancing social capital. For instance, a school’s main objective is to deliver appropriate education for children and therefore, although parents, carers and others may meet in the process of taking children to and from school, those meetings would be opportunistic. However, if the school were to use its infrastructure to offer services that bring people together (such as hosting dance classes) then, in this sense, the school could be considered community infrastructure.

For the purposes of this review, community infrastructure is defined^{[footnote 3]} as the physical infrastructure within the community (including places, spaces and facilities) that supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships, either:

Directly: through how the physical infrastructure is purposefully used for bringing people together (for example, a green space or building where people and groups can meet for the purpose of participating in activities with other people from the community); or
Indirectly: by providing the infrastructure to enable individuals within a community to connect together. This includes physical connections (such as transport links) or complementary virtual connections (such as communication or digital technology that supports the physical meeting of people).

Typical examples of community infrastructure include sports facilities, libraries, some eating establishments, some places of worship (for example, if they have a community hall), gardens and parks. Some community infrastructure can be purpose built or can be a re-deployment of infrastructure delivered for another purpose. Some examples of community infrastructure are given below. This is not an exhaustive list but is intended to illustrate some of the different uses of community infrastructure.

The evidence suggests that core to identifying whether infrastructure is “community infrastructure” is how it is used (for example, Sinclair, 2019; Slocock, 2018). Section 3.1.2 discusses different examples. A common aspect of community infrastructure found across the literature is that it is often used for more than one purpose (for example, Archer et al., 2019; Henderson et al., 2018; Parsfield, 2015; What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2018; South et al., 2021).

3.1.1 Example definitions from the literature

Definitions of social infrastructure vary across evidence sources. Below are a few example definitions taken directly from the literature:

The physical spaces and community facilities which bring people together to build meaningful relationships.

– (Kelsey and Kenny, 2021)

A range of services and facilities that meet local and strategic needs and contribute towards a good quality of life, facilitating new and supporting existing relationships, encouraging participation and civic action, overcoming barriers and mitigating inequalities, and together contributing to resilient communities.

– (Mayor of London, 2020)

…refers to the range of activities, organisations and facilities supporting the formation, development and maintenance of social relationships in a community… Places can be civic; religious; traditional; digital; private; public; outdoors; routes; occasions; associations.

– (Gregory, 2018)

3.1.2 Types of community infrastructure

There are various forms of community infrastructure that have been implemented across the UK. These include, but are not limited to, sports and fitness facilities, libraries, gardens and parks, cafes, shops, food co-operatives, pubs and youth or social clubs. The list below explores in greater detail common examples from the evidence.

Sports and fitness facilities

Sports and fitness facilities can serve as community infrastructure because sports participation can bring people together, leading to the formation of social networks and therefore enhancing social capital (Davies et al., 2020). To function as community infrastructure, activities need to exist within the facilities that provide an opportunity for members of the community to interact and form networks, perhaps through group classes, team sports and/or other spaces for people to interact; people going to the gym by themselves without interacting with others may not lead to the same outcomes (Fujiwara et al., 2014).

Libraries

Libraries can also act as a space to bring people together by promoting social mixing within, and across, different groups in local communities. This particularly occurs when classes are used to bring people together and where libraries can be used as facilities similar to a youth club (BOP Consulting, 2014).

Gardens and parks

Green spaces such as public parks and community gardens can be used to bring people together and, when used in this way, they function as community infrastructure. The main purpose of a public park is to provide free access to informal recreation and enjoyment, and it can facilitate people meeting and building connections. This definition includes urban parks, country parks, gardens, squares and seaside promenade gardens (Heritage Fund, 2020). Urban green spaces refer to publicly accessible vegetated land connected to built-up areas that may vary in size, vegetation cover, species richness, environmental quality, proximity to public transport, facilities and services (Heritage Fund, 2020). Community gardens differ from allotment gardens because they are created and managed by the community itself (Hancock, 2001).

Community infrastructure that acts as a multi-use gathering space to serve the community and bring people together is often referred to as a community hub. There is no single type of community hub: they take a variety of forms and include different components. Some community hubs are standalone buildings, and some are part of other buildings including schools (Singh and Woodrow, 2010). For example, a sports or fitness facility that includes additional spaces for people to interact can fall under the umbrella term community hub. Similarly, libraries that offer classes in addition to their primary purpose of lending books and encouraging reading can also be considered community hubs.

Social capital is a core factor (shown in Figure 1) for thriving communities.

Although various definitions of social capital are used in the literature, the Putnam (1995) definition is common to most sources. According to Putnam (1995), social capital contains “…features of social organisation such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”(Putnam, 1995). The wider evidence supports this definition and suggests at least three common features of social capital, which are social networks, norms and trust, and personal relationships (Coyle et al., 2019; ONS, 2020; Putnam, 1995; Yarker, 2019).

Trust is discussed in different ways in different studies. For example, some studies suggest that it is a requirement for the formation of social capital and others suggest that it is an outcome of social capital (Woolcock, 2001) . Some studies also suggests that trust can be self-reinforcing over time (Coyle et al., 2019). This highlights the complexity of the issues considered in the rapid evidence review.

Other definitions used in the literature are offered in the next section.

The evidence shows that social capital is not just a single concept. The evidence identifies the following three forms of social capital:

Bonding social capital, which refers to relationships between homogeneous groups within a closed network (Putnam, 1995), for example relationships between family members and close friends (Bertotti et al., 2011).
Bridging social capital, which refers to relationships between heterogeneous groups within an open network (Putnam, 1995) (for example, relationships between groups of people with different ethnic or occupational backgrounds) (Bertotti et al., 2011).
Linking social capital, which refers to relationships between individuals within a community and individuals in a position of power (such as local authorities) to leverage resources, ideas and information (Bertotti et al., 2011 Woolcock, 2001). It is different to bridging social capital because it specifically links to those in positions of responsibility.

Other definitions of social capital identified in the literature are given below:

Social capital is often referred to as the glue that holds societies together. It encompasses personal relationships, civic engagements and social networks. Social capital relates to generalised trust, shared rules, and the social norms and values that shape the ways we behave in everyday relationships and transactions.

– (Coyle et al., 2019)

Social capital is measured through the areas of our personal relationships, social network support, civic engagement, and trust and cooperative norms. It is a term used to describe the extent and nature of our connections with others and the collective attitudes and behaviours between people that support a well-functioning, close-knit society.

– (ONS, 2020)

Social capital refers to the productive benefits of social relations (i.e., social networks, relationships, norms and values). At the individual level it refers to trust in people and personal involvement in other people’s activities.

– (Roskruge et al., 2010)

Social capital is defined as the potential embedded in social relationships that enable residents to coordinate community action to achieve shared goals.

– (Semenza and March, 2009)

Social capital is the sum of potential or actual resources which are embedded in a social network or structure.

– (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998)

Social capital is the strength of communities, relationships and trust.

– (HM Government, 2022)

A key feature of community infrastructure which emerges from the evidence is that it is physical infrastructure which supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships because of how it is used, for example where it is used by organisations or institutions that provide opportunities for people to meet and form networks, organisations and activities (for example, Aldrich and Meyer, 2014; Fujiwara et al., 2014; Mayor of London, 2020). This differentiates community infrastructure from other forms of physical infrastructure where social interaction is unlikely to take place.

Definitions of social infrastructure can be much broader and include public services like health and education. And social infrastructure can refer to the organisers of activities that bring people in a community together.

As discussed in section 3.2, social capital is intangible and generally characterised by trust, social networks and personal relationships. This can then lead to other outcomes and needs to be maintained over time.

Other terms commonly found in the literature and frequently cited initiatives and studies are given in the glossary in Annex A.1. This includes terms such as “social anchor” which are similar but different to community infrastructure, to provide clarity on when which term is appropriate.

Question 5

4.  Delivering community infrastructure

Accepted Answer

Chapter 2 demonstrated that well-utilised community infrastructure provides the opportunity to build and maintain the social networks and relationships that form social capital. Although other factors are also important for social capital to be enhanced over time, this chapter focuses on community infrastructure and explores what the evidence reveals about how it can most effectively be delivered through community initiatives. Evidence from both a system-wide perspective and scheme-specific perspective is discussed, taking account of:

The types of community infrastructure;
Funding models for community infrastructure; and
Governance, management and ownership models for community infrastructure.

Chapter 5 focuses on social capital and synthesises the evidence on how it can most effectively be enhanced through community initiatives. Chapter 6 then summarises the evidence on the potential outcomes when community infrastructure is effectively delivered and social capital is enhanced.

Summary

Common factors for effective community infrastructure	Evidence rating	Scheme-specific factors for effective community infrastructure	Evidence rating
People with the necessary skills (including those paid to be responsible for the infrastructure and volunteers)	Strong	A lack of consideration of the time and resource commitment of projects	Limited
Charismatic leaders to create and drive forward a vision for community infrastructure, and to encourage interactions between different groups	Medium	Awareness of the opportunities at local infrastructure	Limited
Accessibility and location of infrastructure	Medium	Over-optimistic risk appraisal leading to initiatives being cancelled	Limited
Ability to generate income	Medium	The quality of data and analytical input	Limited
Stability and horizon of external funding such as grants, loans, and investments, which support initial investment and ongoing repair and maintenance	Medium	Professional marketing and an online presence to attract new users	Limited
Effectiveness of engagement with local community	Strong	New forms of ownership facilitating additional funding or better financial terms	Limited
Local government partnerships to support the delivery of projects	Strong	Cross-government department split of responsibilities resulting in an unclear policy framework	Limited
Local non-government partnerships to create new opportunities and receive advice	Medium
Utilised purposefully and over a sustained period to bring people from the community together	Medium
Legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks can appropriately empower local communities	Limited
External advice and advisory support to navigate complex matters such as technical regulation and processes	Limited
Strategic planning for the longer term, including appropriate targets and timeframes, and sustained funding or income	Medium
Professionalism and expertise of board members and paid staff	Strong
Investment in physical infrastructure	Limited

4.1 Types of funding models

There are different models and policy levers that can deliver community infrastructure. These can be community led, led by local government, and/or involve central government. Funding models include, but are not limited to, community levies, central government funding, crowd-source funding, community business funds, social investment, local government funding and community shares.

The list below explores some of the funding models for delivering community infrastructure that appear more commonly across sources:

Community levies: the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – a charge which could be levied by local authorities on new developments in their area to collect developer contributions, the distribution of which could then fund community infrastructure (DCLG (now DLUHC), 2017).

Central government funding: several examples of central government funding of programmes in communities include the Communities Fund, the New Deal for Communities and Whole-Place Community Budgets. Details of these are provided in the glossary in Annex A.1. Central government funding can take a variety of forms. For example, a programme to support community pubs provided funding through a combination of loans and grants (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a).

Crowd-source funding: crowdfunding refers to the funding of projects and business ideas through many small contributions from the public and from businesses (Crowdfund London, 2019). This funding mechanism has been used for community-led projects which include community infrastructure. It can help local project creators reach out to local businesses and companies to garner further support (Exeter City Futures, 2018).

Community business funds: these are made available by the third sector to offer to community businesses with the aim of enhancing their growth, sustainability and effectiveness (Renaisi, 2019). Community business funds can take a variety of forms such as loans, grants, equity, matched funding programmes and capital grants. Examples include Local Trust’s Big Local, the Mixed Communities Initiative, the South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme (SYSIP) and the Community Business Renewal Fund by Power to Change. Details of these are provided in the glossary in Annex A.1.

Social investment: refers to a loan or other forms of repayable finance to help community organisations make a positive economic, social or environmental impact in a community, as well as earning income (Local Trust, 2015).

Community shares: these are a funding model via which community members buy shares in enterprises that meet their needs and are managed by the community they serve (McCulloch and Wharton, 2020).

The evidence on the factors relevant for delivering effective community infrastructure in section 4.5 draws on these examples of funding models for community infrastructure.

4.2 Types of governance, management and ownership models

The evidence suggests that there are different governance, management and ownership models that can be associated with the delivery of community infrastructure. These include, but are not limited to, community asset ownership, social enterprises, co-operatives, development trusts, community land trusts and community businesses.

The list below explores some of the types of governance, management and ownership models that appear more prominently across the evidence in the context of delivering community infrastructure:

Community asset ownership: where the long-term ownership rights for large physical infrastructure are held by community or voluntary organisations (such as a development trust, a community interest company or a social enterprise) which operate in the interest of the local community and include local residents in the decision-making body (Archer et al., 2019). The transfer of management and/or ownership of the assets from its owner to a community or voluntary organisation occurs for less than market value to achieve a local social, economic or environmental benefit (Locality, 2018).
Social enterprises: business organisations working with a social mission or in the interest of the community (Locality, 2018). They give high priority to local residents and businesses in the management of the enterprises and delivery of projects (Bailey et al., 2018). These can include community cafes, pubs, shops and youth or social clubs.
Co-operatives: made up of an association of people who together form an organisation known as a co-operative. The organisation is jointly owned and democratically operated. Community co-operatives can focus on a range of initiatives, including food (BMG Research, 2012).
Development trusts: third-sector organisations set up to enable the involvement of the community in the management of community infrastructure (Pill, 2013).
Community land trusts: vehicles for local ownership and control of housing (Archer et al., 2019).
Community businesses: these are united by being locally rooted, serving a common need and being accountable to their community (Richards et al., 2018a).

The evidence on the factors relevant for delivering effective community infrastructure in section 4.5 draws on these examples of governance, management and ownership models for community infrastructure.

4.3 Trends in community infrastructure

Community infrastructure exists in some form in all communities across the UK. It exists in different forms and is highly variable in terms of type, capacity and condition. In recent years, there has been a decrease in funding for, and closure of, civic institutions and community spaces, including libraries. Over a quarter of pubs have closed since 2001, and over a quarter of libraries have closed since 2005 (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2020). However, in recent years there has been an increase in the number of certain types of community infrastructure, as exemplified by community pubs (which increased more than tenfold between 1996 and 2019 (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a)) and community asset ownership (which has seen a marked increase over the last ten years, mostly been driven by non-community hub/hall/centre assets (Archer et al., 2019)).

Although little evidence is currently available on the formation and facilitating factors for digital communities, ^{[footnote 4]} there is an emerging trend for utilising digital communications to enhance connections that take place physically (The British Academy, 2021).

4.4 Factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure: system-wide

The evidence identifies several factors that are important in the context of delivering community infrastructure. Where such factors are common across many different forms of community initiatives, they are discussed below as “system-wide” factors. Where the factors appear to emerge in the evidence as being relevant for specific initiatives or contexts only, they are discussed below as “intervention-specific” factors.

4.4.1 Volunteers

There is strong evidence that volunteers are an enabler of delivering effective community infrastructure (South et al., 2021). The evidence suggests this is true for different types of community infrastructure, different funding mechanisms and different governance models, as explained further below.

The evidence suggests that volunteers are critical for the planning, delivery and operation of many community infrastructure projects across the country (for example, Kotecha et al., 2017; Plunkett Foundation, 2020a; Taylor, 2017). This is the case across many forms of community infrastructure, including places of worship (Taylor, 2017), community pubs (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a), and community sports and leisure community businesses (Richards et al., 2018b).

The value that volunteers provide to community infrastructure takes various forms. They can, for example, support local businesses by working as substitutes for paid staff, as has been the case in several sports and leisure businesses, for example. In one case, the business invested in its volunteers, leading to stronger community engagement and volunteers who are incentivised and want the business to succeed (Richards et al., 2018b).

Volunteers can also support the financial sustainability of effective community infrastructure in other ways. For example, certain types of community infrastructure may require workers with specialist skills which would be expensive if hired from the market. If volunteers with these skills are available, this can considerably reduce costs. For example, the use of volunteer drivers has significantly reduced labour costs in the context of community transport organisations (Kotecha et al., 2017).

Although volunteers can support effective community infrastructure, a lack of volunteers with the required skills can conversely be a constraint (South et al., 2021). A lack of volunteers with the necessary skills has been identified as a barrier for some places of worship, some community hubs (South et al., 2021) and some community transport organisations. A review of English churches and cathedrals illustrated that many areas had limited skilled assistance to support volunteers in sustaining the place of worship with appropriate maintenance and repair and helping communities to make best use of their buildings (Taylor, 2017). With community transport organisations, the combined challenge of finding volunteers and staff with the required skills was among the top barriers to success and growth for their businesses (Kotecha et al., 2017). Furthermore, reliance on volunteers can create challenges where particular time commitments and reliability are required due to the competing priorities facing volunteers in their home or work life (Frontier Economics et al., 2020; South et al., 2021).

Volunteers have enabled many types of effective community infrastructure. Examples include:

A youth house in Stockholm, Fryshuset, which was successful in mobilising voluntary resources because it was perceived as the volunteers’ own organisation (Westlund and Gawell, 2012);
A community café located within an estate in southwest London which contributed to building bridging social capital through the employment of volunteers (Bertotti et al., 2011);
Community-led libraries, which benefit from ongoing or targeted support from local authorities via access to local volunteer networks (SERIO, 2017); and
Community pubs, which volunteers supported with both day-to-day running and “behind the scenes” help (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a).

Volunteers have emerged as a key success factor in the management of co-operatives. The Community Food Co-operative in Wales was funded by the Welsh government and run by volunteers, and for which, on average, over 1,400 people volunteered each week across the nation (BMG Research, 2012). The Food Co-ops and Buying Group project also highlighted the importance of well-trained volunteers and of establishing mechanisms which incentivise their participation (Smith et al., 2012). However, in certain instances, over-reliance on volunteers can pose critical issues for the longer-term sustainability of co-operatives (Smith et al., 2012). For example, the community co-operatives of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland experienced challenges because ageing local populations made it difficult to access volunteers (Gordon, 2002). Although this evidence is 20 years old, it has been included for its focus on community co-operatives and this remains a live issue.

Other governance models reliant on volunteers are community benefit societies and community-owned assets. Examples include:

The Incredible Edible model, a community benefit society in West Yorkshire, used public spaces to grow food for anyone to enjoy. The aim was to enrich communities via access to healthy and sustainable locally grown food while spending time in green spaces. However, it was hard to retain volunteers for long-term sustainability (Morley et al., 2017); and
A review of community-owned assets found that many CAT 1 projects required a sufficient volume of volunteers (CMI and Rocket Science, 2016).

Case study – Volunteers within a community organising programme

In Wick, Littlehampton, a cabinet-funded community organisers’ programme successfully networked with a newly invigorated Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) on the main social housing estate in the area. The volunteers recruited from the community organising programme, members of the TRA and several well-connected people prominent in the Connected Communities social networks formed a successful network which undertook a wide range of successful interventions and initiatives to improve wellbeing and connection in the local area (Parsfield, 2015).

4.4.2 Charismatic leaders

There is medium evidence that charismatic leaders are a factor for effective community infrastructure, for example by bringing different groups in the community together (Bertotti et al., 2011; Gordon, 2002) and by generating and delivering on the vision for the infrastructure itself (Morley et al., 2017).

Charismatic leaders were involved in bringing different groups in the community together at community co-operatives in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland (Gordon, 2002) and at a community café in London (Bertotti et al., 2011), which is discussed in more detail below.

Case study – Charismatic leader at a café

A community café located within an estate in southwest London benefitted from the dynamism and commitment of the manager, who provided a role model for some people. Although at a small scale, the manager was able to create a better balance between bonding and bridging social capital by brokering relationships between different segments of the community. This individual showed dynamism and an in-depth understanding of the experience of local residents, which facilitated the establishment of networks across ethnic groups (Bertotti et al., 2011).

Charismatic leaders can support community infrastructure by generating and delivering on the vision for the infrastructure itself. For example, a community benefit society in West Yorkshire which uses locally grown food to enrich communities was founded by two charismatic local leaders who effectively engaged local people (Morley et al., 2017). In this case, the community benefit society was highly effective, as it was perceived to have supported a transformation of Todmorden, the local town, both economically and by “improving everyday living environments” (Morley et al., 2017).

4.4.3 Accessibility and location

There is medium evidence that the location and accessibility of community infrastructure are important for its effectiveness.

Accessibility emerged as a contributor to the effectiveness of community pubs and community hubs. Community pubs aim to be accessible because they are open to the whole community and they are also open for long hours (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a). Community hubs are more effective when they are accessible to different groups in local communities. This was a particular consideration for the School-Centred Community Hubs programme which was established by the Stronger Families Alliance in disadvantaged areas of the Blue Mountains in New South Wales (Australia). The evaluation of this programme highlighted that, for engagement across the community, it was important to minimise access barriers specifically for vulnerable and marginalised families (Singh and Woodrow, 2010).

The location of community infrastructure can also play an important role in its success. The success of two community hubs in southwest Ontario, for example, was facilitated by their co-location with community partners (Ricardo Ramirez Communication Consulting, 2017). In addition, facilities which are easy to get to were identified as a driver of facility usage in the context of sports facilities in Scotland (Ekos, 2019). It follows therefore that an inconvenient location can hinder the effectiveness of community infrastructure as some people may not be able to get to it. A community hub in Lawrence Weston, Bristol, for example, was not easily accessible for the elderly as it was located on a hill (Sanders, 2018).

4.4.4 Income generation

There is medium evidence that income generation is an important factor for the sustainability of effective community infrastructure.

Community infrastructure can generate income by making the most of revenue opportunities, for example, by renting out space within the venue. Townhill Park Community Centre in Southampton, for example, rents rooms and office space back to the city council to generate income (Gregory, 2018). Community pubs can offer meetings rooms for external hire, and this can provide an additional source of income to boost financial sustainability (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a).

Where income generation is not possible, or opportunities have not been investigated, this could add to the financial strain of repair, maintenance and operation of some types of community infrastructure. Examples include:

Community-led libraries, many of which do not offer services which can generate revenue (SERIO, 2017); and
Publicly owned physical assets used as community infrastructure (such as village halls), which can struggle when they are not used enough to generate income to cover ongoing costs (Locality, 2018).

Different funding models can also face financial sustainability challenges, especially where they only consider upfront investment costs for delivery and not ongoing operation. For example, the New Deal for Communities programme, an initiative funded by central government, was limited by a lack of income generation. The programme was an area-based initiative in 39 deprived neighbourhoods in England. An evaluation highlighted difficulties in maintaining full occupancy rates in new housing developments and rental income was not sufficient to maintain the same scale of activity (Batty et al., 2010).

Crowd-source funding is a funding mechanism which in some cases has been negatively impacted by lack of consideration of income generation. An evaluation of a crowdfund pilot in Exeter found that many community-based project ideas were hindered by limited consideration of long-term financial sustainability once the initial delivery funds were used up (Exeter City Futures, 2018).

Some governance structures, such as development trusts and social enterprises, many of which have benefitted from commercial activity to obtain revenue, appear to have a greater aptitude for income generation, in some cases. The Millfields Community Economic Development Trust, for example, was set up for people to manage the regeneration of the Stonehouse neighbourhood in Plymouth (Locality, 2018). The Trust generated income by developing sites for commercial premises, with a particular focus on small and medium-sized enterprises. It supported tenants by offering high-quality, affordable accommodation and flexible tenancy terms (Locality, 2018). Similarly, community-based social enterprises can be effective if, for example, they utilise a hybrid business model which combines trading and non-trading activities to achieve financial sustainability in the long term (Bailey et al., 2018).

4.4.5 External funding

There is medium evidence that external funding is an important factor for the operation and sustainability of different types of community infrastructure.

External funding can be available in multiple forms, such as loans, grants and direct investment. Examples of different types of community infrastructure which the evidence suggests have been able to benefit from external funding include:

sports facilities in Scotland, where initial investment from the national sports body led to further investment from other sources, meaning that the initial central investment acted as a catalyst (Ekos, 2019)
youth centres and clubs, which are often reliant on unstable funding, have proven to be effective when they successfully bid for new grants and contracts (Sinclair, 2019)

Community pubs, which have experienced an upward trend across the UK in recent years (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a) often because they have made use of a programme of blended finance (e.g. a combination of loans and grants) alongside advisory support from multiple organisations and some have been funded by the Power to Change Trust and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a); and

The success of Mixed Communities Initiatives, which was enabled by attracting funding from other public sector streams, such as the New Deal for Communities, Urban Development Corporations or Regional Development Agencies (Lupton et al., 2010).

Development trusts can be effective in accessing external funding, especially from a blend of sources. For example, a development trust in northern England benefitted from schemes such as the Big Local (Locality, 2018). Heeley Development Trust was established to reclaim land for community use and create the Heeley People’s Park in Sheffield. The programme was funded via donations from the local community and local businesses as well as external funding, including from the Big Lottery Fund (Locality, 2018). For development trusts, commercial activities can be an important enabler of financial sustainability if paired with strong community involvement (Locality, 2018).

External funding has been an issue for community-owned assets because many of them have faced financial problems due to reductions in grants, which often reflect wider financial challenges in local government from cuts in central government funding (Archer et al., 2019). An example of this is The Rotunda in Liverpool, which is a community hub offering educational and training programmes. It relies on European funding which may be affected by Brexit and hence has created uncertainty about its financial sustainability (Archer et al., 2019). Furthermore, a survey of those responsible for assets in community ownership found that 20% were likely to have insufficient reserves to meet a modest unexpected expense or income shock (Archer et al., 2019). In addition, a significant number of this group of assets are also likely to be operating at a loss, while around a quarter of those surveyed said that their asset’s debt was not under control due to the move towards loan funding (Archer et al., 2019).

4.4.6 Effective engagement with the local community

There is strong evidence that engagement with the local community supports effective community infrastructure, and this was found in the context of a crowdfunding pilot and sports centres as examples. Community engagement and co-production (i.e. engaging with local stakeholders as equal partners) was also identified as important in several case studies in the context of community hubs (South et al, 2021)

Exeter City Futures piloted its #EveryonesExeter movement on the crowdfunding platform Spacehive. Through this pilot, it sought to test and evaluate crowdfunding as a tool for engaging communities, changemakers and businesses in the city change process. The initiative highlighted the benefit of sharing and showing inspirational examples of projects elsewhere to incentivise communities to consider implementing a similar project in their local area (Exeter City Futures, 2018).

Case study – Sports centres in Sligo, Republic of Ireland

Networking and collaboration with community representatives can be critical to the effectiveness of sports centres (Sligo Sport and Recreation Partnership, 2018). The Sligo East City Community Sports Hub, based on the Cranmore Estate in Ireland, engaged in networking and collaboration with community representatives, community organisation workers and representatives from various agencies (Sligo Sport and Recreation Partnership, 2018). These relationships appear to have been central to the willingness of community representatives to invest in and vouch for the Community Sports Hub development. They gained the trust of the community by increasing their awareness of the community needs and opportunities, as well as employing a creative approach to the needs and the capabilities of the various community and agency actors. New external networks were also created with communities and clubs adjacent to the Cranmore area in Ireland. This networking and trust building supported collaboration within the Cranmore community and nearby communities, clubs and recreational resources and thereby reduced some of the subtle, hidden barriers around the Cranmore community (Sligo Sport and Recreation Partnership, 2018).

4.4.7 Local government partnerships

There is strong evidence that partnerships with local government, such as local authorities, can play an important role in the delivery and operation of community infrastructure.

Local authorities have enabled community-led libraries through helpful support. Case studies of nine community-led libraries across England suggest that they benefitted from ongoing or targeted support from local authorities beyond direct funding, and from informal advice, access to local volunteer networks and training sessions (SERIO, 2017). These case studies highlight that local authority support has enabled community libraries to consolidate their volunteer base, safeguard effective service delivery and, in some cases, develop new or improved income-generating services, resulting in financial sustainability (SERIO, 2017).

The Communities Fund and New Deal for Communities are two central government-funded initiatives which have also been enabled by effective partnerships with local authorities. An evaluation of the Communities Fund highlighted that partnerships based on pre-existing relationships offered efficiencies and allowed projects to mobilise quickly (MHCLG (now DLUHC), 2021). Another example is the New Deal for Communities, a regeneration programme launched in 1998. An evaluation showed that between 2002 and 2008, New Deal for Communities areas saw an improvement in 32 of 36 core indicators spanning crime, education, health, worklessness, community and housing, and the physical environment (Batty et al. 2010). The areas worked well with delivery agencies, which included their parent local authority, especially those with a remit to help improve services within the neighbourhoods (Batty et al., 2010).

Community business funds are another form of funding mechanism, and their success can depend to some extent on the ability to gain the support of and create long-lasting and effective relations with local partners. This is exemplified by the South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme, discussed in further detail below.

Local authorities enabled a social infrastructure programme in Yorkshire via funding and sustained support. The SYSIP included six projects to increase the sustainability of the voluntary and community sector. The programme operated differently across four South Yorkshire districts. An evaluation of the SYSIP found that the flexible approach across different districts enabled local partners to shape the funding to local needs. A key objective of the programme was the modernisation of core district-level infrastructure services, and this was mostly achieved thanks to the important role of sustained local partner support, primarily from local authorities (CRESR, 2010).

In some cases, however, local authorities have been identified as a barrier to community-based social enterprises. An assessment of community-based social enterprises in three European countries, including England, found that local authorities and housing associations often have limited power and resources to support community-based social enterprises, and much depends on personal contacts through political representatives or highly motivated officers (Bailey et al., 2018). Conversely, an example of when local authority partnerships has been beneficial is Millfields Trust, based in Plymouth, which has a good relationship with Plymouth city council. This has resulted in leases of greater length and below market value for land and buildings (Bailey et al., 2018).

For community-owned assets, however, the asset transfer can be complex, and it may be hindered if the local authority does not have the resources to support this process. This has occurred in the context of community businesses in the health and wellbeing sector, where case studies of asset transfer found that this process can be impaired by a lack of human resources within local authorities (Richards et al., 2018a).

4.4.8 Local non-government partnerships

There is medium evidence that partnerships with local non-government organisations have supported effective infrastructure.
For example, community transport organisations are a type of community infrastructure which have benefitted from partnerships with funders, other delivery organisations and organisations able to offer support and advice (Kotecha et al., 2017). Partnerships with other community transport organisations included ad hoc arrangements, such as sharing car parking spaces, as well as more serious agreements, for example grouping together as a consortium to bid for contract work. This evidence also found that the partnership with the Community Transport Association helped businesses to navigate transport regulation (see section 4.5.1).
Public spaces are another type of community infrastructure which have been successful in many cases, which to some extent is a result of partnerships. An example of this is the creation of a public gathering space in Portland, Oregon, which was enabled by collaboration between urban planners, community groups and non-profit organisations, resulting in new urban design features that are conducive to social interactions and community stewardship (Semenza and March, 2009). A review of seven case studies on green spaces found that intersectoral partnerships to facilitate implementation and reducing barriers were important (South et al., 2021).

4.4.9 Physical capacity and utilisation of community infrastructure

There is medium evidence that the physical capacity of the community infrastructure itself is an important factor that can impact on its effectiveness. Likewise, the degree of utilisation is also an important factor.

Internal physical capacity can impede the potential effectiveness of community infrastructure if it is not adequate because it can limit the number of new users and the number of services offered. This was identified as a constraint for some sports and leisure community businesses because it hindered their ability to diversify in ways that would have enabled income generation (Richards et al., 2018b). Evaluation of five case study sports and leisure facilities suggested that to address the internal capacity constraints, local communities were asked to support the business by raising funds and donating time and/or materials to improve the capacity so that more users could be accommodated. Research into community-led libraries found some faced similar internal capacity constraints which restricted the number of services they were able to offer and hence hindered their sustainability (SERIO, 2017).

Community infrastructure which is utilised for multi-use purposes serves to increase the number of community members who have a vested interest in the continued success of the venue, while also increasing the number of opportunities for residents to engage in different services or activities and hence expand their social networks. For example, a review of places of worship across the UK found that when a church building is used for a variety of purposes, a much wider cross-section of the community feels a sense of commitment to its survival (Taylor, 2017). A review of 17 community hub case studies and 7 green space case studies found that a range of multi-layered community-based activities, including social or fun activities, was important for the community (South et al, 2021).

4.4.10 Legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks

There is limited evidence that legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks influence the effectiveness of community infrastructure.

The Localism Act (2011) was identified as an important enabler of community pubs and community-owned assets because it enables communities to apply for an asset to be listed as an Asset of Community Value (Archer et al., 2019). The act formed part of the Community Right to Bid process and was the first stage in identifying and nominating assets that can further the social wellbeing or interests of the local community (Archer et al., 2019). In so doing, the Localism Act 2011 affords communities greater planning protection against possible demolition or conversion of community pubs. This is considered in the evidence to be one of the interventions that contributed to the upward trend in the number of community pubs across the UK (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a).

On the other hand, legal barriers were identified in the evidence as a barrier to some places of worship being used for community activities (Taylor 2017), A review of English churches and cathedrals showed that there are real and perceived legal barriers relating to the wider use of church buildings beyond worship, such as for community activities (Taylor, 2017).

Administrative boundaries and “bureaucracy”, such as disjointed procurement, were identified as an issue for some publicly held infrastructure (Gregory, 2018). This was revealed in three areas within the Big Local scheme, where 150 communities were given a total of £200 million to spend on local priorities. One specific example is the Sale West Youth and Community Centre in Manchester, which was owned by the local council. The local council contracted out the management to a private company, but there were few incentives for the private company to effectively maintain and develop the centre. All the activities run at the centre were community led and operated without any council interaction (Gregory, 2018).

4.4.11 External advice and advisory support

There is limited evidence that some types of community infrastructure and governance models have benefitted from external advice, for example to handle complex processes or regulation (Archer et al., 2019; Kotecha et al., 2017).
Community transport organisations and community pubs are types of community infrastructure which have been supported by technical advice. Regulation of community transport organisations can be challenging given the complexity of transport regulation, and external technical advice is one strategy that community transport organisations can utilise to handle these challenges (Kotecha et al., 2017). There has been an upward trend in the number of community pubs across the UK, and to some extent this is a result of advisory support which involves multiple organisations and is funded by the Power to Change Trust and what was then known as the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a).
Community-owned assets are an ownership structure which has benefitted from technical advice in relation to the process of asset transfer and asset development, which can be complex. This advice can take different forms, such as from specialist building consultants or local advisers who are able to advise on the process of asset transfer (Archer et al., 2019). Likewise, community-based social enterprises can benefit from the help and presence of active national support organisations which provide services such as technical and legal advice (Bailey et al., 2018).

4.4.12 Strategy and planning

There is medium evidence that strategy and planning can impact the effectiveness of some types of community infrastructure and some governance models.

A national review of places of worship found that many places of worship were negatively affected by a lack of a strategic approach. This was particularly the case in relation to financial sustainability because investment in appropriate maintenance suffered from an absence of overall strategic approach for targeting resources effectively in a timely manner (Taylor, 2017).

The effectiveness of trusts can also be adversely affected if they lack strategic direction and likewise are more likely to succeed with strategic planning. For example, the Amble Development Trust carried out property-based asset development projects, such as refurbishment of community infrastructure, as well as the creation of enterprises and associated jobs. It highlighted that long-term planning was as a key factor for success (Aiken et al., 2008).

Targets and time frames can be considered as components of strategic planning, and evidence from the New Deal for Communities highlights that setting realistic targets and time frames which appropriately reflect objectives increases the likelihood of success of regeneration schemes (Batty et al., 2010).

4.4.13 Paid staff

There is strong evidence that paid staff and board members can play an important role in the degree of effectiveness of community infrastructure, different funding mechanisms and different governance models.

Board members and paid staff with financial expertise are seen as a critical factor for longer-term investment and growth in sports and leisure community businesses across England (Richards et al., 2018b). Where these skilled people were employed, their professional approach was found to boost businesses’ reputations. Furthermore, in some case, their skills and professionalism also secured match funding or bank loans for capital asset re-investment (Richards et al., 2018b).

Two initiatives funded by central government specifically evaluated the impact of employed skilled individuals and their role in the effectiveness of the programme. This evidence was generated for the New Deal for Communities programme and the Communities Fund Programme. These evaluations found the following:
For the New Deal for Communities programme, continuity in relation to senior staff was a common success factor, with analysis finding a statistically significant negative relationship between regeneration schemes which lost senior staff and a change in the housing and physical environment (the local area) (Batty et al., 2010).
For the Communities Fund Programme, which provided funding to local authorities and voluntary or community organisations to develop and deliver solutions to solve social issues in their communities, staff issues were identified as an influential factor on their effectiveness. Fifty-four projects funded through the programme highlighted barriers to the success of community projects including short-term contracts and staff turnover (MHCLG (now DLUHC), 2021).

The effectiveness of governance structures has also been found to be enhanced by paid staff. For example, community-owned assets have been found to benefit when they are supported by board members with an appropriate skill set (CMI and Rocket Science, 2016). Conversely, community-based social enterprises often encounter difficulties in attracting new board members with relevant knowledge and skills (Bailey et al., 2018).

4.4.14 Continued Investment in physical infrastructure

There is limited evidence that disinvestment in physical assets, which are typically a part of community infrastructure, can result in a downward spiral (Gregory, 2018). In other words, disinvestment in parts of community infrastructure may lead to a negative reinforcing feedback mechanism.

4.5 Factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure: scheme-specific

This section discusses scheme-specific factors, i.e. factors which have only been found to be relevant in a limited number of contexts.

4.5.1 Time and resource commitment

In the context of the sustainability of crowdfunding initiatives, there is limited evidence that establishing realistic time and resource commitments for projects is important. For example, an evaluation of the Exeter City Futures initiative, which can help build skills in planning, project management and communications, found that a successful crowdfunding campaign requires a large amount of engagement and communication, which takes time and resources. This time commitment and the required resources were not well understood in advance (Exeter City Futures, 2018). In fact, none of the projects ended up being taken forward, but some were taken over by Crowdfund Devon (Devon County Council, 2022).

4.5.2 Awareness

There is limited evidence that awareness of community infrastructure can affect its success, and this was identified in the context of sports facilities in Ireland (Sport Ireland, 2019).

Case study – Community Sports Hubs (CSHs), Ireland

An evaluation of nine CSHs in Ireland found that awareness was a critical success factor. However, local awareness may itself not be sufficient to ensure engagement and participation in the sports facilities. The nine CSHs struggled to boost participation from disadvantaged communities who lived in the surrounding estates. Participation was instead driven by those who travelled in from outer, more prosperous areas, while not being as high in the local authority estates near the hubs. To build trust and a sense of safety, the CSHs gave a public face to the hubs and informed people about who the owners of the facilities were (Sport Ireland, 2019).

4.5.3 Risk appraisals

There is limited evidence that over-optimistic risk appraisal can impact the effectiveness of community infrastructure, as was found in the case of the demonstration projects within the Mixed Communities Initiatives programme (Lupton et al., 2010).

Case study – The Mixed Communities Initiative

The Mixed Communities Initiative, a holistic approach to tackle area deprivation in England with local private/public partnerships contributing to housing and regeneration, suffered from over-optimistic risk appraisal caused by positive leadership and the need to boost the confidence of developers and residents. Over-optimistic risk appraisal occurred as initial appraisals took place in a housing boom before the financial crisis hit, and the appraisals under-priced the risk that the market would change. This resulted in two deals collapsing in Leicester and a moratorium on land sales (Lupton et al., 2010).

4.5.4 Data and analysis

There is limited evidence that a lack of skills for data analysis and quantification of the anticipated costs and benefits of an initiative can hinder the effectiveness of community infrastructure, and this affected some of the local areas within the Whole-Place Community Budgets (Morse, 2013).

Case study – The Whole-Place Community Budgets

The Whole-Place Community Budgets initiative was launched in 2011 by the department then known as the Department for Communities and Local Government and invited local areas to submit business cases to finance a project to solve complex and difficult-to-address community issues (Morse, 2013). An evaluation found that the effectiveness of the Whole-Place Community Budgets was hindered as some pilot areas were unable to make an informed quantification of their costs and benefits, for example because of limited robust data. However, the same evaluation also found that high-level analytical input and robust cost-benefit analysis had improved the outcomes of the Whole-Place Community Budgets programme (Morse, 2013).

4.5.5 Professional marketing

There is limited evidence that a professional approach to marketing can support some types of community infrastructure to be more effective, and this has been found in the context of sports and leisure community businesses.

One piece of evidence which includes case studies of sports and leisure community businesses across England found that establishing a professional marketing campaign, alongside a strong online presence, formed an important part in attracting new users and increasing revenue from different sources (Richards et al., 2018b).

4.5.6 Ownership model

There is limited evidence that new forms of ownership can help local services and facilities obtain additional funding or better financial terms and thus become more sustainable and efficient. For example, the East Twickenham Neighbourhood Association was a multi-use community centre in Richmond that was owned by the community. As such, it was able to negotiate a longer lease, as an alternative to its previous rolling annual lease, and subsequently obtain substantially more grant funding (Archer et al., 2019). This enabled the centre to fund renovations to the building, including putting in a new disabled toilet and renovating a community kitchen. Similarly, in Marehan le Fen in southern Lincolnshire, a relatively new charitable trust was set up to address the problem of an old village hall which was not fit for purpose. By pursuing the development of a new community centre (rather than refurbishment of the old village hall) the group could access significantly more funds. It also led to improvements in the scale and quality of community facilities and activities (Archer et al., 2019).

4.5.7 Unclear policy framework

There is limited evidence that an unclear policy framework has hindered some governance models from being effective. This has been the case for some social enterprises.

These organisations are geographically defined businesses which give a high priority to the local community. However, they face the challenge that responsibilities are divided between several different government departments, sometimes with unclear ministerial accountability (Bailey et al., 2018). This evidence (at the time of publication) highlights that DCMS was responsible for social enterprises, while the then-Department of Communities and Local Government had separate responsibility for the transfer of assets. This evidence then suggests that although there are a variety of responsibilities and powers, there is very little evidence of a clear policy and strategy for delivery backed up with resources.

4.6 Findings

This chapter discussed the factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure. Medium to strong evidence suggests that these factors include:

responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the infrastructure given to people with the right skills, including paid staff and volunteers (charismatic local leaders can play an important role in enabling success)
responsibility for taking a longer-term view of the infrastructure given to an appropriately skilled and committed person (this includes developing and working towards the longer-term vision, securing funding/income streams, succession planning and working to ensure longevity of the community infrastructure — financially and as a focus for the community)
accessibility, visibility, safety and inclusivity of the infrastructure itself and the activities within it
local empowerment engendered through effective partnerships involving local partners and local authorities.

While there is evidence on the different factors necessary for effective community infrastructure, it is difficult to determine the interplay between different factors as most studies focus on individual interventions and do not account for wider considerations. The available evidence highlights the importance of context-specific factors, and more rigorous research is needed to draw out what exactly in the local context enabled success or acted as a barrier. What is evident is that local context is important and that local areas differ significantly. Therefore there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

Question 6

5.  Enhancing social capital

Accepted Answer

Having discussed the factors that are common to community initiatives which deliver effective community infrastructure in chapter 4, this chapter focuses on the factors common to community initiatives which enhance social capital. Community infrastructure and social capital were identified in chapter 2 as being necessary for communities to thrive. Although other elements are needed too, those wider elements are beyond the scope of this rapid evidence review.

Chapter 5 considers the outcomes that can be achieved when community infrastructure is effective in enhancing social capital.

Summary

Common factors for enhancing social capital	Evidence rating	Scheme-specific factors for enhancing social capital	Evidence rating
Community infrastructure which fosters social interactions between visitors	Strong	Subsidising the cost of using community infrastructure to boost participation	Limited
Appropriate choice of venue for a given activity to boost participation	Limited
Inclusivity of community infrastructure	Medium
Social prescribers can remove barriers which stop patients from participation	Limited
Designated managers can facilitate interactions between different members of the community	Limited

The following sections present the quality and strength of evidence in the same way as in chapter 4.

Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicates that some measures of social capital, such as sense of belonging to a neighbourhood and memberships of organisations, have decreased in recent years^{[footnote 5]} (the social capital headline indicator datasets separately contain a time series for each of the indicators). (ONS, 2020). This data shows that, between 2011/12 and 2017/18, reported membership of political, voluntary, professional or recreational organisations declined by 5 percentage points in the UK. This data also indicates that a sense of belonging to a neighbourhood fell between 2014/15 and 2017/18. The ONS online measures of social capital suggest that between 2013 and 2019, social networking on the internet increased by 15 percentage points across the UK, suggesting a potential shift from physical to online communities.

From a distributional perspective, young people have a higher likelihood of feeling disconnected from their communities when compared to older groups (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2020). Younger people are also more likely to feel a lower level of social trust than older groups (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2020).

Research into the long-term social impacts of COVID-19 found that social cohesion, another commonly used measure of social capital, grew across the UK at the beginning of the pandemic (The British Academy, 2021). However, this research also found that the growth in cohesion was not sustained across the country, with the increase in cohesion somewhat reversing over the course of 2020.

5.2.1 Fostering interaction between infrastructure visitors

There is strong evidence that community infrastructure can support the formation of social capital if interaction is between those who visit the infrastructure.

Community infrastructure can boost the development of social capital by being inclusive and facilitating social interaction (South et al., 2021), as well as by being suitable for the relevant community. Community pubs are an example of community infrastructure which boosts social capital as they are highly social places which bring together people of all ages, backgrounds and interests, and give them a purpose to interact (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a). Community pubs can also bring the community together as they are open late, open to all, and can host a wide range of events for local clubs and societies (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a).

Public spaces are other examples of infrastructure which boosts social interaction, and thus social capital. A public space intervention in Manchester included the installation of new benches and a rigorous evaluation found that the space was increasingly referred to as a “social” space compared with a year before (Anderson et al., 2016). The creation of a public gathering space in Portland, Oregon, expanded social networks amongst residents by acting as a catalyst for pavement conversations (Semenza, 2003). This evidence is more than 15 years old but is included because the findings continue to be of high relevance.

Local libraries can support the formation of social capital of communities by facilitating social contact and mixing within and across groups from the local community, as well as through increasing levels of trust amongst library visitors (BOP Consulting, 2014). One case study of a library-based Conversation Class “appeared to contribute to social inclusion”. Participants reported that they had made new friends since coming to class. The authors also found that young people appreciated having a facility “similar to a youth club” at the library and that this brought different social, ethnic and age groups together (BOP Consulting, 2014).

There is limited evidence that the formation of social capital can be supported by activities taking place at appropriate venues which can lead to higher participation for specific groups. An example is Mum’s Social Club in Murton, Country Durham, which was successful as the chosen venue was free of the cliques, associations and negative perceptions that some people associated with other sites (Parsfield, 2015). If the project had been based at the prospective venue with the highest “centrality” – the large multi-use community centre that a significant number of residents cited in their social networks – it would have been unlikely to have led to the positive impact that was achieved (Parsfield, 2015). The case study of this social club found that the club had grown steadily since its first session, with new joiners either being invited by friends or family or being specifically recruited by members who thought that some local residents might be isolated.

5.2.3 Inclusivity of community infrastructure

There is medium evidence that community infrastructure can inhibit the formation of social capital if it is not inclusive to all members of the local community.

Certain types of community infrastructure can inhibit the formation of social capital, especially bridging social capital, if some users feel unsafe or that the infrastructure is dominated by one group. This is the case for some gardens and parks. An evidence review found that they can amplify social divisions and groups may exclude themselves from green spaces if they feel the space is dominated by one particular group of users (for example, if a park is overwhelmingly used by young people) or if they feel unsafe (Heritage Fund, 2020). This review also shows that minorities are often marginalised in terms of access to green space in addition to the other areas of marginalisation and discrimination they face (Heritage Fund, 2020). A review of 17 case studies of community hubs highlighted the importance of promoting inclusivity, particularly within communities at risk of marginalisation such as asylum seekers and refugees, and people with physical disabilities, mental health problems, sensory impairments or intellectual disabilities (South et al, 2021).

New community infrastructure can block bridging social capital if it does not support social mixing of different groups of people within the community (Mayor of London, 2020). This evidence found that 78% of surveyed residents in Catford, southeast London, reported that their local infrastructure was affected by recent changes to the neighbourhood, and many residents reported feeling alienated and excluded from new community infrastructure. A shortfall of bridging social capital can contribute to the growth of an “othering” narrative, resulting in residents withdrawing from community life, thus inhibiting future social capital (Bell and Plumb, 2021). A lack of mixing in local areas can also create an “othering” narrative, as residents therefore have little opportunity to meet other residents who are different to them (Morrison et al., 2020a).

Community infrastructure may block the formation of social capital if it is not relevant to people newer to the community or transient in communities. Research studying how voluntary and community organisations can adapt to local demographic and cultural change found that traditional forms of organising and community representation may not be of interest to individuals from newer communities – or indeed to transient private tenants – and may exclude or make unrealistic demands of them (Taylor and Wilson, 2015). For example, this evidence highlights that newcomers may not be heard in a rural context as many village activities and meetings take place during the day when newcomers are working and therefore cannot realistically attend.

There is limited evidence that social prescribers can play an important role in the formation of social capital. Social prescribers can build up trust with their patients and reduce unnecessary barriers that may prevent a client from seeking advice (Sinclair, 2019). This evidence highlights how social prescribers can be aware of potential barriers to participation, such as an unfamiliar journey or a building that is hard to locate for the first time, and the prescriber may attend activities with patients to support integration.

5.2.5 Designated managers

There is limited evidence that designated managers can facilitate the formation of social capital, particularly bridging social capital.

Designated local managers can also enable social capital. For example, a manager at a community café in southwest London played a key role in creating bridging social capital by building relationships between different groups of people within the community (Bertotti et al., 2011). The paper found that this individual showed dynamism and an in-depth understanding of the experience of local residents, and that this understanding then facilitated the establishment of networks across ethnic groups.

5.3.1 Funding

There is limited evidence that subsidising the cost of activities that take place within community infrastructure can support the formation of social capital. A review of sports hubs in Ireland found that the subsidisation of sports hubs’ programme rates facilitated access for people who may not have participated in sport before (Sport Ireland, 2019).

5.4 Findings

This chapter discussed the factors common to community initiatives that enhance social capital. Medium to strong evidence suggests that factors include:

community infrastructure which fosters social interactions between visitors and community infrastructure which is inclusive.

As with the factors discussed in chapter 4, it is difficult to determine the interplay between and relative importance of different factors as most studies focus on individual interventions and do not account for wider considerations. The available evidence highlights the importance of context-specific factors and more rigorous research is needed to draw out what exactly in the local context enabled success or acted as a barrier.

Question 7

6.  Outcomes

Accepted Answer

Where community initiatives deliver effective community infrastructure and enhance social capital, a variety of different outcomes are likely to follow. This chapter discusses the evidence on these outcomes, grouped into five categories of economic, health, social, civic and unintended outcomes from government initiatives.

Summary

Outcomes of effective community infrastructure and enhanced social capital	Evidence rating
Economic outcomes include higher employment, upskilling of staff and volunteers (which can boost employment), higher GDP growth and public spending savings	Medium
Health outcomes include improved mortality rates, health-related quality of life metrics and health-related behaviour	Medium
Social outcomes include improved resilience, improved wellbeing, reduced loneliness and reduced crime	Medium
Civic outcomes include greater social cohesion, greater social inclusion and a stronger sense of belonging, ownership and pride	Medium
Unintended consequences including expanded social networks, pastoral care provision and temporary decline in the number of households and decreased supply of affordable housing	Limited

6.1 Economic outcomes

There is medium evidence that positive economic outcomes are likely to result from community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure and enhance social capital. These include higher employment and upskilling of staff and volunteers, which can increase employment.

Analysis of social infrastructure^{[footnote 6]} investment found a benefit to cost ratio of over 3:1 across a range of outcomes, which means that the estimated benefits were three times greater than the costs (Frontier Economics, 2021). This evidence showed that economic outcomes (increased employment, gross value added (GVA) and reduced crime, and fiscal benefits from healthcare savings, taxes/benefits savings and reduced crime costs) accounted for about 80% of the estimated benefits. This was estimated over a 10-year period and in the typical conditions of a “left behind area” lacking in community infrastructure. This analysis was limited to high-quality quantitative studies, which meant not all outcomes were quantified.

A rigorous evaluation of the South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme (SYSIP) estimated economic benefits with returns of between £1 and £1.60 for every £1 invested (CRESR, 2010).

The components of these economic outcomes are discussed below.

6.1.1 GVA and public spending savings

There is medium evidence that greater levels of social capital lead to higher GDP growth (e.g. Archer et al., 2019; Bell and Plumb, 2021; Kotecha et al., 2017; Morse, 2013). In particular, bridging social capital is vital for higher economic growth, especially in low-skilled regions (Muringani et al., 2021). There could be sizeable public spending savings when investing in community initiatives at a relatively low cost. This includes time banks, befriending and community navigators, which can reduce social isolation, increase participants’ confidence and skills, and improve overall individual wellbeing, leading to an increase in employment or volunteering, a reduction in health service visits, especially among older people, and more appropriate and timely access to public services (Knapp et al., 2013).

6.1.2 Employment

There is limited evidence that effective community infrastructure and the formation of social capital can result in higher employment levels (e.g. Archer et al., 2019; Reeder, 2017). This can be through directly providing employment opportunities at community infrastructure venues and initiatives, improving skills for volunteers (South et al, 2021) or providing an environment that encourages new businesses. The examples below illustrate the contexts in which these outcomes may be observed:

Community pubs create regular, paid, local employment opportunities. As the majority are currently situated in predominantly rural areas, these pubs can often be very significant employers in their communities. They also offer an “excellent” environment for training and upskilling local people, particularly young people (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a).
A Welsh community food co-op programme supported volunteers to gain new skills, which in some cases led to increased employability (BMG Research, 2012).
Successful community infrastructure can reinvigorate high streets, increase employment (in Great Britain, over 2 million people are employed in community infrastructure-related industries) and boost skills (Kelsey and Kenny, 2021).

6.2 Health outcomes

There is medium evidence that effective community infrastructure and social capital can drive improvements in health. The outcomes for wellbeing are considered in the social outcomes subsection. The health outcomes include improved mortality rates, improved health-related quality of life metrics and improved health-related behaviour.

Analysis of social infrastructure investment found that almost 20% of the benefits of the investment are from increased health and wellbeing from volunteering and sports (Frontier Economics, 2021).

There is medium evidence that personal relationships and social networks, two common features of social capital (Putnam, 1995), have a positive impact on health outcomes.

Access to strong and diverse social networks reduces the overall risk of mortality (Bell and Plumb, 2021), and participation in community assets is associated with a substantially high health-related quality of life (Munford et al., 2017). A meta-review of 148 projects found a 50% increased likelihood of survival for participants with stronger social relationships (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010). This means that for a hypothetical sample of 100 people, by the time only 50 people are still alive, there will be five more people among them with stronger social relationships compared to people with weaker social relationships. This finding remained consistent across age, sex, initial health status, cause of death and follow-up period. Significant differences were found across the type of social measurement evaluated; the association was strongest for complex measures of social interaction and lowest for binary indicators of residential status (living alone versus with others) (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

6.2.2 General health outcomes

There is medium evidence that interventions to solve social issues, regenerate deprived areas and create public spaces can result in less pressure on hospitals and improved health, especially mental health (Batty et al., 2010; MHCLG (now DLUHC), 2021; Semenza, 2003).

An example of an initiative to solve social issues in the local community is the Community Fund Programme. A robust review of 54 projects funded through the programme, which aimed to provide funding to local authorities with voluntary or community organisations to develop and deliver solutions to solve social issues, found that projects led to reduced pressure on hospitals and improved mental health (MHCLG (now DLUHC), 2021).

A rigorous evaluation of the New Deal for Communities, which aimed to regenerate deprived areas, reported improved health, especially mental health, resulting partly from improved living standards (Batty et al., 2010; Blagden et al., 2021). The creation of a public gathering space in Portland, Oregon, increased the number of residents reporting very good or excellent general health, and more residents responded that they were “hardly ever depressed” (Semenza, 2003). This evidence is more than 15 years old but is included because the findings continue to be of high relevance.

Improved health-related behaviour.

There is limited evidence which demonstrates how higher levels of social capital relate to improved lifestyles in terms of health. Higher levels of social capital are positively associated with the likelihood of avoiding lifestyle risks such as smoking (Folland, 2008). In addition, the difference between individuals with adequate and inadequate social relationships can have an effect of similar magnitude to quitting smoking and it exceeds many well-known risk factors for mortality, such as obesity and physical inactivity (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

There is medium evidence that effective community infrastructure and social capital can lead to positive social outcomes, including increased community resilience, reduced loneliness, reduced homelessness and reduced offending rates, improved wellbeing, and reduced pressure on frontline services.

6.3.1 Resilience

There is strong evidence that community infrastructure and social capital can have a positive impact on community resilience. Existing networks and infrastructures can be rapidly re-deployed to support the community in bouncing back from adverse events (Frontier Economics et al., 2020). Community-centred approaches for health and wellbeing can reduce social exclusion or lack of social support, resulting in greater community resilience, which helps protect and maintain health in adversity (South, 2015). Community hubs can improve resilience by providing a location which facilitates building connections, developing community capacity and strong networks (South et al., 2021). High levels of social capital can improve resilience by enabling communities to work together and share support (OCSI, 2020).

A review of the Big Local, a scheme where 150 communities were given a total of £200 million to spend on local priorities, found genuine transformation in the confidence and capacity of residents involved in delivering programmes across most Big Local areas. The resilience and capabilities acquired in Big Local areas have emerged in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as many partnerships have adapted activities to respond to the most immediate emergency needs (Local Trust, 2019). Existing local food partnerships adapted and grew during the COVID-19 pandemic to respond to emergency needs. Food for Good in Edinburgh was built on the existing networks of Edible Edinburgh and Edinburgh Food to lead the community food and hospitality response to COVID-19 (Frontier Economics et al., 2020). Community resilience can be initially negatively impacted by public health emergencies but enhanced by the social group activities in response to it (Hall et al., in prep).

6.3.2 Wellbeing

There is very strong evidence that inclusive community infrastructure and strong social connectedness can increase wellbeing. This is not specific to a certain type of community infrastructure. A survey of 2,840 people found that the variables most negatively associated with wellbeing were identifying something or somewhere locally that you avoid or something that stops you from taking part in a community (Parsfield, 2015). This suggests that community infrastructure which alienates members of the community with certain characteristics can have negative effects on wellbeing (MacLennan et al., 2021). Social connectedness correlates more strongly with wellbeing than social or economic characteristics such as long-term illness, unemployment or being a single parent. Participants who strengthen their social networks through community-led initiatives have higher wellbeing (Parsfield, 2015). Volunteering has been found to increase individuals’ sense of wellbeing (Frontier Economics, 2021).

Wellbeing can be enhanced via community infrastructure such as public spaces, parks and green spaces, as well as investment in physical activity (South et al, 2021). Physical health, mental wellbeing and life satisfaction are all enhanced through access to and use of parks and green spaces (Heritage Fund, 2020). A public space intervention in Manchester indirectly supported experiences of individual wellbeing, such as happiness, social wellbeing, and belonging (Anderson et al., 2016). The social return on investment in physical activity is estimated to be more than three times greater than its cost, which means that for every £1 invested in sport and physical activity, slightly more than £3 worth of social impact is generated, mostly in the form of enhanced social capital and improved mental wellbeing (Davies et al., 2020).

6.3.3 Loneliness

There is limited evidence that community infrastructure can reduce loneliness by being a point of contact, creating paid and volunteering opportunities, and encouraging social interaction. Community shops can considerably reduce isolation, especially for elderly members of the community, as it may be one of their only points of social contact (Plunkett Foundation, 2020b). Community pubs can also address isolation and loneliness through the creation of employment and volunteering opportunities (Plunkett Foundation, 2020a). Community transport organisations generate social value by generating social interaction amongst lonely passengers (Kotecha et al., 2017).

6.3.4 Crime

There is limited evidence that community infrastructure and social capital can lead to a reduction in crime levels. An evaluation of the New Deal for Communities reported improved social indicators, such as reduced crime (Batty et al., 2010). Analysis of social infrastructure investment suggests that investment in a “left behind” area could result in a reduction in crime (Frontier Economics, 2021).

6.4 Civic outcomes

There is medium evidence that effective community infrastructure and social capital can lead to positive civic outcomes, including social cohesion, social inclusion and a stronger sense of belonging, ownership and pride.

There is medium evidence that social cohesion can be enhanced via funding schemes for grassroots community groups, community hubs and community-led social enterprises.

An evaluation of the Community Fund Programme highlighted an increase in social cohesion (MHCLG (now DLUHC), 2021). Community hubs may promote social cohesion through the mixing of different social or age/generational groups, increasing social capital, building trust between people in communities, increasing wider social networks and interaction between community members, and increasing individuals’ knowledge and skills (What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2018). Community-led social enterprises benefit their local community, often morphing into the hub of the neighbourhood as they become spaces where all types of local groups gather, for example to access broadband or get training in vital life skills (Bailey et al., 2018).

There is limited evidence that social inclusion can be enhanced via green space (South et al, 2021) and blue space interventions, public space interventions, football club community organisations and community-led social enterprises.

Green space and blue space interventions that provide the opportunity to participate in activities or meetings improve social interactions, increase social networks, increase bonding and bridging social capital, increase physical activity and healthy eating, and improve community members’ skills and knowledge (What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2018; South et al, 2021). Place and space interventions can have potentially negative effects in terms of some residents feeling excluded, particularly in relation to events that target or celebrate groups. However, place and space interventions that provide a focal point or targeted group may be useful in promoting social cohesion between different groups and overcoming barriers that prevent some people in marginalised groups from taking part (e.g., physical activity) (What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2018). In 2020, 886,581 people took part in football club community organisations, generating community support networks, formalising a sense of place and identity, and acting as an anchor institution and hub of economic activity (Starkings and Brett, 2021).

6.4.3 A stronger sense of belonging, ownership and pride.

There is medium evidence that a sense of belonging, ownership and pride can be enhanced by stronger relationships, neighbourhood design and public gathering spaces, and is associated with higher levels of wellbeing. Research has found that British people with stronger relationships live in places with a stronger sense of belonging (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2020). Community infrastructure can provide a sense of local identity (Archer et al., 2019). Changes in neighbourhood design may positively affect the sense of belonging and pride in the community (What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 2018; South et al, 2021). The creation of a public gathering space in Portland, Oregon, increased a perceived sense of community, with more residents rating their neighbourhood as an excellent place to live (Semenza and March, 2009). In a survey of 2,840 people, the variable most consistently associated with having higher subjective wellbeing was “feeling part of a community” (Parsfield, 2015).

6.5 Unintended consequences from government initiatives

There is limited evidence that there can be unintentional interactions and impacts between policies for housing and policies to promote community infrastructure:

The Mixed Communities Initiative saw an overall increase in the number of homes (Lupton et al., 2010). However, there was a negative impact on local communities due to temporary population losses where homes were empty after the lease finished but before the demolition (Lupton et al., 2010).

An evaluation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) indicated that while these additional funds may have supported local spending priorities, the supply of affordable housing may have decreased as it was not covered under the CIL, and exemptions and reliefs had reduced the contributor base (DCLG (now DLUHC), 2017).

Limited evidence also suggests that positive unintended outcomes can arise. For example a review of 17 community hub case studies and 7 green space case studies found that these interventions offered local benefits such as pastoral care provision and expanded social networks (South et al, 2021).

Question 8

7.  State of the evidence

Accepted Answer

This chapter describes the state of the current evidence underpinning this rapid evidence review, including where there are evidence gaps, and what this means for future research priorities.

Summary

The findings are highlighted in this rapid evidence review as a synthesis of existing evidence. They also identify where there are limitations and gaps in the available evidence. What is clear is that local context is important and that communities differ significantly, and therefore there is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, the evidence of these local contextual characteristics is currently lacking.

The most notable gap in the evidence relates to robust evaluation of outcomes of community initiatives, including how they were selected, what local need they were meeting, how financially sustainable they were and, importantly, what would have happened without them. To address this, robust evidence which considers what would be expected without the community infrastructure intervention (i.e. the counterfactual) would help with understanding the extent to which outcomes can be attributed to the community initiative and the particular conditions under which this is more likely.

7.1 Assessment of current available evidence

This is an emerging evidence base with significant additions to the research knowledge over the last ten years. This study has reviewed the relevant evidence currently available, including published evaluations, impact studies, case studies, systematic reviews and other published literature.

For the purposes of indicating strength of evidence, this rapid evidence review uses the Department for International Development’s (2014) “Assessing the Strength of Evidence” framework. This framework captures both the underlying quality of the evidence as well as the quantity of evidence. The full framework is set out in Annex A.3.

Overall, despite a growing evidence base, there were a very limited number of studies which can be considered as analytically robust (or high-quality) evidence. This is consistent with other synthesising research in this area (Frontier Economics, 2021; What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, 2016). Many of the high-quality papers reviewed were either evidence reviews or government-led evaluations, with very few evaluations of smaller community-led activities or interventions.

This rapid review considers analytically robust (high-quality) quantitative evidence to be papers that are rated 3 or higher in the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale, consistent with the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth guidance.^{[footnote 7]} To reach a level 3 rating, studies need to at least have a strategy to identify the counterfactual and a clear implementation process for accounting for any assumptions, data limitations or biases.

The assessment of the evidence for qualitative studies takes the following into account:

whether there is a clear theory of change
whether a counterfactual was involved and how this was considered
whether it is transparent, with clear and conservative assumptions and calling out any limitations
whether the source is credible (e.g. peer reviewed vs grey literature)

This review found that many studies are very specific to the local contexts and primarily use qualitative analysis, in addition to the lack of counterfactuals identified above. The available evidence highlights the importance of context-specific factors, and more rigorous research is needed to draw out what exactly in the local context enabled success or acted as a barrier. What is evident is that local context is important and that local areas differ significantly. Therefore there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

In general, the studies in this rapid review are focused on the individual interventions, such as a community library, and do not consider wider considerations. For instance, no studies were found which had assessed (or at least described) a local needs-based assessment or how a community infrastructure intervention interacted with existing infrastructure and/or interventions. Interventions are likely to work well when there is evidence of a challenge to be addressed and the best options to address it have been considered. There is also little evidence on the decision-making process that led to a particular intervention being selected for delivery at the community level.

Most evidence, however, focuses on individual interventions (such as setting up a community café) without acknowledging whether other factors necessary for unlocking potential were adequate.

7.2 Evidence gaps identified

Longer-term financial sustainability.

Studies tend to take a short-term view despite community infrastructure being a long-lived asset. Therefore financial sustainability is rarely addressed, and this is a significant evidence gap. The full extent of inputs, such as grants or other forms of financing or funding, is often not clear.

However, one important consideration in the evidence is how local authority or national funding can act as a catalyst for other forms of funding. This is a potentially interesting area because it suggests that some forms of funding can be effective in leveraging further funding.

Likewise, revenue-raising opportunities are identified in several studies and this is likely to be important for the financial sustainability of many venues. Further evidence on the range of opportunities and the conditions under which communities could maximise these would be valuable.

Local and national government partnerships.

The evidence suggests that local control and influence over community infrastructure and public services is important. Local authorities are noted as often being important community co-ordinators or funders, but there is little evidence on how the relationship with central government could be maximised. There is a lack of clarity on the best balance between local control and leveraging central government, noting that in any case this is likely to vary by local context and community need.

Design and selection of community infrastructure options.

This review found little comprehensive evidence on who uses community infrastructure and what motivates its creation or development.

Evidence on who uses, and why they use, community infrastructure could help managers of community infrastructure understand how inclusive the community infrastructure is. This could help to understand whether the community infrastructure is boosting community participation of target groups, such as marginalised or disadvantaged groups.

7.3 Suggested options for addressing evidence gaps

The previous section identified some of the gaps in and limitations of the existing evidence base and identified where additional research could help. This section suggests how evidence gaps could be addressed.

The most notable gap in the evidence relates to robust evaluation of the outcomes of community initiatives, including how they were selected, what local need they were meeting, how financially sustainable they were and, importantly, what would have happened without them. The absence of analytically robust evidence also means that the scale and nature of outcomes, and the channels through which they are more likely to be realised, is not systematically understood. To address this, robust evidence which considers what would be expected without the community infrastructure intervention (i.e. the counterfactual) would help with understanding the extent to which outcomes can be attributed to the community initiative, and the particular conditions under which this is more likely. This could include impact evaluations to understand the channels through which community infrastructure and social capital can deliver outcomes for the community and more widely, with a particular focus on economic, social and resilience outcomes.

There is an overall need for placed-based evaluation to understand the impacts of community infrastructure, including process evaluation to enable learning about governance and funding structures.

Related to this, more evidence on funding and governance options and their effectiveness is needed to understand the actions that can best facilitate financial sustainability and sustainable outcomes for the community. The virtuous circle and vicious cycle found in the evidence (e.g. HM Government, 2022) demonstrate that community infrastructure and social capital need to constantly be present and enabled, and sufficient funding and financing is a critical part of this. Process evaluation could help to determine the actions and factors that enhance the financial sustainability of community infrastructure, including options for income generation.

There remains limited evidence on how some community infrastructure leads to exclusion for some groups, and what this means for reducing bridging social capital. Shared interests can bring people together but those without the shared interest may by default be excluded. Fieldwork to understand how community members in different groups experience community infrastructure (to understand the barriers and enablers of utilisation, and barriers and enablers of bonding and bridging social capital) and how best to enhance the inclusivity of community initiatives could be valuable.

The impact of the relationship between central government and local communities for community infrastructure and social capital is critical for success. Process evaluation could help with understanding the partnerships that bolster the effectiveness of the planning, delivery and operation of community infrastructure, with a particular focus on the roles that local authorities and central government could play.

It is currently unknown what the lasting impact from COVID-19 will be on community infrastructure and social capital. This could be important for understanding what affects community resilience and how community infrastructure and social capital are affected by significant crises.

Finally, given the emergence of technology over recent years, research on the potential for digital technologies to support the effectiveness of community infrastructure and build social capital would be valuable.

7.3.1 Evidence gaps not in scope for this review

The scope of this rapid evidence review did not include digital-only communities. Neither did it focus on factors other than community infrastructure and social capital beyond where these are enabling factors. Further research into these areas could be important too.

Question 9

8.  Conclusions

Accepted Answer

This chapter summarises the core findings from the report, the gaps in the evidence base and the recommended research priorities.

8.1 Core findings

For communities to thrive and unlock their potential, there is strong evidence that many factors need to work together simultaneously (Slocock, 2018). If any factor is missing or inadequate, this can constrain a community’s economic and social potential and its resilience.

Strong evidence reveals that community infrastructure is a necessary but not sufficient factor for thriving communities as it provides a place in/at which community members can meet and, in some cases, can be a focal point of the community. For this community infrastructure to support the community effectively, it needs to be utilised for purposes that facilitate community networks and interactions (i.e. to provide opportunities for bridging, bonding and linking groups of people in communities), often led by activity organisers or community-based institutions that host and provide interaction opportunities.

The definitions of social infrastructure vary across the evidence base. Some definitions refer only to the physical capital characteristic (places, spaces and facilities), whereas others also include the occupants or activity organisers who utilise those places and spaces. What is clear is that both aspects are necessary to enable social capital formation. Some definitions include public services whereas others do not. What is of importance is transparency over what is being referred to when the term “social infrastructure” is used.

This report defines community infrastructure more narrowly than social infrastructure and finds that community infrastructure can broadly be considered as:

The physical infrastructure within the community (including places, spaces and facilities) that supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships, either:

Directly: through how the physical infrastructure is purposefully used for bringing people together (for example, a green space or building where people and groups can meet for the purpose of participating in activities with other people from the community); or
Indirectly: by providing the infrastructure to enable individuals within a community to connect together. This includes physical connections (such as transport links) or complementary virtual connections (such as communication or digital technology that supports the physical meeting of people).

The definitions of “social capital” tend to be less diverse in the evidence and, a commonly cited definition is from Putnam (1995):

…social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.

– (Putnam, 1995, p66)

Understanding the relevant factors for enhancing social capital requires careful attention to the type of social capital – factors which bolster only “bonding” social capital (interactions within groups or networks) could in some cases act as a barrier to “bridging” social capital (interactions across groups or networks), for example, if they lead to non-inclusive behaviours or perceptions. It is important to establish and maintain awareness of opportunities to connect with other people locally, whether through social prescribing, local leaders, digital networks or by using venues for multiple purposes.

Medium to strong evidence suggests that the factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure include:

Responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the infrastructure being designated to people with the right skills, including paid staff and volunteers. Charismatic local leaders can play an important role in enabling success;
Responsibility for taking a longer-term view of the infrastructure being designated to an appropriately skilled and committed person. This includes developing and working towards the longer-term vision, securing funding/income streams, succession planning and working to ensure longevity of the community infrastructure (financially and as a focus for the community);
Accessibility, visibility, safety and inclusivity of the infrastructure itself and the activities within it; and
Local empowerment engendered through effective partnerships involving local partners and local authorities, and co-production of projects where feasible.

Strong evidence suggests that the factors common to community initiatives that enhance social capital include:

Community infrastructure which fosters social interactions between visitors and is inclusive;
Community infrastructure which is inclusive.

Where community initiatives deliver effective community infrastructure and enhance social capital, there are a range of positive outcomes including economic, health, social and civic outcomes. There is medium evidence that likely outcomes include, from an economic perspective, employment opportunities, skills development, economic output (GDP) and potentially savings of public spending. Health outcomes can include improved mortality rates, improved health-related quality of life and health-related behaviour (such as reducing smoking). Social outcomes include community resilience, improved wellbeing and reduced loneliness and crime. Finally, civic outcomes include social cohesion, social inclusion and a greater sense of belonging, ownership and pride.

8.2 Evidence gaps and recommended research priorities

The findings are highlighted in this rapid evidence review as a synthesis of existing evidence. They also identify where there are limitations and gaps in the available evidence. What is clear is that local context is important and that communities differ significantly, and therefore there is no one-size-fits-all approach. However, the evidence of these local contextual characteristics is currently lacking

The most notable gap in the evidence relates to robust evaluation of outcomes of community initiatives, including how they were selected, what local need they were meeting, how financially sustainable they were and, importantly, what would have happened without them. To address this, robust evidence which considers what would be expected without the community infrastructure intervention (i.e. the counterfactual) would help with understanding the extent to which outcomes can be attributed to the community initiative, and the particular conditions under which this is more likely.

Further research to address the gaps and limitations in the evidence identified in this rapid review would also be helpful. These include suggested priorities such as:

Placed-based evaluation to understand the local (and wider) impacts of community infrastructure, including process evaluation to enable learning about governance and funding structures.
Process evaluation to determine the actions and factors that enhance the financial sustainability of community infrastructure, including options for income generation.
Fieldwork to understand how community members in different groups experience community infrastructure (to understand the barriers and enablers of utilisation, and barriers and enablers of enhancing bonding and bridging social capital) and how best to enhance the inclusivity of community initiatives.

S4. Process evaluation to understand the partnerships that bolster the effectiveness of the planning, delivery and operation of community infrastructure, with a particular focus on the roles that local authorities and central government could play.

Impact evaluation to understand the channels through which community infrastructure and social capital can deliver outcomes for the community and more widely, with a particular focus on economic, social and resilience outcomes.

Question 10

Annex A.1: Glossary

Accepted Answer

This glossary sets out commonly used terms in the report and underlying literature. Community infrastructure is often referred to as social infrastructure in the literature. Some definitions of social infrastructure include services, but others do not.

Table 3

Outcomes of effective community infrastructure and enhanced social capital	Evidence rating
Economic outcomes include higher employment, upskilling of staff and volunteers (which can boost employment), higher GDP growth and public spending savings	Medium
Health outcomes include improved mortality rates, health-related quality of life metrics and health-related behaviour	Medium
Social outcomes include improved resilience, improved wellbeing, reduced loneliness and reduced crime	Medium
Civic outcomes include greater social cohesion, greater social inclusion and a stronger sense of belonging, ownership and pride	Medium
Unintended consequences including expanded social networks, pastoral care provision and temporary decline in the number of households and decreased supply of affordable housing	Limited

Source: Frontier Economics

Question 11

Annex A.2: Review protocol

Accepted Answer

The first part of the review protocol was to set the scope of the project through identifying what questions this work was aiming to answer. This was agreed with DCMS and DLUHC and covered:

What do we mean by community infrastructure and social capital?
What are the best mechanisms and enablers of social capital?
What types of social infrastructure are needed to enable social capital?
What outcomes does this investment in community infrastructure/social capital lead to?

The next step was creating the longlist of papers to review. This drew on multiple sources, including grey and academic literature, and used multiple search terms. The overall search strategy for identifying papers is set out in the diagram below.

Figure 4: Search strategy

Source: Frontier Economics

The list of all search terms used in this iterative process was:

social infrastructure
social capital
community capital
purposeful participation
social fabric
community business
community anchors
community resilience
community asset ownership
community development
community-led initiatives
community leaders/leadership
community infrastructure
community coordinators
neighbourhood/community governance
community wellbeing
community assets
assets of community value
asset-based community development
community navigators

These papers were assessed for whether they were relevant for the findings of this review, given the agreed scope and questions to answer. There were no specific inclusion criteria for when the research was conducted or where it was conducted but more emphasis was given to recent UK studies.

All relevant papers were then reviewed in detail, with the findings synthesised and presented in this report. The full list of papers reviewed in detail is given in Annex A.4.

Question 12

Annex A.3: Framework to evaluate the strength of the evidence

Accepted Answer

The framework follows the Department for International Development’s “Assessing the Strength of Evidence” framework (2014). Given the size of the shortlisted evidence base in this review, large, medium and small quantities are considered to be 5+, 3 to 4 and 1 to 2 papers respectively. The evidence base is considered to be high quality with at least two robust studies, moderate quality with at least one robust study, and limited with no robust studies.

Table 4

Outcomes of effective community infrastructure and enhanced social capital	Evidence rating
Economic outcomes include higher employment, upskilling of staff and volunteers (which can boost employment), higher GDP growth and public spending savings	Medium
Health outcomes include improved mortality rates, health-related quality of life metrics and health-related behaviour	Medium
Social outcomes include improved resilience, improved wellbeing, reduced loneliness and reduced crime	Medium
Civic outcomes include greater social cohesion, greater social inclusion and a stronger sense of belonging, ownership and pride	Medium
Unintended consequences including expanded social networks, pastoral care provision and temporary decline in the number of households and decreased supply of affordable housing	Limited

Source: Department for International Development (2014), Assessing the Strength of Evidence, How to Note

Question 13

Annex A.4: Bibliography of shortlisted papers

Accepted Answer

This draws on existing evidence of definitions of particular aspects of social infrastructure from Frontier Economics (2021), Gregory (2018), Local Trust (2020), Macmillan (2020), Slocock (2018) and Yarker (2019). ↩
Drawn from the Cambridge Dictionary definition and Oxford Learner’s Dictionary definition. ↩
This draws on existing evidence of definitions of particular aspects of social infrastructure from Frontier Economics (2021), Gregory (2018), Local Trust (2020), Macmillan (2020), Slocock (2018) and Yarker (2019). ↩
Purely digital communities were out of scope for this work. ↩
The social capital headline indicator datasets separately contain a time series for each of the indicators. (ONS, 2020) ↩
This evidence’s definition of social infrastructure is broadly equivalent to this report’s definition of community infrastructure. ↩
What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth guidance. ↩

Term or phrase	definition or description
Big Local	Big Local is a programme from Local Trust where 150 communities were given at least £1 million from the National Lottery Community Fund. This is spent over 10-15 years and it is non-prescriptive so it can be spent on whatever local residents need. It is led by local residents and communities, and Local Trust provides support to build confidence and capabilities.
Community	The definition can vary depending on the context in which it is used. However, most definitions suggest that communities are typically bound by common interests and are physically local in nature. This shared priority or interest area is also an important enabler for positive outcomes (Frontier Economics et al., 2020).
Community capital	Refers to the sum of assets, including relationships in a community and the value that accrues from these (Parsfield, 2015).
Communities Fund	The Communities Fund was launched in 2016 by the then Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, where local authorities together with voluntary or community organisations could submit proposals for up to £70,000 to develop and deliver solutions to solve social issues in their communities. In total, 54 projects were funded across England. The fund launched in December 2016, with projects funded up until the end of March 2018.
Community infrastructure	Physical infrastructure within the community (including places, spaces and facilities) that supports the formation and development of social networks and relationships (see section 3.1).
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)	The CIL was a charge which could be levied by local authorities on new developments in their area to collect developers’ contributions. The CIL was introduced in 2010 and the money collected from it could be spent on local infrastructure, including community infrastructure. By 2015, over 50% of local authorities were engaged with this levy.
Mixed Communities Initiative	The Mixed Communities Initiative was announced by the then-Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in 2005. The initiative aims to take a holistic approach to tackle area deprivation in England with local private/public partnerships contributing to housing and regeneration. The initiative occurred at twelve demonstration projects across England.
New Deal for Communities programme	The New Deal for Communities was launched in 1998 by the then-Department for Communities and Local Government. It was a regeneration programme with the aim of transforming 39 deprived neighbourhoods across England over a ten-year period. Each neighbourhood received around £50 million.
Social capital	Features of social organisation such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995).
Social anchor	Social anchor is like the concept of community infrastructure, though often goes beyond just the physical asset. A social anchor is any institution that supports the development and maintenance of social capital and networks at the community level and provides an attachment for the collective identity of that community. These can take various forms, including schools, sport teams, corporations, natural structures or cultural events (Clopton and Finch, 2011).
Social fabric	Social fabric is comprised of relationships, positive norms, economic value, civic institutions and physical infrastructure (O’Shaughnessy et al., 2020). The concept of social fabric is a mix of this report’s definition of community infrastructure and social capital.
South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme (SYSIP)	The SYSIP committed funds of £35 million between 2006 and 2009 to six projects to increase the sustainability of the voluntary and community sector. The programme operated differently across four South Yorkshire districts.
Whole-Place Community Budgets	The Whole-Place Community Budgets programme was launched in 2011 by the Department for Communities and Local Government and invited local areas to submit business cases to finance a project to solve complex and difficult-to-address community issues.
Community Business Renewal Fund	The Community Business Renewal Fund by Power to Change was launched as part of the Community Business Renewal Initiative in response to COVID-19. It provides grants of between £10,000 and £20,000 to community business in England to adapt, renew and rebuild in response to COVID-19 to remain financially viable (Power to Change, 2021).

Categories of evidence	Quality, size, consistency, context	Typical features of the body of evidence	What it MEANS for a proposed intervention
Very strong	High-quality body of evidence, large in size, consistent and contextually relevant.	Research questions aimed at isolating cause and effect (i.e. what is happening) are answered using high-quality experimental and quasi-experimental research designs, sufficient in number to have resulted in production of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Research questions aimed at exploring meaning (i.e. why and how something is happening) are considered through an array of structured qualitative observational research methods directly addressing contextual issues.	We are very confident that the intervention does or does not have the anticipated effect. The body of evidence is very diverse and highly credible, with the findings convincing and stable.
Strong	High-quality body of evidence, large or medium in size, highly or moderately consistent, and contextually relevant.	Research questions aimed at isolating cause and effect (i.e. what is happening) are answered using high-quality quasi-experimental research designs and/or quantitative observational studies. They are sufficient in number to have resulted in the production of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Research questions aimed at exploring meaning (i.e. why and how something is happening) are considered through an array of structured qualitative observational research methods directly addressing contextual issues.	We are confident that the intervention does or does not have the anticipated effect. The body of evidence is diverse and credible, with the findings convincing and stable.
Medium	Moderate quality studies, medium-size evidence body, moderate level of consistency. Studies may or may not be contextually relevant.	Research questions aimed at isolating cause and effect (i.e. what is happening) are answered using moderate-to-high quality quantitative observational designs. Research questions aimed at exploring meaning (i.e. why and how something is happening) are considered through a restricted range of qualitative observational research methods addressing contextual issues.	We believe that the intervention may or may not have the anticipated effect. The body of evidence displays some significant shortcomings. There are reasons to think that contextual differences may unpredictably and substantially affect intervention outcomes.
Limited	Moderate-to-low quality studies, medium-size evidence body, low levels of consistency. Studies may or may not be contextually relevant.	Research questions aimed at isolating cause and effect (i.e. what is happening) are answered using moderate-to-low quality quantitative observational studies. Research questions aimed at exploring meaning (i.e. why and how something is happening) are considered through a narrow range of qualitative observational research methods addressing contextual issues.	We believe that the intervention may or may not have the anticipated effect. The body of evidence displays very significant shortcomings. There are multiple reasons for thinking that contextual differences may substantially affect intervention outcomes.
No evidence	No/few studies exist.	Neither cause and effect nor meaning is seriously interrogated. Any available studies are of low quality and are contextually irrelevant.	There is no plausible evidence that the intervention does/does not have the effect indicated.

Cookies on GOV.UK

Executive summary

Objectives of this report

Approach

Findings from the rapid evidence review

Factors that enable communities to thrive

Figure 1: Factors enabling communities to thrive

Core definitions

Factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure

Factors relevant to enhance social capital

Outcomes when community initiatives are effective

State of the evidence and research priorities

1. Introduction

1.1 Context

1.2 Approach

Figure 2 Five-stage approach

1.2.1 Assessing the strength of the evidence

Table 2

1.3 Structure of this report

2. Factors necessary for thriving communities

Summary

2.1 What do we mean by thriving communities?

2.2 Factors that together unlock thriving communities

Figure 3: Factors for thriving communities

3. Defining community infrastructure and social capital

Summary

3.1 Defining community infrastructure

3.1.1 Example definitions from the literature

3.1.2 Types of community infrastructure

3.2 Defining social capital

3.2.1 Example definitions of social capital from the literature

3.3 How and when to use community infrastructure and social capital

4. Delivering community infrastructure

Summary

4.1 Types of funding models

4.2 Types of governance, management and ownership models

4.3 Trends in community infrastructure

4.4 Factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure: system-wide

4.4.1 Volunteers

Case study – Volunteers within a community organising programme

4.4.2 Charismatic leaders

Case study – Charismatic leader at a café

4.4.3 Accessibility and location

4.4.4 Income generation

4.4.5 External funding

4.4.6 Effective engagement with the local community

Case study – Sports centres in Sligo, Republic of Ireland

4.4.7 Local government partnerships

Case study – South Yorkshire Social Infrastructure Programme (SYSIP)

4.4.8 Local non-government partnerships

4.4.9 Physical capacity and utilisation of community infrastructure

4.4.10 Legal, regulatory and administrative frameworks

4.4.11 External advice and advisory support

4.4.12 Strategy and planning

4.4.13 Paid staff

4.4.14 Continued Investment in physical infrastructure

4.5 Factors common to community initiatives that deliver effective community infrastructure: scheme-specific

4.5.1 Time and resource commitment

4.5.2 Awareness

Case study – Community Sports Hubs (CSHs), Ireland

4.5.3 Risk appraisals

Case study – The Mixed Communities Initiative

4.5.4 Data and analysis

Case study – The Whole-Place Community Budgets

4.5.5 Professional marketing

4.5.6 Ownership model

4.5.7 Unclear policy framework

4.6 Findings

5. Enhancing social capital

Summary

5.1 Trends in social capital measures

5.2 Factors common to community initiatives that enhance social capital: system-wide

5.2.1 Fostering interaction between infrastructure visitors

5.2.2 Social activities occurring at appropriate community infrastructure

5.2.3 Inclusivity of community infrastructure

5.2.4 Social prescribers

5.2.5 Designated managers

5.3 Factors common to community initiatives that enhance social capital: scheme-specific

5.3.1 Funding

5.4 Findings