A single £1 million grant from the Big Lottery set off a chain of community decisions, tensions, and delays in deprived neighbourhoods across England. This matters because giving money to communities is a common policy tool, but little is known about what actually happens when residents—rather than local authorities or charities—are put in charge of spending it. The study tracked ten neighbourhoods as they developed their plans, revealing that the money itself acted as a powerful but complicated mechanism. It drew residents together through public meetings and events, sparking discussions about how to make areas better places to live. But it also created friction: arguments over who had rights to the money, delays in spending, and conflicts between individuals and organisations. If funders and policymakers absorb these findings, they could redesign community grants to be more effective. The research suggests that support should be flexible, sensitive to the time it takes to build relationships, and focused on guidance rather than leadership. For residents to truly control decisions, the money must come with patient, hands-off backing—not just a cheque.
View original technical description
The study investigated how £1 million provided by the Big Lottery generated change in deprived areas. A multi-site, mixed-methods evaluation was conducted by a collaboration of academic members of the NIHR School for Public Health Research. This project focused on the early stages of the Big Local award scheme when recipients were developing their plans. Qualitative fieldwork was conducted in ten neighbourhoods including interviews with Big Local residents (n=62), workers (n=49), and other stakeholders (n=27) with knowledge of Big Local. In addition,18 group exercises (including focus group discussions) and more than 440 hours of observation at partnership meetings, away days, workshops, events, projects and other community spaces provided valuable data. Data analyses employed a process of review, refinement and group discussion. Initial categories were agreed upon, a coding frame was devised across research teams, which was refined as themes emerged and developed, with agreement being reached about a set of general propositions in relation to the cross-site data. Analyses and interpretation continued until an overall narrative emerged. Three connected themes were identified; i) Money as mechanism to connect and engage: The money connected residents and organisations through public meetings and events, and prompted discussions around how best to spend/invest the money in order to make areas better places to live. Resident priorities were identified over a period of time and via a series of community events. ii) Money as mechanism to maintain and sustain the initiative: Decisions were made in each area to use some of the money for support staff, hire specialists and pay consultants in order to support the work of resident volunteers and maintain the daily/routine process of the Big Local. iii) Challenges of the money in terms of Delays, Tensions and Distractions: Some of the issues to emerge around the money included challenges of decision-making, which could cause delays in spending/investing money. There was also evidence of tensions and conflict between individuals on the partnerships, as well as with organisations within areas over how best to spend/use the money, who had rights to the money and negotiating control of the money. Overall, the importance of building relationships was key in order for residents to be in control, of decisions about how the money should be used in areas. Support should be flexible and sensitive to issues of time, with a particular emphasis on support and guidance as opposed to leading projects.
NIHR School for Public Health Research - Public Health
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know