beta

You're viewing our new website - find out more

Publication - Research Publication

Community-led regeneration approach: review

Published: 30 Aug 2017
Part of:
Communities and third sector, Research
ISBN:
9781788511582

Findings from an independent review into the partnership approach delivered by the People and Communities Fund (PCF).

104 page PDF

2.1MB

104 page PDF

2.1MB

Contents
Community-led regeneration approach: review
Footnotes

104 page PDF

2.1MB

Footnotes

1. Community Anchor Organisations have strong links to their communities and usually stimulate high levels of voluntary activity. They are well placed to spot the talent and opportunities in their areas and have the energy and creativity to nurture and exploit those. Increasingly, these organisations take an enterprising and assets based approach to their work.

2. In total, 11 workshops were conducted. Due to project completion and dispersal of staff, one project was exclusively researched through telephone consultations.

3. The term 'co-production' is used inter-changeably with 'co-delivery' and 'co-design'. However, 'co-delivery' (actual delivery of services by a number of stakeholders) is different to 'co-design' (a number of stakeholder groups informing and designing services).

4. High impact in co-production development due to quality of community anchor delivery and engagement

5. Exercise not undertaken, assessment by researcher observations

6. Volunteers were grouped with the service users (representing beneficiaries), while partner organisations were grouped with Community Anchor staff (representing delivery agents)

7. Participants identified a number of outcomes according to their personal experience at this stage. Therefore, the numbers in the graph do not equal the number of participants.

8. This judgement was made not based on the frequency that the mechanisms were reported when the outcome was present or the difference in frequency between the outcome present and not present but on the difference after the figures were adjusted for the respective population sizes. This accounted for the fact that when an outcome was frequently reported the number of participants in the 'outcome not present' population were substantially smaller that the 'outcome present' population.

9. COM B behaviour model [link to recommendation in conclusions regarding evidence base and using this as means of] Michie, S.van Stralen, MM. West, R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011; 6: 42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3096582/

Re-Aim http://re-aim.org/about/what-is-re-aim/

10. Pawson and Tilley (2004) Realist Evaluation. London: Cabinet Office.

11. (Pawson et al., 2004; Wong et al., 2013).

12. (Pawson et al., 2004; Wong et al., 2013).

13. Befani, B. and Mayne, J. (2014) Process Tracing and Contribution Analysis: A Combined Approach to Generative Causal Inference for Impact Evaluation. IDS Bulletin 45(6): 17-36 https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/7348

14. An estimate would be that around 10% of the beneficiaries participated for no more than six months with the Community Anchor.

15. Exercise not conducted with Level 5 Project


Contact