evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Big Local — Resident-Led, Long-Term Neighbourhood Endowments in England

United Kingdom · London · See the United Kingdom profile · See the London profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 74% 57/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

England's Big Local gave 150 deprived neighbourhoods roughly £1 million each in resident-controlled endowments; a peer-reviewed NIHR evaluation found a real fall in burglary but no lasting wellbeing gain, with benefits unevenly distributed.

150 neighbourhoods
Neighbourhoods funded (2012–2026)
270 GBP million
Total programme commitment (2012–2026)
180.4 GBP million
Total drawn down (to date)
1,524 grants
Individual grants made (to date)
-0.054 z-score
Change in burglary (z-score) (2023 NIHR evaluation)
959 GBP million
Central estimate of net benefit (over 4 years)
64 GBP million
Conservative-scenario net benefit (over 4 years)
Big Local — Resident-Led, Long-Term Neighbourhood Endowments in England

Details

Maturity
Discontinued
Promoter
Local Trust
Period
2012–2026
Keywords
community development, neighbourhood governance, place-based funding

Context

Big Local is run by Local Trust, an independent charity established in 2012 with an endowment from the National Lottery Community Fund (then the Big Lottery Fund). In each of 150 selected deprived English neighbourhoods, a resident-led partnership decides autonomously how to spend a long-term endowment.

Objectives

The programme aims to give residents of deprived neighbourhoods full control over a long-term endowment to spend on locally chosen priorities, rather than channelling funding through competitive grant applications.

Activities

Each area received a nominal £1 million endowment, part of a total commitment of about £270 million across the programme, to spend over a 10–15 year period running from 2012 to 2026 on priorities such as jobs and skills, green space, community buildings and activities for young people. By spend, the 150 areas drew down £180.4 million through 1,524 individual grants, with community spaces (£21.9 million), local grant schemes (£7.4 million) and skills/employment projects (£5.9 million) among the largest categories.

Results

A 2023 mixed-methods evaluation published in NIHR's Public Health Research journal, led by researchers at Lancaster University, found a statistically significant reduction in burglary (z-score change of -0.054) but no significant population-level improvement in anxiety overall; a modelled cost-benefit analysis produced a central estimate of £959 million in net benefit over four years, but a conservative scenario put it as low as £64 million.

Conclusions

The same evaluation found that wellbeing gains among the most engaged residents were not sustained by 2020, and that benefits were unevenly distributed — favouring more-educated and male residents. Local Trust's own legacy research has also documented governance strain within some resident partnerships, describing "personalities, power struggles" as undermining collective decision-making in a minority of areas.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Very high (> €5M) — Roughly £1 million nominal endowment per neighbourhood; £270 million total commitment across 150 areas; £180.4 million actually drawn down through 1,524 grants.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — 10–15 year endowment period, 2012 to 2026.
Staffing & skills
Run by Local Trust, an independent charity; day-to-day spending decisions made by resident-led partnerships in each of the 150 neighbourhoods

Conditions for success

  • Genuinely long-term (10–15 year) funding horizon rather than a short grant cycle
  • Full, unconditional budgetary control handed to resident partnerships rather than competitive grant applications

Common failure modes

  • Governance strain — "personalities, power struggles" — undermined collective decision-making in a minority of areas
  • Wellbeing gains among the most engaged residents were not sustained by 2020
  • Benefits were unevenly distributed, favouring more-educated and male residents

Where it fits

Governance type
resident-led partnership with charity intermediary
Scale
neighbourhood
Income level
high-income

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful