Community Engagement in Initiatives Addresses The Wider Determinants of Health - NICE UK - 2007

Social Determinants Effectiveness Review
Community engagement in initiatives

addressing the wider social determinants of
health
A rapid review of evidence on impact,

experience and process
Review team:
Jennie Popay
Pam Attree
Deborah Hornby
Beth Milton
Margaret Whitehead
Beverley French
Ute Kowarzik
Nancy Simpson
Susan Povall
Universities of Lancaster, Liverpool and Central Lancashire
4th May 2007

CE6&7 – 3 Social Determinants Effectiveness Review
Executive summary
This report examines the evidence for the effectiveness of initiatives seeking to engage
communities in action to address the wider social determinants of population health and
health inequalities. Evidence on barriers and enablers to the successful implementation
of these initiatives has also been reviewed.
Focus and methods
Studies were included in the review if they provided evidence on:
1. The population impact of initiatives seeking to engage communities of place or
interest in the planning, design, delivery or governance of
policies/programmes/projects in the following areas:
• Neighbourhood regeneration/renewal
• Housing/built environment
• Transport
• Employment/work/job creation
• Social inclusion/exclusion/capital/empowerment/capacity building
• Income/poverty/financial exclusion
• Injury/accident prevention
• Substance/alcohol/drug misuse prevention
2. The experience of community engagement for community members active in

these initiatives
3. The barriers to and enablers of processes of community engagement in these
initiatives
4. The effectiveness of interventions aiming to remove/reduce barriers to
community engagement
Only primary evaluative research based in the UK or reviews of such research were
included in the review, but included study and review designs differed depending on the
type of evidence being sought.
Population impact evidence: Experimental or quasi-experimental studies are rare in
this field, so more diverse study designs were included than is usual in NICE reviews.
The studies providing evidence on population impacts were divided into two groups
depending on the type of intervention being evaluated.
1. Studies evaluating direct community engagement initiatives: initiatives with
community engagement as their primary purpose. In theory these studies can
provide evidence of a direct link between community engagement and the outcomes
being measured. Thirteen evaluative studies (14 papers) were included in this
review: three were outcome evaluations using multiple data sources and matched
comparator data, and ten were multiple case studies, or associational surveys linking
process and outcome data.
2. Studies evaluating indirect community engagement initiatives: multi-faceted
initiatives that included community engagement as one amongst a number of
delivery mechanisms. These studies provide evidence of an association between the
initiative being evaluated and the population outcomes measured, but it is not
possible to say how community engagement per se has contributed to these
1
outcomes. Five large scale national programmes were included in this review and all
of the evaluations included multiple data sources and comparator data.
The experience of engagement for active community members: This review
included seven qualitative studies judged to privilege the perspectives of community
members (or mixed method designs including research of this type); fourteen qualitative
studies judged not to privilege the perspectives of community members (or mixed
method studies including such research); and one study involving surveys or mixed
methods not including qualitative research.
Barriers to and enablers of community engagement processes: This review
included eight process evaluations (nine papers) involving mixed methods alongside
outcome evaluations; eighteen process evaluations (twenty-one papers) involving mixed
methods not linked to outcome evaluations and a narrative review of process
evaluations.
Review Findings
The original protocol identified four main research questions to guide the review.
Findings are presented in relation to the first three questions on the impact, experience
and the barriers to and enablers of community engagement. No evidence concerning
interventions which had successfully overcome the barriers to effective and appropriate
community engagement was identified.
In the summary that follows we organise the findings firstly by type of social
determinant outcome (housing, social capital etc.) or theme (for barriers and enablers),
and secondly according to the levels of evidence assigned to studies. Each study in the
review was assigned a rating for the level of evidence it provided, based on the ability of
the study design to address questions on the impact, experience or process of
community engagement (see Table 2.2, page 32).
Population impact of community engagement initiatives
What community engagement and development methods and approaches are

effective for the planning (including priority setting and resource allocation), design,
delivery or governance of interventions and/or initiatives seeking to address wider
social, economic, cultural and environmental determinants of health?
The evidence shows that for some groups there are a range of clear and identifiable
benefits of community engagement, but across the studies the range of methods and
approaches used vary (see Evidence Tables, Section 4, pages 109-157), and are not
consistently replicated across all settings and initiatives in order to allow the evidence to
demonstrate which specific method or approach is most successful in improving the
social determinants of health. Therefore it is difficult to attribute specific benefits to any
one approach or method.
1. The impact of direct community engagement initiatives
a) Findings organised by topic

Housing: Evidence from three studies (two 2++, one 3+) suggests that community
engagement may have a positive impact on housing management.
2
Crime: Evidence from one (2++) study suggests that community engagement may have
a positive impact on residents’ perceptions of crime.
Service impacts: Evidence from five studies (one 3++, four 3+) suggests that
community engagement may have a positive impact on information flows and community
involvement in service delivery. However there was no conclusive evidence of direct
impacts of community engagement on service delivery.
Social capital and social cohesion: Evidence from seven studies (two 2++, one 3++,
four 3+) suggests that community engagement may have a positive impact on ‘bonding’
and ‘bridging’ social capital and social cohesion.
Community engagement and involvement: Evidence from four studies (one 2++, one
3++, two 3+) suggests that initiatives that aim to promote community engagement can
successfully recruit new volunteers, enable voluntary and community groups to establish
better links with wider communities, and involve BME community members in housing
management. Two studies (one 3++, one 3+) suggest that the ‘reach’ of community
involvement beyond existing community groups is limited.
Empowerment: Evidence from seven studies (one 2++, one 3++, five 3+) suggests that
community engagement may have a positive impact on community empowerment in the
areas of capacity building, skills and knowledge development, community development,
building a more united local ‘voice’, and increasing tenants’ political efficacy.
b) Findings organised by level of evidence

Each study of direct community engagement initiatives was assigned a rating for the
level of evidence it provided, based on the ability of the study design to address
questions on the population impact of community engagement, as follows:
Level 1 evidence: This type of study provides the strongest evidence of a causal
relationship between an initiative/intervention and the outcomes measured, such as
controlled experimental study designs, or systematic reviews of these types of evidence.
No studies of direct community engagement initiatives provided this level of
evidence.
Level 2 evidence: This type of study provides weaker evidence of a relationship

between an intervention and the outcomes measured in that the relationship identified
may not be causal and may have happened by chance. It includes outcome evaluations
using multiple data sources and matched comparator data.
Three studies 1 provided Level 2 evidence on the impact of direct community

engagement initiatives and all of them were judged to be of good methodological
quality (++). These suggest that community engagement may have positive impacts on
housing management (two studies), on residents’ perceptions of crime (one study), on
social capital and social cohesion (one study), on levels of community engagement and
involvement (one study), and empowerment (one study).
1
Cairncross et al 2002; Goodlad et al 2003; Tunstall, 2001
3
Level 3 evidence: This type of study provides very weak evidence of a causal
relationship between an intervention/initiative and the outcomes measured. It includes
multiple case studies, and associational surveys linking process and outcome data. This
evidence must be treated with great caution.
Ten studies (reported in eleven papers) provided Level 3 evidence on the impact of
direct community engagement initiatives. These suggest that community
engagement may have positive impacts on housing management (one study) 2 , on
information flows between the community and service providers and community
involvement in service planning and delivery (five studies) 3 , on social capital and social
cohesion (including partnership working) (five studies) 4 , on levels of community
engagement and involvement (three studies) 5 and empowerment (six studies) 6 .
2) The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives

Primary outcomes
Mortality: Evidence from one (2++) study suggests no impact on mortality between
1999 and 2002 for all the study areas combined. However, this is to be expected given
the short time frame of the evaluation.
Morbidity/health behaviours: Evidence from three (2++) studies suggests that these
indirect CE initiatives have not led to improvements in morbidity. However, this is to be
expected given the short time frame of the evaluations. Evidence from one (2++) study
suggests that there has been no significant improvement in health behaviours related to
diet, smoking and exercise compared to the comparator areas. Evidence from one (2++)
study suggests that there may be some benefit for parenting behaviour in families with
small children.
Quality of life: Evidence from four (2++) studies suggests that indirect CE initiatives
may have a positive impact on the way residents of the intervention areas feel about
their areas.
Environmental and socio-economic indicators: Evidence from four (2++) studies

suggests that indirect CE initiatives may have a positive impact on environmental and
socio-economic indicators such as employment, education and training, income, and
crime.
Impact on inequalities: Evidence from three (2++) studies suggests that indirect CE
initiatives may benefit less disadvantaged groups more than the most disadvantaged,
but that older residents and some ethnic minority groups could benefit more from the
2
Pawson et al 2005, 3+
3
Aldbourne Associates & IRIS Consulting, 2003, 3+; Craig et al 2002, 3+; ODPM 2006A, 3+;
Taylor et al 2005, 3+; Winters & Patel, 2003, 3++
4
Craig et al 2002, 3+; EDuce Ltd, 2005, 3+/Johnstone et al 2005, 3+; ODPM, 2004A, 3+; Taylor
et al 2005, 3+; Winters & Patel, 2003, 3++
5
Aldbourne Associates and IRIS consulting, 2003, 3+; Watson et al 2004, 3+; Winters & Patel
2003, 3++
6
EDuce Ltd, 2005, 3+/Johnstone et al 2005, 3+; Johnstone & Campbell-Jones, 2003, 3+; ODPM,
2004A, 3+; ODPM, 2006A, 3+; Taylor et al 2005, 3+; Winters & Patel, 2003, 3++
4
interventions. However, the authors stress caution in interpreting these results due to
problems of small numbers and the relatively short period that the interventions had
been running.
Intermediate outcomes
Relationship between community and local services: Evidence from two (2++)
studies suggests that indirect CE initiatives may have a positive impact on the
relationship between communities and local services in terms of satisfaction with their
hospital and trust in their local council.
Social capital: Evidence from four (2++) studies suggests that indirect CE initiatives
may have a positive impact on indicators of social capital in terms of neighbours looking
out for each other.
Community engagement/involvement: Evidence from three (2++) studies suggests

that indirect CE initiatives have not had a quantifiable impact on the level of community
engagement or involvement with voluntary or community activities. However, authors
from two studies note that the initiatives have led to increased access to community
facilities and increased support for voluntary and community groups.
Empowerment: Evidence from three (2++) studies suggests that indirect CE initiatives
may not increase residents’ belief that they can influence decisions taken in their area.

Each study of indirect community engagement initiatives was assigned a rating for the
level of evidence it provided, based on the ability of the study design to address
questions on the population impact of community engagement, as follows:
Level 1 evidence: This type of study provides the strongest evidence of a causal
relationship between an initiative/intervention and the outcomes measured. No studies
of indirect community engagement initiatives provided this level of evidence.
Level 2 evidence: This type of study provides weaker evidence of a relationship

between an intervention and the outcomes measured, in that the relationship identified
may not be attributable to that particular intervention or may have happened by chance.
Five studies (reported in twelve papers) 7 provided Level 2 evidence on the impact of
indirect community engagement initiatives and all of them were judged to be of good
methodological quality (++). The evidence suggests that there are no short-term benefits
from these interventions in mortality and morbidity or in health behaviours relating to diet,
smoking and exercise 8 . However, one study found evidence of less negative parenting
and better acceptance of their children’s behaviour among parents in the intervention
sites than in the comparator areas 9 . There is some evidence that these initiatives may
7
Beatty et al (2005); Carr-Hill (2003); Dept for Communities and Local Government (2006);
GFK/NOP (2006); Grimsley et al (2005); Melhuish et al (2005); OPDM (2004B); ODPM (2005A);
OPDM (2006B); Rhodes et al (2005); SD Direct (2003); SD Direct (2004).
8
Melhuish et al (2005); ODPM (2005A); Rhodes et al (2005).
9
Melhuish et al (2005).
5
improve quality of life in terms of perceptions of the local area (four studies) 10 ,
environmental and socioeconomic conditions (four studies) 11 , relationships between the
communities and local services (two studies) 12 , and social capital (four studies) 13 . There
was little or no evidence to suggest that these initiatives had a positive impact on
community engagement and involvement (three studies) 14 or on empowerment (three
studies) 15 in the short-term. There was some suggestion that they may benefit less
disadvantaged groups more than the most disadvantaged (three studies) 16 although this
evidence should be treated with caution.
Level 3 evidence: This type of study provides very weak evidence of a causal
relationship between an intervention/initiative and the outcomes measured. It includes
multiple case studies, and associational surveys linking process and outcome data. This
evidence must be treated with great caution. No studies of indirect community
engagement initiatives provided this level of evidence.
The experience of community engagement for active community members
What is the experience of engagement for the community members who get
involved?

Health benefits: Six studies (two 1++, one 1+, one 2++ and one 2+) suggest that community
engagement may have health benefits for participants, improving physical and mental
health and quality of life.
Socio-economic benefits: Fifteen studies of varying quality (1++ to 2+) suggest there
are links between involvement in community engagement activities, access to formal
education training opportunities, and informal skills development. Two studies (2+, 2++)
suggest that community engagement may improve residents’ perceptions of crime in
their local area.
Personal and social benefits: Fifteen studies (1++ to 3+) suggest positive personal
and social benefits of community engagement for individuals, including increased
confidence and self-esteem, personal empowerment and improved social networks.
Dis-benefits: Eight studies (1++ to 2+) suggest that community engagement activities
may have unintended negative consequences for participants, including physical and
emotional health costs, consultation fatigue and disillusionment.

Each study was assigned a rating for the level of evidence it provided, based on the
ability of the study design to address questions on community members’ experience of
engagement, as follows:
10
Carr-Hill (2003); ODPM (2004B); ODPM (2005A); Rhodes et al (2005); DCLG (2006).
11
Carr-Hill (2003); ODPM (2004B); ODPM (2005A); Rhodes et al (2005); DCLG (2006).
12
Melhuish et al (2005); ODPM (2005A).
13
Carr-Hill (2003); ODPM (2005A); Rhodes et al (2005); DCLG (2006).
14
Carr-Hill (2003); ODPM (2005A); Rhodes et al (2005).
15
Carr-Hill (2003); ODPM (2004B); ODPM (2005A); DCLG (2006).
16
Carr-Hill (2003); Melhuish et al (2005); ODPM (2004B); ODPM (2005A).
6
Level 1 evidence: This type of study provides the strongest evidence on community
members’ experience of engagement. It includes qualitative or mixed-methods research
that privileges the perspectives of community members (that is studies that use an
emergent, inductive approach to data generation, in which the researchers do not
predetermine the direction of the research).
Seven studies provided Level 1 evidence on the experience of community

engagement for active community members, both positive and negative. Three studies
suggest that community engagement may have physical and mental health benefits for
participants 17 . Socio-economic benefits that participants may experience include access
to formal training opportunities and informal skill development (four studies) 18 , increased
employment opportunities (three studies) 19 , and income benefits (one study) 20 . Personal
and social benefits for community members may include increased confidence and self
esteem (four studies) 21 , personal empowerment (three studies) 22 and improved social
networks (three studies) 23 . Dis-benefits of community engagement may include physical,
mental or emotional health costs (one study) 24 , consultation fatigue (one study) 25 , and
disillusionment (one study) 26 .
Level 2 evidence: This type of study provides less robust experiential evidence drawn
from qualitative or mixed-method research that does not privilege community members’
perspectives.
Fourteen studies provided Level 2 evidence on the experience of community

engagement for active community members. Three studies suggest that community
engagement may have physical and mental health benefits 27 and lead to quality of life
improvements for participants (two studies) 28 . Socio-economic benefits that participants
may experience include access to formal training opportunities and informal skill
development (ten studies) 29 , increased employment opportunities (seven studies) 30 ,
income benefits (one study) 31 , and improved perceptions of crime (two studies) 32 .
17
Bolam et al 2006, 1++; Boyle et al 2006, 1+; Ziersch & Baum, 2004, 1++
18
Attree, 2004, 1++; Boyle et al 2006, 1+; Del Tufo & Gastner, 2002, 1+; Winters & Patel, 2003,
1++
19
Attree, 2004, 1++; Boyle et al 2006, 1++; Winters & Patel, 2003, 1++
20
Boyle et al 2006, 1+
21
Attree, 2004, 1++; Bolam et al 2006, 1++; Boyle et al 2006, 1+; Winters & Patel, 2003, 1++
22
Attree, 2004, 1++; Cole et al 2004, 1+; Del Tufo & Gastner 2004, 1+
23
Bolam et al 2006, 1++; Boyle et al 2006, 1+; Del Tufo & Gastner, 2004, 1+
24
Ziersch & Baum, 2004, 1++
25
Cole et al 2004, 1+)
26
Bolam et al 2006, 1++
27
Matarasso, 1997, 2++; Callard & Friedli, 2005, 2+; Seyfang & Smith, 2002, 2+
28
Matarasso, 1997, 2++; Seyfang & Smith, 2002, 2+
29
Bickerstaff & Walker, 2005, 2++; Callard & Friedl, 2005, 2+;Johnstone & Campbell-Jones,
2003, 2++; Matarasso, 1997, 2++; Matthews, 2001, 2++; McInroy & MacDonald, 2005, 2+; ODPM
2004A, 2+; ODPM 2005B, 2+; Seyfang & Smith, 2002, 2+; Watson et al 2004, 2++
30
Callard & Friedli, 2005, 2+; Johnstone & Campbell-Jones, 2003, 2++; Matarasso, 1997, 2++;
ODPM 2004A, 2+; ODPM 2005B, 2+; Seyfang & Smith, 2002, 2+; Watson et al 2004, 2++
31
Seyfang, 2003, 2+
32
Matarasso, 1997, 2++; ODPM, 2005B, 2+
7
Personal and social benefits for community members may include increased confidence
and self esteem (three studies) 33 , personal empowerment (two studies) 34 , improved
social networks (three studies) 35 and social cohesion (four studies) 36 . Dis-benefits of
community engagement may include physical, mental or emotional health costs for
participants (three studies) 37 , consultation fatigue (two studies) 38 , and disillusionment
(one study) 39 .
Level 3 evidence: This type of study includes surveys or mixed-methods studies that do
not contain substantive qualitative research. This provides weak experiential evidence
which should be treated with caution.
One study 40 provided Level 3 evidence on the experience of community engagement

for active community members, suggesting potential benefits such as access to formal
training opportunities, and increased confidence and self esteem.
Barriers to and enablers of community engagement initiatives
What are the barriers to and enablers of the implementation of effective and
appropriate community engagement and development approaches and methods
for interventions and initiatives seeking to address the social determinants of
health?
a) Findings organised by theme

Barriers: The (mis)use of power: Fourteen studies (1++ to 2+) suggest that the
(mis)use of power by professionals may serve to control the issues communities are
engaged in and to exclude communities from the engagement process. Ways in which
these processes operated are identified, including possible collusion between
professionals and community activists.
Communicative resources and knowledge: Fourteen studies (1++ to 2+) suggest that
the lack of relevant skills and knowledge amongst both professionals and lay participants
may be a barrier to effective engagement. Six studies specifically referred to the
potential for networking and shared learning to reduce these barriers.
The practices of engagement: Fourteen studies and a narrative review (1++ to 2+)
suggest that practices of engagement may create barriers for particular communities,
including the style and timing of meetings, failure to accommodate cultural diversity and
accessibility issues.
Transaction costs: Ten studies (1+ to 2+) suggest that the personal costs incurred
through the engagement process (for example, demands on time and financial costs)
33
Johnstone & Campbell-Jones, 2003, 2++; Matarasso, 1997, 2++; Matthews, 2001, 2++
34
Callard & Friedli, 2005, 2+; Matarasso, 1997, 2++
35
ODPM, 2005B, 2+; Seyfang, 2003, 2+; Watson et al 2004, 2++
36
Callard & Friedli, 2005, 2+; Matarasso, 1997, 2++; Seyfang, 2003, 2+; Seyfang & Smith, 2002,
2+
37
Chau, 2007, 2++; Edwards, 2002, 2+; Matarasso, 1997, 2++
38
Bickerstaff & Walker, 2++; Gunn, 2005, 2+
39
Chau, 2007, 2++
40
Church & Elster, 2002, 3+
8
could inhibit engagement. The particular difficulties faced by economically

disadvantaged communities, BME communities and communities in rural areas were
highlighted.
Cultural and attitudinal constraints: Ten studies and a narrative review (1++ to 2+)
provided evidence on cultural and attitudinal barriers to engagement amongst
professionals and elected officials, including stereotyping of particular groups (e.g.
disabled people) and the dominance of deficit images of communities.
Community resistance to engagement: Nine studies (1+ to 2+) provide evidence on

active resistance to engagement amongst community members, particularly within the
housing field, and on passive resistance resulting from frustration at their lack of
influence. However, one study reported that although community members were wary of
assuming responsibility, they still felt that the community should be involved in decision
making.
Models of engagement: Two studies (2++) suggest that the effectiveness of community
engagement may be compromised when expectations are too high and, in particular,
when too much reliance is placed on the ability of planning structures such as Health
Action Zones to alleviate relatively intractable social problems and tackle health
inequalities.
Four studies (1+ to 2+) raise questions about the appropriateness of deliberative
approaches to community engagement, suggesting that an unrealistic emphasis placed
on the pursuit of consensus may undermine the process of community engagement.
Six studies (1+ to 2+) suggest that public agencies and/or officials may be confused
about the distinction between representative and participative governance, and unclear
about how representation should be defined in relation to community engagement.
The national policy context: Several studies (1++ to 2+) suggest that contradictions
inherent in national policy may create barriers to effective community engagement.
Enablers: Fourteen studies (1++ to 2+) provided direct evidence on factors that may
contribute to the success of CE initiatives, including instrumental issues such as training
and networking. This evidence highlighted the particular value of Community
Development expertise, high-level corporate commitment, technical support from NGOs
and the voluntary sector (particularly important in BME communities), and diversity in the
types of opportunities available for communities to engage at strategic and operational
levels.

Each study was assigned a rating for the level of evidence it provided, based on the
ability of the study design to address questions on the barriers to or enablers of
community engagement processes, as follows:
Level 1 evidence: This level of evidence includes mixed-method process evaluations

conducted alongside outcome evaluations, providing the strongest evidence of barriers
to and enablers of community engagement.
9
Eight studies provide Level 1 evidence on the barriers to community engagement

including the (mis)use of power by professionals, which may serve to control the issues
communities are engaged in and to exclude communities from the engagement process
(four studies) 41 , and lack of communicative resources and knowledge amongst
professionals and lay participants (four studies) 42 . Three studies 43 refer to the possibility
that networking and shared learning could reduce these barriers. Five studies describe
common practices that may create barriers to engagement including the organisation,
style and timing of meetings, failure to accommodate cultural diversity and accessibility
issues 44 . Other possible barriers include the transaction costs associated with
engagement 45 (two studies), cultural and attitudinal constraints (two studies) 46 ,
community resistance to engagement (three studies) 47 , problems with particular models
of engagement (one study) 48 , and contradictions in the national policy context (two
studies) 49 . One study highlights the importance of taking historical context into account
when instituting community engagement initiatives. 50
Enablers: Five studies provided Level 1 evidence on the enablers of community

engagement 51 , including the value of Community Development expertise (two
studies) 52 , high-level corporate commitment (two studies) 53 , the funding available to
Community Engagement Networks (one study) 54 , and past experience of community
engagement (one study) 55 .
Level 2 evidence: This level of evidence includes mixed-method process evaluations

not linked to outcome evaluations, providing weaker evidence on barriers to and
enablers of community engagement.
Twenty primary studies and one review provided Level 2 evidence on the barriers to
community engagement including the (mis)use of power by professionals, which may
serve to control the issues communities are engaged in and to exclude communities
41
Cairncross et al 2002, 1+; Lawless, 2004A/B, 1+; McArthur et al 1996, 1++; Tunstill et al 2005,
1++
42
Cairncross et al 2002, 1+; Hills et al 2007, 1+; Tunstill et al 2005, 1++; Watson et al 2004, 1++
43
Cairncross et al 2002, 1+; Hills et al 2007, 1+; Watson et al 2004, 1++
44
Cole & Smith, 1996, 1+; Hills et al 2007, 1+; Lawless 2004 A/B, 1+; McArthur et al 1996, 1++;
Watson et al 2004, 1++
45
Cole & Smith, 1996, 1+; Lawless 2004A/B, 1+
46
Lloyd et al 2005, 1++; McArthur et al 1996, 1++
47
Cairncross et al 2002, 1+; Cole & Smith, 1996, 1+; Hills et al 2007, 1+
48
Cole & Smith, 1996, 1+
49
Lawless 2004A/B, 1+; Lloyd et al 2005, 1++
50
Lawless 2004A/B, 1+
51
Cole & Smith, 1996, 1+; Hills et al 2007, 1+; McArthur et al 1996, 1++; Taylor, 2006, 1++;
Tunstill et al 2005, 1++
52
Cole & Smith, 1996, 1+; Hills et al, 2007, 1+
53
Hills et al, 2007, 1+, Tunstill et al, 2005, 1+
54
Taylor, 2006, 1++
55
McArthur et al, 1996, 1++
10
from the engagement process (ten studies) 56 , and lack of communicative resources and
knowledge amongst professionals and lay participants (ten studies) 57 . Three studies 58
refer to the possibility that networking and shared learning could reduce these barriers.
Nine studies and one review describe common practices that may create barriers to
engagement including the organisation, style and timing of meetings, failure to
accommodate cultural diversity and accessibility issues 59 . Other potential barriers
include the transaction costs associated with engagement (seven studies and one
review) 60 , cultural and attitudinal constraints (eight studies and one review) 61 , community
resistance to engagement (six studies) 62 , problems with particular models of
engagement (eight studies) 63 , and contradictions in the national policy context (three
studies) 64 . Five studies and one review highlight the importance of taking historical
context into account when instituting community engagement initiatives. 65
Enablers: Nine primary studies and one review provided Level 2 evidence on the
enablers of community engagement 66 , including the value of Community
Development expertise (three studies) 67 , time spent by public agencies building time and
trust (two studies and one review) 68 high-level corporate commitment (one study and
56
Anastacio et al 2000, 2++; Barnes et al 2003/Newman et al 2004, 2+; Barnes et al 2004, 2++;
Beresford & Hoban, 2005, 2+; Bickerstaff & Walker 2005, 2++; Cole et al 2004, 2+; Osborne et al
2002 2+; Shiner et al 2004, 2+; Sustainable Development Commission, 2003, 2+; Williams 2004,
2++
57
Anastacio et al, 2000, 2++; Barnes et al 2003, 2+; Barnes et al 2004, 2++; Beresford & Hoban,
2005, 2+; Chouhan & Lusane, 2004, 2+; Church & Elster, 2002, 2+; Sustainable Development
Commission, 2003, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++; Webster & Johnson, 2000, 2++; Williamson et al 2004,
2+
58
Church & Elster, 2002, 2+; Sustainable Development Commission, 2003, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++
59
Anastacio et al 2000, 2++; Barnes et al 2003/Newman et al 2004, 2+; Barnes et al 2004/Bauld
et al 2005; 2++; Beresford & Hoban, 2005, 2+; Bickerstaff & Walker, 2005, 2++; Chouhan &
Lusane, 2004, 2+; Cole et al 2004, 2+; Goodlad et al 2005, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++; Williams, 2004,
2++
60
Barnes et al 2003/Newman et al 2004, 2+; Beresford & Hoban, 2005, 2+; Bickerstaff & Walker,
2005, 2++; Birchall & Simmons, 2004, 2+; Chouhan & Lusane, 2004, 2+; Church & Elster, 2002,
2+; Goodlad et al 2005, 2+; Osborne et al 2002, 2+
61
Anastacio et al 2000, 2++; Barnes et al 2003, 2+; Barnes et al 2004, 2++; Beresford & Hoban,
2005, 2+; Bickerstaff & Walker, 2005, 2++; Chouhan & Lusane, 2004, 2+; Goodlad et al 2005, 2+;
Osborne et al 2002, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++
62
Barnes et al 2003/Newman et al 2004, 2+; Beresford & Hoban, 2005, 2+; Bickerstaff & Walker,
2005, 2+; Cole et al 2004, 2+; Gaster & Crossley, 2000, 2++; Taylor, 2006, 2++
63
Barnes et al 2004, 2++; Bauld et al 2005; 2++; Beresford & Hoban, 2005, 2+; Bickerstaff &
Walker, 2005, 2++; Cole et al 2004, 2+; Russell, 2005/Sullivan & Howard, 2005, 2+; Sustainable
Development Commission, 2003, 2+; Webster & Johnson, 2000, 2++
64
Barnes et al 2004, 2++; Bauld et al 2005; 2++; Osborne et al 2002, 2+
65
Barnes et al 2004, 2++; Chouhan & Lousane, 2004, 2+; Cole et al 2004, 2+; Goodlad et al
2004, 2+; Russell & Sullivan 2005/Howard, 2005, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++
66
Anastacio et al 2000, 2++; Birchall & Simmons, 2004, 2+; Chouhan & Lusane, 2004, 2+;
Church & Elster, 2002, 2+; Cole et al 2004, 2+; Gaster & Crossley, 2000, 2++; Goodlad et al
2005, 2+; Osborne et al 2002, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++; Webster & Johnson, 2000, 2++
67
Anastacio et al 2000, 2++; Gaster & Crossley, 2000, 2++; Church & Elster, 2000, 2+
68
Cole et al 2004, 2+; Gaster & Crossley, 2000, 2+; Goodlad et al 2005, 2+
11
one review) 69 , technical support from NGOs and the voluntary sector (particularly
important in BME communities) (four studies) 70 , past experience of CE initiatives (five
studies and one review) 71 , and the use of Participatory Appraisal methods to enable
communities to engage at strategic and operational levels (one study) 72 .
Limitations of the review
Gaps in evidence
The review identified few good-quality studies that reported community level outcomes of
direct community engagement initiatives. No studies used research designs that would
have enabled direct attribution of reported outcomes to community engagement.
Studies linking an understanding of barriers and/or enablers to the outcomes of

processes of community engagement appear to be rare. There is also a dominant focus
on barriers to engagement, with relatively few papers providing empirical evidence of
factors that supported success. No studies evaluating interventions aiming to reduce the
barriers were identified. There appears to be little evidence on barriers and enablers in
the context of specific methods of engagement with specific communities.
Range of evidence
The total number of potentially relevant studies identified could not all be included in the
review in the time available. The review team endeavoured to ensure that the studies
included in the review were representative of the larger pool available, but it is still
possible that the evidence reviewed was limited by this approach.
Attribution
The population impact associated with indirect community engagement initiatives cannot
be attributed to the community engagement aspects of these initiatives. Additionally,
attributing population impacts to direct community engagement is also problematic
because of the relatively weaker strength and level of evidence provided by the
evaluations of these initiatives.
Other limitations included:

• Insufficient detail of community engagement approaches/methods provided
• Evaluations carried out using less than robust outcome measures
• Evaluation data generated by community groups involved in administering the
intervention
• Evaluation carried out too early in the lifespan of an intervention to identify outcomes
effectively
• Initiatives’ weak focus on health
• Difficulty of distinguishing between the effects of active community engagement and
engaging people in health-promoting activities
69
Church & Elster, 2002, 2+; Goodlad et al 2005, 2+
70
Birchall & Simmons, 2004, 2+; Church & Elster, 2002, 2+; Osborne et al 2002, 2+; Taylor,
2006, 2++
71
Barnes et al 2004, 2++; Chouhan & Lousane, 2004, 2+; Cole et al 2004, 2+; Goodlad et al
2004, 2+; Russell & Sullivan 2005/Howard, 2005, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++
72
Webster & Johnson, 2004, 2++
12
Contents
Executive summary 1
Contents 13
Figures and tables 16
Abbreviations 17
Section 1: Introduction 18
1.1 Background to the review 18
1.2 The need for guidance 18
1.3 The nature of the evidence on community engagement 20
1.4 Scope of the reviews 21
1.4.1 Aspects of community engagement and development covered 21
1.4.2 Research questions addressed in the review 22
1.4.3 Population groups covered 23
1.4.4 Methods and/or approaches of interest 23
1.4.5 Outcomes of interest 23
1.4.6 Study type 24
1.4.7 Areas not to be covered 24
Section 2: Review Methodology 25

2.1 Identifying relevant studies 25
2.1.1 Literature search 25
2.1.2 Other sources of potentially relevant studies 25
2.2 Screening titles and abstracts for relevance 25
2.2.1 Electronic database records 25
2.2.2 Web-based databases and website searches 27
2.2.3 Prioritising records for full paper retrieval 29
2.3 Full paper retrieval and screening 29
2.3.1 Preparing the records 29
2.3.2 Screening for relevance, methodological quality and level of evidence 30
2.3.3 Prioritising studies for data extraction and synthesis 32
2.4 Data extraction 33
Section 3: Review Results 38

Introduction 38
3.1 The impact of community engagement 38
3.1.1 The nature of the evidence, study type and quality 38
3.1.2 The impact of direct CE initiatives 40

Study categorisation 40
Evaluative methods and study designs 41
Community engagement methods 41
Evidence summary 42
Housing impacts of community engagement 42
Crime impacts 43
Service impacts 43
Social capital and social cohesion 44
13
Community engagement and involvement 46

Empowerment 47
3.1.3 The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives 49

Study categorisation 49
Types of evaluation study 49
Type of intervention 50
Setting 52
Subgroup analyses 52
Outcome measures 52
Statistical analysis and explanation of terms 52
Evidence summary 53
Primary outcomes 53
Mortality 54
Morbidity/health behaviour 54
Quality of life 56
Environmental and socio-economic indicators 58
Impact on inequalities 60
Intermediate outcomes 61
Relationship between community and local services 61
Social capital 62
Community engagement/involvement 63
Empowerment 64
Discussion: the impact of direct and indirect CE initiatives 65
Limitations 67
3.2 Evidence on the experience of community engagement 69

3.2.1 The nature of the evidence, study type and quality 69
Community engagement methods/approaches 70
3.2.2 Evidence summary 70
Health benefits of community engagement 71
Socio-economic benefits of community engagement 73
Personal and social benefits of community engagement 76
Dis-benefits of community engagement 79
Discussion: the experience of community engagement 81
Limitations 82
3.3. Barriers and enablers to community engagement 83

3.3.1 The nature of process evidence 83
Defining good quality process evaluations 83
Level of evidence, study quality and data extraction 83
3.3.2 Evidence summary 84
Power relationships in CE initiatives 84
Communicative knowledge and resources 87
The practices of community engagement 89
The transaction costs of community engagement 91
Culture and attitudes 93
Community resistance to engagement 95
Models of engagement 96
14
The political context 97

Enablers for community engagement 98
Discussion: barriers and enablers to community engagement 100
Limitations 102
3.4 Overall summary 103
Section 4: Evidence Tables 109

Table 4.1: The impact of direct community engagement initiatives 109
Table 4.2: The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives 117
Table 4.3: Indirect community engagement initiatives – study design features 123
Table 4.4: Community members’ experience of engagement: theme findings 125
identified
Table 4.5: Barriers and enablers to community engagement 133
Appendices
Appendix 1: Databases and web-based resources searched 158
Appendix 2: Medline search strategy (MSS2) 159
Appendix 3: Screening titles and abstracts for relevance: the mapping review 162
Appendix 4: Searching web-based databases and websites 163
Appendix 5: Excluded studies 165
Appendix 6: Critical appraisal checklists 193
Appendix 7: Studies graded minus for quality 196
Appendix 8: Studies parked on level of evidence criteria 198
Appendix 9: Data extracted studies 200
Appendix 10: Unretrieved studies 207
Appendix 11: Studies identified as relevant but not data extracted 217
15
FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURES
Diagram 1 Pathways from community participation, empowerment and 19
control to health improvement
Diagram 2 Screening titles and abstracts 28
Diagram 3 Full paper retrieval, screening and data extraction 34
Diagram 4 The experience of community engagement 71
TABLES
Table 2.1 Strength of evidence ratings for studies included in the review 31
Table 2.2 Level of evidence: impact, experience and process 32
Table 2.3 Data extracted studies 35
Table 3.1.1 Study quality and type of initiative 40
Table 3.1.2 Housing impacts of community engagement 42
Table 3.1.3 Crime impacts of community engagement 43
Table 3.1.4 Local service provision impacts of community engagement 44
Table 3.1.5 Social capital impacts of community engagement 45
Table 3.1.6 Perceived community engagement impacts 46
Table 3.1.7 Empowerment impacts of community engagement 47
Table 3.1.8 Indirect CE initiatives: study type and quality 49
Table 3.1.9 Type of intervention and role of CE 51
Table 3.1.10 Health behaviours 56
Table 3.1.11 Quality of life 57
Table 3.1.12 Environmental and socio-economic indicators 59
Table 3.1.13 Relationships with services 62
Table 3.1.14 Social capital 63
Table 3.1.15 Community engagement/involvement 64
Table 3.1.16 Empowerment 64
Table 3.2.1 Study quality and type of intervention 69
Table 3.2.2 Health benefits of community engagement 71
Table 3.2.3 Socio-economic benefits of community engagement 73
Table 3.2.4 Personal and social benefits of community engagement 77
Table 3.2.5 Dis-benefits of community engagement 80
Table 3.3.1 The distribution and use of power in CE initiatives 86
Table 3.3.2 Training and knowledge acquisition 87
Table 3.3.3 Networking and sharing experiences 88
Table 3.3.4 Practices of engagement 89
Table 3.3.5 The importance of historical context 91
Table 3.3.6 Material constraints 92
Table 3.3.7 Cultural and attitudinal factors shaping process 94
Table 3.3.8 Community resistance to engagement 95
Table 3.3.9 Models of community engagement 97
Table 3.3.10 Enablers for community engagement 99
16
Abbreviations
ABI Area-Based Initiative
BGOP Better Government for Older People
BME Black and Minority Ethnic
CC Community Chest
CCF Community Champions Fund
CEF Community Empowerment Fund
CEN Community Empowerment Network
CLC Community Learning Chest
CPP Community Participation Programme
DF Deliberative Forum
ERCF Estates Renewal Challenge Fund
HA Housing Association
LSP Local Strategic Partnership
NDC New Deal for Communities
NESS National Evaluation of Sure Start
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NM Neighbourhood Management
NMF Neighbourhood Management Fund
NRA Neighbourhood Renewal Advisor
NRU Neighbourhood Renewal Unit
OPDM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
OR Odds ratio
SCP Single Community Programme
SS Sure Start
SSLP Sure Start Local Programme
SRB Single Regeneration Budget
TP Tenant Participation
TPC Tenant Participation Compact
VCO Voluntary and Community Organisation
VCS Voluntary and Community Sector
17
Section 1: Introduction
1.1 Background to the review
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (‘NICE’ or ‘the Institute’) has
been asked by the Department of Health to develop guidance on how to engage
communities of interest and/or place effectively and appropriately in public health
programmes focusing on health improvement and/or the reduction of health inequalities.
The guidance will be aimed at professionals whose activities within the NHS, local
authorities and the wider public, private, voluntary and community sectors include
community engagement and development.
1.2 The need for guidance

Community engagement and community development are two broad overlapping
approaches that are commonly used to support the involvement of communities 73 in
activities that aim to improve population health and/or reduce health inequalities.
Engaging with communities, particularly those from socially and economically

disadvantaged groups, is central to national strategies for promoting health and well-
being and reducing health inequalities; it is also central to policy and practice across the
public sector 74 75 76 . A wide variety of methods and approaches are being used to
involve communities, including (but not limited to) community development, citizens’
panels, citizens’ juries, neighbourhood committees, community forums, community
champions programmes, drama and music, children and youth boards and the
collaborative methodology.
As Diagram 1 illustrates, in theory different levels and types of community engagement

may have differential impacts on a range of outcomes. Approaches which involve
informing or consulting communities, for example, may be expected to have relatively
little impact on outcomes at the individual or population level. In contrast, the more that
community members are supported to take control, by being involved in the design,
development and implementation of activities to improve their lives (i.e. co-production,
delegated power or community control), the more likely their health (and a range of other
outcomes) might be expected to improve. Alternatively, greater engagement may be
experienced as burdensome, and have negative consequences for the individuals and
communities involved.
73
‘Community’ is defined in terms of place and/or shared interest. See Popay, J. (2006)
Community engagement for health improvement: Questions of definition, outcomes and
evaluation. A background paper prepared for NICE by Professor Jennie Popay.
74
Electoral Commission. (2005) Social exclusion and political engagement. Research report.
November 2005.
75
Department of Health. (2004) Choosing health: Making healthy choices easier. London:
Department of Health.
76
Department of Health. (2006) Our health, our care, our say. London: Department of Health.
76
Department of Health. (2006) A stronger local voice: A framework for creating a stronger local
voice in the development of health and social care services. London: Department of Health.
76
DfES. (2004) Change for Children Programme: Comprehensive set of different approaches for
greater engagement of children in education, health and social care. London: Department for
Education and Skills.
18
Diagram 1: Pathways from community participation, empowerment and control to health

improvement
Service Intermediate social outcomes Health

outcomes outcomes
Improved social & material conditions

Enhanced community empowerment
Increasing community participation, empowerment and control
Improved health status & reduced health

Impact on social capital
More appropriate and, accessible
service, improved uptake.
Community Control
inequalities
Delegated power
Co-production
Consultation
Informing
Source: J. Popay, 2006, Community Engagement, community development and health improvement.
A Background Paper prepared for NICE.
Research suggests that community involvement in decision-making and in the design,

governance and delivery of services can improve health and well-being and make policy
initiatives more sustainable 77 78 79 . However, despite the widespread use of such
methods, there have been relatively few attempts to systematically review the evidence
on the effectiveness of these methods. In particular, relatively little is known about which
methods and/or approaches work for which communities for what purposes and what
impact community engagement has on the individuals and communities involved.
Additionally, although there is a lot of research-based evidence on factors that inhibit
77
Gillies, P. (1998) Effectiveness of alliances and partnerships for health promotion. Health
Promotion International, 13, 99–120.
78
Rifkin, S., Lewando-Hundt, G., & Draper, A. (2000) Participatory approaches in health
promotion and planning: A literature review. London: Health Development Agency.
79
Wallerstein, N. (2006) What is the evidence on effectiveness of empowerment to improve
health? WHO Europe, Health Evidence Network.
19
and/or enable the implementation of more effective and appropriate methods, this
evidence has not been systematically reviewed, and little is known about the
effectiveness of approaches to overcoming barriers to the engagement process.
A greater understanding of how to achieve effective community engagement and

community development is needed. The NICE guidance will consider the kinds of
cultural and structural changes required and the skills and support needed within
communities and in public and private sector organisations.
1.3 The nature of the evidence on community engagement

The research literature on community engagement and development in a wide range of
initiatives including public agencies and NGOs is very extensive and complex. This
complexity arises from three sources: definitional difficulties, the global reach of the
literature and diversity in evaluation approaches.
One of the most challenging issues facing reviewers in this field is the contested nature
of the terrain. There is no consensus amongst researchers, policymakers or practitioners
about the meanings to be attached to the three key terms informing this review:
‘community,’ ‘engagement’ and ‘development.’ Each can mean different things in
different circumstances to different groups. There are also alternative discourses,
notably of community empowerment, which are less common in the UK, but which add to
the confusion and complexity of the issue.
The literature also has a global reach, spanning many different languages, political,
cultural and social contexts, and theoretical and political approaches to ‘engagement’. In
particular, there is an extensive body of research in the development literature especially
from Latin America (but not restricted to this region) on community engagement in social
and economic development work. Interestingly, there appear to be innovations in
research methodologies being pioneered in this field with quasi-experimental and
experimental approaches being used in, for example, Mexico and South Africa. These
initiatives could provide valuable lessons and evidence for the UK.
Finally, very different research traditions have contributed to the evaluative literature on
community engagement and development. Generally, approaches that focus on process
evaluations and participatory and/or action research appear to be most common,
although in North America programme evaluations including attention to both outcome
and process measurement are also common. These approaches have been increasingly
utilised in large-scale evaluations of national policy initiatives in the UK, but it remains
the case that most of the literature provides evidence on the processes of engagement
rather than on outcomes.
The mapping review undertaken in preparation for this review provided a picture – albeit
imprecise – of the English-language literature on community engagement. In excess of
40,000 records reporting on community engagement were identified initially from a large
number of electronic databases and web sources 80 . A review of around 11,000 of these
records from five of the major databases (titles and where available abstracts only)
identified around 3,000 potentially relevant for the NICE reviews. Of these only 16%
appeared to be providing evidence on outcomes. Around 10% appeared to be review-
80
Popay, J., et al. (2006) Final report of mapping review. London: NICE.
20
level evidence, but only a handful – less than 10% - seemed to adopt some type of
systematic approach.
In general, then, the UK literature on community engagement can be summarised in the

following way:
• It is spread across a number of disciplinary fields, includes a substantial body of

grey literature, and is therefore difficult to identify.
• The spread is uneven across different substantive topic areas.
• It covers a wide range of study designs and specific methods for data collection
and analysis, making the allocation of grades for level of evidence and
methodological quality complex.
• There is very little high quality evidence on the effectiveness of community
engagement in general or specific engagement methods in particular. Hence
comparisons of the relative effectiveness of different methods for different
communities and purposes are not possible.
• There is more and better quality evidence on the factors and/or processes that
inhibit or enable the implementation and sustainability of community
engagement.
• There is relatively little evidence that allows consideration of the appropriateness
of different methods of engagement for different groups in different situations and
the evidence that is available is not easily extracted from studies.
• There appears to be very little evidence on the effectiveness of approaches to
overcoming barriers to community engagement.
1.4 Scope of the reviews
1.4.1 Aspects of community engagement and development covered

NICE guidance will be based on the findings from three types of rapid reviews focusing
on:
• Community engagement and development in interventions addressing social

determinants of health and health inequalities;
• Community engagement and development in health promotion interventions;
• The cost effectiveness of community engagement and development.
This report presents the results of the review of evidence on community engagement
initiatives addressing social determinants of health and health inequalities. It describes
the methods used in the review, the nature, type and quality of the evidence included
and the findings of this review. The review focused on initiatives that included some
element of community engagement and aimed to improve a broad range of socio-
economic determinants of health 81 . Interventions/initiatives focusing singly or in
combination on the following ‘topics’ were included:
o neighbourhood/community renewal/regeneration/development
o housing/built environment
o transport
o employment/work/job creation
81
It is recognised that these interventions/initiatives may also have a secondary focus, either
explicitly or implicitly, on changing health-related behaviours.
21
o social inclusion/exclusion, social cohesion and/or social capital, social

empowerment and/or capacity building
o income/poverty/financial exclusion
o injury/accident prevention
o substance/alcohol/drug misuse prevention
1.4.2 Research questions addressed in the review

The original protocol identified four main research questions to guide the review:
• What community engagement and development methods and approaches are
effective for the planning (including priority setting and resource allocation),
design, delivery or governance of interventions and/or initiatives seeking to
address wider social, economic, cultural and environmental determinants of
health?
• What is the experience of engagement for the community members who get
involved?
• What are the barriers to and enablers of the implementation of effective and
health?
• What interventions have successfully overcome these barriers?
As the discussion of the nature of the evidence in this field suggests, it has not been
possible to answer questions about the relative effectiveness of different specific
methods of engagement used for different purposes with different groups of people.
We have included evidence on the impact of a range of initiatives in which the role of
community engagement is more or less prominent. These initiatives cover a wide range
of different types of communities, but further analysis of the literature would be required
to draw out evidence relating directly to questions about the relative effectiveness of
different methods for different communities, and it is anticipated that this evidence would
be very limited. However, the outcome evidence that has been identified does allow for
some consideration of the relative effectiveness of methods defined in terms of the
different ‘theories of change’ on which they are based—e.g. engagement methods
aiming for consultation/information exchange, deliberation and partnership or community
ownership and control. Additionally, whilst we have identified a considerable body of
evidence on barriers and enablers to community engagement, we have identified no
studies of the effectiveness of approaches to overcome barriers or promote enablers.
A large number of sub-questions were also listed in the protocol. Many of these related
directly to specific methods of engagement—e.g. citizen juries, neighbourhood boards,
etc. Given the nature of the initiatives evaluated in the included studies, it has not been
possible to answer these questions at that level of detail in all circumstances. In a few
cases, data may be available on the outcome of a specific engagement method, but
commonly, detailed information on the ‘content’ or processes of engagement is lacking.
In other cases, the evaluation is focusing on complex interventions that utilise community
engagement as a delivery mechanism (e.g. regeneration programmes) or on a broad
type of method (e.g. deliberative forums) and that typically do not allow findings to be
directly attributed to either the nature or level of engagement.
The results of the work are presented as three separate reviews focusing on:
22
• The impact of community engagement initiatives at a population or community

level;
• The experience of engagement amongst individual community members who get
involved;
• The barriers and enablers to the effective implementation of community
engagement initiatives.
1.4.3 Population groups covered

No particular community of place/interest/identity has been excluded. The diversity of
those included has been determined by the focus of the included studies. An attempt
was made to assess the applicability of different approaches and methods for all
communities.
1.4.4 Methods and/or approaches of interest

Any specific methods and/or approaches for community engagement and community
development for which data were available have been assessed.
1.4.5 Outcomes of interest

The review aimed to identify data on the following primary outcome measures:
• improved individual and/or population-level health status (morbidity and
mortality);
• reduced health-related risk factors (for example, fewer people smoking, more
people physically active);
• improved environmental and socio-economic indicators (such as housing,
green space or provision for more active travel);
• reduced health inequalities within and between communities
Data on the following intermediate outcome measures were also sought:

• the level and diversity of community members engaged
• the views and experiences of people who have been engaged and of the
people/professionals implementing the intervention
• improved information flows/communication between the community and
service provider (and vice versa)
• improved service uptake or new services reflecting community-perceived
needs and/or solutions
• improved accuracy in the identification of community needs
• improved community engagement (for example, by ensuring that community
members’ expectations of involvement, influence and/or control are met)
• increased community involvement in the planning (including priority-setting
and resource allocation), design, delivery and governance of a service
• enhanced social inclusion/exclusion, social cohesion and/or social capital, 82
including social relationships within and across communities and public
sector agencies (linking social capital)
• enhanced community well-being, including increased sense of empowerment
among target communities to enable them to change the social, material,
cultural, environmental and political factors that affect their lives
• improved partnership working between communities, institutions and
governments
82
Defined as networks of mutual support and reciprocity based on trust and common interest.
23
It was also recognised that the above intermediate outcomes could be the primary
outcomes of studies evaluating initiatives aiming to promote and support community
engagement per se.
1.4.6 Study type

This rapid review has included evaluative review-level material (both traditional narrative
reviews and systematic reviews) and evaluative primary studies.
The following study types were eligible for inclusion in the review:
• meta-analysis and systematic reviews of RCTs or RCTs
• systematic reviews of, or individual, non-randomised controlled trials, case-
control series, cohort studies, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time
series, correlation studies
• case reports/studies and case series studies
• process/implementation evaluations
• qualitative studies/ethnographies.
The review therefore involved the review and synthesis of both quantitative and
qualitative research findings.
1.4.7 Areas not to be covered

The NICE guidance will not cover community engagement and development
approaches or methods used as part of:
• interventions, initiatives or services which include screening programmes

• interventions, initiatives or services which include the planning, design, delivery
and/or governance of treatment in healthcare settings
• interventions/initiatives focusing only on changing individual behaviour or on
secondary prevention or prevention of relapse 83
• interventions/initiatives set in less economically developed countries
• papers in a language other than English.
The review has therefore not included studies focusing on any of these
interventions/initiatives. Additionally, it did not assess the effectiveness of tools such as
health impact assessment and health equity audit (unless, for example, a review of
community engagement approaches used within HIA was undertaken).
83
‘Secondary prevention seeks to arrest or retard existing disease and its effects through early
detection and appropriate treatment, or to reduce the occurrence of relapses and the
establishment of chronic conditions through, for example, effective rehabilitation.’ Chronic
Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada. ‘Prevention,’ CDPAC Definitions, Ottawa: CDPAC.
Available from: URL: www.cdpac.ca/content/faqs/alliance_definitions.asp.
24
Section 2: Review Methodology
2.1 Identifying relevant studies
2.1.1 Literature search

As noted in the previous section, in preparation for this review, the Lancaster University
review team (with support from CRD at the University of York) undertook a mapping
review. This review involved extensive searches of the literature using terms related to
the concept of community engagement in the title and descriptor fields and involving a
number of databases and websites (listed in Appendix 1, page 158). All searches were
limited to material from January 1990 onwards, and to English language records. The
search terms and the full Medline search strategy (MSS2) are presented in Appendix 2
(page 159) 84 . These searches resulted in a total of 39568 records being identified as
potentially relevant to the planned reviews, and compiled within the MSS2 database.
2.1.2 Other sources of potentially relevant studies

A small number of studies included in the review came from either external stakeholders
who submitted potentially relevant references to NICE or from the review team. Studies
from both of these sources were subjected to the same process for assessment of
relevance, strength and level of evidence. Forty-one records were submitted by external
stakeholders, and these were included in the records screened. A further 38 records
were identified by members of the research team.
2.2 Screening titles and abstracts for relevance

The records located during the mapping phase of the work were screened for relevance
to any of the three types of review – those dealing with health promotion interventions,
social determinants initiatives or cost benefits – on the basis of titles and where available
abstracts by the Lancaster Collaborating Centre and the NICE team 85 . This process was
complex and involved a number of stages. Below, the main elements of the screening
process and the results are described.
2.2.1 Electronic database records

The NICE team screened records identified in electronic databases and combined in a
database referred to in this report as the MSS2 database. Titles/abstracts were judged
relevant to the reviews if a study was based on primary evaluative research or review-
level evaluative research and made reference to lay community
engagement/development in the following areas:
• Social determinants—the planning (including resource allocation and priority

setting), design, delivery or governance of initiatives aiming to address the
following determinants of health:
neighbourhood/community regeneration/renewal/development
housing/built environment
transport
employment/work/job creation
84
In order to restrict the large number of references originally retrieved, records from ‘less
economically developed countries’ (ledc) were identified and ‘parked’.
85
Details of the screening process are provided in Appendix 3, page 162.
25
social inclusion/exclusion/capital/empowerment/capacity building

income/poverty/financial exclusion
injury/accident prevention
substance/alcohol/drug misuse prevention
• Social determinants – the barriers to and enablers of community engagement
and development approaches and methods for the social determinants of
health interventions listed above and interventions which have successfully
overcome these barriers
• Health promotion – the planning (including resource allocation and priority
setting), design, delivery or governance of primary health promotion
interventions 86
• Health promotion – the barriers to and enablers of using community
engagement and development approaches and methods for primary health
promotion interventions and interventions which have successfully overcome
these barriers
Titles/abstracts were excluded if they did not cover any of the above and/or covered the
following exclusion criteria:
• interventions, initiatives or services which target individuals (rather than a

specified community)
• interventions, initiatives or services which include screening programmes
• interventions, initiatives or services which include the planning, design, delivery
and/or governance of treatment in healthcare settings
• health promotion interventions focusing on secondary prevention or prevention
of relapse 87
• articles assessing the effectiveness of tools such as Health Impact Assessment
and Healthy Equity Audit 88
• articles set in developing countries
• articles in languages other than English
• articles with a publication date before 1990
All titles/abstracts were also screened for any reference to economic and/or cost data. If
such data was identified, these references were sent to the economics team at the
University of York for further consideration.
The Lancaster Collaborating Team was responsible for carrying out the social
determinants effectiveness review. The health promotion effectiveness review was
carried out by a team from the University of Teesside. Records identified by the NICE
team as potentially relevant for the social determinants review were returned to
Lancaster (N = 5764) 89 . In addition, on the advice of the PDG, NICE carried out further
searches of the CDSR and DARE databases. Thus a further 4410 records for CDSR and
86
Primary health promotion is defined as any non-pharmacological activity which seeks to
prevent disease or ill-health or improve health at individual or population level.
87
For a definition of secondary prevention, see note 11.
88
Reviews in which community engagement/development approaches or methods were used as
part of HIA, HEA, etc. would, however, be accepted.
89
NICE identified 2615 records which provided a title with no abstract—it was agreed not to
pursue retrieving these papers in order to screen this material.
26
5574 records for DARE were screened for relevance by the NICE team, resulting in 25
CDSR and 35 DARE records identified as potentially relevant for the social determinants
review.
Although it was extremely useful to have the NICE team members supporting the
screening process, they were not content experts. Because of this the Lancaster team
screened the first two batches of records processed by the NICE team. This screening
suggested that a significant number were not relevant to the social determinants review.
The Lancaster team therefore carried out a further screen for relevance using the same
screening checklist as the NICE team for MSS2, CDSR and DARE. All excluded records
were subjected to a 10% check by a second reviewer (with a 91% agreement rate).
Where the reviewers disagreed, the paper was automatically included.
2.2.2 Web-based databases and website searches

The Lancaster team screened the web-based databases and websites for both the
health promotion and social determinants reviews (see Appendix 4), using the same
screening criteria outlined above. 90 358 web-based records were identified for the social
determinants review, making a total of 1826 91 records going forward to the next stage
(see Diagram 2 below).
90
Three additional databases/websites (UK Official Publications [1000 relevant titles identified],
Index to theses [286 titles] and Ageline [5028 titles]) had originally been searched by the
Lancaster team. However, it was felt that these databases/websites would not be particularly
relevant and the time required to screen these results would only yield minimal relevant material.
It was also originally intended to search the Food Poverty database for relevant material;
however, this database has been unavailable (offline) and consequently was not searched.
91
With duplicates removed
27
Diagram 2: Screening titles and abstracts
MSS2 Total sent to NICE for screening CDSR DARE

N=31526 N=4410 N=5574 Web-based records
Screened for relevance by NICE team Screened for relevance

by Lancaster team
N=5120 (dups removed) N=25 N=35

N=358
Excluded N=3475
Titles no abstract Re-screened for relevance by Lancaster team
N=96
N=1549 N=7 N=18

Records identified by
research team N=38
Total records N =1826 (dups removed)
Is study based in If no, park Does title/abstract describe If no, park Full papers for
Europe? N=374 evaluation methods? N=478 retrieval N=1012
28
2.2.3 Prioritising records for full paper retrieval

The time available for a NICE rapid review is very limited. In this context it had been
agreed during the mapping phase to exclude from further consideration any records
reporting on research in less economically developed countries (LEDCs). Although this
would not be defensible in a review of the effectiveness of a clinical intervention, the
NICE team felt that it could be justified given the importance of context in relation to
community engagement. The review team reluctantly agreed with this decision because
the time constraint meant that some method for prioritising was needed. However, as
noted in section 1, there could be important lessons from this body of evidence.
Even excluding records from LEDCs, the review team was still left with 1826 records
judged to be in need of full paper screening. In the time available it would not have been
possible to process this number of full papers, so it was necessary to identify other ways
of prioritising records for full paper retrieval. It was therefore agreed to exclude all non-
European studies from further processing (n=374). If the abstract did not state non-
European, then they were automatically included for that particular criterion. If an
abstract noted that both European and non-European information was present then a
paper was automatically included. Studies with no discernable research methods
described in the abstract, and therefore unlikely to be methodologically robust, were also
‘parked’ (n=478) on the basis that the paper was probably not reporting research or the
research was not of a high quality. Including the 38 records identified by the review
team, a final total of 1012 records went forward for full paper retrieval.
There remained a question as to whether this number of full papers could be processed
within the timeframe of the review, so it was agreed that full papers would be retrieved
on a sample basis, prioritising records from the UK. (The database included 78 records
reporting on European studies outside of the UK.) The process of full paper retrieval is
described in more detail below and in Diagram 3 on page 34.
2.3 Full paper retrieval and screening
2.3.1 Preparing the records
Database records
Records obtained from electronic databases 92 were organised on the basis of the
intervention focus—for example housing and the built environment, transport,
employment, or one of the other social determinants (coded on the basis of information
contained in the title and abstract). The purpose of this stage was to ensure that the
studies eventually included in the review covered as broad a policy landscape as
possible. (Separate topic-based reviews were never intended.) The topic coding process
was far from precise, given that some initiatives covered more than one topic, and it was
not always possible to discern from the abstract what the precise focus of the
intervention was. Within each topic area, records were also coded as either primary
research or reviews.
The sampling strategy adopted for the retrieval of full papers had two elements. For one
part of the impact review, a purposive sampling approach focused on a small number of
92
MSS2, CDSR, DARE, stakeholder references, and records identified by research team.
29
national interventions. This is described in more detail in below. For the remainder of the
work, the sampling was random. In order to achieve this, within each separate topic and
study design area in the database, papers were allocated a random number (separate
topic areas used different number sets) and records were drawn down for full paper
retrieval in ascending numerical order.
As full papers were obtained, the review manager issued them to reviewers. Papers
were then screened for relevance, critically appraised for quality (see Table 2.1, page
31), and assigned levels of evidence, according to whether they contained data on the
impact, experience or process of community engagement (See Table 2.2, page 32).
Website and web-based records

All of the full papers obtained via websites were screened for relevance to the review. At
this stage, all non-UK records were parked, and UK records judged to be relevant were
organised in an Excel database by social determinant topic. The random sampling
process described above was used to select records for full paper retrieval, screening
and critical appraisal.
2.3.2 Screening for relevance, methodological quality and level of evidence
Relevance
Full papers were screened for relevance by two people (the second reviewer screening
10%). The judgement about relevance for all records (database, website and web-
based) was made using the same checklist and criteria used in the title/abstract
screening stage (see Section 2.2.1). In addition, if the primary studies or more than 20%
of the report contained pre-1990 or non-European material, the study was excluded. As
with earlier screening stages, any full papers found to include reference to economic or
cost data were tagged and forwarded to the team at the University of York. Similarly, if
papers were identified which were relevant to the health promotion review, they were
forwarded to the review team for consideration. Full papers judged to be relevant then
went forward for critical appraisal and an assessment of level of evidence.
Fourteen guides to community engagement were identified at this stage. These were
tagged for further assessment and later summarised in a separate document to inform
the work of the Programme Development Group.
Excluded papers
The vast majority of the 416 excluded papers were excluded for one of three reasons:
they were not sufficiently focused on community engagement and development
methods/approaches, the research lacked any evaluative element, or they did not meet
the screening criteria outlined in the protocol. Papers were also excluded where it was
clear that they duplicated findings reported elsewhere, or if insufficient methodological
detail was provided to assess study quality (it was not possible to follow-up all such
papers with authors in the time allocated to the review). Full details of excluded studies
are provided in Appendix 5 (page 165).
Appraising methodological quality and level of evidence

The NICE appraisal process involves two elements: a grading for the methodological
quality of particular studies (referred to as strength of evidence) and a grading for the
level of evidence provided by different study designs. We anticipated that we would have
30
to assess evidence from a wide range of different study designs and of varying
methodological quality for inclusion in the social determinants review. This presented the
review team with a significant challenge.
Methodological quality: The checklist recommended in Appendix A1 of the NICE

methods manual 93 was used to appraise the methodological quality of systematic
reviews. However, other checklists included in the NICE methods manual for the
appraisal of primary studies were felt to be inappropriate, as they are designed to be
applied to research methods typically encountered in searching for evidence on clinical
interventions – such as randomised controlled trials, case-control studies and controlled
before and after studies – which are not common in the body of evidence we were
reviewing. The NICE methods manual does contain checklists for assessing the
methodological quality of qualitative research and case studies, but the evidence we
were wishing to appraise was very diverse, including systematic and non-systematic
literature reviews, qualitative studies, quantitative surveys, mixed-method research,
including case studies, and some experimental designs. Rather than use a variety of
different methodological appraisal frameworks for primary research – some of which we
would have had to develop from scratch - we therefore decided to combine existing
appraisal checklists into a single checklist that could be applied to qualitative,
quantitative and mixed-method primary studies. A further checklist was developed for
use with non- systematic literature reviews.
The checklist to appraise the methodological quality of primary studies was based on the
approach developed by the EPPI-Centre in their systematic review of barriers and
facilitators to healthy eating among young people 94 . The checklist used for non-
systematic literature reviews was based on guidelines for the conduct of literature
reviews 95 . The design of the final tools allowed the same ratings for methodological
quality to be assigned as those used in the NICE methods manual (see table 2.1 below).
The critical appraisal checklists are included in Appendix 6 (page 193).
Table 2.1 Strength of evidence ratings for studies included in the review
++ All or most of the methodological criteria have been fulfilled.

Where they have not been fulfilled the conclusions of the study or review are thought
very unlikely to alter.
+ Some of the methodological criteria have been fulfilled.
Those criteria that have not been fulfilled or not adequately described are thought
unlikely to alter the conclusions.
– Few or no methodological criteria fulfilled
The conclusions of the study are thought likely or very likely to alter.
93
NICE. (2006) Methods for development of NICE public health guidance. First Draft Issue.
London: NICE, p. 65. Available from: URL: http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=299970.
94
Shepherd, J., Harden, A., Rees, R., Brunton, V., Oliver, S., & Oakley, A. (2001) Young people
and healthy eating A systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. London: EPPI-
Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.
95
Taylor, D. & Procter, M. (2006) The literature review: A few tips for conducting it. Toronto:
University of Toronto. Available from: URL: http://www.utoronto.ca/writing/litrev.html.
31
Levels of evidence: Each study was also assigned a rating for the level of evidence it
provided. However, it is important to recognise that different study designs are more or
less appropriate to answer different types of research questions. Whilst an RCT may be
the most robust study design for evaluating the outcomes of an intervention, qualitative
methods would be the appropriate design of choice for exploring community members’
experiences of being engaged. For this reason the team developed different level of
evidence frameworks for use with studies providing evidence relevant to the three main
research questions in the review, relating to the impact, experience and process of
community engagement. Again, the frameworks were designed so that the grades of
‘level of evidence’ are the same as those included in the NICE frameworks. Some
studies provided evidence relevant to more than one research question, so they
received separate ratings for each type of evidence. The level of evidence ratings for
different types of evidence are shown in Table 2.2 below.
An important caveat should be made here. These frameworks used for the assessment
of levels of evidence have not been pre-tested and, particularly in relation to the
experiential and process evidence, our experience suggests that there is considerable
diversity in the quality of the studies assigned to a particular grade and particularly at
level 2. Further methodological work is required on these frameworks.
Table 2:2 Level of evidence: impact, experience and process
Impact: study design Experience: study design Process: study design

1 Controlled experimental study Qualitative research that privileges the Process evaluations involving mixed
designs or systematic reviews of perspective of community members or methods alongside and linked to
these types of evidence systematic reviews of this type of outcome evaluations or systematic
research or mixed method study that reviews of these
included this type of qualitative research
2 Outcome evaluations using multiple Qualitative research that does not Process evaluation involving mixed
data sources and matched privilege lay perspectives or mixed methods not linked to outcome
comparator data method studies including this type of evaluations or systematic reviews of
qualitative research these
3 Multiple case studies, associational Surveys or mixed method studies not Evaluations using single or more
surveys linking process and including substantive qualitative limited methods including surveys
outcome data research. that provide predominantly
descriptive data or systematic review
of these
4 Descriptive cross-sectional surveys, Personal accounts of people directly Non-analytical studies e.g. case
single case studies, other involved in engagement activities reports
descriptive designs
5 Expert opinion/formal consensus Personal accounts of people observing Expert opinion/formal consensus
CE initiatives or responsible for
developing or delivering them
2.3.3 Prioritising studies for data extraction and synthesis

As already noted, we knew that time constraints meant that the review team would not
be able to process all of the full papers judged to be relevant to the review. To prioritise
full papers for data extraction and synthesis the ratings for strength and level of evidence
were used, beginning with studies judged to provide the most robust evidence (i.e. 1++).
Papers appraised as '-' for strength of evidence in any of the three review areas (impact,
experience and process) were ‘parked’ (N=24) (see Appendix 7, page 196). In terms of
levels of evidence, studies rated 4 or below for evidence on impact and experience and
32
3 or below for evidence on process were similarly ‘parked’ (N=20) (see Appendix 8, page
198). If time had permitted, these papers would have been subjected to data extraction,
but this was not possible.
Of the remaining 162 papers, data extraction began on those reporting on studies
assessed as a ‘1++,’ moving on to those appraised as a ‘1+’, where sequential retrieval
allowed. For example, if ‘1++’ studies were retrieved, they would be prioritised for data
extraction. If no new ‘1++’ studies were retrieved, but ‘1+’ studies were, the ‘1+’ studies
proceeded to data extraction in order to assess as many papers as possible within the
given timeframe. If no further level 1 studies were available, the reviewer would move on
to extract data from studies assigned a 2 for level of evidence, beginning with those with
‘++’ for methodological quality and so on.
As noted above, a further element of prioritisation has been introduced into the work on
impact evidence. This work has focused on five UK policy initiatives:
o New Deal
o Sure Start
o Neighbourhood Wardens
o Single Regeneration Budget
o Neighbourhood Management
Papers reporting on primary level evaluative research relevant to these national policy
initiatives were purposively sampled for data extraction. This approach was taken in
order to ensure that the review included evidence from high-quality recent UK
evaluations of high profile public programmes focusing on the wider social determinants
of health and using community engagement as a key delivery mechanism.
2.4 Data extraction

162 papers went forward for data extraction (See Diagram 3 below). Of these, 76 were
coded for impact data, 120 for process and 24 for experience. In terms of socio-
economic topics, 55% of studies were coded as neighbourhood renewal, 22% social
capital, 3% drugs, 0.5% employment, 17% housing, 1.5% transport, and 1% income (no
included studies were coded for injury) 96 . An important caveat should be noted here:
some of these papers are reporting on data from the evaluation of the same initiative.
Hence the number of papers is not the same as the number of initiatives being
evaluated.
Individual reviewers led on the data extraction processes for impact, experiential and
process data. In the event, data were extracted from 70 papers out of the 162 potentially
available for data extraction. Some papers were included in more than one of the 3
reviews reported in the next section, as they provided data on more than one of our
topics: impact, experience and/or process. The papers from which data were extracted
are listed in Table 2.3 (page 35), and full references are provided in Appendix 9 (page
200). A list of papers not retrieved in the time frame is included in Appendix 10 (page
207). Papers retrieved and screened as relevant but not data extracted within the
timescale of the review are listed in Appendix 11 (page 217).
96
Papers not retrieved in the time frame were coded as follows: neighbourhood renewal 40%;
social capital 18%; drugs 2%; housing 31%; transport 0.4%; income 4%; injury 1.2%, employment
2.8%. .
33
Diagram 3: Full paper retrieval, screening and data extraction
Non-UK studies Full papers for retrieval N=1012 Records stratified in socio-economic topic areas and study
‘parked’ N=78 design and retrieved at random N=934
Papers not retrieved Papers retrieved and screened Papers excluded on relevance N=416
within time frame N=234 for relevance N=700 Duplicates removed N=64
Papers included and critically Papers graded minus for quality

Guides to CE N=14 appraised N=220 N=24
Level of evidence assigned for Papers below required level of evidence (all
impact/process/experience N=182 categories) N=20
Papers for data extraction N = 162
Impact N=76 Process N=120 Experience N=24
Data extraction carried out in order of priority according to

level and strength of evidence
Impact N=26 Process N=31 Experience N=22
34
Table 2.3 Data extracted studies
Author/date Type of intervention Topic(s)* I/P/E level

Aldbourne Associates & IRIS Tenant Participation Compacts H I-3+
Consulting 2003
Anastacio et al 2000 Urban regeneration NR P-2++
Attree 2004 Sure Start NR E-1++
Barnes et al 2003 Deliberative Forums SC P-2+
Barnes et al 2004 Health Action Zones SC P-2++
Bauld et al 2005 Health Action Zones NR P-2++
Beatty et al 2005 New Deal for Communities (NDC) NR I-2++
Beresford & Hoban 2005 Participatory Schemes in NR P-2+
Poverty/Disadvantage
Bickerstaff & Walker 2005 Transport planning T E-2++, P-
2++
Birchall & Simmons 2004 User groups in housing and social care H P-2+
Bolam et al 2006 Information communication technology (ICT) SC/SI E-1++
project
Boyle et al 2006 Time banks SC/SI E-1+
Cairncross et al 2002 Tenant Management Organisations H I-2++,P-1+
Callard & Friedli 2005 Community arts SC/D E-2+
Carr-Hill 2003 Neighbourhood Wardens (NW) NR/H I-2++
Chau 2007 Service planning SC/SI E-2++
Chouhan & Lusane 2004 Black voluntary and community groups SC/SI P-2+
Church & Elster 2002 Sustainable development NR E-3+,P-2+
Cole & Smith 1996 Residents’ involvement in housing H P-1+
regeneration
Cole et al 2004 New Deal for Communities (NDC) H E-1+, P-
2+
Craig et al 2002 Compacts between local government and SC/SI I-3+
VCOs
Del Tufo & Gastner 2002 Poverty commission P/I E-1+
Dept for Communities and Neighbourhood Management (NM) NR I-2++
Local Government 2006
EDuce Ltd 2005 Skills and Knowledge Programme NR I-3+
Edwards 2002 Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) NR E-2+
Gaster & Crossley 2000 Tenant involvement in housing H P-2++
GFK/NOP 2006 Neighbourhood Management (NM) NR I-2++
Goodlad et al 2003 Community Ownership Housing H I-2++
Goodlad et al 2005 Area-based initiatives NR (R) P-2+
Grimsley et al 2005 New Deal for Communities (NDC) NR I-2++
35

Gunn 2005 Service planning (young people) NR/SC E-2+
Hills et al 2007 Healthy Living Centres SC/MSD P-1+
Johnstone & Campbell-Jones Community Champions Fund NR I- 3+, E-
2003 2++
Johnstone et al 2005 Skills and Knowledge Programme NR I-3+
Lawless 2004A New Deal for Communities (NDC) NR P-1+
Lawless 2004B New Deal for Communities (NDC) NR P-1+
Lloyd et al 2005 Sure Start NR P-1++
Matarasso 1997 Community arts SC/SI E-2++
Matthews 2001 Youth councils SC/SI E-2++
McArthur et al 1996 Estate regeneration partnerships NR P-1++
McInroy & MacDonald 2005 Environmental regeneration NR E-2+
Melhuish et al 2005 Sure Start (SS) SI I-2++
Newman et al 2004 Deliberative Forums NR P-2+
ODPM 2004A Residents’ consultancy initiative NR I- 3+E-2+
OPDM 2004B Neighbourhood Wardens (NW) NR/H I-2++
ODPM 2005A New Deal for Communities (NDC) NR I-2++
OPDM 2005B New Deal for Communities (NDC) NR E-2+
ODPM 2006A Local Strategic Partnerships NR I-3+
OPDM 2006B Neighbourhood Management (NM) NR I-2++
Osborne et al 2002 Rural Regeneration Partnerships NR P-2+
Pawson et al 2005 Estates Renewal Challenge Fund NR/H I-3+
Rhodes et al 2005 Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) NR I-2++
Russell 2005 Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) NR P-2+
Seyfang & Smith 2002 Time banks SC E-2+
Seyfang 2003 Time banks SC E-2+
Shiner et al 2004 Drug and alcohol services D P-2+
Social Development Direct Neighbourhood Wardens (NW) NR/H I-2++
2003
Social Development Direct Neighbourhood Wardens (NW) NR/H I-2++
2004
Sullivan & Howard 2005 Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) NR P-2+
Sustainable Development Sustainable development projects NR (R) P-2+
Commission 2003
Taylor et al 2005 Community Participation Programme NR I-3+
Taylor, 2006 Community Participation Programme NR P-2+
Tunstall 2001 Tenant Management Organisations H I-2++
Tunstill et al 2005 Sure Start (SS) NR P-1++
36

Watson et al 2004 Community Champions Fund NR I-3+,P-
1++, E-
2++
Webster & Johnson 2000 Food poverty community mapping SC P-2++
Williams 2004 Better government for older people NR (R) P-2++
Williamson et al 2004 Peace and reconciliation partnership boards in SC (R) P-2+
Northern Ireland
Winters & Patel 2003 Drugs needs assessment for Black and D I -3++
minority ethnic populations
E-1++
Ziersch & Baum 2004 Civil society groups SC/SI E-1++
* Key to topics: NR = neighbourhood renewal, SC = social capital, SI = social inclusion, H = housing, D =
drugs, (R) = review, P/I = poverty/income, T = transport, MSD = multiple social determinants
37
Section 3: Review Results

Introduction
As noted earlier, the review focused on three primary research questions:
health?
involved?
health?
In this section of the report, the evidence relating to each of these broad questions is
described, and evidence statements relating to more specific aspects of the evidence
are provided. Summary tables of the studies are embedded in the text in each of the
three sub-sections. Detailed evidence tables are included in Section 4 of the report
(pages 109-157).
Sub-section 3.1 presents the findings on impact; 3.2 on the experience of engagement
amongst community members and 3.3 on factors/processes affecting the success (or
otherwise) of community engagement initiatives. In sub-section 3.4 we present a brief
overview of the findings and discuss some of the limitations of the evidence review.
3.1 The impact of community engagement

effective for the planning (including priority setting and resource allocation), design,
delivery or governance of interventions and/or initiatives seeking to address wider
social, economic, cultural and environmental determinants of health?
This section presents evidence on the population-level impact of community

engagement initiatives. It draws on 26 of the 76 papers available for data extraction for
impact evidence. These papers dated from 2000 to 2006, and the evaluations they
reported on were graded for level of evidence as three or above, and ++ or + for
methodological quality. All of the studies were conducted in the UK.
3.1.1 The nature of the evidence, study type and quality

For the purposes of this review, the initiatives evaluated in the included studies have
been divided into two broad groups. The first part of this section presents evidence on
the population impact of initiatives with the primary purpose of engaging a community in
action to address social determinants of health engagement. We shall refer to these as
direct community engagement initiatives. The second part of the section presents
evidence on the population impact of initiatives that employ community engagement as a
delivery mechanism in the context of complex multi-faceted initiatives seeking to address
social determinants of health. We shall refer to these as indirect community
engagement initiatives.
38
The difficulties in using experimental designs at the population level have been well
documented (Burton et al, 2004, Chanan 2003, Rhodes et al, 2005). In theory, studies
evaluating direct CE initiatives can provide more direct evidence of a link with
population-level outcomes of interest than indirect community engagement initiatives
can. However, we have not found many studies of this type. As Table 3.1.1 shows, most
of the evidence identified on the impact of direct community engagement initiatives tends
to provide lower levels of evidence and to be of lower methodological quality, and so
attributing any reported population outcomes to community engagement is therefore
problematic.
Studies of indirect community engagement initiatives generally provide a higher level of
evidence and are of better methodological quality primarily because they are typically
large-scale, well-funded national evaluations. In these cases, however, whilst the
outcomes reported can be directly attributed to the intervention being evaluated, it is not
possible to identify the particular role of community engagement within these initiatives.
Examples here would be New Deal for Communities and Sure Start.
An additional problem with both types of initiatives is that they are often implemented in
areas that are targets for other interventions aimed at deprived or socially excluded
populations and areas. This adds to the problem of attribution. In both cases, therefore,
caution should be employed when assessing any reported populations outcomes as
resulting from community engagement.
39
3.1.2. The impact of direct CE initiatives
Study categorisation
Fourteen papers were categorised as evaluations of direct community engagement

initiatives. These are summarised in Table 3.1.1. Detailed findings from the studies are
provided in Table 4.1 (page 109) where two independent evaluations of the same
initiative are listed separately, and multiple publications produced from the same
evaluation are listed together. The evaluated initiatives covered a range of social
determinants of health, including housing, drug misuse prevention, social capital and
social inclusion and multi-faceted neighbourhood renewal initiatives.
Table 3.1.1 Study quality and type of initiative
Level of Author/date Initiative Social determinants

evidence topic(s)
2++ Cairncross et al (2002) Tenant Management Organisations Housing

(TMO)
Goodlad et al (2003) Community Ownership Housing Housing

(COH)
Tunstall (2001) Tenant Management Housing

Organisations) (TMO)
2+
3++ Winters & Patel (2003) Drug Misuse Needs Assessment Drugs
Project
3+ Aldbourne Associates & Tenant Participation Compacts Housing

IRIS Consulting (2003) (TPC)
Craig et al (2002) Compacts between local Social capital/inclusion

government and VCOs
EDuce Ltd (2005) Skills and Knowledge Programme Neighbourhood renewal

(SKP)
Johnstone & Campbell- Community Champions (CC) Neighbourhood renewal

Jones (2003)
Johnstone et al (2005) Skills and Knowledge Programme Neighbourhood renewal

(SKP)
ODPM (2004A) Residents’ Consultancy Initiative Neighbourhood renewal

(RCI)
ODPM (2006A) Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) Neighbourhood renewal
40
Pawson et al (2005) Estates Renewal Challenge Fund Neighbourhood

(ERCF) renewal/housing
Taylor et al (2005) Community Participation Neighbourhood renewal

Programme (CPP)
Watson et al (2004) Community Champions (CC) Neighbourhood renewal
Evaluative methods and study designs

The included studies all used multiple methods. Many of these evaluations combined a
quantitative survey with qualitative methods (typically interviews and focus groups)
(Pawson et al¸ 2005; Watson et al, 2004; Johnstone and Campbell-Jones, 2003;
Cairncross et al, 2002; Johnstone et al, 2005; EDuce Ltd, 2005; ODPM, 2006A; Taylor et
al, 2005; Aldbourne Associates and IRIS Consulting, 2003; Goodlad et al, 2003). Some
studies also analysed routinely collected data or other existing records (Tunstall, 2001;
Johnstone et al, 2005; EDuce Ltd, 2005; Taylor et al, 2005; Aldbourne Associates and
IRIS Consulting, 2003). Several evaluations presented multiple case studies (Pawson et
al, 2005; Johnstone and Campbell-Jones, 2003; Cairncross et al, 2002; Tunstall, 2001;
ODPM, 2006A; Taylor et al, 2005; Aldbourne Associates and IRIS Consulting, 2003).
Four studies took a participatory or action research approach, encompassing multiple
qualitative methods (Winters and Patel, 2003; Pawson et al, 2005; ODPM, 2004A;
ODPM, 2006A). Three studies employed comparator data, comparing the outcomes of
tenant management with the outcomes for local authority management of public housing
(Cairncross et al, 2002; Goodlad et al, 2003; Tunstall, 2001). All fourteen studies
generated data at a single time point—none used longitudinal methods or examined
change in indicators from a baseline measurement.
Community engagement methods

The evaluated initiatives included a number of specific methods for community
engagement, ranging from consultation and information exchange to delegate power
and in one instance community control (Winters and Patel, 2003). However, not all of the
studies were designed to provide evaluative data on the outcomes of these different
methods.
Five studies examined initiatives which aimed to involve tenants in housing

management, in the form of Tenant Management Organisations (TMOs) (Tunstall, 2001;
Cairncross et al, 2002), Tenant Participation Compacts (TPCs) (Aldbourne Associates
and IRIS Consulting, 2003), community-ownership social housing (Goodlad et al, 2003)
and the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (ECRF) (Pawson et al, 2005).
Other initiatives sought to invest in skills for regeneration and social capital development.
For example, the Community Champions programme aimed to engage communities by
investing in individual community leaders (Watson et al, 2004; Johnstone and Campbell-
Jones, 2003). The Residents’ Consultancy Initiative aimed to draw on the existing skills
of community members gained through involvement in regeneration to support others to
engage in community-led renewal activities (ODPM, 2004A), and the objective of the
Skills and Knowledge Programme was to help improve the performance of
neighbourhood renewal partnerships by enhancing the level of skills and knowledge for
all those involved in regeneration (Johnstone et al, 2005; EDuce Ltd, 2005). In addition,
the Community Participation Programme sought to give communities direct access to
41
resources of their own to support their participation in neighbourhood renewal decision-

making (Taylor et al, 2005).
Other studies reported on evaluations of: a community-led needs assessment (Winters

and Patel, 2003); Local Strategic Partnerships (ODPM, 2006A) and compacts between
local government and voluntary and community organisations (Craig et al, 2002).
Evidence summary
The findings from the included studies are summarised below under six headings
reflecting the type of population impact data available: housing, crime, services, social
capital and social cohesion, community engagement and empowerment.
1. Housing impacts of community engagement

Studies reporting on the impact of direct CE initiatives can shed light on how initiatives
help to improve the management of social housing.
Evidence from three studies (two 2++, one 3+) suggests that community engagement
may have a positive impact on housing management.
The evidence from two studies (one 2++, one 3+) suggests that community involvement
in housing management may have positive benefits for the completion of repairs
(Cairncross et al, 2002; Pawson et al, 2005).
The evidence from one (2++) quality study suggests that community involvement in
housing management may have positive benefits in terms of re-letting times (Cairncross
et al, 2002).
housing management may have positive benefits for rent collection (Cairncross et al,
2002).
housing management may have positive benefits for overall performance in housing
management (Tunstall, 2001).
Table 3.1.2 Housing impacts of community engagement
Summary Author/date
Completion of urgent and non-urgent repairs
Evidence from two evaluations (one 2++, one 3+) of Tenant Management Organisations (TMOs) in Cairncross et al
comparison with local authority-managed social housing) and the Estates Renewal Challenge (2002); Pawson et
Fund (ERCF) suggests that community involvement in housing management can improve al (2005)
performance on the completion of urgent and non-urgent repairs.
Re-letting times
Evidence from one (2++) quality evaluation of TMOs suggests that tenant involvement in housing Cairncross et al
management can have positive benefits in terms of re-letting times, in comparison with local (2002)
authority-managed social housing.
Rent collection
Evidence from one (2++) quality study of TMOs suggests that tenant participation in housing Cairncross et al
management can have positive benefits in terms of rent collection, in comparison with local (2002)
authority-managed social housing.
42
Overall performance in housing management

Evidence from one (2++) quality evaluation of TMOs suggests that community involvement in Tunstall (2001)
housing management can have positive benefits for overall performance in housing management.
In the vast majority of cases, TMOs were associated with improved performance compared to the
situation before the TMO according to at least one of four key indicators: proportion of homes
empty, level of rent arrears, speed and quality of repairs, and quality of cleaning and caretaking.
2. Crime impacts
help to improve community perceptions of crime rates.
Evidence from one (2++) study, with a primary focus on housing, suggests that
community engagement may have a positive impact on perceptions of crime.
Table 3.1.3 Crime impacts of community engagement
Summary Author/date
Perceptions of crime levels
Evidence from one (2++) quality study of TMOs suggests that tenant participation in housing Cairncross et al
management can have positive benefits in terms of perceptions of crime and neighbourhood safety, (2002)
and that residents attribute these to the TMO.
3. Service impacts
help to improve interaction between community members and local services.
Evidence from five studies (one 3++, four 3+) suggests that community engagement
may have a positive impact on information flows and community involvement in service
delivery.
The evidence from two studies (one 3++, one 3+) suggests that community engagement
may have positive benefits for information flows between the community and service
providers (Winters and Patel, 2003; Craig et al, 2002).
The evidence from four studies (one 3++, three 3+) suggests that community
engagement may have positive benefits for community involvement in the planning and
delivery of services (Aldbourne Associates & IRIS Consulting, 2003; Taylor et al, 2005;
ODPM, 2006A; Winters and Patel, 2003). No conclusive evidence was found of the
direct impact of community engagement on service delivery.
43
Table 3.1.4 Local service provision impacts of community engagement
Summary Author/date
Information flows between the community and service providers
Evidence from a (3++) community-led needs assessment found that the project improved Winters & Patel
relationships between the community and service providers, with some of the community groups (2003)
subsequently achieving formal representation on the steering groups of drug treatment and
prevention service providers.
Evidence from a (3+) quality evaluation suggests that compacts can be a useful tool to improve Craig et al (2002)
communication between local government and voluntary and community organisations,
improving informal partnership working.
One further (3+) quality evaluation reported that the majority of Local Strategic Partnerships ODPM (2006A)
(LSPs) were making progress towards their target—that community members should have more
effective influence on council decisions.
Community involvement in the planning and delivery of services
Evidence from a (3++) community-led needs assessment suggests that attendance at steering Winters & Patel
groups, alongside representatives from the statutory and voluntary services, enables community (2003)
groups to feed their experience into local service planning.
Evidence from a (3+) evaluation of Tenant Participation Compacts found that tenants were Aldbourne
successfully involved in a wide range of areas of decision-making, including business planning, Associates & IRIS
decisions on future investment and setting rents and/or service charges. Consulting (2003)
Evidence from a (3+) quality study of the Community Participation Programme showed that Taylor et al (2005)
involvement in the LSP gave the voluntary & community sectors access to better information
about local decision-making and policy development. In addition, some Community
Empowerment Networks reported considerable influence over Neighbourhood Renewal Fund
spending.
ODPM (2006A)
One further (3+) quality evaluation reported that the majority of LSPs were making progress
towards their dual targets of widening the range of interests involved in local decision-making,
and of bringing marginalised social groups into the decision-making process.
Effectiveness of community influence on regional and national issues

One (3+) quality evaluation reported that approximately half of LSPs were making progress ODPM (2006A)
towards their target of more effective influence on regional and national issues.
Improvements in service delivery

Evidence from a (3+) evaluation of Neighbourhood Renewal Advisers suggests that input from Johnstone et al
an NRA leads to improvements in service delivery in half of the partnerships surveyed. Other (2005); EDuce Ltd
partnerships suggested that it was too early to assess the full impact of NRA involvement. (2005)
A (3+) evaluation of Tenant Participation Compacts found that their impact on service delivery Aldbourne
was difficult to assess. The research suggested that while many well-performing authorities had Associates & IRIS
TPCs, improving service delivery may be attributable to a number of factors. Consulting (2003)
One (3+) quality evaluation reported that the majority of LSPs were making progress towards ODPM (2006A)
their dual targets of delivering services better to meet community needs, and of delivering
services better to meet needs in priority neighbourhoods.
4. Social capital and social cohesion

help to strengthen social capital and promote social cohesion.
Evidence from seven studies (two 2++, one 3++, four 3+) suggests that community
engagement may have a positive impact on social capital and social cohesion.
The evidence from three studies (one 2++, two 3+) suggests that community
engagement may have positive benefits for ‘bonding’ social capital (strengthening
44
relationships and trust among participants) (Cairncross et al, 2002; Taylor et al, 2005;
Johnstone et al, 2005/ EDuce Ltd, 2005).
The evidence from two studies (both 3+) suggests that community engagement may
have positive benefits for ‘bridging’ social capital (helping participants make links across
sectors) (Taylor et al, 2005; Johnstone et al, 2005/ EDuce Ltd, 2005).
The evidence from three (3+) quality studies suggests that community engagement may
have positive benefits for partnership working (ODPM, 2004A; Johnstone et al, 2005/
EDuce Ltd, 2005; Craig et al, 2002).
The evidence from two studies (one 2++, one 3++) suggests that community
engagement may have positive benefits for social cohesion (Goodlad et al, 2003;
Winters and Patel, 2003).
Table 3.1.5 Social capital impacts of community engagement
Summary Author/date
‘Bonding’ social capital
Evidence from three studies (one 2++, two 3+) suggests that community engagement can have Taylor et al (2005)
positive benefits for ‘bonding’ social capital (strengthening relationships and trust among
participants). The (3+) evaluation of the Community Participation Programme found that supporting
people in communities to engage in activities together built trust, and therefore generated ‘bonding’
social capital.
Similarly, evidence from the (3+) evaluation of Regional Networks (an element of the Skills and Johnstone et al
Knowledge Programme) found that the initiative strengthened ‘bonding’ social capital by deepening (2005); EDuce Ltd
relationships and building trust. (2005)
Evidence from a (2++) quality evaluation of TMOs suggests that tenant participation in the Cairncross et al
management of social housing builds ‘community spirit’. (2002)
‘Bridging’ social capital
Evidence from two (3+) quality studies suggests that community engagement can have positive Taylor et al (2005)
benefits for ‘bridging’ social capital (helping participants make links across sectors), particularly
through the establishment of dedicated community networks. Evidence from the evaluation of the
Community Participation Programme suggests that resourcing the community for renewal
contributed to improvements in networking, cohesion and co-ordination among community groups,
while Community Empowerment Networks reduced community group isolation.
Evidence from the Skills and Knowledge Programme evaluation suggests that Regional Networks Johnstone et al
foster ‘bridging’ social capital within communities. (2005); EDuce Ltd
(2005)
Partnership working
The evidence from three (3+) quality studies suggests that community engagement can have ODPM (2004A)
positive benefits for partnership working. Evidence from the (3+) evaluation of the Residents’
Consultancy Initiative suggests that input from more experienced regeneration activists enables
clients to build effective partnerships and to run their organisations/groups more effectively.
As with the evidence on ‘bridging’ social capital, evidence from the (3+) study of the Skills and Johnstone et al
Knowledge Programme suggests that recipients of skills training and participants in community (2005); EDuce Ltd
networks improve their external partnerships and report higher level of participation in joint activities (2005)
with other agencies or community groups.
Evidence from a (3+) study of compacts between local government and voluntary and community Craig et al (2002)
organisations suggests that these compacts lead to increases in partnership building and informal
joint working.
45
Social cohesion
The evidence from two (one 2++, one 3++) quality studies suggests that community engagement can Goodlad et
have positive benefits for social cohesion. Evidence from the (2++) evaluation of community ownership of al (2003)
social housing suggests that these tenants display higher measures of social cohesion in comparison with
council tenants.
Evidence from the (3++) community-led needs assessment suggests that this type of project can Winters &
successfully enhance social cohesion by building trust among community members. Patel (2003)
5. Community engagement and involvement

Studies reporting on the impact of direct CE initiatives can shed light on how effective
initiatives can be in engaging community members and promoting community
involvement.
Evidence from four studies (one 2++, one 3++, two 3+) suggests that initiatives that aim
to involve and engage communities can be successful.
The evidence from two studies (one 3++, one 3+) suggests that initiatives that aim to
promote community engagement may enable community groups to successfully recruit
and retain other community members as volunteers (Winters and Patel, 2003; Watson et
al, 2004).
The evidence from one (2++) quality study suggests that initiatives that aim to promote
community engagement may be more successful in involving BME community members
than local authority initiatives without a specific community engagement focus
(Cairncross et al, 2002).
On the basis of two studies (one 3++, one 3+), there is insufficient evidence to assess
the ‘reach’ of community involvement beyond existing community groups, but those two
studies tend to suggest that in some instances the ‘reach’ of community involvement can
be limited (Winters and Patel, 2003; Aldbourne Associates & IRIS Consulting, 2003).
Table 3.1.6 Perceived community engagement impacts
Summary Author/date
Involvement of others as volunteers
The evidence from two studies (one 3++, one 3+) suggests that initiatives that aim to promote Winters & Patel
community engagement can enable community groups to successfully recruit and retain other (2003)
community members as volunteers. Evidence from the (3++) report of the Drug Misuse Needs
Assessment Project suggests that groups were able to recruit and retain new volunteers as a
result of their involvement in the initiative. Similarly, evidence from the (3+) evaluation of the Watson et al (2004)
Community Champions programme suggests that community leaders in receipt of Community
Champion grants recruit on average 8.8 volunteers/project. On average, each project reached 56
beneficiaries.
Breadth of community involvement

Evidence from the (3++) report of the Drug Misuse Needs Assessment Project suggests that this Winters & Patel
type of project enables voluntary and community groups to establish better links with their wider (2003)
communities.
Evidence from the (3+) evaluation of TPCs suggests that although, in some cases, compacts may Aldbourne
be used to engage tenants who do not usually get involved in housing management issues, overall Associates & IRIS
there is little evidence that more tenants become actively involved in housing management as a Consulting (2003)
result of TPCs. Instead, TPCs may encourage local authorities to work more closely with existing
tenants groups and strengthens existing partnerships.
46
Involvement of BME groups in management activities

The evidence from one (2++) quality evaluation of TMOs suggest that initiatives that aim to promote Cairncross et al
tenant participation in housing management are more successful in involving BME residents than local (2002)
authorities.
6. Empowerment
help to empower communities.
Evidence from seven studies (one 2++, one 3++, five 3+) suggests that community
engagement may have a positive impact on the empowerment of communities.
Table 3.1.7 Empowerment impacts of community engagement
Summary Author/date
Capacity building
Evidence from the (3++) report of the Drug Misuse Needs Assessment Project suggests that this Winters & Patel
type of project builds capacity for participating groups, with 22 out of 47 groups reporting that their (2003)
capacity for undertaking activities had grown, and that they had embarked on new areas of health-
and social care-related work. This type of initiative can also build capacity within the wider
community because the needs assessment process used researchers drawn from the local
community.
Evidence from the (3+) evaluation of the Skills and Knowledge Programme suggests that Johnstone et al
partnerships who work with NRAs experience increased confidence within the partnership, and are (2005); EDuce Ltd
empowered to carry out activities they would not otherwise have attempted to undertake. (2005)
Skills and knowledge development
Evidence from the (3+) evaluation of the Community Champions programme suggests that Johnstone &
Champions train others in community development and regeneration, and pass on a wide range of Campbell-Jones
skills and knowledge including practical, office and communication skills. (2003)
Evidence from the (3+) evaluation of the CPP suggests that Community Chest grants give groups Taylor et al (2005)
the skills they need to engage with funders and other organisations, thus facilitating community
development.
Evidence from the (3+) evaluation of the Skills and Knowledge Programme suggests that two-thirds Johnstone et al
of partnerships that work with Neighbourhood Renewal Advisers report gaining skills, knowledge (2005); EDuce Ltd
and new capabilities. (2005)
Community development
A (3+) study of the CPP suggests that Community Chest funding of social and cultural events Taylor et al (2005)
promotes community development, especially for groups working with rapidly changing
communities such as asylum seekers and refugees.
A (3+) study of the Residents’ Consultancy Initiative suggests that community members were ODPM (2004A)
empowered to create new functional community structures that were intended to support
involvement in regeneration activities.
Strength of local ‘voice’

One (3+) quality evaluation reported that the majority of LSPs were making progress towards their ODPM (2006A)
target of building a stronger and more united local ‘voice’.
Sense of political efficacy
Evidence from the (2++) evaluation of community-ownership social housing suggests that Goodlad et al
community-owned Housing Association tenants have a stronger sense of political efficacy (2003)
compared with council tenants.
47
The evidence from two studies (one 3++, one 3+) suggests that direct CE initiatives can
build capacity among participants in general terms (Winters and Patel, 2003; Johnstone
et al, 2005/ EDuce Ltd, 2005).
The evidence from three studies (3+) suggests that direct CE initiatives can develop the
skills and knowledge of participants, particularly in terms of equipping them for
regeneration activities (Johnstone and Campbell-Jones, 2003; Taylor et al, 2005;
Johnstone et al, 2005/ EDuce Ltd, 2005).
The evidence from one study (2++) suggests that direct CE initiatives may empower
communities by increasing community members’ sense of political efficacy (Goodlad et
al, 2003).
48
3.1.3 The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives
Study categorisation
Twelve papers reporting on the evaluations of five indirect community engagement
initiatives were included in the review of evidence on population impacts. As noted
above these initiatives were typically multi-faceted and used community engagement as
one of a number of delivery mechanisms. These were all major national initiatives with
centrally funded evaluations and they were all categorised as Level of Evidence 2: large
scale comparative outcome evaluations. The evaluations of these initiatives were
reported in multiple publications: more than 30 publications were identified for one
initiative and some publications ran to hundreds of pages. Identifying relevant
publications for the review and data extracting from these was therefore a time
consuming and complex task. Table 3.1.8 details the publications chosen for impact data
extraction and the initiatives they relate to. More details of the initiatives, the design of
the evaluations and the findings are summarised in Evidence Tables 4.2 and 4.3 in
Section 4.
Table 3.1.8 Indirect CE initiatives: study type and quality
Level of Author/date Initiative Social determinants

evidence topic(s)
2++ ODPM (2005A) New Deal for Communities Neighbourhood renewal
Grimsley et al. (2005) (NDC)
Beatty et al. (2005)
OPDM (2006B) Neighbourhood Management Neighbourhood renewal

Dept for Communities and (NM)
Local Government (2006)
GFK/NOP (2006)
Carr-Hill (2003) Neighbourhood Wardens (NW) Neighbourhood

OPDM (2004B) renewal/housing
SD Direct (2004)
Rhodes et al. (2005)* Single Regeneration Budget Neighbourhood renewal
(SRB)
Melhuish et al. (2005) Sure Start (SS) Social inclusion
* only publication available on this initiative within the timeframe of the review
Types of evaluation study

All of the studies were outcome evaluations of national initiatives using multiple data
sources. All were prospective studies: four studies included data from comparative
cohorts; and one study (SRB) made comparisons against national standards. All
planned to collect longitudinal panel data, but only one round of survey data was
available from the SS evaluation at the time of the review. All of the studies collected
data from a random sample of people in the area of the initiative, whether or not they
were directly affected by the initiative. Two initiatives (NDC, SS) are ongoing and
therefore provide only interim evaluation data. One study (SRB) is complete, but final
outcome evaluation data were not available at the time of writing. This review is based
49
on the household data collected as part of these evaluations. The main methodological
features of these studies are summarised below:
Sample: Three evaluations (NDC, NM, SS) collected data from all of the intervention
sites operational at the time of recruitment. One evaluation (SRB) collected data from a
sample of the interventions sites - seven case study sites out of 300 schemes. The fifth
evaluation (NW) conducted sample household surveys in 15 scheme areas. However,
two of these areas withdrew from the initiative, and so the results are taken from the
remaining 13 scheme areas.
Comparison areas: Three initiatives (NDC, NM, NW) chose comparator areas from
similarly deprived areas in the same localities. SS comparators were 50 areas
designated to be the next round of areas to be enrolled in the SS programme. The SRB
evaluation compared SRB areas against information available in nationally compiled
datasets.
Response rates: The NDC evaluation achieved a response rate of 69% for the second
household survey, no other response rates were reported. There were no response
rates reported for either the NM or NW surveys. The SRB achieved a 59% response
rate in both the baseline and second household surveys. The SS survey achieved a
response rate of 84% for parents of nine month-old children and 73% for parents of
three year-old children across both the intervention and comparator samples combined.
Follow-up: All five evaluations planned a longitudinal element, but low follow-up rates or
unavailability of second round survey data meant that many results cited in this review
are based on cross-sectional data. For example, only data from the first round of the
surveys of parents were available for Sure Start at the time of this review. The other four
evaluations included comparisons of surveys over time. All of these included both
programme-wide cross-sectional and follow-up samples. NDC achieved a follow-up
sample of 54% of the original; NM considered the follow-up sample to be
unrepresentative of the programme as a whole and therefore did not report their follow-
up data separately, but combined it with data from an additional cross-sectional sample.
NW achieved a follow-up of 56% of the original sample; and SRB a follow-up of 39%.
NDC, SRB and NM made up the follow-up sample to achieve a representative
programme-wide second survey by cross-sectional sampling.
Three studies (NDC, NW, SRB) analysed data for the follow-up sample in addition to
analyses of the cross-sectional data from the second surveys. The NW study only
reported the analysis of follow-up (cohort) data (Carr-Hill, 2003). NDC (ODPM, 2005)
and SRB (Rhodes et al, 2005) provided analyses of the programme level cross-sectional
surveys at the second point in time and the follow-up longitudinal data, however the
follow-up data were not as complete as the programme level cross-sectional data. For
this reason, unless otherwise stated, the programme-wide cross-sectional data are
presented in this review for the NDC and SRB studies.
Type of intervention
Three of the initiatives (NDC, NM and SRB) focused on area-based regeneration, one
programme (SS) was an area-based initiative focussing specifically on supporting
parents and children under five, while the fifth initiative (NW) specifically targeted
housing and the environment.
50
The initiatives gave different levels of emphasis to community engagement, as defined

by its prominence in initiative objectives, voluntary sector or community involvement in
management and/or the proportion of budget spent on community engagement. Also,
although community engagement may have been enshrined in the initial philosophy of
an initiative and there may have been extensive plans for engagement this does not
mean it was implemented to a degree that was either meaningful or stable over time. For
this reason, the Evidence Table 4.2 in Section 4 includes information, where it was
available, on the intended and actual role of CE within the intervention. This information
is summarised in table 3.1.9 below.
Table 3.1.9 Type of intervention and role of CE
Type of initiative Role of CE: type and level

CE was one of 5 defining principles of the programme. This was
mainly at a co-production level via partnership working with voluntary
Area-based regeneration addressing
and community agencies and residents, with strong emphasis on
education, health, housing and the
NDC community involvement in strategy and planning, and evaluation.
physical environment, crime and
Direct work with residents at the consultation and informing levels
employment.
was also a strong feature. Community development accounted for
22% of programme spend.
Testing different approaches to the CE was a key ingredient of programme objectives, operationalised at
delivery, management and ownership community control, delegated power and co-production levels. In
of services to disadvantaged theory residents were fully involved at all levels of Pathfinder
NM neighbourhoods, including changes programme operation, but it has been acknowledged by some
to policing, housing, health, programmes that there was still a need for more direct and structured
community development, education, involvement. Many programmes also operated strategies at the
youth services and environment. consultation and informing level of community engagement.
The provision of a neighbourhood

level, semi-official uniformed One of the wardens’ objectives was “to build communities and
patrolling presence to contribute to community development”. This appears to have been mainly at the
NW reducing crime, improving the levels of informing and consultation. The objective had less
environment and management of emphasis over time in managers’ objectives, but more emphasis for
housing stock, and community the wardens.
development.
Area-based regeneration CE was a programme principle, but had less emphasis than other
programme, with a major emphasis programmes, and was mainly at the co-production level. 24% of
SRB on environment, housing, schemes were run either by or jointly with the voluntary and
employment and education. community sector, with 6% of total spend on community development.
Programme principles stressed the paramount importance of

facilitating access of and engagement with the community. This was
Community-based projects aiming to mainly at a co-production level via partnership with community and
improve services and access to voluntary agencies, and involvement of parents on partnership boards.
SS services to enhance family Direct work with residents was mainly at the informing levels, with
functioning and child development heavy emphasis on ensuring the widest programme access. 36% of
partnerships were chaired by parents, or a voluntary agency
representative, and 100% had parental representation.
The emphasis and practice of community engagement varied significantly across these
initiatives. NM had a moderate to strong emphasis on community engagement and
sought to engage community members in a range of ways and at both strategic and
operational levels. Within NDC and SS community engagement involved Board
representation and engagement in scheme and project management. Otherwise
engagement with residents/parents took the form of consultation and information
provision. Community engagement was weaker in NW than in the other initiatives,
referring only to methods characterised as informing and consulting. Financial
investment in community engagement processes also varied across the initiatives. For
51
example, 22% of the NDC spend went on community development compared to 6% of

project spend in SRB.
Setting
All five studies were completed in the UK, predominantly in England. Details of the
geographical spread were not provided in all studies. Fifty one per cent of the NW
initiative sites were in the North West England, 26% in South East England and 6% in
Wales. In Rounds 1-2 of the NM initiative 23% of sites were in London and South East
England, 20% in the Midlands, 17% in North West England, 14% in Yorkshire, 11% in
North East England, and 8% each in South West and South East England. Nearly all
schemes had some degree of overlap with other area-based initiatives ongoing at the
time.
The initiatives differed in scope, but were predominantly based at a neighbourhood level
of approximately 8-10,000 households. All were in areas with high levels of deprivation.
Subgroup analyses
Data relating to subgroups of participants were available in some studies. SS provided
subgroup data for socio-economic status and other parent and/or child characteristics.
The NW sample household survey provided sub-group data based on age. NDC
provided subgroup data for age, gender, and ethnicity.
Outcome measures
The outcome measures included in the studies varied but included:
• Health status: Mortality, birth weight, breastfeeding rates, perception of health

status/well-being, hospital admission rates, mental health, child accidents, child
development
• Quality of life: Satisfaction with area, perceptions of area improvement, perception of
environmental problems, perceptions of area as place to bring up children
• Environmental and socio-economic indicators: Education, training and employment
rates, lawlessness and dereliction score, environmental problems score, crime rates,
perception of crime rates, fear of crime, perceptions of safety, safety behaviour
• Health and social behaviours: Rates of smoking, physical exercise, dietary change,
supportive/negative parenting, acceptance, father involvement, home chaos, home
learning environment
• Service uptake: Service use, perceptions of total support usefulness, trust in local
services
• Community engagement: Involvement in voluntary and community groups
• Social capital: neighbours friendly, neighbours look out for each other, know
neighbours, feel part of community/perception of community spirit
• Empowerment: Ability to influence decisions affecting area
Statistical analysis and explanation of terms

Results in the evaluation reports were expressed in one of the following ways:
• percentage point change (NDC, NM, NW, SRB): difference between percentages for
two time periods, or for two groups. For example, if 40% of the intervention group
smoke at time 1 and 30% at time 2, then the percentage point change in smoking will
be 40% - 30% = 10 percentage points.
52
• Sure Start calculates odds and odds ratios (ORs) for example for breastfeeding. In
this context, the odds are the likelihood (or chances) that a particular group (e.g. the
mothers in the intervention area) will breastfeed as opposed to not breastfeed. The
odds ratio is one set of odds divided by another. In this example, the odds ratio
expresses the likelihood that the mothers in the intervention area will breastfeed
compared with the likelihood that the mothers in the comparator areas will
breastfeed. An odds ratio of greater than one indicates that the mothers in the
intervention area are more likely to breastfeed than the mothers in the comparator
areas. Conversely, an odds ratio of less than one indicates that the mothers in the
intervention area are less likely to breastfeed than the mothers in the comparator
area. If there is no difference between the mothers in the two areas then the odds
ratio will be one.
• standardised ratios, for example Standard Mortality Ratio (SMR) (NDC): an
observation standardised to a reference population. In the NDC evaluation,
observations are standardised to the England population values based on age and
sex.
• adjusted mean difference (SS): the difference in mean values for two groups
adjusted for a specified set of conditions, for example some of the results are
adjusted for child, family and area characteristics;
• adjusted percentage difference (SS): the difference in percentage values for two
groups adjusted for a specified set of conditions, for example, child, family and area
characteristics.
Levels of statistical significance: Levels of statistical significance give the probability that
the result could not have occurred by chance, for example if the level of significance is
95%, we can be 95% confident that there is a difference between two factors that has
not occurred by chance. By convention, for some statistics, the range of values that
would be covered by this probability is presented as the Confidence Interval (CI). Levels
of significance are usually given as a ‘p’ value, the probability of an error, so that the
95% level of significance would be written as ‘p≤0.05’. Similarly the 99% significance
level is written as ‘p≤0.01’.
Different methods of statistical analysis have been used within the various studies.
Consequently the studies have also reported changes differently, and measures of
statistical significance have also varied. In some cases it has been difficult for this
review to determine the reasoning behind such choices of methods and reporting of
outcomes. Time limits have precluded contacting the original authors to discuss this; we
therefore present the results from these studies as they have been extracted from the
published reports, including any assessment of statistical significance by the authors.
Evidence summary
Primary outcomes
As already highlighted, any changes in indicators reported in the evaluations considered
in this section of the review may be due to the initiative as a whole and the separate
contribution of the community engagement aspect of the initiative cannot be
distinguished. This is an important caveat that should be borne in mind when reading the
summary of evidence. Another caveat is that, in general terms, it is too early to expect
53
these initiatives to have significant impacts on population health outcomes or on some of

the more intractable socio-economic problems.
a) Mortality
Given the short time frames it would be unrealistic to expect that the benefits of these
programmes would be reflected in mortality declines (ODPM, 2005A).
Evidence from one study (2++) (NDC) showed no change in mortality between 1999 and
2002 for all NDC areas combined, with mortality consistently twice that expected for the
areas’ age and sex structure when compared to equivalent populations in England as a
whole (ODPM, 2005A).
b) Morbidity/health behaviour
Similarly it would be too soon for these interventions to demonstrate an impact on
morbidity measures (ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005).
Evidence from three studies (2++) (NDC, SRB, SS) suggests that these schemes have
not led to improvements in morbidity (Melhuish et al, 2005; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al,
2005).
Interim evaluation results for NDC (ODPM, 2005A) reported standardised ratios
(standardised to the age and sex distribution of the population of England) for hospital
admission averaged across all NDC areas for the periods 1999-2001, 2000-02, 2001-03
with respect to cancer, heart disease, alcohol misuse and drug misuse. The admission
rates for cancer did not change over this period; the admission rates for heart disease
and drug misuse rose slightly, and those for alcohol misuse fell slightly. The authors do
not comment on whether or not these changes were statistically significant, however the
changes were so small that they should be considered statistically not significant. This
suggests that the NDC areas have not improved their positions relative to similar
populations in England as a whole.
Similarly, although NDC areas recorded an increase in rates of prescribing for mental
health problems and in rates of low birth weight, these increases reflected similar
increases across the whole of England. Mean scores for the SF36 mental wellbeing
index improved very slightly (not significant), whereas scores in the comparator areas
remained the same. Standardised illness ratios for all NDC areas (measured by the
authors as the proportion of people receiving social security payments for disability or
illness compared to England distributions based on age and sex) fell slightly during the
study period. None of these changes was described as statistically significant by the
authors, although the authors do comment that the size of the change varied widely
within the NDC areas (ODPM, 2005A).
Two initiatives (NDC, SRB) investigated changes in self-reported health status. The NDC
demonstrated small improvements in self-reported health between 2002 and 2004, but
comparator areas improved even more. Neither the changes in NDC areas nor in
comparator areas was statistically significant (ODPM, 2005A). In contrast, the SRB study
showed a statistically significant worsening of health status in SRB areas during the
period 1996 to 1999/2001, compared with a slight, but not significant, improvement in
Great Britain as a whole during this time (Rhodes et al, 2005). However, the authors
note that health improvement was not a priority for most of the SRB case study sites and
54
that the worsening of health status could not be attributed by this evaluation to the SRB
initiatives (Rhodes et al, 2005).
SS was the main initiative to focus on health outcomes. Interim cross-sectional survey
results showed no statistical difference between Sure Start Local Programme (SSLP)
areas and comparator areas (Melhuish et al, 2005). In SSLP areas families of 9 month
old children reported higher birth weights, very slightly lower maternal malaise, very
slightly higher maternal self-esteem, lower rates of child accidents and higher rates of
children admitted to hospitals than those in comparator areas. Families of 3 year old
children reported very slightly higher maternal malaise, very slightly lower maternal self-
esteem, lower rates of child accidents and lower rates of children admitted to hospitals
than those in comparator areas. There was a statistically significant difference in
breastfeeding for at least the first 6 weeks by mothers of 9 month old children between
SSLP areas and comparator areas in the imputed data set, controlling for demographics
and community characteristics. The odds ratio of 0.77 indicated that mothers in SSLP
areas were 23% less likely to breastfeed their infants for at least 6 weeks than the
mothers in comparator areas (0.77 OR 95% CI 0.71 to 0.82, p≤0.01). However, in cases
with complete data, controlled for demographics and community characteristics, there
was no significant difference between mothers in SSLP and comparator areas. The
authors of this report place the highest confidence in reported outcomes where statistical
significance is found in both sets of data.
Evidence from two points in time from one study(2++) (NDC) suggests that there has
been no benefit from these schemes in changing health behaviours concerned with diet,
smoking and physical activity(2++) (ODPM, 2005A). Evidence at one point in time from
one study(2++) (SS) shows that families in these scheme areas experienced less home
chaos (9 month olds), less negative parenting (3 year olds) and better acceptance of
their children’s behaviour (3 year olds) than the comparator areas (Melhuish et al, 2005).
Two studies (2++) (NDC, SS) also reported outcomes related to health behaviours (see
table 3.1.10). Results for both these studies are from interim evaluations, with SS only
operational for one to two years, and some NDC areas on which results are based only
operational for one year, while other NDC areas had been operational for four years. In
addition, NDC spend on health-related projects was relatively low.
Both NDC and comparator areas reported improvements in dietary intake, a change that
was statistically significant in the comparator areas (5 percentage points) (ODPM,
2005A). The difference between NDC and comparator areas, however, was not
significant. The NDC areas reported reductions in smoking and no change in rates of
physical activity; the comparator areas reported no changes in smoking and a decrease
in physical activity. However, neither the changes in smoking and physical activity within
areas nor the differences between NDC and comparator areas were statistically
significant.
55
Table 3.1.10 Health behaviours
OUTCOME Health Behaviours

Outcome Initiative Outcome indicator Programme Programme Difference in %
a
category level % point level % point point change
change: change:
NDC areas Equiv non-
NDC areas
Health NDC Rarely/never eat 5 -2 -5* +3
behaviours fruit/vegetables a day
NDC Smoking -2 0 -2
NDC No activity 20 minutes a time 0 +1 -1
Sure Start Local Programmes -
Comparator areas
b
Mean difference (95% CI)
Parenting SS Supportive parenting (9m) 0.11 (-0.05, 0.28)
SS Supporting parenting (3y) 0.17 (-0.07, 0.40)
SS Acceptance of behaviour (9m) 0.01 (-0.03, 0.06)
SS Acceptance of behaviour (3y) 1.14 (1.07,-1.21)**
SS Father involvement (9m) 0.14 (-0.27, 0.55)
SS Father involvement (3y) 0.00 (-0.41, 0.42)
SS Home chaos (9m) -0.34 (-0.49,-0.18)**
SS Negative parenting (3y) -1.23 (-2.31,-0.15)*
SS Home learning environment (3y) 0.28 (-0.31,-0.87)
* reported as statistically significant, p≤0.05
** reported as statistically significant, p≤0.001
a) -ve values denote a change in favour of NDC areas, +ve values a change in favour of the comparator areas
b) Imputed data set controlled for demographics and community characteristics, -ve values reflect lower scores for SSLP
areas
NDC = New Deal for Communities; SS = Sure Start, (9m) = parents of nine month-old children, (3y) = parents of three
year old children
SS interim results show that mothers of 9 month old children reported less “home chaos”
than mothers in comparator areas, a statistically significant difference (-0.34 imputed
adjusted mean difference 95% CI -0.49, -0.18, p≤0.01) (Melhuish et al, 2005). This was
a significant difference in both the adjusted and non-adjusted analyses, adding greater
weight to this finding. Similarly, mothers of three year old children in SSLP areas
reported greater acceptance of their children’s behaviour than mothers in comparator
areas (1.14 imputed adjusted mean difference, 95% CI 1.07, -1.21, p≤0.01), and this
difference was statistically significant in both the adjusted and non-adjusted analyses
(Melhuish et al 2005). Mothers of three year old children in SSLP areas reported less
negative parenting than mothers in comparator areas, this difference was significant only
in the adjusted analysis and then at the 5% level (-1.23 imputed adjusted mean
difference 95% CI -2.31, -0.15), suggesting a weaker association.
c) Quality of life
Studies reporting on the impact of indirect CE initiatives can shed light on how initiatives
can contribute to improvement in quality of life in these areas.
Evidence from four studies (2++) (NDC, NM, NW, SRB) suggests that indirect CE
initiatives may have a positive impact on residents’ perceptions of the areas in which
they live (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2004B; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005; DCLG,
2006).
Quality of life was predominantly measured in terms of satisfaction of residents with their
environment. All five initiatives measured some aspect of quality of life. Results (Table
56
3.1.11) are given in percentage point change from baseline except for SS, where results
are expressed as adjusted mean differences between intervention and comparison sites.
Table 3.1.11 Quality of life
OUTCOME QUALITY OF LIFE

Outcome Initiative Outcome indicator % point % point Difference in %
a
category change change point changes
initiative comparator
Area good/ NW Area improved as a place to live 6 -0.5 6.5*
improved
c c
NM Area improved in last 3 years 31 22 9*
NDC Area improved in past 2 years 14* 9* 5*
SRB Good area to bring up children 3 0 3
SRB Bad area to bring up children -6* -2 -4
SRB Area to bring up children – improved 9* - -
in last 3 years
SRB Area to bring up children – worse in -4* - -
last 3 years
NW Good place to bring up children 6.6 -0.5 7.1*
Quality of life NDC Quality of life 2 3 -1
c c
Satisfaction NW Satisfaction with neighbourhood 27 22 5*
with area
NDC Satisfaction with area 6* 1 5*
NM Satisfaction with area 4* 1 3*
SRB Satisfaction with accommodation 6* 1 5*
Sure Start Local Programmes - Comparator areas
b
Mean difference (95% CI)
SS Mothers’ area rating: (9m) 0.44 (-0.06, 0.95)
SS Mothers’ area rating: (3y) -0.98 (-1.61, -0.34)*
* reported as statistically significant
a) positive values denote a change in favour of the initiative area
b) Imputed data set controlled for demographics and community characteristics; a negative value denotes a lower value for
the Sure Start area
c) These figures are actual percentages, not percentage point differences
NW = Neighbourhood Wardens; NDC = New Deal for Communities; SRB = Single Regeneration Budget; NM =
Neighbourhood Management; SS = Sure Start (9m = parents of nine month-old children, (3y) = parents of three year-old
children
Results from three initiatives (NDC, NM, NW) suggest that residents perceived that their
area had improved over the timescale of the initiative; each of these improvements was
statistically significantly greater than the change in the comparator areas (6.5, 9 and 5
percentage points respectively). There was a non-significant 3 percentage point increase
in the proportion of people in SRB areas reporting that their area was currently a good
place to bring up children, compared with no change at the national level. However,
within the SRB schemes, there was a significant 9 percentage point increase in the
number of people who felt their SRB area had become a better place to bring up children
over the previous three years (no corresponding data are given for England as a whole)
(Rhodes et al, 2005). There was a corresponding and significant drop in the number of
people who thought that their areas were currently a bad place to bring up children
(down 6 percentage points), with a non-significant drop of 2 percentage points for
England as a whole. There was also a significant 4 percentage point reduction in the
number of people who felt that their SRB area had become a worse place to bring up
children over the previous three years (no corresponding data are given for England as a
whole). Taken together these data demonstrate a marked improvement in SRB area
residents’ perceptions of their area as a place to bring up children (Rhodes et al, 2005).
57
Statistically significant improvements in “Satisfaction with area” over the comparator

areas were also reported for NW (5 percentage points) (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2004B),
NM (3 percentage points) (DCLG, 2006) and NDC (5 percentage points) areas (ODPM,
2005A). NW areas showed a statistically significant improvement over their comparators
as good places to bring up children (7.1 percentage points). In SRB areas there were
small, but not statistically significant, increases in residents reporting satisfaction with the
area, but there was a significant 3 percentage points decrease in residents reporting
dissatisfaction with their SRB areas. There was a statistically significant increase in the
number of residents reporting satisfaction with their accommodation (6 percentage
points), and a statistically significant decrease in the number of residents reporting
dissatisfaction with their accommodation (4 percentage points). There were no
significant changes in any of these statistics for England as a whole, and the difference
between the SRB areas and the national figures was statistically significant (Rhodes et
al, 2005).
SS mothers of three year old children reported statistically significant less satisfaction
with their area than mothers in comparator areas in the adjusted analysis only (-0.98
imputed adjusted mean difference, 95% CI -1.61, -0.34, p≤0.01), and SS mothers of 9
month old children reported a non-significant slightly higher satisfaction with their area
than mothers in comparator areas (Melhuish et al, 2005).
Residents in NDC areas and their comparators reported a non-statistically significant

increase in perceptions of quality of life, the difference between NDC and comparator
areas was also not significant (ODPM, 2005A).
d) Environmental and socio-economic indicators

can contribute to improvements in environmental and socio-economic indicators.
initiatives may have a positive impact on environmental and socio-economic indicators
such as employment, education and training, income, and crime (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM,
2004B; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005; DCLG, 2006).
Four initiatives (NDC, NM, NW, SRB) measured environmental or socio-economic

outcome, including employment, education and training, income, environmental
problems, and crime. Results are reported in Table 3.1.12.
There was a statistically significant decrease of 4 percentage points in unemployment in

SRB areas, and comparison figures at both the national level and taken from deprived
households in the Survey of English Housing also showed a 3 percentage point (non-
significant) decrease, resulting in a non-significant difference between SRB and
comparator areas (Rhodes et al, 2005). SRB areas also showed a statistically
significant increase over time in the proportion reporting “education or training in the past
3 years” of 8 percentage points. No comparable national data were given.
There was a statistically significant 12 percentage point reduction in families falling into
the lowest income bracket in SRB areas between 1996 and 1999/2001, compared with
only a 3 percentage point reduction nationally, as measured by the Family Resources
Survey.
58
Table 3.1.12 Environmental and socio-economic indicators
OUTCOME ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS

Outcome Initiative Outcome indicator % point % point Difference in
category change change % point
a
initiative comparator changes
Employment NDC Unemployed -1 1 -2
SRB Unemployed -4* -3 -1
Education and NDC No qualifications -1 0 -1
training
SRB No qualifications -2 -1 -1
NDC Education/training in past year 1 -3 4
SRB Education/training in past 3 years 8* - -
Income NDC In paid work 2 -1 3
SRB Income below £100 per week -12* -3 -9
b
Environmental NDC Lawless + dereliction -8.8* -3.0 -5.8
problems
b
NDC Environmental problems -4.1* 0.7 -4.8
NM Consider arson a problem -10 -4 -6*
NM Consider vandalism and graffiti a -10 -4 -6*
problem
c c
Crime NW Rates of crime -27.6 +4.7 -
NDC Victim of crime past year -6* -4* -2
NDC Unsafe after dark -6* -4* -2
SRB Area unsafe walking alone at night -4 - -
NW Fear of walking alone at night -1 -6 5
NW Fear of crime – average number of -0.58 0 -0.58
worries
SRB Perception of serious area-based -8* -7 -1
problems with crime
NDC High fear of crime -9* -8* -1
* Reported as statistically significant
a) Values denote change in favour of the initiative area as appropriate. e.g. a negative value for unemployment will reflect
a relative decrease in the number unemployed in the initiative area, positive values for education will reflect a relative
increase in the number in education in the initiative area.
b) Results from the longitudinal panel survey. The authors give no indication of significance for the difference in
percentage point changes.
c) These figures are percentage change, not percentage point change
NW = Neighbourhood Wardens, NDC = New Deal for Communities, SRB = Single Regeneration Budget, NM =
Neighbourhood Management
NDC areas reported a statistically significant 8.8 percentage point reduction in

lawlessness and dereliction, while the comparator areas reported a non-significant
decline of 3 percentage points (ODPM, 2005A). There was also a statistically significant
4.1 percentage point reduction reported for “environmental problems”, with a non-
significant increase reported in comparator areas. The authors do not comment on
whether the resulting difference between NDC and comparator areas for both these
categories was statistically significant. NM areas reported a statistically significant
decrease of 10 percentage points in residents’ perceptions of arson, and in residents’
perceptions of vandalism and graffiti as problems, with the comparator areas also
showing a decrease of 4 percentage points, resulting in a significantly higher decrease in
the NM areas compared to the comparators (DCLG, 2006).
Three initiatives reported data on crime-related perceptions. The most notable results
were from the NW Initiative, which reported a 27% decrease in rates of crime over a
period when crime rates went up in the comparator areas by nearly 5% (Carr-Hill, 2003;
ODPM, 2004B). Although there was also a reduction in the fear of walking alone at night
and the fear of crime in NW areas, neither of these was statistically significant, and there
59
was a greater decrease in fear of walking alone at night in the comparator areas,
although the difference between NW and comparator areas was not statistically
significant. The authors suggest that fear of walking alone at night is not simply related
to levels of crime and that many other factors may influence a person’s concern in this
area, such as fear of the dark, fear of falling, and so on.
In relation to the NDC initiative, the proportion of residents reporting being a victim of
crime and feeling it is unsafe after dark decreased significantly in both intervention and
comparator areas, by 6 percentage points and 4 percentage points respectively. The
difference between intervention and comparator areas was not significant (ODPM,
2005A).
Both SRB, NDC and their comparator areas reported statistically significant decreases in
high fear of crime: 8 and 7 percentage points for SRB areas and their comparators
respectively (Rhodes et al, 2005); 9 and 8 percentage points for NDC and their
comparator areas respectively (ODPM, 2005A). The differences between initiative areas
and their comparator areas was not significant.
e) Impact on inequalities
Where studies reporting on the impact of indirect CE initiatives have included sub-group
analyses, they can shed light on how these initiatives may contribute to a reduction in
health inequalities.
Evidence from three studies (2++) (NDC, NW, SS) suggests that indirect CE initiatives
may benefit less disadvantaged groups more than the most disadvantaged, but that
older residents and some ethnic minority groups could benefit more from the
interventions (Carr-Hill, 2003; Melhuish et al, 2005; ODPM, 2004B; ODPM, 2005A).
However, the authors stress caution in interpreting these results due to problems of
small numbers and the relatively short period that the intervention had been running.
The results suggested that within the SS sample, those from relatively less (but still)
disadvantaged households benefited from living in a SS area, while children from
relatively more disadvantaged families (i.e. teen mother, lone parent, workless
household) were adversely affected by being in the SS area. The authors note that
these differences existed for families of 3 year old children only (not for parents of 9
month old children), and that although the differences were small they were judged to be
‘meaningful and noteworthy’ (Melhuish et al, 2005).
There was some suggestion from the NDC programme evaluation that older age groups
were tending to report more positive change over time than younger groups in relation to
attending education or training courses, feeling part of the community, feeling safe after
dark, being satisfied with the area, and thinking the NDC had improved the area (ODPM,
2005A).
Carr-Hill (2003) reports notable differences in the responses from the whole cohort of the
household survey and the sub-group of older residents (55+) on two measures: service
provision and change in perceptions of problems. The findings are assessed differently
in this paper and in the overall NW evaluation (ODPM, 2004B), with Carr-Hill interpreting
these results negatively, and the scheme evaluation positively. As the Carr-Hill (2003)
findings have been used as data for the overall NW evaluation (ODPM, 2004B), the
60
Carr-Hill interpretation of the findings is presented here. Carr-Hill (2003) reports that
older residents had more negative assessments of change in services in both the target
NW areas (cleaning public buildings, problems with neighbours and repairs of damage
due to vandalism) and the comparator areas (policing, problems with neighbours, park
wardens, removal of graffiti and maintenance of street lighting). He also reports that
older people identified greater problems in the neighbourhood for both the target areas
(noisy neighbours, teenagers, drug-dealers, dog-fouling and racism) and comparator
areas (drug-dealers, drunkards and racism) (Carr-Hill, 2003). However, older people
were also more positive about park wardens than the whole cohort in the target areas,
and identified greater improvements in drunkards and litter as problems in the target
areas than the whole cohort did (Carr-Hill, 2003).
Very tentative conclusions were drawn by the NDC evaluation about change in relation
to different ethnic groups, for example positive changes on employment for the
Bangladeshi community (ODPM, 2005A). No comparisons, however, were made with
change in comparator areas to assess if observed changes were part of a wider secular
change. In addition, both the SS and NDC evaluation reports stressed that great caution
was needed in interpreting these results, due to problems of small numbers and
relatively short period that the interventions had been running (Melhuish et al, 2005;
ODPM, 2005A).
Intermediate outcomes
a) Relationship between community and local services

may affect the relationship between the communities and local services.
Evidence from two studies (2++) (NDC, SS) suggests that indirect CE initiatives may
have a positive impact on the relationship between communities and local services
(Melhuish et al, 2005; ODPM, 2005A).
Two initiatives (NDC, SS) measured some aspect of the relationship between the
community and local services. Results are summarised in Table 3.1.13.
In NDC areas, there were statistically significant improvements in the ease with which a
GP could be seen (3 percentage points), satisfaction with hospital services (5
percentage points), trust in the local council (3 percentage points) and trust in the local
police (4 percentage points) (ODPM, 2005A). Only the ease with which a GP could be
seen also showed significant improvement in the comparator area (8 percentage points).
The differences in percentage point changes between the NDC areas and the
comparators were significant for two measures: the ease with which a GP could be
accessed showed a negative 5 percentage point difference indicating that the
comparator areas had improved significantly more than the NDC areas; the improved
trust in the local council in the NDC areas was significantly greater (4 percentage points)
than the comparator areas, which had experienced a small non-significant drop in trust
for their councils.
61
In the SS evaluation, the data reported a greater use of services, but lower satisfaction
with those services, in the SS areas than in the comparator areas (Melhuish et al, 2005).
However these differences were very small and were not statistically significant.
Table 3.1.13 Relationships with services
OUTCOME Intermediate outcomes: relationship with services

Outcome Initiat- Outcome indicator % point % point Difference in %
a
category ive change change point changes
Service trust NDC Satisfied with GP 0 0 0
NDC Easy to see GP 3* 8* -5*
NDC Satisfied with hospital 5* 2 3
NDC Trust local council 3* -1 4*
NDC Trust local police 4* 1 3
NDC Trust local health services 1 2 -1
NDC Trust local schools 1 -1 2
Sure Start Local Programmes - Comparator areas
b
% difference (95% CI)
Service trust SS Total support usefulness (9m) -0.02 (-0.06, 0.03)
SS Total support usefulness (3y) -0.02 (-0.07, 0.04)
Service uptake SS Total services used (9m) 0.05 (-0.02, 0.13)
SS Total services used (3y) 0.06 (-0.01, 0.15)
* Reported as statistically significant
a) A positive value indicates a greater improvement in the NDC area, and a negative value a greater improvement in the
comparator area.
b) Imputed data set controlled for demographics and community characteristics, a negative value implies a lower score in
the SS area
NDC = New Deal for Communities, SS = Sure Start, SRB = Single Regeneration Budget, NM = Neighbourhood
Management, NW = Neighbourhood Wardens
b) Social capital
can contribute to improvements in social capital.
initiatives may have a positive impact on social capital (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2005A;
Rhodes et al, 2005; DCLG, 2006).
Four out of the five initiatives measured aspects of social capital. Results are
summarised in Table 3.1.14.
There were statistically significant percentage point increases in outcomes relating to

social capital: feeling part of the community (NDC 4 percentage points, SRB 4
percentage points), knowing neighbours (NDC 3 percentage points, NM 3 percentage
points), neighbours looking out for each other (NDC 3 percentage points), and being
able to rely on friends or relatives for support (SRB 3 percentage points) (ODPM, 2005A;
Rhodes et al, 2005; DCLG, 2006). Only the NDC comparator areas also reported a
significant increase in feeling part of the community (5 percentage points). However the
difference between the NDC areas and their comparators on this measure was not
significant.
The only significant difference in the percentage point changes for initiatives and their
comparators occurred for NDC areas, which saw a significant improvement (4
62
percentage points difference) in neighbours looking out for each other as compared to
the comparator areas (ODPM, 2005A). Although the SRB data showed a notable
improvement in the SRB areas over their comparators in feeling involved in the
community (6 percentage points difference), and a marked improvement in the
comparator areas over SRB areas in being able to rely on friends or relatives for help (5
percentage points difference) and being able to rely on friends or relatives to keep an
eye on the home (6 percentage points difference), the authors do not comment on
whether or not these differences were statistically significant (Rhodes et al, 2005).
Table 3.1.14 Social capital
OUTCOME Intermediate outcomes: social capital

a
Social capital NDC Feel part of community 4* 5* -1
SRB Feel closely involved in community 4* -2 6
NDC Feel neighbours are friendly 1 -2 3
NW Helpfulness of neighbours -6.7 1.5 -8.3
NDC Know many/most of neighbours 3* 1 2
NM Know most neighbours 3* - -
NDC Neighbours look out for each other 3* -1 4*
NM Neighbours look out for each other 2 1 1
NW Neighbours keep an eye on them -5 7 -12
SRB Rely on friends/relatives for help 0 5 -5
SRB Rely on friends/relatives to keep an 2 8 -6
eye on home
SRB Rely on friends/relatives for 3* 5 -2
advice/support
a) A positive value indicates a greater improvement in the initiative area, and a negative value a greater improvement in
the comparator area.
c) Community engagement/involvement
can contribute to improvements in community engagement and involvement.
Evidence from three studies (2++) (NDC, NW, SRB) suggests that indirect CE initiatives
have had no measurable impact on the level of community engagement or involvement
with voluntary or community activities (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al,
2005). However, authors from two studies note that the initiatives have led to increased
access to community facilities and increased support for voluntary and community
groups (ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005).
Three initiatives reported levels of involvement or engagement in voluntary or community

activities. Results are reported in Table 3.1.15.
The NW sample household survey reported no significant change in community

engagement and involvement (Carr-Hill, 2003). Both the SRB and NDC areas reported
no change in community involvement over time, with no comparison data given (ODPM,
2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005). Logistic regression modelling for NDC data (Grimsley et al,
2005) showed that greater levels of community involvement were associated with having
63
lived in an area longer, thinking the area has environmental and anti-social problems,
feeling part of the community, knowing local people, and thinking one can influence
decisions in an area.
Table 3.1.15 Community engagement/involvement
OUTCOME Intermediate outcomes: community engagement/involvement

a
Community SRB Taken part in voluntary/ 0 - -
engagement community activity past year
NDC Involvement in local organization 0 - -
last 3 years
NW Involved in voluntary activities 0 2 -2
NW Closely involved with community 1 -2 3
NDC = New Deal for Communities, NW = Neighbourhood Wardens, SRB = Single Regeneration Budget
The authors of both the evaluations of the NDC initiative (ODMP, 2005A) and the SRB
initiative (Rhodes et al, 2005) comment that although quantifiable data for community
engagement and involvement were lacking, both schemes had made substantial
contributions to the number of people now able to access new community facilities and
to the number of voluntary and community groups that have been supported in their
areas.
d) Empowerment
can contribute to improvements in feelings of empowerment among the residents of
these areas.
Evidence from three studies (2++) (NDC, NM, NW) suggests that indirect CE initiatives
may not increase residents’ belief that they can influence decisions taken in their area
(Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2004B; ODPM, 2005A; DCLG, 2006).
Three initiatives reported rates at which people felt they could influence decisions in their
local area. Results are reported in Table 3.1.16.
Table 3.1.16 Empowerment
OUTCOME Intermediate outcomes: empowerment

Outcome Initiative Outcome indicator % point % point change Difference in %
a
category change comparator point changes
initiative
NM Able to influence decisions 3 - -
in local area
NW Able to influence decisions -13 2 -15
in local area
NDC Cannot influence decisions -1 -2 1
in local area
64
Residents in both NM and NDC areas reported increases in feeling that they could
influence decisions in their local area, but neither of these changes was statistically
significant (ODPM, 2005A; DCLG, 2006). In the NW areas there was a marked decline
(13 percentage points) in the proportion of residents of NW areas who felt they could
influence decisions in the local area. However, the authors do not report this as
statistically significant and note that the decline brings this proportion in line with the
proportion in the comparator areas. They hypothesise that this large decline may reflect
an inflated baseline figure as at the time of the baseline survey there were a large
number of consultations on local regeneration issues in the NW areas (Carr-Hill, 2003;
ODPM, 2004B).
Discussion: The impact of direct and indirect CE initiatives
benefits, but across the studies the range of community engagement methods and
approaches used vary, and are not consistently replicated across all settings and
initiatives in order to allow the evidence to demonstrate which specific method or
approach is most successful in improving the social determinants of health. Therefore it
is difficult to attribute specific benefits to any one approach or method.
The impact of direct community engagement initiatives
This review found evidence that community-owned social housing performed better than
local-authority managed housing on a number of key indicators, and residents perceived
a reduction in crime rates in areas where community engagement initiatives were taking
place.
The evidence reviewed also suggests that direct community engagement initiatives may
have the potential to increase the quality of local services by improving information flows
between communities and service providers, but no evidence was found for direct
impacts on service quality. Although some evaluations sought to associate good
performance in service management and delivery with strategies to promote community
engagement, it was not possible to assess whether community engagement was the key
mechanism affecting these positive service outcomes. Some evaluations reported that
community engagement methods were associated with positive outcomes in terms of
delivery in a proportion of cases, whilst others reported that it was too early to assess the
impacts resulting from a community involvement initiative.
The review also identified several positive outcomes relating to well-being at the
community level (no negative outcomes were identified). Initiatives that aimed to
promote community involvement were attributed with gains in both bonding and bridging
social capital, and in fostering partnership working and social cohesion. These studies
also reported that initiatives had been empowering for the community groups that were
the focus and for the wider community. Community members described successful
capacity building, and the development of skills and knowledge to equip them for
regeneration activities–personal impacts that are considered more fully in the next
section of this report.
The review also considered whether the interventions being evaluated lead to the
successful engagement of communities. There is evidence that community groups and
65
Community Champions were able to forge links with the wider community and to engage
other community members who were recruited as volunteers for community action
projects. One evaluation also suggested that community-led organisations were more
successful at engaging BME groups than the local government sector. However, overall
existing evidence appears to be equivocal on whether strategies that seek to promote
community engagement succeed in involving community members who are not usually
involved in such initiatives.
The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives

Few of the schemes within these initiatives set out to improve health explicitly (ODPM,
2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005). Most aimed to improve quality of life for their residents by
addressing physical problems, issues of safety, employment, training, and so on. These
may have a long-term impact on mortality and morbidity, but it would be unrealistic to
expect them to show short-term benefits in terms of health status. In addition some of
the authors point out that the individual schemes vary widely in their approach, even
within the same initiative, and so the impacts of these schemes may also vary widely.
The summary results may mask important successes within particular areas (Carr-Hill,
2003; Melhuish et al, 2005; Rhodes et al, 2005).
Primary outcomes:
The evidence suggests that there were no benefits to mortality and morbidity from these
indirect CE interventions (Melhuish et al, 2005; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005).
This is to be expected given the short-term period of follow-up in these evaluations.
However, there was evidence for improvements in some health behaviours (Melhuish,
2005; ODPM, 2005A), quality of life (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2004B; ODPM, 2005A;
Rhodes et al, 2005; DCLG, 2006), and environmental and socioeconomic conditions
(Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2004B; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005; DCLG, 2006). All of
these improvements, if they continue, have the potential to contribute to health
improvement in the long-term.
There is some evidence that these indirect CE initiatives may have benefited less
disadvantaged groups more than the most disadvantaged (Carr-Hill, 2003; Melhuish,
2005; ODPM, 2004B; ODPM, 2005A) although this evidence should be treated with
caution. Rhodes et al (2005) note the large and significant decrease in self-reported
health in case-study areas within the SRB initiative. They offer no explanation for this,
although their analysis suggests that the SRB initiatives may have played only a small
part in this change. They express the concern that such changes could lead to widening
inequalities.
Intermediate outcomes:
There is evidence to suggest that the indirect community engagement initiatives may
have helped to improve relationships between the communities and local services
(Melhuish, 2005; ODPM, 2005A), and have made a positive contribution to social capital
(Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005; DCLG, 2006). However, there is
little or no evidence to suggest that these initiatives have had any impact on community
engagement and involvement (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005) or on
empowerment (Carr-Hill, 2003; ODPM, 2004B; ODPM, 2005A; DCLG, 2006) in the
short-term. However, there is evidence that two of the initiatives have enabled increased
access to community facilities and provided greater support to voluntary and community
groups operating in their areas (ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005). The authors of the
NDC evaluation (ODPM, 2005A) argue for a clear definition for community engagement
66
and suggest that greater consideration is needed for the fact that community
engagement is hard work. The authors of the evaluations of NDC (ODPM, 2005A) and
NM (DCLG, 2006) argue for realistic expectations of these initiatives.
Limitations
In relation to studies that evaluate direct community engagement initiatives, the

review identified few good-quality studies that reported community-level outcomes of
initiatives that aimed to promote community engagement. No studies were located at the
top of the level of evidence hierarchy (Level 1), which would have used research designs
that would potentially have enabled direct attribution of reported outcomes to the
community engagement interventions under evaluation. Only one study used an area
comparator, and no studies reported longitudinal change data. Evaluations are required
which compare communities undergoing an initiative with those that are not. Future
research into the impacts of community engagement strategies must also collect either
longitudinal or before-and-after data that enables an assessment of change in outcomes
over time following the initiative from baseline.
Although some of the studies in the review reported outcomes that can be associated
with community engagement interventions, it is difficult to attribute these outcomes to the
initiatives studied. This weakness in terms of attribution is because the research
methods used did not control sufficiently for any confounding factors that also could
have produced these outcomes. Notably, many of the communities studied were
involved in multiple initiatives at the same point in time, and this made it difficult to
disentangle the effects of each intervention.
A further limitation of the evaluations reviewed is that in many cases the description of
the community engagement strategy and community involvement activities were not
sufficiently detailed for an accurate understanding of exactly what form the interventions
took. A further limitation is that many of the outcome measures used were not as robust
as they could have been. For example, although a reduction in perceived rates of crime
is important, stronger evidence of the impacts of a community engagement intervention
would have been provided by a reduction in reported crime at the area level.
Furthermore, many studies described positive outcomes for the wider community using
data generated by the community groups who were actually involved in administering the
intervention. Stronger evidence in these instances of effects on the wider community
would have been collected from members of the wider community itself. For many of the
evaluations reviewed, it was also too early in the course of the intervention to assess the
outcomes, and this may have led to an over- or an under-estimation of the effectiveness
of their interventions reviewed for community engagement.
In relation to studies that evaluated indirect community engagement initiatives the

main limitation of attribution of results to an indirect mechanism of action has already
been repeatedly stressed. However, there are also other factors to be considered in
interpreting the results. Three out of the five studies were interim evaluations, where
interventions have only been running for a proportion of their expected lifespan. In
addition, four out of the five initiatives had a very weak focus on health. It is not
surprising therefore that the results of evaluation do not reflect any significant
improvement in population health measures such as mortality and morbidity, or in health
and social care behaviours.
67
Of the four studies that had comparator areas, three (NDC, NM, NW) reported that the
comparator areas were slightly less deprived than the intervention areas. The SS
comparators were more deprived than the intervention areas. The SRB evaluation
compared their findings to National datasets, not similarly deprived areas.
Two of the initiatives report on the migration of residents over time. The NDC evaluation
commented that the ‘incomers’ to the scheme areas were on the whole more deprived
than the ‘out-goers’. If this pattern continues, these area based initiatives may become
steadily more deprived, making the goals of the initiatives more difficult to achieve
(ODPM, 2005A). However, there was some evidence that the areas were becoming
more attractive places to live, and this might lead to more stable populations (DCLG,
2006; ODPM, 2005A; Rhodes et al, 2005).
Rhodes et al (2005) note that not all of the benefits of the initiatives will stay within the
initiative areas. People move out, but also people in adjacent areas may take advantage
of some of the interventions implemented by the different schemes. They estimate that in
SRB areas, for every two jobs created for local people, one job is created for someone in
the surrounding area. Also, for each training opportunity created for local people, one
training opportunity goes to the surrounding area.
68
3.2 Evidence on the experience of community engagement
involved?
3.2.1 The nature of the evidence, study type and quality

This section of the review presents evidence on the experience of individuals active in
both direct and indirect community engagement initiatives of various types. In some
ways, this section is also focusing on the impact of community engagement initiatives.
However, there is a key difference in that the previous section was concerned with
impacts at the population or community level. Here, in contrast, we focus on the impact
of community engagement on individual members of communities of place or interest
who are actively engaged in initiatives of various types. To avoid confusion we therefore
refer to this as evidence on the experience of engagement and use the terms effects,
benefits and dis-benefits rather than impacts.
The review includes data from 22 primary studies dating from 1997 to 2007. As
described above, data was extracted from studies graded for level of evidence as three
or above and ++ or + for methodological quality. Details of the interventions, study
design and key study findings are summarised in Evidence Table 4.4 on page 125.
The included studies used a range of research methods, including face to face
interviews, focus groups, observation, document analysis and both postal and telephone
surveys. All of the studies except one were conducted in the UK. One study from
Australia identified by the review team has been included on the basis that it provides
unique data on the potentially negative impact of engagement for the individuals
involved 97 . The included studies describe initiatives from across the spectrum of social
determinants topics (see Table 3.2.1).
Table 3.2.1 Study quality and type of intervention
Level of Author/date Type of intervention Social

evidence determinants
review topic(s)
1++ Attree 2004 Sure Start NR
Bolam et al 2006 Information communication technology SC/SI
(ICT) project
Winters & Patel 2003 Drugs needs assessment for Black and D
minority ethnic populations
Ziersch & Baum 2004 Civil society groups SC/SI
1+ Boyle et al 2006 Time banks SC/SI
Cole et al 2004 New Deal for Communities (NDC) H
97
This study (Ziersch and Baum 2004) was identified by the research team. It is a good quality
study which reports on the negative impacts of engagement from an individual standpoint. The
findings of the study are likely to be applicable across a broad range of populations and settings.
69
Level of Author/date Type of intervention Social

evidence determinants
review topic(s)
Del Tufo & Gastner 2002 Poverty commission P/I
2++ Bickerstaff & Walker 2005 Transport planning T
Chau 2007 Service planning SC/SI
Johnstone & Campbell- Community Champions Fund NR
Jones 2003
Matarasso 1997 Community arts SC/SI
Matthews 2001 Youth councils SC/SI
Watson et al 2004 Community Champions Fund NR
2+ Callard & Friedli 2005 Community arts SC/D
Edwards 2002 Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) NR
Gunn 2005 Service planning (young people) NR/SC
McInroy & MacDonald Environmental regeneration NR
2005
ODPM 2004A Residents’ consultancy initiative NR
ODPM 2005B New Deal for Communities (NDC) NR
Seyfang & Smith 2002 Time banks SC
Seyfang 2003 Time banks SC
3+ Church & Elster 2002 Sustainable development NR
* Key to topics: NR = neighbourhood renewal, SC = social capital, SI = social inclusion, H = housing, D =
drugs, (R) = review, P/I = poverty/income, T = transport, MSD = multiple social determinants
Community engagement methods/approaches

Methods of community engagement used in initiatives are summarised in Evidence
Table 4.4 page 125. The initiatives evaluated use a range of methods and approaches to
engage lay people in planning, design, delivery or governance, including consultation,
co-production and delegated power, but none involve information provision or
community control. The majority of initiatives can be described as co-production.
In the main it has not been possible to link evidence on experience to particular
approaches to CE, nor to compare the experience of people across different
engagement methods/approaches. Some evidence on unintended negative effects of
community engagement on the individuals involved has been identified.
3.2.2 Evidence summary

The type of individual benefits and dis-benefits identified in the studies reviewed are
summarised thematically in Diagram 4 below. These themes are used to structure the
evidence summary that follows.
70
Diagram 4 The experience of community engagement

Individual benefits
Positive health
Physical health benefits Mental health benefits Quality of life
Positive socio-economic
benefits
Education Employment Crime Poverty/income
Positive personal and

social benefits
Personal gains Relational/social Empowerment
Dis-benefits
Disillusionment and Consultation fatigue Personal costs

disengagement
1. Health benefits of community engagement

Studies reporting on the experience of engagement for community members can shed
light on how initiatives help to improve individual health status.
Evidence from five studies (two 1++, one 1+, one 2++ and one 2+) suggests that there
may be positive physical health benefits of engagement for participants (Bolam et al,
2006, Ziersch & Baum, 2004; Boyle et al, 2006; Matarasso, 1997; Callard & Friedli,
2005).
Evidence from three studies (one 1++, one 1+ and one 2+) suggests that there may be
positive mental health benefits of engagement for participants (Ziersch & Baum, 2004;
Boyle et al, 2006; Seyfang & Smith, 2002).
Evidence from two studies (one 2++ and one 2+) suggests that engagement may have
positive benefits for community members’ quality of life (Matarasso, 1997; Seyfang &
Smith, 2002).
However, these findings should be considered alongside evidence of the dis-benefits of

engagement described later in this section.
Table 3.2.2 Health benefits of community engagement

Summary Author/date Source of Example of qualitative data
evidence/
voice
Physical health benefits
Evidence from two studies (one 1+ and one Boyle et al 2006 Interviews with
2++), a qualitative study of a time bank and a time bank
mixed-method study of a community arts members
project, suggests that engagement can have
71

evidence/
voice
Physical health benefits
benefits for participants’ physical health, such Matarasso 1997 Survey and
as improved fitness, feeling healthier, and interviews with
reduced cigarette and alcohol consumption. project
participants
Evidence from a (1++) qualitative study of Bolam et al 2006 Interviews with I lost the use of one side following
peer educators training lay people in the use peer educators a stroke and working with [the
of computers suggests that engagement may project worker] and using CityNet
help participants to cope with the and having to speak has been
consequences of illness. useful. (Older white male) (Bolam
et al 2006, p302)
Qualitative evidence from a (1++) study of lay Ziersch & Baum Interviews with I also think it [involvement in civil
involvement in civil society groups suggests 2004 local residents society groups] keeps people
that it can help to keep people healthy (but healthy, the social side of it and
see section on negative impact on health). participation, learning new skills
and whatnot. It stimulates as well.
(Ziersch & Baum 2004, p497)
Another qualitative study (2+) of a community Callard & Friedli Interviews with
arts project provides self reports from 2005 project
participants of how engagement led them to participants and
think differently about health and wellbeing youth workers
issues. The authors note that it is not possible
to judge whether this translates into changes
in attitudes or health behaviours.
Mental health benefits

Qualitative evidence from a (1++) study of lay Ziersch & Baum Interviews with I always considered it [the
involvement in civil society groups suggests 2004 local residents involvement] was, at least
that engagement can have a positive effect on psychologically, very positive. I
mental health (but see section on negative felt a lot better for it. I felt I was
impact on health). meeting lots of people, and
getting involved in lots of things
was making me feel happier
generally. (Simon) (Ziersch &
Baum, 2004, p497)
Qualitative evidence from two studies of time Boyle et al 2006 Interviews with
banks (one 1+ and one 2+) suggests that time bank
involvement was beneficial for participants members
experiencing problems such as depression
and mental ill health. Seyfang & Smith Focus groups
2002 with time bank
participants/intervi
ews with time
bank co-
ordinators
Quality of life
Quantitative evidence from a (2++) study of a Matarasso 1997 Survey of project She has come back to her own
community arts initiative suggests that participants life. She has started taking an
participants experienced an improved sense of Interviews with interest in things. Before she
wellbeing. 73% of participants questioned said project co- used to wear dark colours all the
that they had felt happier since being involved. ordinators time. Now she comes in bright
The qualitative evidence suggests that colours in her saris and puts
improvements in participants’ quality of life jewellery on. (Project co-
were linked to widening social networks. ordinator, speaking of a woman
with depression) (Matarasso,
1997, p69)
A qualitative study of a time bank (2+) Seyfang & Smith Focus groups
suggests that engagement had positive effects 2002 with time bank
on participants’ quality of life, through members
increasing social interaction and building
friendships.
72
Socio-economic benefits of community engagement

The review found evidence of individual benefits of community engagement for a
number of socio-economic determinants of health, including education and training,
employment, poverty/income and crime.
Evidence from six studies (two 1++, one 1+, one 2++, one 2+ and one 3+) suggests that
community engagement can facilitate access to formal training for participants (Attree,
2004; Winters & Patel, 2003; Boyle et al, 2006; Watson et al, 2004; ODPM, 2004B;
Church & Elster, 2002).
Evidence from ten studies (one 1+, five 2++ and four 2+) suggests that participants are
able to gain informal skills, potentially transferable to other contexts, as a result of
community engagement initiatives (Del Tufo & Gastner, 2002; Bickerstaff & Walker,
2005; Johnstone & Campbell-Jones, 2003; Matarasso, 1997; Matthews, 2001; Watson
et al, 2004; Callard & Friedli, 2005; McInroy & MacDonald, 2005; ODPM, 2004A;
Seyfang & Smith, 2002).
Evidence from four studies (one 1++, one 1+ and two 2+) suggests that community
engagement may improve participants’ employment potential (Attree, 2004; Boyle et al,
2006; Callard & Friedli, 2005; Seyfang & Smith, 2002).
There is evidence from six studies (one 1++, three 2++ and two 2+) of positive
employment benefits for individuals actively involved in community engagement
initiatives (Winters & Patel, 2003; Johnstone & Campbell-Jones, 2003; Matarasso, 1997;
Watson et al, 2004; ODPM, 2004A; ODPM, 2005B).
Evidence from two studies (1+ and 2+) suggests that community engagement may have
an impact on individual income; for example, time bank members can earn time credits
(Boyle et al, 2006; Seyfang, 2003). However, the evidence is limited.
Evidence from two studies (2++ and 2+) suggests that initiatives that bring
neighbourhood environmental improvements or encourage intergenerational contacts
may influence participants’ perceptions of crime for the better; however, the evidence to
link such changes to community engagement is limited (Matarasso, 1997; ODPM,
2005B).
Table 3.2.3 Socio-economic benefits of community engagement

evidence/voice
Education
a) Access to formal training
A qualitative study (1++) of a Sure Start Attree 2004 Interviews with
project reports that participants were able community support
to access formal training opportunities, workers
for example National Vocational
Qualifications in child development.
Two qualitative studies (one 1++ and one Winters & Patel Interviews with I found that I greatly benefited
1+) involving lay researchers report that 2003 community from my training days at Preston
participants were trained in research researchers which built on my basic drug
skills. knowledge. I thoroughly enjoyed
Boyle et al 2006 Interviews with conducting the needs assessment
community itself…I facilitated focus groups,
73

evidence/voice
Education
researchers carried out one-to-one interviews,
carried out questionnaire drops
and did some work around
participatory appraisal.
(Community researcher) (Winters
& Patel, p17)
An evaluation of the Community Watson et al 2004 Survey/interviews
Champions Fund (2++) (both qualitative with Community
and quantitative evidence) reports that Champions and
Champions had access to formal training, Young Champions
including project management and
disability/special needs training.
A qualitative study of New Deal for ODPM 2005B Focus groups with
Communities (2+) found that around one NDC residents
in ten focus group participants felt that
local opportunities for adult learning and
training had increased.
A mixed-method study (3+) of Church & Elster Source of evidence
sustainable development projects also 2002 unclear
reports that participants were able to
acquire formal qualifications.
b) Informal skill development
A qualitative study (1+), of grass-roots Del Tufo & Gastner Interviews with I’ve been able to use the
participation in a poverty commission, 2002 grass-roots experience in X (a grant-making
reports that participants were able to gain commissioners body). For example I’ve learnt
skills transferable to other contexts. some quite practical things like
drawing a table map so you can
use people’s names. I’m not being
listened to yet but I will get there.
(Grass-roots commissioner) (Del
Tufo & Gastner, p74)
Qualitative and quantitative evidence Matarasso 1997 Focus group and
from two studies (one 2++ and one 2+) of survey of
community arts projects suggests that participants
participants were able to develop both
technical and creative skills. 80% of Callard & Friedli Interviews with
adults and 77% of children taking part in 2005 participants and
one project had learned new skills. youth workers
Qualitative evidence drawn from two Johnstone & Interviews with Learning skills, I use the
(2++) studies of the Community Campbell-Jones Community computers. I wouldn’t even have
Champions Fund also suggests that in 2003 Champions and looked at one before. I hadn’t had
addition to formal training, participants Young Champions any office training or anything. I
acquired a variety of practical skills, now do the books, keep the
including team management, motorcycle Watson et al 2004 Interviews with minutes and everything else.
maintenance and research skills. Community (Community Champion, community
Champions and flats) (Johnstone & Campbell-
Young Champions Jones, 2003, p29)
Three qualitative studies (two 2++ and Bickerstaff & Interviews with
one 2+) of lay engagement in local Walker 2005 interest group
authority planning forums (transport representatives
planning, youth councils and
environmental planning) report that Matthews 2001 Interviews with
participants learned about planning young people
procedures and funding sources.
McInroy & Interviews with
MacDonald 2005 community
members involved
in environmental
regeneration
Evidence (qualitative and quantitative) ODPM 2004A Data source

from the UK government’s Residents’ unclear
Consultancy Initiative evaluation (2+)
74

evidence/voice
Education
suggests that consultants developed a
range of skills including report writing,
research skills, organisational skills and
public speaking.
Qualitative evidence from a (2+) time Seyfang & Smith Focus groups with
bank evaluation suggests that 2002 time bank
participants were able to acquire a variety members
of practical skills including DIY and
information technology.

evidence/voice
Employment
1) Employment potential
A qualitative study (1++) of a Sure Start Attree 2004 Community support
project reports that participants felt that the workers focus group
qualifications gained through the initiative
would help them to secure employment in
caring professions.
Qualitative evidence from two time bank Boyle et al Interviews with Apart from making me feel of
studies (one 1+ and one 2+) suggests that 2006 community researchers ‘more use’ in the community, the
participation increased members’ employment time bank has led to me being due
potential. to start computer training –
Seyfang & Focus groups with time something which may aid me in
Smith 2002 bank future employment… (Time bank
members/interviews with participant) (Seyfang & Smith,
time bank co-ordinators 2002, p40)
A (2+) study of a community arts project Callard & Interviews with project
reports that participants were alerted to Friedli 2005 participants and youth
possible employment opportunities in the arts. workers
2) Employment benefits
Quantitative evidence from a (1++) Winters & Questionnaires
participatory research initiative reports that 45 Patel 2003 completed by community
(22%) of the 204 community researchers researchers
found employment in the health and social
care field.
Evidence (2++) from a survey of participants in Matarasso Survey of project

a community arts training course found that 1997 participants
31% secured employment or further education
places.
Evidence from an interim evaluation (2++) of Johnstone & Survey of Community

the Community Champions Fund suggests Campbell- Champions and Young
that it had little impact on participants’ Jones 2003 Champions
employability. A subsequent (2++) evaluation
of the programme (2++) suggests more Watson et al Survey of Community
positive employment benefits. 7% of 2004 Champions and Young
respondents to a telephone survey had found Champions
employment since becoming Community
Champions, and almost a half of interview
respondents (out of a total of 48) report
employment benefits, including:
a) direct benefits for themselves;
b) anticipated future employment-related
benefits; and
c) indirect benefits for other people associated
with projects.
Three (of nine) Young Champions interviewed
reported employment-related benefits.
75

evidence/voice
A mixed-method study (2+) of the UK ODPM 2004A Interviews with
government’s Residents’ Consultancy consultants
Initiative reports that a number of consultants
found paid employment (21% of participants in
one project).
A qualitative study (2+) of New Deal for ODPM 2005B Focus groups with NDC I’ve been out of work for a couple
Communities suggests that participants found residents of years and I started work last
undertaking training a vital factor in gaining year on computer courses. I
employment. recently started work, but I don’t
think I would have got it if I didn’t
[attend those courses] (Liverpool
beneficiary group) (ODPM 2005B,
p81)
Summary Author/date Source of Example of qualitative

evidence/voice data
Poverty/income
Evidence from two qualitative studies (one Boyle et al 2006 Interviews with time
1+ and one 2+) of time banks suggests bank participants
potential economic benefits of engagement
for participants, for example through Seyfang 2003 Interviews with time
receiving time credits. However these were bank participants
not quantified.
Crime
Evidence from a (2+) qualitative evaluation ODPM 2005B Focus groups with NDC I think the wardens have
of the New Deal for Communities residents made a difference. I feel
programme suggests that it altered more secure with the
residents’ perceptions of crime. Increased wardens coming round.
perceptions of security were associated with (Liverpool general group)
the presence of street wardens and (ODPM, 2005, p79)
environmental improvements, particularly
the installation of preventative measures
such as additional street lighting.
Another (2++) mixed-method evaluation of a Matarasso 1997 Focus group with project
community arts project found that older participants
residents, who had felt anxious or
threatened by local young people, said that
they felt differently after working alongside
them in arts activities.
Personal and social benefits of community engagement

The review identified evidence of positive personal and social benefits of community
engagement for community members, including personal benefits, personal
empowerment and relational/social benefits.
Evidence from eight studies (three 1++, one 1+, three 2+, one 3+) suggests that
community engagement may have positive benefits for participants’ confidence and self
esteem (Attree, 2004; Bolam et al, 2006; Winters & Patel, 2003; Boyle et al, 2006;
Johnstone & Campbell-Jones, 2003; Matarasso, 1997; Matthews, 2001, Church & Elster,
2002). Evidence from one study (2++) suggests, however, that not all participants
experience such positive benefits (Watson et al, 2004), while another good-quality study
(1++) suggests that building up lay people’s confidence can be a slow process (Bolam et
al, 2006).
76
Evidence from five studies (one 1++, two 1+, one 2++, one 2+) suggests that community
engagement may have positive effects on participants’ personal empowerment 98 (Attree,
2004; Cole et al, 2004; Del Tufo & Gastner, 2004; Matarasso, 1997; Callard & Friedli,
2005) .
Evidence from six studies (one 1++, two 1+, one 2++, two 2+) suggests that community
engagement may help to widen participants’ social networks (Bolam et al, 2006; Boyle et
al, 2006; Del Tufo & Gastner, 2004; Watson et al, 2004; ODPM, 2005B; Seyfang, 2003).
Evidence from four studies (one 2++, three 2+) suggests that community engagement
may help to improve social cohesion, by increasing mutual trust and understanding
within communities.(Matarasso, 1997; Callard & Friedli, 2005; Seyfang & Smith, 2002;
Seyfang, 2003)
Table 3.2.4 Personal and social benefits of community engagement
Summary Author/date Source of evidence/ Example of qualitative data

voice
Personal gains
Qualitative evidence from eight studies Attree 2004 Interviews with
(three 1++, one 1+, three 2++, one 3+) community support
suggests that participants experienced workers
increased confidence and/or self
esteem as a result of their involvement. Bolam et al Interviews with peer
2006 educators
Winters & Patel Interviews with

2003 community researchers
Boyle et al Interviews with time

2006 bank members
Johnstone & Interviews with When people back you, you’ve got that
Campbell- Community Champions bit more confidence. You know, you feel
Jones 2003 as though you’re worthy (Community
Champion, landscape gardening)
Matarasso Focus groups with (Johnstone & Campbell-Jones, 2003,
1997 project participants p68)
Matthews 2001 Interviews and focus I have gained something

groups with young personally…confidence…it was a good
people experience. (Female, aged 15)
Church & Elster Source of evidence (Matthews, 2001, p307)
2002 unclear
Quantitative evidence (2++) from an Watson et al Survey of Community
evaluation of the Community 2004 Champions and Young
Champions Fund found that 25% of Champions
participants experienced very few
personal benefits.
Evidence from a (1++) qualitative study Bolam et al Interviews with peer Yes, I do feel a bit more confident than
of peer educators in an information 2006 educators when I started. Sometimes it takes
technology initiative suggests that ages…but it is getting better. (Older
building confidence can be a slow minority ethnic female) (Bolam et al,
process. 2006, p303)
98
Personal empowerment as described in these studies encompasses: being able to express
ideas and having them taken seriously, feeling useful to others, feeling in control of events, and
having a positive sense of one’s rights as an individual.
77
Personal empowerment
A qualitative study (1++) of a Sure Start Attree 2004 Focus group with
project reports that participants felt community support
personally empowered by their workers
involvement.
A qualitative study (1+) of housing Cole et al 2004 Focus group with NDC People have been empowered – they
planning in an NDC initiative suggests residents are being spoken ‘to’ not ‘at’ and their
that some (but not all) of the participants Survey of NDC officers views are being taken seriously. (NDC
felt empowered. officer, Knowsley) (Cole et al, 2004, p7)
Another qualitative study (1+) of grass- Del Tufo & Interviews with grass- The experiential nature of the process
roots involvement in a poverty Gastner 2004 roots commission distinguishes this from other
commission reports that participants felt members commissions – it was empowering.
empowered. (Grass-roots commissioner) (Del Tufo &
Gastner, 2004, p74)
Evidence from a (2++) mixed-methods Matarasso Survey of project Women’s voices are seldom heard or
study of a community arts project 1997 participants; focus group listened to, so creating opportunities for
suggests that participants felt personally with participants women to express themselves is
empowered by their involvement. A fifth important, and being involved in making
of the adults questioned in a survey said that happen is important to me.
that they felt differently about their (Participant) (Matarasso, 1997, p17)
rights. Qualitative evidence suggests
that personal empowerment is
particularly important for women.
A (2+) qualitative study of a community Callard & Source of data unclear
arts project reported that as a result of Friedli 2005
the initiative a women’s empowerment
group was set up.
Summary Author/date Source of evidence/ Example of qualitative data

voice
Relational/social
Evidence from a (1++) qualitative study Bolam et al Interviews with peer I like my group as they are nice
of peer educators training lay people in 2006 educators people…the ideas are different in that it
the use of computers [CityNet] suggests [CityNet] wants people around who
that they were able to make valued genuinely care and support you. So
interpersonal contacts. when CityNet came along I thought it
was a breath of fresh air… (Carer, white
male) (Bolam et al 2006, p302)
A qualitative study (1+) of time banks Boyle et al Interviews with time
found that participants talked about 2006 bank members
being able to build a network of social
contacts in a ‘domino effect’ (p29).
A qualitative study (1+) of a poverty Del Tufo & Interviews with

commission reports that participants Gastner 2004 commissioners
made new friends and gained an
appreciation of others’ points of view.
Qualitative evidence (2++) from an Watson et al Interviews with
evaluation of the Community 2004 Community Champions
Champions Fund suggests that
participants experienced improvements
in their social networks.
Qualitative evidence (2+) from a New ODPM 2005B Focus groups with NDC
Deal for Communities evaluation residents
suggests that participants experienced
social benefits from engagement.
78
Quantitative evidence (2+) from a time Seyfang 2003 Survey of time bank
bank evaluation suggests that there are members
social benefits of participation for
participants. 33% said that the initiative
had helped them ‘get out and about’ in
the community more; 28% said that they
had become more involved in
community groups; 72% said that they
had got to know more people; 39% said
that they had met like-minded people;
and 17% said that they had made new
friendships (p702).
Qualitative evidence from two studies Matarasso Focus group with project
(one 2++ and one 2+) of community arts 1997 participants
projects suggests that there are benefits
for mutual trust and understanding Callard & Interviews with project
within communities as a result of Friedli 2005 participants and youth
engagement, cutting across age and workers
cultural differences.
Evidence (both qualitative and Seyfang & Focus groups with time Time banking has more to offer – it’s
quantitative) from two (2+) studies of Smith 2002 bank not just volunteering, it’s making a
time bank initiatives suggests that participants/interviews difference to communities – bridging
engagement can improve social with time bank co- age gaps, combating exclusion,
cohesion. 56% of respondents in ordinators breaking down barriers, and can be a
Seyfang’s (2003) study said that they ‘gentle step back into society’… (East
felt they had helped to improve their Seyfang 2003 Survey of time bank End time bank co-ordinator) (Seyfang &
community as a place to live; a key participants Smith, 2002, p8)
element of this was ‘bringing people
together who would not normally meet’
(p703).
Dis-benefits of community engagement

Studies reporting on the experience of engagement for community members can also
shed light on the unintended negative consequences, suggesting that some initiatives
have the potential to undermine the positive health, socio-economic, personal and social
benefits outlined above.
Evidence from four studies (one 1++, two 2++, one 2+) suggests that there may be
personal dis-benefits of community engagement for participants, including costs to
physical, mental or emotional health (Ziersch & Baum, 2004; Chau, 2007; Matarasso,
1997; Edwards, 2002). Two studies (one 2++, one 2+) report specifically on the physical
dis-benefits of engagement for people with disabilities (Matarasso, 1997; Edwards,
2002).
Evidence from three studies (one 1+, one 2++, one 2+) suggests that participants
involved in consultation exercises may experience consultation fatigue (Cole et al, 2004;
Bickerstaff & Walker, 2005; Gunn, 2005).
Evidence from two studies (one 1++, one 2++) suggests that community members may
experience disillusionment with engagement initiatives if their expectations of influencing
decision-making are not fully realised (Bolam et al, 2006; Chau, 2007).
79
Table 3.2.5 Dis-benefits of community engagement
Summary Author/ Source of Example of qualitative data

date evidence/
voice
Personal costs
Quantitative evidence from an Australian Ziersch & Interviews Edith: It definitely did [affect her health]. Well, the
study (1++) found a negative relation Baum 2004 with doctors, they all say that, that I’ve worked too
between civil society group involvement and participants hard [on council activities] and put too much into
individual physical health, and no relation it.
between civil society group involvement and Interviewer: You pushed it too hard?
mental health. The qualitative analysis Edith: We pushed too hard. I can remember at
found that few respondents linked civil one stage, ‘cos I have had back trouble…and I
society group involvement to positive health was laying on the floor every now and again so I
outcomes, but more commonly associated it could get up and keep working. (Ziersch & Baum,
with negative mental and physical health 2004, p498)
outcomes. Two respondents also reported
concerns for their physical safety relating to
their involvement.
Qualitative evidence from two studies (one Matarasso Focus group Everything is always at organisations’
2++ and one 2+), a community arts project 1997 with project convenience. Meetings are always held at their
and an SRB initiative, suggests that the dis- participants convenience. I’d like to go to more meetings, but I
benefits for physical health are particularly physically can’t do them. Today I have a meeting
high for people with disabilities. Edwards Interviews at 2pm…that will take until 5pm, and for me that
2002 with disabled causes a problem, because sitting is a problem. If
people I don’t spend between 12 and 14 hours a day
lying down then I can’t function. (Disabled woman,
community representative on a regeneration
scheme) (Edwards, 2002, p132)
A qualitative study (2++) of an initiative Chau 2007 Focus group
engaging older Chinese people in service with Chinese
planning identified personal dis-benefits for older people
participants in terms of time, money,
physical and emotional stress. Emotional
stress was linked to criticism of participants’
involvement from the wider community.
Qualitative evidence from a (2++) study of a Matarasso Focus group
community arts project also suggests that 1997 with project
participants were subjected to disapproval participants
and criticism from other community
members.
Consultation fatigue
Evidence from three qualitative studies (one Cole et al Focus group The government have gone crazy on plans,
1+, one 2++, and one 2+) suggests that the 2004 with NDC people are absolutely inundated with plans on
dis-benefits for individuals involved in residents every subject under the sun and people are
regeneration activities may be linked to the getting plan fatigue really. I think if you have too
type and level of engagement–i.e. where Bickerstaff Interviews many of them people just go and lose interest and
consultation with lay people is the main & Walker with they’re not going to be worth the effort
method. A number of participants in these 2005 representative really…After the two meetings I’m afraid I’ve sort
studies complained of consultation fatigue s of interest of thought to myself well I’ve had enough of all
and overload. groups this I want a rest now. (Participant, male,
environmental interest) (Bickerstaff & Walker,
2005, p2136)
Gunn 2005 Interviews
with young
people
Disillusion and disengagement
Qualitative evidence from a (1++) study of Bolam et al Interviews I’ve see those people who’ve really benefited from
peer educators in an information technology 2006 with peer the project. How their negative way of looking at
project suggests that failure to devolve educators themselves and the world have been improved by
power to communities and embed projects being involved and getting jobs through the
in community organisations was a source of project. People who’ve had tough lives and lots of
disillusionment and ultimately stories. Now they’re becoming bitter again
disengagement for some participants. because they’ve lost their jobs. Will they ever try
again? (Older white female) (Bolam et al, 2006,
p304)
80
Summary Author/ Source of Example of qualitative data

date evidence/
voice
A qualitative study (2++) of an initiative Chau 2007 Focus group
engaging older Chinese people in service with Chinese
planning reported that criticisms made of older people
services were not acted upon; participants
therefore perceived their involvement in
decision-making as ‘tokenism’ (p14)
Discussion: the experience of community engagement

This review of community members’ experience of engagement suggests that
participants perceive benefits for their physical health, mental health and quality of life.
However, evidence also suggests that these benefits may be undermined by
unanticipated negative consequences associated with engagement.
The review identified a number of possible socio-economic benefits of engagement for

individuals, including access to formal training, informal skill development, improvements
in employment potential and actual employment outcomes. However, evidence from the
evaluation of the Community Champions Fund suggests that initiatives need time to
‘bed-in’ before there are any perceivable employment benefits, and that evaluating
projects over the short-term may not identify such outcomes (Johnstone and Campbell-
Jones, 2003; Watson et al, 2004).
Little evidence was discovered concerning the benefits of engagement for individual
income and poverty, with the exception of time banks, which were said to have economic
advantages for participants (saving money through time credits). However, these
benefits were not quantified. Although obtaining paid employment might be expected to
have a positive effect on individual income, this was not reported in the studies.
The review identified two studies which report on the positive benefits of community
engagement for participants’ perceptions of neighbourhood security.
The review identified evidence of positive personal and social benefits of engagement
for community members across different types of initiative. Personal benefits described
by participants included increased confidence, self esteem and personal empowerment.
However, an evaluation of the Community Champions Fund (Watson et al, 2004) found
that 25% of participants experienced few personal benefits from involvement in the
initiative. Another study of peer educators involved in an information technology initiative
notes that participants’ initial low level of confidence meant that improvements were slow
to achieve (Bolam et al, 2006).
A number of studies in the review reported on the social benefits of engagement for
participants, such as building networks of social contacts, reducing social isolation, and
improving mutual trust and understanding. Evidence from three studies also suggests
that increasing social interaction is an important aspect of improving community
members’ health and/or quality of life (Matarasso, 1997; Seyfang and Smith, 2002;
Ziersch and Baum, 2004).
The review found evidence of unintended dis-benefits of community engagement for

individuals, including physical, mental and emotional health costs. An Australian study,
for example, found a negative relationship between involvement in civil society groups
81
and physical health, and no relationship between involvement and mental health - either
positive or negative (Ziersch and Baum, 2004). The authors’ qualitative analysis
supported this finding for both physical and mental health. For some lay people,
therefore, engagement could pose a health risk. The authors note, however, that the link
may not be causal – it is possible that people with poorer health may not be in
employment, and may therefore have more time for involvement (p499). Evidence from
two studies suggests that the dis-benefits of engagement are particularly high for people
with disabilities (Edwards, 2002; Matarasso, 1997). The review also found evidence of
emotional costs of engagement for participants, linked to lack of understanding of their
roles and criticism from other members of their communities.
Evidence from the review also suggests that community members may experience
consultation fatigue and overload in areas where engagement initiatives proliferate. Two
studies suggest that in initiatives where lay people’s expectations of power sharing are
not met, the result may be disillusionment and disengagement.
Limitations
The review identified relatively good-quality studies that report on community members’
experiences of engagement. The majority of included studies do not provide detailed
descriptions of the community engagement methods/approaches used.
The reporting of initiatives often fails to distinguish between active community

engagement, involving lay people in service planning, design, delivery or governance,
and simply engaging people in activities (community arts projects are a good example).
The terminology used in the review studies to describe community engagement often
conflates the two meanings; moreover, some initiatives include both types of
engagement. Identifying the individual effects of community engagement as defined in
the scope is therefore difficult.
Direct attribution of the individual effects reported to the experience of community

engagement is also problematic; for example, Watson et al (2004) note that participants’
employment outcomes are not always attributed by participants to involvement in the
Community Champions Fund. Thus it cannot be claimed with certainty that such
outcomes would not have occurred in the absence of the initiative. Similarly, in the New
Deal for Communities evaluation, changes in residents’ perceptions of crime were
associated with environmental improvements in their neighbourhoods (ODPM, 2005B).
The extent to which lay people were instrumental in bringing about these improvements
is not discussed.
82
3.3 Barriers and enablers to community engagement
health?
3.3.1 The nature of process evidence

There is a large body of research literature on the processes of community
engagement–far in excess of that identified in relation to the impact and/or experience of
engagement. In dealing with this volume of evidence in a review, three key problems
arise: how to define good quality process evaluations, assessing the quality of studies
identified, and extracting relevant process evidence.
Defining good quality process evaluations

Studies evaluating process focus on how factors/processes, operating at different levels
(e.g. national, regional and/or local level) and within organisations, professional and
other groups impinge on the implementation and therefore on the outcomes of a policy
and/or programme. Although there is a lack of consensus amongst evaluators, it is
possible to identify some key aspects of a good quality study design for evaluating
process, and these have informed the level of evidence framework used to grade
process studies described in Table 2.2, page 32.
• Linking impact and process: ideally, process and outcome evaluations would
be conducted together to explore the relationship between the two.
• Exploring change over time: good-quality process evaluations should be
longitudinal, considering how processes shaping initiatives change over time.
• Multiple cases: the range of factors that can impinge on an initiative is very
wide, so good-quality studies of process would incorporate multiple cases to
capture this diversity and to allow for comparisons across different contexts. The
number cannot be precisely determined, but cases can be sampled theoretically
to provide a measure of rigour to the process.
• Multiple methods: the processes shaping the experience and outcomes of
initiatives include instrumental factors (time, money, etc), political, cultural and
social processes, and the perspectives and behaviours of different actors. This
means that multiple methods for data collection are required.
• From description to explanation: good quality process evaluations would
describe the factors/processes shaping an initiative, and also seek to develop a
credible explanation of how and why this happens by linking the analysis to
theoretical understandings.
Level of evidence, study quality and data extraction

Many of the reports identified in the review contained relatively little descriptive
information on study design, the initiatives being evaluated or the methods used for data
collection and analysis. This appears to be a particular problem in social and strongly
applied research, which does not traditionally include detailed methods sections in
published reports. This is a major problem for systematic reviews and requires attention
by research funding bodies and journal editors as well as researchers.
83
Notwithstanding these difficulties, the review suggests that process evaluations

incorporating all five elements described above are very rare in the literature on
community engagement. Process evaluations involving multiple cases and multiple data
collection methods are common, but these are typically cross sectional, do not collect
data on impact and rarely use theory to move from description to explanation. More
frequently, processes of engagement are studied in the context of single cases utilising
limited methods for data collection–typically face-to-face interviews or surveys. Whilst
allocating a level of evidence grade on the basis of study design was usually possible,
the lack of information on methods for data collection and analysis meant that many
studies could not be graded for methodological quality or were graded ‘-‘. This
information could have been sought from the authors or other publications reporting on
the same study, but time did not permit this.
As noted earlier, 120 papers were available for data extraction for process evidence. As
with the other elements of the review, the time available meant that it was not possible to
extract data from all full papers judged to be relevant. In the event, 30 papers have been
included in the review (reporting on 26 studies), and one paper reporting on a narrative
review. All were rated as providing process evidence of a level 2+ or higher. Details of
the initiatives being evaluated, the study designs and the main findings from these
studies are shown in Section 4 Table 4.5 (page 133).
The process of extracting process evidence is also complex. Identifying such data is far
from straightforward. As Evidence Table 4.5 illustrates (page 133), process data are
more likely to be in narrative or conceptual form than numerical, and they are typically
dispersed throughout a report rather than being provided in tables, for example. Even in
studies of good quality, the process of data extraction involves a degree of interpretation
on the part of reviewers and is often very time consuming. In poorer-quality study
reports, process data frequently consists of observations made by the authors rarely
supported by primary data (direct quotations from people targeted by interventions, for
instance).
3.3.2 Evidence summary

The summary of process evidence is presented under eight sub-headings, reflecting the
main themes identified in an analysis of the data extracted (details of the data are
provided in table 4.5 page 133). These themes are: power relationships in community
engagement initiatives, communicative resources and knowledge, the practices of
engagement, the transaction costs of engagement, culture and attitudes, community
resistance to engagement, models of engagement, the political context, and success or
enabling factors. It is important to note that although the factors/processes identified
under the first eight themes were typically presented as barriers to community
engagement, most of them could potentially at least operate to enable more effective
engagement given different circumstances.
1. Power relationships in CE initiatives

Fourteen good quality studies (1++ to 2+) identify the (mis)use of power by officials and
elected members of local authorities as a key constraint on the process and outcome of
community engagement initiatives.
These studies evaluate initiatives focusing on a wide range of social determinants of

health—rural and urban regeneration, housing, the prevention of drug and alcohol
84
misuse—and involve diverse communities of place and identity including young people,
older people, BME communities and residents of neighbourhoods across the socio-
economic spectrum.
These studies illuminate a number of processes through which power is used by

professionals and/or elected members to control who is engaged, the focus of the
initiative, and the extent and way in which the engagement process impacts on decisions
and/or services including:
• Discursive practices that define:

o Who are legitimate participants in CE initiatives—and hence exclude some
communities/individuals
o What topics are legitimately discussed—hence excluding from deliberation
areas that officials wish to retain within their control
• Positional authority exercised through:
o Controlling meetings: e.g. deciding who will chair meetings and setting
agendas
o Defining relevant skills, with technical skills typically being privileged over
experiential skills.
o Dominating and manipulating the deliberation at meetings
o Interpreting and translating the relevance of deliberations to ‘fit’ with the
official priorities.
• Financial authority exercised through control of how money is spent and what
resources are available to support CE.
Two good-quality studies (2++, 2+) suggest that unequal power relationships may
directly affect the process and outcomes of CE initiatives by, for example, excluding
marginalised groups and/or counter-voices (Barnes et al, 2003/Newman et al, 2004),
preventing community knowledge from modifying decision-making in transport planning
and translating deliberative outputs so that they legitimise the official position rather than
challenging it (Bickerstaff and Walker, 2005).
One (2++) study (Barnes et al, 2003) also reports that some community members may
be involved with officials in excluding other community members through discursive
mechanisms. This study also suggests that the acquisition of knowledge about how
systems work by a small number of community ‘representatives’ may contribute to
increased inequalities and exclusion within communities.
85
Table 3.3.1 The distribution and use of power in CE initiatives

Author/date LoE Intervention description and role of CE Study population/
setting
Anastacio et al 2++ Urban regeneration projects in England Residents of disadvantaged
2000 areas involved in CE including
young people
Barnes et al 2+ 10 Deliberative forums in 2 cities in England including: Communities in disadvantaged
2003/ Newman neighbourhood forums; youth forums; older people’s forums areas, older people, minority
et al 2004 ethnic groups, younger people,
& different service users
Barnes et al 2++ Health Action Zones In England. Diverse methods and approaches Diverse communities of place
2004 for community engagement and interest not described in
detail in the report
Beresford & 2+ A range of participatory schemes & initiatives relating to The project sought to focus
Hoban 2005 poverty/disadvantage & place/regeneration, including a Citizen particularly on the engagement
Commission on the Future of the Welfare State, the Integrated of people living in poverty, on
Local Development Programme in Ireland, The JRF Commission on welfare benefits and on race
Poverty, Participation and Power, resident involvement in NDC, The equality and difference
NI Women’s Coalition, and various regeneration initiatives
Bickerstaff & 2++ Evaluation of processes and outcomes of deliberative processes Residents living in two local
Walker 2005 used by Local Authorities to develop local transport plans included authority areas. One reasonably
round table stakeholder discussions, focus groups, public meetings, affluent rural with smaller urban
consensus building methods (e.g. whole system events), areas the other larger urban
community group meetings, household surveys with problems of industrial
decline
Cairncross et al 1+ National evaluation of Tenant Management Organisations in public Diverse populations of residents
2002 housing estates but primarily lower socio-
economic groups
Cole et al 2004 2+ Involvement of NDC area residents in formulation of plans to tackle 10 NDC partnerships in England
low-demand and unpopular housing. A variety of initiatives, both
collective and individual, were used to engage residents, including
door knocking exercises, neighbourhood forums, consultation
caravans, conferences, NDC partnership community reps, NDC
citizen juries, tenants federations, street reps, street or
neighbourhood meetings and strategy Steering Groups with
resident reps
Lawless 1+ National evaluation of New Deal for Communities. No details on Diverse communities of place in
2004A/B methods of community engagement are provided in the reports of England in 39 of the poorest
this evaluation, but these are wide ranging, including resident communities in England. With
chairing and membership of NDC partnership boards, tenants’ 39 comparator wards in other
associations/management groups, various deliberative forums, areas. Lawless 2004A looks
citizen juries, whole system events and one off consultations. explicitly at BME communities’
Efforts are also made to employ local residents where possible. engagement in NDC
This paper draws on all strands of the national evaluation to look at
three themes: community engagement, partnership working and
program cohesion and complexity
McArthur et al 1++ Estate regeneration partnerships on 10 public housing estates Community representative on
1996 Partnership boards and
feedback to community groups.
Osborne et al 2+ Rural regeneration partnerships. Involve 3 types of CE: strategic 3 partnerships in each of 3
2002 (involvement in funding and planning partnerships), intermediate areas: Devon, Dumfries and
(involvement in management of projects) and community Galloway; and Country Antrim
(involvement in community regeneration activities at local level
Shiner et al 2+ Drug and Alcohol Teams work with communities influences on Diverse communities of place
2004 success or failure of these initiatives and interest in England
Sustainable 2+ Sustainable development projects combing social, economic and Very diverse communities of
Development environmental concerns in wide range of areas across England. place and interest
Commission Approaches to involving communities of place and interest wide
2003 ranging
Tunstill et al 1++ Sure Start Local Programmes Parents and children in
2005 disadvantaged areas in England
Williams 2004 2++ Better Government for Older People; I of 28 pilot schemes for Older people
BGOP. 10 initiatives in this pilot area including partnerships,
networks, steering group, confidence raising project, consultation on
modernisation of social services, etc.
86
2. Communicative knowledge and resources

There is good quality evidence that the availability and use of communicative knowledge
and resources are important for effective processes of community engagement.
Fourteen good quality studies (1++ to 2+) provide evidence on the importance of
professionals and community members having access to training in key skills for
engagement (e.g. community development, community leadership, negotiation,
enterprise, partnership working and participatory research) and to relevant knowledge
(e.g. technical, policy context, understanding public sector and organisational systems
and structures). The majority of these studies reported a lack of communicative
knowledge and resources as a barrier to engagement.
Table 3.3.2 Training and knowledge acquisition

Author/date LoE Intervention description and role of Study population/ setting
CE
Anastacio et al 2000 2++ Urban regeneration projects in England Residents of disadvantaged areas
involved in CE including young
people
Barnes et al 2003 2+ 10 Deliberative Forums in 2 cities in England, Communities in disadvantaged
including neighbourhood forums, youth forums, areas, older people, minority ethnic
older people’s forums groups, younger people, & different
service users
Barnes et al 2004 2++ Health Action Zones In England. Diverse Diverse communities of place and
methods and approaches for community interest not described in detail in the
engagement report
Beresford & Hoban 2+ A range of participatory schemes & initiatives The project sought to focus
2005 relating to poverty/disadvantage & particularly on the engagement of
place/regeneration, including a Citizen people living in poverty, on welfare
Commission on the Future of the Welfare State; benefits and on race equality and
the Integrated Local Development Programme difference
in Ireland, The JRF Commission on Poverty,
Participation and Power, resident involvement
in NDC; The NI Women’s Coalition, and various
regeneration initiatives
Cairncross et al 2002 1+ National evaluation of Tenant Management Diverse populations of residents but
Organisations in public housing estates primarily lower socio-economic
groups
Chouhan & Lusane 2+ Black voluntary and community groups involved 200 individuals involved in Black vol.
2004 in range of engagement initiatives and community organisations in
London, Leicester and elsewhere in
England
Church & Elster 2002 2+ Wide variety of projects focusing on Diverse communities of place from
environmental concerns, including projects in different socio-economic
England, Scotland and Wales, community backgrounds and in urban and rural
based projects, local authority/community communities, BME groups (e.g.
partnerships, projects linking national NGOs Hindu and Chinese communities),
and local community groups, regeneration and all age groups
based projects, health and environment
projects and employment generation projects
Hills et al 2007 1+ Healthy Living Centres in England, Wales, Diverse communities of place and
Scotland, Northern Ireland. Very diverse interest
methods of CE
Sustainable 2+ Sustainable development projects combing Very diverse communities of place

Development social, economic and environmental concerns and interest
Commission 2003 in wide range of areas across England.
Approaches to involving communities of place
and interest wide-ranging
Taylor 2006 2++ Community Participation Programme. Survey of lead organisations in 3
Promotion of Community Engagement CPP areas; case studies in 8 areas
Networks for community involvement in LSPs with NR funding, 2 without NR
87

CE
funding; short survey of 106
voluntary and community groups in 8
areas; workshops with government
officials and local community to test
research tools and initial findings
Tunstill et al 2005 1++ Sure Start Local Programmes Parents and children in
disadvantaged areas in England
Watson et al 2004 1++ Community Champions Fund aims to increase All sections of communities in
skills of individuals to enable them to act as England; particular focus on young
inspirational figures, community entrepreneurs, people. Based in some of the poorest
community mentors and community leaders areas of the country—Community
Cohesion Areas. 1,703 CCs
appointed since 2003
Webster & Johnson 2++ Community involvement in participatory Residents of large public housing
2000 research aimed at mapping food poverty and estates in disadvantaged areas in
developing collective solutions three English cities
Williamson et al 2004 2+ Three EU-funded local Peace and Community involvement in the
Reconciliation Partnership Boards in Northern boards from rural areas
Ireland. Focus on promoting social inclusion.
Drawing on data from the same study as
Osborne et al 2002 above
Six good-quality studies (1++ to 2+) provide evidence that opportunities for networking
between communities and sharing experience and learning are important for the
sustainability of CE processes and initiatives.
Table 3.3.3 Networking and sharing experiences

CE
Cairncross et al 2002 1+ National evaluation of Tenant Management Diverse populations of residents but
Organisations in public housing estates primarily lower socio-economic
groups
Church & Elster 2002 2+ Wide variety of projects focusing on Diverse communities of place from
environmental concerns included: projects in different socio-economic
England, Scotland and Wales, community backgrounds and in urban and rural
based projects, local authority/community communities, BME groups (e.g.
partnerships; projects linking national NGOs Hindu and Chinese communities),
and local community groups; regeneration and all age groups
based projects, health and environment
projects and employment generation projects
Scotland, Northern Ireland. Very diverse interest
methods of CE
Sustainable 2+ Sustainable development projects combining Very diverse communities of place
Development social, economic and environmental concerns and interest
Commission 2003 in wide range of areas across England.
Approaches to involving communities of place
and interest wide-ranging
Taylor 2006 2++ Community Participation Programme. Survey of lead organisations in 3
Promotion of Community Engagement CPP areas; case studies inn 8 areas
Networks for community involvement in LSPs with NR funding, 2 without NR
88
3. The practices of community engagement

Fourteen good-quality studies and a good-quality narrative review (1++ to 2+) provide
evidence that common practices in community engagement may create significant
barriers across different types of social determinants initiatives and with different types of
communities. These problematic practices include the organisation, style and timing of
meetings, a lack of diversity in methods for engagement, inflexible funding regimes,
discriminatory practices, failure to accommodate cultural diversity, formidable time
demands leading to consultation fatigue, the complexity of structures and processes for
engagement and the public sector’s failure to develop effective and transparent
mechanisms to translate community expertise into action and ensure feedback.
Table 3.3.4 Practices of engagement

CE
Anastacio et al 2000 2++ Urban regeneration projects in England Residents of disadvantaged areas
involved in CE including young
people
Barnes et al 2003 & 2+ 10 Deliberative Forums in 2 cities in England Communities in disadvantaged
Newman et al 2004 including neighbourhood forums, youth forums, areas, older people, minority ethnic
older people’s forums groups, younger people, & different
service users
Barnes et al 2004 ; 2++ Health Action Zones In England. Diverse Diverse communities of place and
Bauld et al 2005 methods and approaches for community interest not described in detail in the
engagement report
Beresford & Hoban 2+ A range of participatory schemes & initiatives The project sought to focus
2005 relating to poverty/disadvantage & particularly on the engagement of
place/regeneration, including a Citizen people living in poverty, on welfare
Commission on the Future of the Welfare State; benefits and on race equality and
the Integrated Local Development Programme in difference
Ireland; The JRF Commission on Poverty,
Participation and Power; resident involvement in
NDC; The NI Women’s Coalition, and various
Bickerstaff & Walker 2++ Evaluation of processes and outcomes of Residents living in two local authority
2005 deliberative processes used by Local Authorities areas. One reasonably affluent rural
to develop local transport plans, including round with smaller urban areas; the other,
table stakeholder discussions, focus groups, larger urban with problems of
public meetings, consensus building methods industrial decline
(e.g. whole system events), community group
meetings, household surveys
Chouhan & Lusane 2+ Black voluntary and community groups 200 individuals involved in Black
2004 voluntary and community
organisations in London, Leicester
and elsewhere in England
Cole & Smith 1996 1+ Evaluation of residents’ involvement in an Residents of a low income
initiative to regenerate a public housing estate in disadvantaged housing estate with
the North of England. Wide range of CE long term experience of decline. 12%
approaches included street meetings, parties, LLSI, 27% Male unemployment; 69%
open days, work with Residents Association H/H without car
which had a seat on project Advisory Group.
Cole et al 2004 2+ Involvement of NDC area residents in formulation 10 NDC partnerships in England
of plans to tackle low demand and unpopular
housing. A variety of initiatives both collective and
individual were used to engage residents,
including door knocking exercises, neighbourhood
forums, consultation caravans, conferences, NDC
partnership community reps, NDC citizen juries,
tenants federations, street reps; street or
neighbourhood meetings and strategy Steering
Groups with resident reps
89

CE
Goodlad et al 2005 2+ Explore the processes and impacts of CE in Wide range of communities of place
context of Area Based Initiatives. The paper is involved in the area based initiatives
based on the narrative review of CE in ABI included in the original review but not
undertaken by Burton et al 2004. No description possible to describe type of
of specific methods of CE included communities
Scotland, Northern Ireland. Very diverse methods interest
of CE
Lawless 2004A/B 1+ National evaluation of New Deal for Communities. Diverse communities of place in
No details on methods of community engagement England in 39 of the poorest
are provided in the reports of this evaluation but communities in England. With 39
these are wide ranging, including resident chairing comparator wards in other areas.
and membership of NDC partnership boards, Lawless 2004A looks explicitly at
tenants’ associations/management groups, BME communities’ engagement in
various deliberative forums, citizen juries, whole NDC
system events and one-off consultations. Efforts
are also made to employ local residents where
possible. This paper draws on all strands of the
national evaluation to look at three themes:
community engagement, partnership working and
McArthur et al 1996 1++ Estate regeneration partnerships on 10 public Community representative on
housing estates Partnership boards and feedback to
community groups
Taylor 2006 2++ Community Participation Programme. Promotion Survey of lead organisations in 3
of Community Engagement Networks for CPP areas; case studies in 8 areas
community involvement in LSPs with NR funding, 2 without NR
Williams 2004 2++ Better Government for Older People; I of 28 pilot Older people
schemes for BGOP. 10 initiatives in this pilot area
including partnerships, networks, steering group,
confidence raising project, consultation on
modernization of social services, etc.
Four good-quality studies provide evidence on the particular difficulties created for
groups with special access or technology needs (e.g. people with disabilities, Beresford
& Hoban 2005, 2+); older people (Willliams 2004, 2++) and people living in rural areas
(Osborne et al, 2002, 2+; Hill et al, 2007, 1+).
Six good-quality studies (Barnes et al, 2004, 2++, Chouhan & Lusane 2004, 2+, Cole et
al, 2004, 2+, Lawless 2004, 1+, Russell 2005 & Sullivan & Howard 2005, 2+, Taylor
2006, 2++) and one good-quality narrative review (Goodlad et al, 2+) highlight the
relevance of the historical context, suggesting that practices of community engagement
in the past can influence contemporary initiatives positively or negatively by affecting the
level of trust and the quality of the relationship communities have with local public
agencies. Lawless (2004B) reports that this is a particularly severe problem in
disadvantaged areas with previous experience of regeneration programmes.
90
Table 3.3.5 The importance of historical context

setting
Barnes et al 2++ Health Action Zones In England. Diverse methods and Diverse communities of place
2004 approaches for community engagement and interest not described in
Chouhan & 2+ Black voluntary and community groups 200 individuals involved in Black
Lusane 2004 voluntary and community
organisations in London,
Leicester and elsewhere in
England
Cole et al 2004 2+ Involvement of NDC area residents in formulation of plans to 10 NDC partnerships in England
tackle low demand and unpopular housing. A variety of initiatives,
both collective and individual, were used to engage residents,
including door knocking exercises, neighbourhood forums,
consultation caravans, conferences, NDC partnership community
reps, NDC citizen juries, tenants federations, street reps, street or
neighbourhood meetings and strategy Steering Groups with
resident reps
Goodlad et al 2+ Explores the processes and impacts of CE in context of Area- Wide range of communities of
2005 Based Initiatives. The paper is based on the narrative review of place involved in the area-based
CE in ABI undertaken by Burton et al 2004. No description of initiatives included in the original
specific methods of CE included review but not possible to
describe type of communities
Lawless 1+ National evaluation of New Deal for Communities. No details on Diverse communities of place in
2004A/B methods of community engagement are provided in the reports of England in 39 of the poorest
this evaluation, but these are wide ranging, including resident communities in England. With
chairing and membership of NDC partnership boards, tenants’ 39 comparator wards in other
associations/management groups, various deliberative forums, areas. Lawless 2004A looks
citizen juries, whole system events and one-off consultations. explicitly at BME communities’
Efforts are also made to employ local residents where possible. engagement in NDC
This paper draws on all strands of the national evaluation to look
at three themes: community engagement, partnership working
and program cohesion and complexity
Russell 2005 & 2+ National evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships – areas all Very diverse – no details of
Sullivan & over England. Russell: Focus on engagement in formulating and specific methods
Howard 2005 implementing strategies of LSPs
Sullivan & Howard: focus on activities below the LSP
Taylor 2006 2++ Community Participation Programme. Promotion of Community Survey of lead organisations in
Engagement Networks for community involvement in LSPs 3 CPP areas; case studies in 8
areas with NR funding, 2 without
NR funding; short survey of 106
voluntary and community
groups in 8 areas; workshops
with government officials and
local community to test research
tools and initial findings.
4. The transaction costs of community engagement

Ten good-quality studies (1+ to 2+) evaluating initiatives covering a range of social
determinants of health and community types highlight the potential material constraints
on a community’s capacity to engage. These include time constraints, problems caused
by poverty, low income and inflexible welfare rules and transport difficulties.
91
Table 3.3.6 Material constraints

setting
Barnes et al 2+ 10 Deliberative Forums in 2 cities in England, including Communities in disadvantaged
2003 & neighbourhood forums, youth forums, older people’s areas, older people, minority
Newman et al forums ethnic groups, younger people,
2004 & different service users
Hoban 2005 poverty/disadvantage & place/regeneration, including a particularly on the engagement
Citizen Commission on the Future of the Welfare State; of people living in poverty, on
the Integrated Local Development Programme in Ireland; welfare benefits and on race
The JRF Commission on Poverty, Participation and equality and difference
Power; resident involvement in NDC; The NI Women’s
Coalition, and various regeneration initiatives
Bickerstaff & 2++ Evaluation of processes and outcomes of deliberative Residents living in two local
Walker 2005 processes used by Local Authorities to develop local authority areas. One reasonably
transport plans, including round table stakeholder affluent rural with smaller urban
discussions, focus groups, public meetings, consensus areas; the other, larger urban
building methods (e.g. whole system events), community with problems of industrial
group meetings, household surveys decline.
Birchall & 2+ Range of user groups in housing and social care Diverse membership of user
Simmons 2004 groups in 3 local authorities—
one in Scotland, 2 in England
organisations in London,
Leicester and elsewhere in
England
Church & Elster 2+ Wide variety of projects focusing on environmental Very diverse; included
2002 concerns, including projects in England, Scotland and communities of place from
Wales, community-based projects, local different socio-economic
authority/community partnerships, projects linking backgrounds and in urban and
national NGOs and local community groups, rural communities, BME groups
regeneration-based projects, health and environment (e.g. Hindu and Chinese
projects, and employment generation projects communities), and all age
groups
Cole & Smith 1+ Evaluation of residents’ involvement in an initiative to Residents of a low income
1996 regenerate a public housing estate in the North of disadvantaged housing estate
England. Wide range of CE approaches, including street with long term experience of
meetings, parties, open days, work with Residents decline. 12% LLSI, 27% Male
Association which had a seat on project Advisory Group unemployment; 69% H/H
without car
Goodlad et al 2+ Explores the processes and impacts of CE in context of Wide range of communities of
2005 Area-Based Initiatives. The paper is based on the place involved in the area-based
narrative review of CE in ABI undertaken by Burton et al initiatives included in the original
2004. No description of specific methods of CE included review, but not possible to
describe type of communities
Lawless 1+ National evaluation of New Deal for Communities. No Diverse communities of place in
2004A/B details on methods of community engagement are England in 39 of the poorest
provided in the reports of this evaluation, but these are communities. With 39
wide ranging, including resident chairing and membership comparator wards in other
of NDC partnership boards, tenants’ areas. Lawless 2004A looks
associations/management groups, various deliberative explicitly at BME communities’
forums, citizen juries, whole system events and one-off engagement in NDC
consultations. Efforts are also made to employ local
residents where possible. This paper draws on all strands
of the national evaluation to look at three themes:
community engagement, partnership working and
Osborne et al 2+ Rural regeneration partnerships. Involve 3 types of CE: 3 partnerships in each of 3
2002 strategic (involvement in funding and planning areas: Devon, Dumfries and
partnerships); intermediate (involvement in management Galloway; and Country Antrim
of projects) and community (involvement in community
regeneration activities at local level)
92
One good-quality study provides evidence on the particular transaction costs which may
be experienced by communities living in rural areas (Osborne et al, 2002, 2+); by BME
communities (Chouhan and Lusane, 2004, 2+) and by low income communities
(Beresford and Hoban, 2005, 2+). However, one good-quality study (Birchall and
Simmons, 2004, 2+) and a good-quality narrative review (Goodlad et al, 2005, 2+)
suggest that whilst transaction costs are important in shaping people’s decisions to
engage in initiatives focusing on the social determinants of health, the availability of a
range of options to engage, and the quality of relationships between public agencies and
communities, can be equally important.
5. Culture and attitudes

There is good-quality evidence that organisational culture and professional attitudes and
understanding of communities can be a significant constraint on processes of community
engagement.
One good-quality study (Barnes et al, 2003/Newman et al, 2004, 2+) highlights a
dichotomous image of the public amongst professionals and elected officials with the
notion of ‘the general public interest’ being privileged over the concerns of particular
communities, serving to marginalise their voices. Another study (Taylor, 2006, 2++)
reported ambiguous attitudes amongst officials complaining on the one hand about the
dominance of the ‘usual suspects’ and on the other about the lack of relevant experience
amongst community representatives.
Three good-quality studies (Barnes et al, 2003/Newman et al, 2004, 2+; Beresford and
Hoban, 2005, 2+; and Osborne et al, 2002, 2+) report that a view of communities as in
need of ‘skilling up’ and ‘empowering’ is dominant amongst professionals involved in CE
initiatives, who may fail to recognise the expertise communities have or the need for
organisational change to facilitate engagement. One study (McArthur et al, 1996, 1++)
suggests that public agencies tend to see community partnership as a service delivery
mechanism rather than relevant to broader policy issues.
One good-quality narrative review (Goodlad et al, 2005, 2+) reported that women, BME
communities and disabled people may experience particular problems associated with
stereotyping by professionals involved in CE initiatives. Another study (Anastacio et al,
2000, 2++) reported that community groups felt their legitimacy depended on how far
they supported the agenda of the public and private sector interests. This was reported
to be a particular problem for BME groups. Another study (Chouhan and Lusane, 2004,
2+) suggests that funders of Black Voluntary and Community Groups fail to see the link
with community engagement.
One very good-quality study (Lloyd et al, 2005, 1++) found that men’s participation in a
Sure Start project could be adversely affected by stereotypical attitudes towards
parenthood amongst SS workers.
93
Table 3.3.7 Cultural and attitudinal factors shaping process

setting
Anastacio et al 2000 2++ Urban regeneration projects in England Residents of disadvantaged
areas involved in CE
including young people
Barnes et al 2003 2+ 10 Deliberative Forums in 2 cities in England, including Communities in
neighbourhood forums, youth forums, older people’s disadvantaged areas, older
forums. people, minority ethnic
groups, younger people, &
different service users
Barnes et al 2004 2++ Health Action Zones In England. Diverse methods and Diverse communities of place
approaches for community engagement and interest not described in
Beresford & Hoban 2+ A range of participatory schemes & initiatives relating The project sought to focus
2005 to poverty/disadvantage & place/regeneration, particularly on the
including a Citizen Commission on the Future of the engagement of people living
Welfare State, the Integrated Local Development in poverty, on welfare
Programme in Ireland, the JRF Commission on benefits and on race equality
Poverty, Participation and Power, resident involvement and difference
in NDC, The NI Women’s Coalition, and various
Bickerstaff & Walker 2++ Evaluation of processes and outcomes of deliberative Residents living in two local
2005 processes used by Local Authorities to develop local authority areas. One
transport plans, including round table stakeholder reasonably affluent rural with
discussions, focus groups, public meetings, smaller urban areas; the
consensus building methods (e.g. whole system other, larger urban with
events), community group meetings, household problems of industrial decline
surveys
Chouhan & Lusane 2+ Black voluntary and community groups 200 individuals involved in
2004 Black voluntary and
community organisations in
London, Leicester and
elsewhere in England
Goodlad et al 2005 2+ Explores the processes and impacts of CE in context of Wide range of communities of
Area-Based Initiatives. The paper is based on the place involved in the area-
narrative review of CE in ABI undertaken by Burton et based initiatives included in
al 2004. No description of specific methods of CE the original review, but not
included possible to describe type of
communities
Lloyd et al 2005 1++ Sure Start projects around England. Multi-agency Focus on involvement of
initiatives led by NHS aiming to give children living in fathers in the Sure Start
low-income households a better start in life initiatives. Disadvantaged
communities in England’s
poorest neighbourhoods
McArthur et al 1996 1++ Estate regeneration partnerships on 10 public housing Community representative on
estates Partnership boards and
feedback to community
groups
Osborne et al 2002 2+ Rural regeneration partnerships. Involving 3 types of 3 partnerships in each of 3
CE: strategic (involvement in funding and planning areas: Devon, Dumfries and
partnerships), intermediate (involvement in Galloway, and Country
management of projects) and community (involvement Antrim
in community regeneration activities at local level)
Taylor 2006 2++ Community Participation Programme. Promotion of Survey of lead organisations
Community Engagement Networks for community in 3 CPP areas; case studies
involvement in LSPs in 8 areas with NR funding, 2
without NR funding; short
survey of 106 Vol and
community groups in 8 areas;
workshops with government
officials and local community
to test research tools and
initial findings
94
6. Community resistance to engagement

There is good-quality evidence that in some situations communities may actively resist
public-sector initiatives to engage them in service planning and/or delivery. The studies
reporting high levels of apathy and lack of interest discussed elsewhere can also be
interpreted as evidence of passive resistance to processes that are experienced as
alienating.
Table 3.3.8 Community resistance to engagement

setting
Barnes et al 2003 2+ 10 Deliberative Forums in 2 cities in England, including Communities in
& Newman et al neighbourhood forums, youth forums, older people’s disadvantaged areas, older
2004 forums people, minority ethnic
groups, younger people, &
different service users
Beresford & 2+ A range of participatory schemes & initiatives relating The project sought to focus
Hoban 2005 to poverty/disadvantage & place/regeneration, particularly on the
including a Citizen Commission on the Future of the engagement of people
Welfare State, the Integrated Local Development living in poverty, on welfare
Programme in Ireland, the JRF Commission on benefits and on race
Poverty, Participation and Power, resident involvement equality and difference
in NDC, The NI Women’s Coalition, and various
Bickerstaff & 2++ Evaluation of processes and outcomes of deliberative Residents living in two
Walker 2005 processes used by Local Authorities to develop local local authority areas. One
transport plans, including round table stakeholder reasonably affluent rural
discussions, focus groups, public meetings, with smaller urban areas;
consensus building methods (e.g. whole system the other, larger urban with
events), community group meetings, household problems of industrial
surveys decline
Cairncross et al 1+ National evaluation of Tenant Management Diverse populations of
2002 Organisations in public housing estates residents but primarily
lower socio-economic
groups
Cole & Smith 1+ Evaluation of residents’ involvement in an initiative to Residents of a low-income
1996 regenerate a public housing estate in the North of disadvantaged housing
England. Wide range of CE approaches, including estate with long-term
street meetings, parties, open days, work with experience of decline. 12%
Residents Association which had a seat on project LLSI, 27% Male
Advisory Group unemployment; 69% H/H
without car
Cole et al 2004 2+ Involvement of NDC area residents in formulation of 10 NDC partnerships in
plans to tackle low demand and unpopular housing. A England
variety of initiatives both collective and individual were
used to engage residents, including door knocking
exercises, neighbourhood forums, consultation
caravans, conferences, NDC partnership community
reps, NDC citizen juries, tenants’ federations, street
reps, street or neighbourhood meetings and strategy
Steering Groups with resident reps
Gaster & Crossley 2++ Evaluation of work of a community development worker Residents of 3 estates: a
2000 with the Rowntree Housing Trust (a Housing village of 1,100 properties
Association) in York to support tenant involvement in built between 1904-1990s,
estate management. CE activity varied. Initial focus on an estate of 126 properties
future of a local community hall, young people and and an estate of 133
safety, encouraging volunteering and linking processes properties built in 1990s.
Diverse socio-economic
backgrounds but mostly
lower income. Particular
focus on young people and
on concept of a ‘balanced
community’
Hills et al 2007 1+ Healthy Living Centres in England, Wales, Scotland, Diverse communities of
Northern Ireland. Very diverse methods of CE place and interest
95

setting
Taylor 2006 2++ Community Participation Programme. Promotion of Survey of lead
Community Engagement Networks for community organisations in 3 CPP
involvement in LSPs areas; case studies in 8
areas with NR funding, 2
without NR funding; short
survey of 106 Vol and
community groups in 8
areas; workshops with
government officials and
local community to test
research tools and initial
findings
.
Four good-quality studies (Cairncross et al, 2002, 1+; Cole and Smith, 1996, 1+; Cole et
al, 2004, 2+; Gaster and Crossley, 2000, 2++) in the housing field suggest that
communities may resist taking direct responsibility for service provision and
management. However, one of these studies (Cole et al, 2004, 2+) reported that
despite feeling burdened by housing demolition decisions, many residents felt they
should be involved.
Most of the studies reviewed made some reference to widespread frustration amongst
community members but four good-quality studies (Barnes et al, 2003/Newman et al,
2004, 2+; Beresford and Hoban, 2005, 2+; Bickerstaff and Walker, 2005, 2++; Cole et al,
2004, 2+) report that the failure of CE initiatives to have any direct and discernible
impact on services and/or decision-making may cause frustration amongst community
members and lead to resistance to becoming involved on subsequent occasions. Taylor
(2006, 2++) stresses the particular difficulties of engaging with marginalised groups and
suggests that this may be linked to communication failures on the part of public
agencies.
7. Models of engagement
At a macro strategic level two good quality studies (Barnes et al, 2004, 2++, Bauld et al,
2005, 2++) suggest that the effectiveness of community engagement may be
compromised when expectations are too high and, in particular, when too much reliance
is placed on the ability of planning structures such as Health Action Zones to alleviate
relatively intractable social problems and tackle health inequalities.
Four good quality studies (Beresford and Hoban, 2005, 2+, Bickerstaff and Walker,
2005, 2++, Cole and Smith, 1996, 1+, Webster and Johnson, 2000, 2++) raise questions
about the appropriateness of deliberative approaches to community engagement,
suggesting that an unrealistic emphasis placed on the pursuit of consensus undermines
the process of community engagement.
Six good quality studies (Beresford and Hoban, 2005, 2+ Bickerstaff and Walker, 2005,
2++, Cole and Smith, 1996, 1+, Cole et al, 2004, 2+, Russell 2005/Sullivan and Howard
2005, 2+, Sustainable Development Commission, 2003, 2+) report that public agencies
and/or officials may be confused about the distinction between representative and
participative governance, and unclear about how representation should be defined in
relation to community engagement.
96
A good-quality narrative review (Goodlad et al, 2005, 2+) supports the review team’s
impression that there is little evidence on the relative experience of different approaches
to community engagement.
Table 3.3.9 Models of Community Engagement

setting
Barnes et al 2004 2++ Health Action Zones in England. Diverse methods and Diverse communities of place
Bauld et al 2005 2++ Health Action Zones in England. Diverse methods and Diverse communities of place
Hoban 2005 poverty/disadvantage & place/regeneration, including a particularly on the
Citizen Commission on the Future of the Welfare State, engagement of people living
the Integrated Local Development Programme in Ireland, in poverty, on welfare
the JRF Commission on Poverty, Participation and benefits and on race equality
Power, resident involvement in NDC, the NI Women’s and difference
Coalition, and various regeneration initiatives
Bickerstaff & 2++ Evaluation of processes and outcomes of deliberative Residents living in two local
Walker 2005 processes used by Local Authorities to develop local authority areas. One
transport plans, including round table stakeholder reasonably affluent rural with
discussions, focus groups, public meetings, consensus smaller urban areas; the
building methods (e.g. whole system events), community other, larger urban with
group meetings, household surveys problems of industrial decline
Cole & Smith, 1+ Evaluation of residents’ involvement in an initiative to Residents of a low income
1996 regenerate a public housing estate in the North of disadvantaged housing
England. Wide range of CE approaches, including street estate with long term
meetings, parties, open days, work with Residents experience of decline. 12%
Association which had a seat on project Advisory Group. LLSI, 27% Male
unemployment; 69% H/H
without car
Cole et al 2004 2+ Involvement of NDC area residents in formulation of plans 10 NDC partnerships in
to tackle low demand and unpopular housing. A variety of England
initiatives, both collective and individual, were used to
engage residents, including door knocking exercises,
neighbourhood forums, consultation caravans,
conferences, NDC partnership community reps, NDC
citizen juries, tenants federations, street reps, street or
neighbourhood meetings and strategy Steering Groups
with resident reps.
Russell 2005 & 2+ National evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships – Very diverse – no details of
Sullivan & Howard areas all over England. Russell: Focus on engagement in specific methods
2005 formulating and implementing strategies of LSPs.
Sullivan & Howard: focus on activities below the LSP
Sustainable 2+ Sustainable development projects combining social, Very diverse communities of
Development economic and environmental concerns in wide range of place and interest
Commission 2003 areas across England. Approaches to involving
communities of place and interest wide-ranging
Webster & 2++ Community involvement in participatory research aimed Residents of large public
Johnson 2000 at mapping food poverty and developing collective housing estates in
solutions disadvantaged areas in three
English cities.
8. The political context

There is good-quality evidence on the negative impact on community engagement
initiatives of contradictory pressures from government policy. These include:
97
• Sure Start Evaluation: green paper on children’s services shifting the emphasis
away from partnership with parents (Lloyd et al, 2005, 1++, plus other reports
from SS national evaluation used for other reviews);
• HAZ evaluation: shortly after establishing the HAZs, they were required to deliver
a series of ‘quick win’ outputs that distracted attention from the development work
with local communities and undermined the trust these communities had in the
HAZ taking them seriously (Barnes et al, 2004, 2++; Bauld et al, 2005, 2++);
• Rural regeneration: current move to regionalism shifting attention away from the
local, making community engagement in strategic decision making more difficult
(Osborne et al, 2002, 2+);
• NDC: the increasing emphasis on Local Strategic Partnerships as the key
delivery level is shifting attention away from the neighbourhood level and making
local engagement more difficult (Lawless 2004 A/2004B, 1+).
9. Enablers for community engagement

Some of the factors and processes identified as barriers above were identified as
enablers in other studies. This was particularly the case with the instrumental factors—
e.g. training provision, networking and shared learning opportunities—but, in a few
studies, positive support and flexible funding opportunities provided by public agencies
were reported as factors underlying the success of an initiative. However, factors and/or
processes enabling engagement and promoting success were less frequently mentioned
in the review.
Five good-quality studies provide direct evidence that community development skills,
whether provided by specialist workers or as part of the competencies of generic
workers, may play a vital role in the development and sustainability of community
engagement initiatives in housing (Anastacio et al, 2000, 2++; Cole and Smith, 1996, 1+;
Gaster and Crossley, 2000, 2++); in environment and social development projects
(Church and Elster, 2002, 2+); and in Healthy Living Centres (Hills et al, 2007, 1+).
Two good-quality studies (Cole et al, 2004, 2+; Gaster and Crossley, 2000, 2++) and
one good-quality narrative review (Goodlad et al, 2005, 2+) highlight the value of public
agencies spending time building trust and relationships with communities, rather than
pursuing instrumental objectives from the outset.
There is good-quality evidence (Church and Elster, 2002, 2+, Tunstill et al, 2005, 1+,
Goodlad et al, 2005, 2+; Hills et al, 2007, 1+) that highlights the importance of corporate
support from public agencies for community engagement initiatives and a culture that
puts CE at the heart of the organisation.
Good-quality evidence (Birchall and Simmons, 2004, 2+; Church and Elster, 2002, 2+;
Osborne et al, 2002, 2+, Taylor, 2006, 2++) highlights the enabling role of national and
local NGOs/voluntary organisations in providing technical assistance, training and
communication skills, procuring resources and acting as an ‘honest broker’ for smaller
community initiatives.
Chouhan and Lusane (2004, 2+) report that membership of Black Voluntary and
Community groups may provide a pathway into wider community engagement such as
becoming school governors. Similarly Taylor (2006, 1++) suggests that the funding
98
available to Community Engagement Networks is reaching groups previously not

engaged and there is evidence of individuals progressing from CEN into other initiatives.
As reported under theme three, six good-quality studies (Barnes et al, 2004, 2++;
Chouhan and Lusane, 2004, 2+; Cole et al, 2004, 2+; Lawless, 2004A/B, 1+; Russell
2005/Sullivan and Howard, 2005, 2+; Taylor, 2006, 2++) and one good-quality narrative
review (Goodlad et al, 2005, 2+) suggest that practices of community engagement in the
past may influence contemporary initiatives positively or negatively by affecting the level
of trust and the quality of the relationship communities have with local public agencies.
Additionally, McArthur et al, 1996 (1++) reported that in areas with past experience,
officials tended to see a wider role for community engagement than those lacking this
experience.
One study (Webster and Johnson, 2004, 2++) reports that Participatory Appraisal (PA)
methods can be used successfully to engage large and diverse groups of people, to
strengthen partnership working, to build capacity, and to develop the knowledge and
skills of a community to understand issues and find sustainable solutions.
Table 3.3.10 Enablers for community engagement

Author/date LoE Intervention description and role of CE Study population/ setting
Anastacio et al 2++ Urban regeneration projects in England Residents of disadvantaged areas
2000 involved in CE including young
people
Birchall & 2+ Range of user groups in housing and social care Diverse membership of user groups
Simmons 2004 in 3 local authorities: 1 in Scotland, 2
in England
Church & Elster 2+ Wide variety of projects focusing on environmental Very diverse, including communities
2002 concerns, including projects in England, Scotland of place from different socio-
and Wales, community-based projects, local economic backgrounds and in urban
authority/community partnerships, projects linking and rural communities, BME groups
national NGOs and local community groups; (e.g. Hindu and Chinese
regeneration-based projects, health and communities) and all age groups
environment projects and employment generation
projects
organisations in London, Leicester
and elsewhere in England
Cole & Smith 1+ Evaluation of residents’ involvement in an initiative Residents of a low income
1996 to regenerate a public housing estate in the North of disadvantaged housing estate with
England. Wide range of CE approaches included long term experience of decline. 12%
street meetings, parties, open days work with LLSI, 27% Male unemployment; 69%
Residents Association which had a seat on project H/H without car
Advisory Group
Cole et al 2004 2+ Involvement of NDC area residents in formulation of 10 NDC partnerships in England
plans to tackle low demand and unpopular housing.
A variety of initiatives, both collective and individual,
were used to engage residents, including door
knocking exercises, neighbourhood forums,
consultation caravans, conferences, NDC
partnership community reps, NDC citizen juries,
tenants federations, street reps, street or
neighbourhood meetings and strategy Steering
Groups with resident reps
Gaster & 2++ Evaluation of work of a community development Residents of 3 estates: a village of
Crossley 2000 worker with the Rowntree Housing Trust (a Housing 1,100 properties built between 1904-
Association) in York to support tenant involvement in 1990s, an estate of 126 properties
estate management. CD activity varied. Initial focus and an estate of 133 properties built
on future of a local community hall, young people in 1990s. Diverse socio-economic
99
Author/date LoE Intervention description and role of CE Study population/ setting

and safety, encouraging volunteering and linking backgrounds but mostly lower
processes income. Particular focus on young
people and on concept of a ‘balanced
community’
Goodlad et al 2+ Explores the processes and impacts of CE in Wide range of communities of place
2005 context of Area-Based Initiatives. The paper is involved in the area-based initiatives
based on the narrative review of CE in ABI included in the original review but not
undertaken by Burton et al 2004. No description of possible to describe type of
specific methods of CE included communities
Hills et al 2007 1+ Healthy Living Centres in England, Wales, Scotland, Diverse communities of place and
Northern Ireland. Very diverse methods of interest
engagement
McArthur et al 1++ Estate regeneration partnerships on 10 public Community representative on
1996 housing estates Partnership boards and feedback to
community groups
Osborne et al 2+ Rural regeneration partnerships. Involves 3 types of 3 partnerships in each of 3 areas:
2002 CE: strategic (involvement in funding and planning Devon, Dumfries and Galloway, and
partnerships); intermediate (involvement in Country Antrim
management of projects) and community
(involvement in community regeneration activities at
local level)
Taylor 2006 2++ Community Participation Programme. Promotion of Survey of lead organisations in 3
Community Engagement Networks for community CPP areas; case studies in 8 areas
involvement in LSPs with NR funding, 2 without NR
Tunstill et al 1++ Sure Start Local Programmes Parents and children in
2005 disadvantaged areas in England
Webster & 2++ Community mapping around food poverty. Residents of large public housing
Johnston 2000 Communities involved in participatory appraisal of estates in disadvantaged areas in 3
food poverty in different/accessible locations and English cities
development of collective solutions to food access
issues
Discussion: barriers and enablers to community engagement

The review identified a relatively large volume of evidence on barriers to the processes
of community engagement and much less evidence on enabling factors. However, this
distinction is somewhat artificial, as, in identifying barriers, studies are also illuminating
ways in which processes of engagement could be improved.
The review included 31 papers out of the 120 papers available for data extraction. All of
the studies were judged to be of good quality, although none provided the highest quality
of process evidence. (Although a few were graded 1++ overall, they failed to link the
specific barriers/enablers identified with direct and discernable impacts from the CE
process.)
The included studies reflect considerable diversity in terms of the CE initiatives

evaluated in relation to the social determinants of health they focused on, the
communities of place and interest targeted, and the methods used to engage with these
communities.
Analysis of the evidence identified eight types of barriers to the processes of community
engagement.
Fourteen studies covering different CE interventions and communities provided evidence

on the (mis)use of power by professionals and elected officials. The routes through
100
which this happened were identified as: discursive (defining who can be engaged on
which issues), positional (controlling the terms of engagement) and financial (shaping
the level and type of support provided for communities). Situations where experienced
community activists engaged in similar discursive practices to exclude other more
marginal groups were also identified.
Fourteen studies highlighted the lack of relevant skills and knowledge amongst both
professionals and lay participants which could hinder communication. Six studies
specifically referred to the potential for networking and shared learning to reduce these
barriers.
Fourteen studies and a narrative review provided evidence on the way in which aspects
of the practices of engagement—including, for example, the style of meetings, failure to
accommodate cultural diversity and accessibility issues— may continue to operate as
barriers.
Ten studies suggested that the transaction costs incurred by community members—
including, for example, time and financial resources—inhibited engagement. The
particular difficulties which may be faced by economically disadvantaged communities,
BME communities and communities in rural areas were highlighted.
Ten studies and a narrative review provided evidence on cultural and attitudinal
constraints on processes of engagement. This evidence points to barriers created by
stereotypical attitudes amongst officials towards gender roles, disabled people and BME
communities and by professionals failing to appreciate the skills and competencies
within communities, neglecting the need for organisational change.
Nine studies provide evidence on active and/or passive resistance to engagement

amongst community members. Active resistance was particularly associated with the
housing field. However, one study reported that although community members were
wary of assuming too much responsibility, they remained convinced that the community
should be involved in decision making. There is some evidence that what professionals
describe as community apathy and disinterest may be passive resistance by
communities who have ‘learnt’ that engagement is not effective.
The evidence provided by four studies raises direct questions about the appropriateness
of deliberative approaches to engagement, suggesting that the pursuit of consensus
may be unrealistic and result in frustration amongst both professional and lay
participants alike. Other studies report related tensions but do not frame the issues in
the same way. On a related point, one study suggested that the expectation that local
engagement initiatives such as Health Action Zones are able to address intractable
social problems may be unrealistic and lead to disillusionment and frustration.
Finally, and related to the above, there is evidence from several studies that
contradictions inherent in national policy create significant constraints on the
effectiveness of local initiatives to engage communities. This is variously framed in terms
of:
• Tensions between representative and participative democracy;
• Tensions between different forms of governance—participative (operating at a
local level), managerial (expressed through targets and performance
101
management) and central control (expressed through systems of audit and

inspection);
• Tensions between the objectives of different policies (e.g. Sure Start’s focus on
partnerships with parents being undermined by the focus on organisational
efficiency in the new policies for children’s services, and NDC partnerships being
undermined by an increasing emphasis on the role and importance of Local
Strategic Partnerships.)
Fourteen studies provided direct evidence on factors that contributed to the success of
CE initiatives. In addition to instrumental issues such as training and networks, this
evidence highlighted the value of Community Development expertise, high-level
corporate commitment, technical support from NGOs and the voluntary sector
(particularly important in BME communities), and diversity in the types of opportunities
available for communities to engage at strategic and operational levels. One study
provided evidence on the advantages of using participatory methods with disadvantaged
communities.
Limitations
It is important to stress that evidence was only obtained from around a quarter of the
papers available to be included in this process review. The papers reviewed were
sampled randomly from ‘topic’ groupings to ensure that the evidence was relevant to a
broad range of social determinants. We have therefore endeavoured to ensure that the
studies included in the review were representative of the larger pool available. Some
indication that this was achieved is provided by the fact that towards the end of the
review each additional study included added little new material to the thematic analysis.
That said, it is still possible that the evidence reviewed was limited by this approach. For
example, relatively few of the papers reviewed considered barriers and enablers to the
engagement of Black and other minority ethnic groups and only one included study
focused particularly on these communities. It is possible that if we had sampled the
included papers for this focus we would have found more.
Unlike the evidence on impact and experience, there appears to be no shortage of good
quality evidence on the processes of engagement, although studies linking an
understanding of the barriers and/or enablers to the outcomes of processes of
community engagement appear to be rare. There is also a dominant focus on barriers to
engagement, with relatively fewer papers providing empirical evidence of factors that
supported success, and we identified no studies evaluating interventions aiming to
reduce the barriers identified. The focus on barriers rather than success factors may
reflect the current state of practices of engagement, but more research evaluating
methods to reduce the barriers identified would be of considerable value. Another
important limitation of the evidence reviewed is the lack of attention to barriers and
enablers in the context of specific methods of engagement with specific communities of
interest and/or place.
102
Section 3.4 Overall summary
This report has examined the evidence for the effectiveness of initiatives seeking to
engage communities in action to address the wider social determinants of population
health and health inequalities. Evidence on barriers and enablers to the successful
implementation of these initiatives has also been reviewed.
Focus of the review

The review focused on three primary research questions:
health?
involved?
health?
No evidence was found to answer a fourth question, concerning interventions which had
successfully overcome the barriers to effective and appropriate community engagement.
Only primary evaluative research based in the UK or reviews of such research were
included in the review, but included study and review designs differed depending on the
type of evidence being sought.
Methods
Extensive searches of the literature were carried out in electronic databases and web-
based databases and websites. A small number of studies were also identified by
external stakeholders and members of the review team.
Records were screened for relevance to the review on the basis of titles and, where
available, abstracts using the criteria outlined in Section 2.2.1 of this report. No
evaluations of interventions aiming to remove/reduce barriers to community engagement
processes were identified.
In order to limit the number of full papers for retrieval studies carried out in the UK were
prioritised. Full papers were retrieved randomly on the basis of intervention focus
(housing, transport, employment etc.) and, in the case of database records, study design
(primary or review-level research). For the population impact section of the review a
purposive sampling approach was adopted, focusing on a small number of national
interventions.
Full papers were screened for relevance using the same criteria used in the title/abstract
screening stage. Studies were then appraised for methodological quality and assigned a
strength of evidence rating on that basis (++, + or -) (see Table 2.1). Each study was
103
also assigned a rating for level of evidence (see Table 2.2), depending on whether it
provided evidence on the population impact (impact), individual benefits/dis-benefits
(experience) or barriers to and enablers of processes of community engagement
(process) 99 .
Ratings for strength and level of evidence were then used to prioritise the data extraction
and synthesis of full papers. Studies rated as minus for strength of evidence were
‘parked’; studies rated 4 or below for level of evidence on impact and experience, and 3
or below for process, were similarly parked. Reviewers then began the process of data
extraction, beginning with studies rated more highly for level and strength of evidence.
Individual reviewers led on data extraction for impact, process and experiential data. In
all, data was extracted from 70 studies (from a possible 162 identified as relevant).
Review results

health?
benefits, but across the studies the range of community engagement methods and
approaches used vary, and are not consistently replicated across all settings and
initiatives in order to allow the evidence to demonstrate which specific method or
approach is most successful in improving the social determinants of health. Therefore it
is difficult to attribute specific benefits to any one approach or method.
Health outcomes: The review found no evidence for improvement in health outcomes at
population level for direct community engagement initiatives. Of the indirect community
engagement initiatives, New Deal for Communities found no significant change in health
behaviours concerned with diet, smoking and physical activity.
Sure Start areas demonstrated less ‘home chaos’ for parents of nine month old children
and greater acceptance of their children’s behaviour and less negative parenting by
parents of three year old children than in comparator areas.
Quality of Life: The review found no evidence relating to quality of life at population
level for direct community engagement initiatives. Evaluations of indirect community
engagement initiatives measured the impact on quality of life mainly in terms of
residents’ satisfaction with their environment. In three initiatives (NDC, NM, NW,)
residents said that their area had improved as a place to live, and these improvements
were significantly greater than the comparator areas. Residents in the SRB initiative felt
their areas had improved as a place to bring up children, and residents in NW initiatives
felt their areas were currently a good place to bring up children (significantly better than
comparator areas). Residents in New Deal for Communities, Neighbourhood
Management and Neighbourhood Warden initiatives reported significantly greater
improvements in satisfaction with their areas than residents in comparator areas;
99
A number of studies provided evidence on more than one review question and were rated
accordingly.
104
residents in SRB areas reported significant improvements in satisfaction with their

accommodation.
Housing: The evidence from direct community engagement initiatives suggests that
community-owned social housing may perform better than local-authority managed
housing on a number of key indicators, such as completion of repairs, re-letting times,
rent collection and overall performance in housing management.
Crime: The review found evidence from evaluations of direct community engagement
initiatives that they could improve residents’ perceptions of crime. An indirect community
engagement initiative, New Deal for Communities, reported reductions in lawlessness
and environmental problems and significant reductions in being a victim of crime in the
past year, feeling unsafe after dark and having a high fear of crime, although none of
these were significantly different from comparator areas. The Neighbourhood Wardens
initiative evaluation reported a 27% decrease in crime rates, at a time when rates rose in
comparator areas.
Employment: The review found no evidence of employment impacts for direct

community engagement initiatives. Single Regeneration Budget areas (an indirect
initiative) reported a statistically significant decrease in unemployment (but no significant
difference with comparator areas).
Poverty/income: Overall, the review found little evidence of positive or negative impacts
of community engagement on poverty or income. Evidence from indirect community
engagement initiatives showed a statistically significant reduction in families falling into
the lowest income bracket in Single Regeneration Budget areas.
Service outcomes: The review found limited evidence of the positive impact of
community engagement on local services. Evaluations of direct community engagement
initiatives suggests that they have the potential to increase the quality of local services
by improving information flows between communities and service providers, although no
evidence was found of direct impact on service delivery. Some initiatives, such as
Neighbourhood Renewal Advisors, reported that community engagement methods were
associated with positive outcomes in terms of service delivery.
One indirect CE initiative (NDC) reported programme level improvements in levels of

trust in the local council and the local police, and significant improvements in various
aspects of service access and satisfaction. It is not possible to tell, however, whether
community engagement was the mechanism producing positive outcomes.
Social capital and social cohesion: The review found evidence from direct community
engagement initiatives that community engagement may have a positive impact on
social capital. Initiatives that aimed to promote community involvement were attributed
with gains in both bonding and bridging social capital, and in fostering partnership
working and social cohesion. Tenant participation in the management of social housing,
for example, was described in one evaluation as building ‘community spirit’. Three
indirect community engagement initiatives (NDC, NM, SRB) reported significant social
capital outcomes for residents, such as feeling part of the community, knowing
neighbours, and neighbours looking out for each other, although only neighbours looking
out for each other in NDC areas showed a significant improvement over the comparator
areas.
105
Empowerment: The review identified evidence that community engagement may be

empowering, both at community and personal levels. There were differences between
studies, however, in the ways ‘empowerment’ was conceptualised. Evaluations reported
that direct community engagement initiatives could increase community empowerment,
by building capacity within the wider community, fostering skill and knowledge
development, promoting community development, building a stronger and more united
local ‘voice’ and finally, encouraging a stronger sense of political efficacy.
Evaluations of three indirect community engagement initiatives (NDC, NM, NW)

operationalised the concept of empowerment in terms of people’s ability to influence
decisions in their local area. None reported improvements. Indeed the Neighbourhood
Wardens initiative reported a 15% drop in the number of people feeling that they were
able to influence local decisions. The authors of the NW evaluation hypothesise that the
baseline proportion of residents feeling able to influence local decisions was inflated
because of the number of community consultations operating at that time. They note that
this reduction brings the proportion of residents in the initiative areas who feel they can
influence local decisions in line with that in comparator areas.
Community engagement/involvement: There is evidence that direct community

engagement initiatives, such as community groups and Community Champions, had the
potential to engage other community members, for example recruiting them as
volunteers for community action projects. One study suggested that community-led
organisations may be more successful at engaging BME groups than the local
government sector. Overall, however, the evidence was equivocal on whether strategies
that seek to extend the scope of community engagement succeed in involving ‘hard to
reach’ groups.
involved?
Health benefits: Qualitative evidence from a number of initiatives suggests that

community engagement may have physical and mental health benefits for those
community members who get involved. However, the evidence of the positive effects of
engagement needs to be set against that of the potential dis-benefits for physical, mental
and emotional health reported in four studies. Two studies suggest that the negative
health consequences of community engagement may be particularly high for people with
disabilities.
Quality of life: In contrast to the population impact evidence, where the emphasis was
on environmental improvements, potential benefits for quality of life at an individual level
were mainly associated with increased social interaction and widening social networks.
Crime: The review found experiential evidence that New Deal for Community residents
felt more secure in their local areas. In the main, changes in the perception of community
safety were associated with the presence of street wardens and environmental
improvements; however the evidence linking such benefits to community engagement is
limited. The review also found evidence that taking part in community activities, and
interacting with other local people, could improve residents’ perceptions of ‘threatening’
groups, such as young people.
106
Employment: The review found experiential evidence that community engagement may
improve individuals’ employment potential, mainly by developing their skills, either
through formal training or informally in the course of community activities. A number of
studies also reported that individuals found paid employment as a result of their
involvement in initiatives, although the evidence was limited.
Poverty/income: The review found little evidence of positive benefits for individual
income, with the exception of time bank initiatives, in which members could earn time
credits.
Personal and social benefits: A number of studies identified potential personal and
social benefits for community members who get involved, such as increased self
confidence, feelings of personal empowerment, and increased social networks.
Experiential evidence also suggests that community engagement may benefit a
community more widely, in terms of fostering mutual trust and understanding.
health?
The review identified barriers to community engagement under the following themes:
power relationships in community engagement initiatives; communicative resources and
knowledge; the practices of engagement; the transaction costs of engagement; culture
and attitudes; community resistance to engagement; models of engagement; and the
political context. Several studies highlighted the importance of taking account of
historical context when instituting community engagement initiatives.
Evidence on enablers for community engagement was also identified, highlighting the
value of Community Development expertise, high level corporate commitment to
community engagement, technical support from NGOs and the voluntary sector
(particularly important in BME communities), and diversity in the types of opportunities
available for communities to engage at strategic and operational levels. As previously
noted, those themes presented as barriers to engagement (the dominant focus of the
literature reviewed) in different circumstances could operate to enable more effective
and appropriate community engagement.
Limitations of the review

This review was limited by several factors, in particular gaps in the evidence, the range
of evidence available because of time restrictions inherent in a rapid review, and
attribution of the outcomes of initiatives to community engagement.
The review identified few good quality studies that reported community level outcomes of
direct community engagement initiatives. No studies used research designs that would
have enabled direct attribution of reported outcomes to community engagement.
Studies linking an understanding of barriers and/or enablers to the outcomes of

processes of community engagement appear to be rare. There is also a dominant focus
in the literature on barriers to engagement, with relatively fewer papers providing
empirical evidence of factors that supported success. No studies evaluating interventions
aiming to reduce the barriers were identified. There appears to be little evidence on
107
barriers and enablers in the context of specific methods of engagement with particular
communities or populations.
The number of potentially relevant studies identified could not all be included in the
review in the time available. The review team endeavoured to ensure that the studies
included in the review were representative of the larger pool available but it is still
possible that the evidence reviewed was limited by this approach.
The population impact associated with indirect community engagement initiatives cannot
be attributed to community engagement as a mechanism. Moreover, attributing
population impacts to direct community engagement is problematic because of the
relatively weaker strength and level of evidence provided by evaluations of these
initiatives.
Other limitations of the review include:

• Insufficient detail of community engagement approaches/methods provided
• Evaluations carried out using less than robust outcome measures
• Evaluation data generated by community groups involved in administering the
intervention
• Evaluation carried out too early in the lifespan of an intervention to identify outcomes
effectively
• Initiatives’ weak focus on health
• Difficulty of distinguishing between the outcomes of active community engagement
and engaging people in health promoting activities
108
SECTION 4: Evidence Tables

Evidence table 4.1 The impact of direct community engagement initiatives
Author/date Intervention Type of study Study population, Outcomes Main results
and quality setting
Aldbourne Tenant Participation Compacts Large-scale Setting: England Community Although some respondents reported that
Associates & IRIS national engagement: tenant TPCs were used to involve tenants who did not
Consulting. (2003) Compacts are agreements between evaluation using involvement. usually get involved in housing management
Interim evaluation of council landlords and tenants setting multiple data issues, overall the evaluation found little
tenant participation out how tenants will be involved in sources. Community evidence that more tenants had become
compacts, London: decisions affecting their homes and involvement in actively involved. Rather TPCs had
ODPM. communities. Their aim is to help Quality of planning/delivering encouraged local authorities to work more
councils and tenants to develop a evidence: 3+ services: tenant closely with, and to empower existing tenants
shared vision for their area, planning involvement in groups.
what they want to see changed or decision-making.
improved and agreeing how it will be Tenants were involved in a wide range of areas
done. Partnership working: of decision-making, including business
extent of planning, decisions on future investment and
TPCs aimed to ‘embed’ TP into the core partnerships setting rents and/or service charges.
of the housing service and to increase between officers,
tenants’ role beyond just being informed members and Impact of TPCs on service delivery is difficult to
or consulted. The TPC aimed to enable tenants. assess. While many well-performing
those tenants who wished to, to authorities had TPCs, improving service
become fully contributing partners with Impact on service delivery may be attributable to a number of
the local authority on decision making in provision: factors.
the housing service. improvements in
service delivery.
Watson, A., Owen, Community Champions Large-scale Setting: All 9 English Community Community Champions recruited on average
G., Crowder, M., & national regions. engagement: 8.8 volunteers per project. On average each
Ellis, B. (2004) The Community Champions initiative evaluation using involvement of project reached 56 beneficiaries.
Evaluation of the aims to increase the skill levels of multiple data others as
Community individuals to enable them to act as sources. volunteers; number
Champions Fund. inspirational figures, community of beneficiaries.
Nottingham: DfES. entrepreneurs, community mentors and Quality of
community leaders, to support the evidence: 3+
involvement of communities in
regeneration and learning activity.
One-off grants were made to individual
Champions. Average CCF grant
awarded: £1 250 (normal limit £2 000).
Johnstone, D., & Community Champions Large-scale See above Empowerment: Community Champions trained others in
109

and quality setting
Campbell-Jones, C. See above national Skills and community development and regeneration, and
(2003) Skills for evaluation using knowledge passed passed on a wide range of skills and
regeneration: multiple data on to others. knowledge including practical, office and
Learning by sources communication skills.
Community
Champions. Quality of
Nottingham: DfES. evidence: 3+
Taylor, M., Purdue, Community Participation Programme Large-scale Setting: England Community CC funding of social and cultural events
D., Carlton, N., (Community Chest, Community national engagement: promoted community development, especially
Mackridge, R., Syed, Learning Chest, Community evaluation using Community for groups working with rapidly changing
A., Ardron, R., Empowerment Fund) multiple data development. communities such as asylum seekers and
Wilson, M., Meegan, sources. refugees.
R., & Russell, H. Through the CPP, government has Community
(2005) Making sought to give communities direct Quality of involvement in In some areas, involvement in the LSP brought
connections: An access to resources of their own to evidence: 3+ planning/delivering legitimacy to the VCS and enabled the local
evaluation of the support their participation in services: Access to authority to look beyond its traditional channels
Community Neighbourhood Renewal decision- local decision- of engagement with the community and
Participation making. The CPP aimed to provide making; influence develop a more transparent and democratic
Programmes. funding to stimulate and support over NRF spending. relationship. It also gave the VCS access to
London: ODPM. community activity in deprived areas, so better information about local decision-making
that more people may become involved Social capital: and policy development. CENs had significant
in the regeneration of their communities ‘Bonding’ social influence over NRF spend in some areas.
and neighbourhoods. It also aimed to capital.
help residents in these areas gain the By funding social activities for community
skills and knowledge they need so that Empowerment: groups, the CC supported people in
they can play a more active role, and to Skills to engage with communities to engage in activities together
support VCS involvement as equal funders and others. and build trust, and therefore contributed to
partners in LSPs. ‘bonding’ social capital.
Partnership working:
Networking, Chest grants got groups onto ‘the ladder of
cohesion and co- community regeneration’ and gave them the
ordination. skills they needed to engage with funders and
other organisations, thus facilitating community
development.
CPPs contributed to significant improvements

in networking, cohesion and co-ordination.
CENs reduced community group isolation.
ODPM. (2004A) Residents’ Consultancy Initiative National Setting: England. Empowerment: New functional community structures were
Evaluation of the outcome Development of developed.
Residents’ The Residents’ Consultancy Initiative evaluation using community
Consultancy aimed to draw on the skills and multiple case structures. A number of clients described how the
Initiative. Research experience people have gained through studies. consultancy support had enabled them to build
Report 10. London: involvement in community regeneration Partnership working: effective partnerships and to run their
110

and quality setting
ODPM. activities to support others engaged in Quality of Facilitation of organisations/groups more effectively.
community-led regeneration. evidence: 3+ partnership
development.
Projects provided support for
community-led regeneration initiatives
by offering a ‘spectrum of support,’
including awareness-raising, training in
community-led regeneration, short,
focused one-off consultancy support to
provide guidance on dealing with
specific developmental issues, in-depth,
longer-term support including advice,
guidance, and mentoring. Projects also
engaged local residents to support the
regeneration of their own localities
through promoting greater community
engagement and more responsive local
service delivery, including community
advice services, promoting awareness
and take-up of local service provision,
analysis of local community needs.
ODPM. (2006A) Local Strategic Partnerships Large-scale All LSPs participated Information flows 9% of LSPs perceived that they had made
National evaluation national in the evaluation. between major progress towards their target of more
of Local Strategic LSPs aim to bring different parts of the evaluation using community/service effective influence on council decisions; 68%
Partnerships: public sector together with the private, multiple data Setting: England. providers: stated that they had made some progress.
Formative evaluation business, community and voluntary sources. Effectiveness of
and action research sectors in a single co-ordinating influence on council 13% of LSPs perceived that they had made
programme 2002- framework at the local level. The LSPs Quality of decisions. major progress towards their target of widening
2005. London: work together with local authorities to evidence: 3+ the range of interests involved in local decision-
ODPM. prepare and implement a Community Community making; 67% stated that they had made some
Strategy with the aim of improving the Interim involvement in progress. 5% of LSPs perceived that they had
economic, social and environmental evaluation: planning/delivering made major progress towards their target of
well-being of an area. In the 88 local summative services: Range of bringing marginalised social groups into the
authority areas receiving evaluation of interests involved in decision-making process; 60% stated that they
Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, the impacts and local decision- had made some progress.
LSPs will also develop and deliver a effectiveness making; role of
Local Neighbourhood Renewal provisionally marginalised social 20% of LSPs perceived that they had made
Strategy. planned for groups in the major progress towards their target of building
2006-2008. decision-making a stronger and more united local voice; 65%
process. stated that they had made some progress; 6%
of LSPs perceived that they had made major
Empowerment: progress towards their target of more effective
Strength of local influence on regional and national issues; 45%
111

and quality setting
‘voice’; effectiveness stated that they had made some progress.
of community
influence on 10% of LSPs perceived that they had made
regional and major progress towards their target of
national issues. delivering services better to meet community
needs; 65% stated that they had made some
Impact on service progress. 12% of LSPs perceived that they had
provision: made major progress towards their target of
Appropriateness of delivering services better to meet needs in
services for priority neighbourhoods; 49% stated that they
community needs; had made some progress.
appropriateness of
services for needs in
priority
neighbourhoods.
Educe, Ltd. (2005) Skills and Knowledge Programme Large scale Setting: England Social capital: Regional Networks strengthened both ‘bonding’
Seeking the lessons: national ‘Bonding’ and (strengthening relationships and trust among
Skills and knowledge The Skills and Knowledge Programme evaluation using ‘bridging’ social participants) and ‘bridging’ (helping participants
programme was introduced by the NRU to help multiple data capital. make links across sectors) social capital within
evaluation. Research improve the performance of sources and post communities.
Report 19. London: neighbourhood renewal partnerships by intervention data Empowerment:
ODPM. enhancing the level of skills and only Capacity building; Two-thirds of partnerships that had worked with
knowledge for all those involved in increased NRAs reported gaining skills, knowledge and
Johnstone, D., neighbourhood renewal, and ensuring Quality of confidence within new capabilities. NRA involvement was also
Johnstone, S., that renewal activities are evidence- evidence: 3+ the partnership. reported to lead to increased confidence within
Garrard, S., based. The Skills and Knowledge the partnership, empowering partnerships to
Campbell-Jones, C., Programme consists of: Neighbourhood Partnership working: carry out activities they would not otherwise
& Fordham, G. Renewal Advisors, Renewal.net, improvements in have attempted to undertake.
(2005) Regional Networks and the partnership working.
Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Renewal Delivery Skills Many groups reported improvements in their
renewal advisers – Programme. Impact on service external partnerships and higher level of
Skills and knowledge provision: participations in joint activities with other
programme improvements in agencies or community groups.
evaluation. service delivery.
Background Report 13 out of 26 partnerships surveyed said input
3. Cambridge: from an NRA had led to improvements in
EDuce. service delivery.
Winters, M., & Patel, Drug Misuse Needs Assessment Rapid Setting: England Information flows The needs assessment project has improved
K. (2003) The Project Participatory between relationships between the community and
Department of Assessment community/service service providers, as community groups have
Health's Black and This community-led project aimed to providers: Better strengthened existing partnerships and created
Minority Ethnic drug assess need around drug treatment, Quality of community new ones. A number of the community groups
misuse needs education and prevention within BME evidence: 3++ representation in now have formal representation on the steering
assessment project: communities. Using the principles of other forums with groups of drug treatment and prevention
112

and quality setting
Community rapid participatory assessments, a service providers. service providers. Attendance at steering
engagement, Report research framework was created to groups alongside representatives from the
1: The process. encourage and build on the capacity of Community statutory and voluntary services also enabled
Preston: University 47 BME community groups and engagement: community groups to feed their experience into
of Central voluntary organisations who took part in Establishment of local service planning.
Lancashire. this project. 204 people were formally better links between
trained to undertake research within groups engaged in The project also enabled the VCS groups to
their own communities. Strategies to research and the establish better links with their wider
engage with the wider community wider community. communities. For example, by enabling them
varied from project to project, including to recruit and retain new volunteers. Projects
one-to-one interviews, focus groups Community enhanced social cohesion in communities by
and questionnaires. In total, 12 000 involvement in building trust among community members.
people were consulted, including planning/delivering
approx. 2000 drug users. services: Ability to As a result of participating in the project, 22 of
feed into local the groups reported that their capacity for
service planning. undertaking activities had grown, and that they
had embarked on new areas of health and
Social capital: Social social care-related work. Because the projects
cohesion. used researchers drawn from the local
community, capacity was built within the
Empowerment: community. Respondents reported that the
Community whole community had been empowered.
ownership; capacity
building.
Strengthening of
partnerships.
Goodlad, R., Community Ownership Housing Outcome Setting: Scotland Social capital: Social Community HA tenants across the
Docherty, I., & evaluation using cohesion. neighbourhoods displayed higher measures of
Paddison, R. (2003) Tenant participation in ‘community multiple data social cohesion than council tenants. HA
Responsible ownership’ social housing (in deprived sources and Empowerment: tenants also had a stronger sense of political
participation and and more prosperous neighbourhoods comparative Sense of political efficacy compared with council tenants.
housing: Restoring in Glasgow and Edinburgh). data efficacy.
democratic theory to
the scene. Paper Quality of
presented to the evidence: 2++
Housing Studies
Association Autumn
Conference, 9-10
September 2003,
Bristol.
Cairncross, L., Tenant Management Organisations Large scale Setting: England Housing: Urgent and The majority of case study TMOs outperformed
113

and quality setting
Morrell, C., Darke, J., national outcome non-urgent repairs; their local authorities in terms of completion of
& Brownhill, S. TMOs are tenant-controlled evaluation using relet times; rent urgent and non-urgent repairs, relet times and
(2002) Tenants organisations that provide a varying multiple data collection. rent collection. Many compared favourably with
managing – An range of management and maintenance sources and the top quartile of local authorities.
evaluation of Tenant services to tenants under a Modular comparative Crime: Perceived
Management Management Agreement with their data reduction in crime. Many residents cited improvements in security
Organisations in landlords. Many TMOs undertake a and reductions in crime and attributed these to
England. London: range of activities over and above their Quality of Community the TMO.
ODPM. housing role that contribute to the evidence: 2++ engagement:
sustainability and empowerment of Representation of TMOs were more successful in involving BME
individuals and the communities in different social residents than local authorities. 52% of TMOs
which they live. groups on the had one or more BME board member (by
TMO’s board. comparison, only 3% of local authority
councillors are from BME groups).
Social capital:
‘Bonding’ social Many TMOs identified building community spirit
capital; social as one of their main achievements.
cohesion.
Tunstall, R. (2001) Tenant Management Organisations Outcome Setting: England Housing: proportion In the vast majority of cases, TMOs were
Devolution and user evaluation using of homes empty; associated with improved housing management
participation in public See above multiple data level of rent arrears; performance compared to the situation before
services: How they sources and speed and quality of the TMO according to at least one of four key
work and what they before-and-after repairs; quality of indicators: proportion of homes empty, level of
do. Urban Studies, data cleaning and rent arrears, speed and quality of repairs, and
38, 2495-2514. caretaking. quality of cleaning and caretaking.
Quality of
evidence: 2++
Pawson, H., Fancy, Estates Renewal Challenge Fund Retrospective Setting: England Housing: Improved The study reported marked improvements in
C., Morgan, J., & assessment response and the quality of housing, the response rates for
Munro, M. (2005) Under ERCF, local authorities were using mainly emergency repair repairs, and improvements in the overall
Learning lessons invited to submit bids for funding to qualitative mixed services; catch-up environment.
from the Estates underpin the ownership transfer of run- methods: repairs and other
Renewal Challenge down estates as a means of achieving secondary services; home Tenant involvement in HA boards, committees
Fund. London: neighbourhood regeneration. The analysis of improvements; and estate management was seen as the
ODPM. programme was targeted, in particular, national compliance with primary reason for success of the schemes. In
on estates where projected upgrading statistical Decent Homes particular, this involvement was seen as
costs were of such an order that the sources; Standard; limited beneficial in clearing up the effects of anti-
stock had a notionally negative value documentary rent increases. social behaviour (graffiti and rubbish tipping)
and/or where the value of outstanding analysis and a reduction in crime (although the authors
debt exceeded the future rental value. Employment: comment that these activities had moved to
Quality of Employment and adjacent estates). However, the ERCF estates
Role of CE:: ERCF Housing evidence: 3+ training. reported a reduction or elimination of the
associations included community stigmatisation the ERCF areas had
representation on their boards and Environment: experienced before the introduction of the
committees, and in some instances
114

and quality setting
tenant board members and other Environmental schemes.
residents were involved in the routine improvements.
management of ERCF estates; some The schemes contributed to wider community
HAs involved community members in Crime: Crime well-being through the provision or
the assessment of maintenance needs reduction. improvement of community facilities, assistance
within the estates; some HAs sourced with employment and training, the provision of
building contractors locally; most Community well- youth activities, drawing down of additional
contributed to community interventions; being: Local funds, and creating a space for community
and commonly supported vulnerable regeneration; voice.
residents. development of
community facilities; All these activities were reported as
community contributing to a virtuous circle which resulted
development and in the further engagement of the community
capacity building; with the HAs, and service improvement.
generating a revival
dynamic; reduced
estate
stigmatisation.
Community needs:
Youth activities.
Community
involvement:
Improved tenant
participation.
Impact on service
provision: Housing
management; rent
collection; housing
management costs.
Craig, G., Taylor, M., Compacts between local government Qualitative case Setting: England, Info flows between The outcomes extracted from the report
Wilkinson, M., Bloor, and Voluntary and Community studies using Scotland, Wales. community/service suggest that the process of developing the
K., Monro, S., & Organisations (VCOs) face-to-face and providers: Raised compacts had been beneficial in raising
Syed, A. (2002) telephone the profile of the awareness within each sector of how the other
Contract or trust? The development of compacts interviews, and VCS; catalyst for works. It is suggested that this raised visibility
The role of compacts (formalised statements of partnership documentary more information has helped to improve communication between
in local governance. working) between local government and analysis. about each sector; the sectors; improved informal partnership
Bristol: Policy Press. Voluntary and Community improved working; created trust; had a positive impact on
Organisations. Quality of communication. policy and increased confidence within the
evidence: 3+ VCS. The authors conclude that the
By their nature, the compacts engage Empowerment: VCS development of a local compact needs to take
community organisations in more confident. into consideration local conditions and
partnerships with local statutory bodies.
115

and quality setting
experience, local practice and resources.
Informal joint
working increased.
Impact on service
provision: Service
providers consulting
more; improved
policy towards VCS.
116
Evidence table 4.2 The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives
Author/date Intervention and role of CE Type of study and Study Outcomes Main results
quality, timing of population,
evaluation setting
ODPM (2005A) New Deal for Communities Large scale, 39 participating Health status: There was no change to standardised mortality
Research Report 17: prospective outcome neighbourhoods in Mortality, perception ratios between 1999 and 2002 for all NDC
New Deal for An area-based regeneration evaluation using total, which of health status, rates areas combined.
Communities 2001- programme addressing five multiple data sources, typically house of illness/disability,
2005: an interim specific outcome areas: including comparative 9,800 people mental health, birth Interim evaluation results for NDC reported
evaluation. Sheffield, education, health, housing and longitudinal cohort weight, hospital average standardised ratios for hospital
(CRESR) Centre for the physical environment, crime, survey Setting: Two NDCs admission rates. admission across all NDC areas for the periods
Regional and Economic and employment. in each of nine UK 1999-2001, 2000-02, 2001-03 with respect to
Research, Sheffield Quality of evidence regions. Quality of life: cancer, heart disease, alcohol misuse and drug
Hallam University. Role of CE: Community 2++ Satisfaction with misuse. No statistically significant changes
involvement and engagement with Socioeconomic services, perceptions were reported in the admissions for these
Grimsley M, Hickman partnership agencies are two of Interim evaluation data: of area improvement, conditions. Similarly, no statistically significant
P, Lawless P, Manning the five defining principles. Neighbourhoods fear of crime, changes occurred in rates of prescribing for
J, Wilson, I (2005) Community development are in the decile of perceptions of safety mental health problems, rates of low birth
Community accounts for 22% of programme most deprived in weight, mean scores for the SF36 mental
Involvement and Social spend. England Environmental and wellbeing index, or standardised illness ratios
Capital. Sheffield, socio-economic (defined by the authors in terms of people
Centre for Regional indicators: Education, receiving social security payments for disability
Economic and Social training and or illness) for all NDC areas.
Research, Sheffield employment rates,
Hallam University. lawlessness and Both NDC and comparator areas reported
dereliction score, improvements in dietary intake, a change that
Beatty C et al (2005) environmental was statistically significant in the comparator
Health of NDC problems score, crime areas. The difference between NDC and
Residents: who has the rates comparator areas, however, was non-
most to gain? Sheffield, significant.
Centre for Regional Health inequalities:
Economic and Social Rates of smoking, Results suggested that residents perceived that
Research, Sheffield physical exercise, their area had improved over the timescale of
Hallam University dietary change the initiative, with statistically significant
differences.
Service uptake: use of
GP service There was a statistically significant increase in
“satisfaction with area” of 6 % points for NDC
Community areas.
engagement:
Involvement in NDC areas reported a statistically significant
voluntary and 8.8 % point reduction in lawlessness and
117
evaluation setting
community derelication, while the comparator areas
groups/NDC reported a non-significant decline of 3 % points.
The resulting diifference between NDC and
Social capital: comparator areas was statistically significant,
neighbours friendly, as was the difference between NDC and
neighbours look out comparator areas for reported “environmental
for each other, know problems”.
neighbours, feel part
of community. The proportion of residents reporting being a
victim of crime and feeling it is unsafe after dark
Empowerment: Ability decreased significantly in both intervention and
to influence decisions comparator areas, by 6 percentage points and
affecting area. 4 % points respectively. The difference
between intervention and comparator areas
was not significant.
There were statistically significant

improvements in the ease with which a GP
could be seen (3 % points), satisfaction with
hospital services (5 % points), trust in the local
council (3 % points) and trust in the local police
(4 % points). Only the ease with which a GP
could be seen also showed significant
improvement in the comparator area (8 %
points).
Significant % point increases in outcomes

relating to social capital were reported: feeling
part of the community (4 % points), knowing
neighbours (3 % points), and neighbours
looking out for each other (3 % points).
Residents also reported a significant increase
in feeling part of the community (5 percentage
points). However there was a non-significant
difference between the NDC areas and their
comparators.
NDC areas saw a significant improvement (4 %

points) in neighbours looking out for each other
as compared to the comparator areas.
NDC areas reported no change in community

involvement, with no comparison data given.
118
evaluation setting
No significant changes in outcomes relating to

empowerment were reported for either the
initiative areas or their comparators.
ODPM (2006B) Neighbourhood Management Large scale, 35 programmes – Health status: none Results suggested that residents perceived that
Neighbourhood prospective outcome 20 from Round 1, their area had improved over the timescale of
Management – at the 7 year programmes designed to evaluation, using 15 from Round 2 Quality of life: Quality the initiative (non significant level).
Turning Point? test out different approaches to comparative (includes over 250 of life, satisfaction
Programme Review the delivery, management and longitudinal cohort neighbourhoods). with the area There was a statistically significant increase in
2005-6. London, NRU ownership of services to survey and multiple Populations range “satisfaction with area” of 4 % points for NM
disadvantaged neighbourhoods. data sources. from 2,770-20,750. Environmental and initiatives areas, with non-significant changes in
Department for Initiatives include changes to socio-economic their comparator areas, resulting in significnt
Communities and Local policing, housing, health, NB Comparative Setting and indicators: Perception differences between intervention and
Government (2006) community development, cohort survey results socioeconomic of problems with comparator areas of 3 percentage points.
Research Report 28: education + youth services, based on 20 Round 1 data: Wide diversity crime
Neighbourhood environment. programmes in economic and Residents in NM areas reported a statistically
Management: an social contexts, Health inequalities: significant increase in perceptions of quality of
overview of the 2003 Role of CE: Community Quality of evidence including inner city none life, while comparator areas experienced a
and 2006 Round 1 involvement cited as a key 2++ residential estates, decrease. The difference between NM and
Pathfinder Household ingredient. Aims include the coastal towns, rural Service uptake: comparator areas was not significant.
Surveys: Key findings. identification of local problems Interim evaluation. 20 areas, suburban Satisfaction with the
London, NRU from a resident viewpoint, bringing Round 1 programmes estates, previous way problems are NM areas reported a statistically significant
residents and service providers operating for >5 years, colliery areas. 15 dealt with, satisfaction decrease of 10 % points in residents’
GFK/NOP (2006) together, helping to strengthen the Round 2 programmes areas in the worst with social and leisure perceptions of arson, vandalism and graffiti as
National Evaluation of local community and voluntary operating for 1 year. decile of facilities, service a problem, with the comparator areas
Neighbourhood sector by the development of deprivation and accessibility
Management 06: neighbourhood partnerships, worklessness, 15 in Statistically significant % point increases in
Programme Level. community forums and community second worst and 4 Social capital: outcomes relating to social capital were
Available at: representatives. in third worst. Neighbours know one reported: knowing neighbours (3 % points).
https://survey.nop.co.uk another, neighbours
/nme/ Actual CE: For Round 2 look out for one No significant changes in outcomes relating to
Pathfinders, residents were mainly another, empowerment were reported for either the
fully involved at all levels of initiative areas or their comparators.
Pathfinders. CE was occurring at Empowerment: Able
a number of levels – from Board to influence local
representation, down to decisions
newsletters for information.
Initiatives included the
development of community
involvement strategy, use of
community panels, street
ambassadors, Annual Community
Consultations, and employment of
119
evaluation setting
Groundworkers However, it was
acknowledged by some
pathfinders that there was still a
need for more direct and
structured community
involvement.
ODPM (2004B) Neighbourhood Wardens Large scale, 150 schemes in Quality of life: Results suggested that residents perceived that
Research Report 8: prospective outcome England and Satisfaction with their area had improved over the timescale of
Neighbourhood To provide a neighbourhood level evaluation, using Wales. neighbourhood, the initiative (non significant level).
Wardens Scheme uniformed, semi-official, patrolling multiple data sources, perceptions of area as
Evaluation. London, presence that could contribute to including a Setting and place to bring up The initiative reported a 27% decrease in rates
NRU reducing crime, fear of crime and comparative socioeconomic children, perceptions of crime over a period when crime rates went
anti-social behaviour, improving longitudinal cohort data: Most of the of environmental up in the comparator areas, giving a difference
SD Direct (2004) environmental quality and the survey schemes were in improvements, fear of of 32.3 % points between intervention and
Neighbourhood management of housing stock, areas with high crime, behaviour, comparator areas.
Wardens Scheme and building communities and Quality of evidence unemployment, perception of crime
Evaluation: final report. community development. 2++ crime, and rates, positive No significant changes in outcomes relating to
London, SD Direct One of the wardens’ objectives deprivation, and assessment of empowerment were reported for either the
was to “build communities and Final evaluation were in areas services initiative areas or their comparators.
SD Direct (2003) community development’. subject to other
Neighbourhood neighbourhood Environmental and
Wardens Scheme Actual CE: Schemes differed in renewal initiatives. socio-economic
Evaluation: the emphasis placed on indicators: Rates of
participatory endline objectives, managers placed less crime, risk of being a
report. London, SD emphasis over time, while victim of crime
Direct wardens placed more emphasis.
Social capital: Feel
Carr-Hill, R. (2003) neighbours are
Neighbourhood warden friendly, perception of
surveys, early 2002 community spirit
and mid-2003:
secondary analysis of Empowerment: Able
cohort members only. to influence local
London: ODPM, NOP decisions
Rhodes J, Tyler P, Single Regeneration Budget Prospective outcome 1,028 schemes in Health status: The initiative showed perceptions of health
Brennan A (2005) evaluation, using England in Rounds perception of status worsening in comparison with people in
Assessing the effect of The focus of the initiatives was multiple data sources, 1-6. 47% of improvement comparator areas, but these differences were
area based initiatives varied, but the major emphasis including longitudinal schemes were not reported as significant.
on local area was on environmental and cohort survey in 7 classified as small Quality of life:
outcomes: some housing improvements, case study areas, local areas, satisfaction with There was a statistically significant decrease of
thoughts based on accounting for 61% of spend. 19% compared against covering only a part accommodation, area, 4 % points in unemployment in SRB areas, and
national evaluation of of spend related to national datasets of a local authority perception of comparison figures taken from deprived
120
evaluation setting
the Single training/employment and district, 20% were environmental households in the Survey of English Housing
Regeneration Budget. business, and 6% on community Quality of evidence local authority, 15% problems, perceptions also showed a 3 % point (non-significant)
Urban Studies 42 (11): development. 2% of spend related 2++ covered 2 or more of safety decrease, resulting in a non-significant
1919-46 to health. local authorities, difference between SRB and comparator areas.
Interim evaluation with the remaining Environmental and
Actual CE 12% of schemes were (final evaluation due being larger. socioeconomic SRB areas also showed a statistically
run by the voluntary or community March 2007) indicators: rates of significant increase in the proportion reporting
sector, and 12% were joint Setting and employment and “education or training in the past 3 years” of 10
schemes. Schemes varied, with Socioeconomic training, dwellings % points. No comparable national data were
some being heavily orientated data: 36% in completed/improved, given.
towards community development, London and SE, land reclaimed, crime
but the majority had CE as a 15% in NW, rest rates There was a statistically significant 12 % point
subsidiary focus equally spread. reduction in families falling into the lowest
Community income bracket in SRB areas between 1996
involvement: whether and 1999/2001, while there was a 5% reduction
taken part in nationally, as measured by the Family
voluntary/community Resources Survey.
activity
Both SRB and comparator areas reported
Social capital: able to statistically significant decreases in “high fear of
rely of crime”, of 9 and 8 % points respectively. The
friends/relatives for difference between SRB intervention and
help, to keep an eye comparator areas was not significant.
on home, for advice.
SRB areas saw a significant gain in feeling part
of the community as compared to the
comparator areas (4 % points).
Melhuish et al (National Sure Start Large scale, 150 SSLPs from Health status: Birth Interim cross-sectional survey results showed
Evaluation of Sure prospective outcome Rounds 1-4. An weight, child no difference between SS and comparator
Start) (2005) Early Comprehensive, community- evaluation, using SSLP is a accidents, child areas in birth weight, child development,
Impacts of Sure Start based projects adapted to local comparative cross- geographical area admission to hospital, maternal malaise, maternal self-esteem, or
Local Programmes on needs, and making maximum use sectional survey and breastfeeding rates, rates of child accidents and child admission to
Children and Families. of local expertise and multiple data sources. Setting and maternal hospitals. There was a statistically significant
London, Institute for the enthusiasms. Aiming to improve socioeconomic psychological well- difference in breastfeeding for the first 6 weeks
Study of Children, services and access to services Quality of evidence data: being, child cognitive, for 9 month old children between Sure Start
Families & Social Improved services and community 2++ neighbourhood language, social and Local Programme (SSLP) areas and SSLP-to-
Issues, University of functioning are presumed to lead based areas with emotional be areas in the imputed data set, controlling for
London. to enhanced family and Interim evaluation. 400 to 800 children development demographics and community characteristics
community functioning that in turn Most Round 1 to 4 under 4 years of (0.77 OR 95% CI 0.71 to 0.82, p≤0.01).
enhances child development. SSLP’s have only age. Local Quality of life: However the equivalent statistic for cases with
been functioning 1-2 authorities were Mother’s rating of complete data, controlled for demographics and
Role of CE: The three main years. invited to bid for area community characteristics, showed no
themes of Sure Start are 1) funds based on significant difference.
121
evaluation setting
paramount importance of having a high level Environmental and
facilitating access and engaging of deprivation as at socio-economic SS mothers of three year old children showed a
the community, 2) working IMD 2000. indicators: None statistically significant decrease in satisfaction
together to transcend with the area.
organisational and professional For Rounds 1-2: Health inequalities:
boundaries 3) designing and mean IMD 49 Supportive/negative Interim results comparing rates of change in SS
implementing a new approach to (SD14), parenting, versus non-SS areas showed statisticallly
service delivery. predominantly acceptance, father significant change in: “home chaos” for parents
urban areas, 70% involvement, home of nine month-old children; and increased
SS emphasis on CE is mainly via of areas are ≥90% chaos, home learning acceptance and less negative parenting for
partnership with community and white, 40% of environment parents of three year old children.
voluntary agencies, and population on a low
involvement of parents. This is income, 21% Service uptake: The results suggested that within the SS
primarily in terms of unemployment. Service use, total sample, those from relatively less (but still)
access/reach/uptake of services, There was an support usefulness disadvantaged households benefited from living
but also includes involvement in average of five in a SS area, while children from relatively
Sure Start partnerships. As at other special grant Social capital: none more disadvantaged families (i.e. teen mother,
2002, 23% of chairs of or area-based lone parent, workless household) did not show
partnerships were held by a initiatives operating Empowerment: none the same benefit.
voluntary agency, and 13% by a in the same area.
parent or member of the In the SS areas, there were no significant
community. 100% of Round1/2 changes in perceptions of support usefulness,
had parent representation on the or in the number of services used.
management board, and 75% had
parent group meetings.
122
Evidence Table 4.3 Indirect community engagement initiatives: study design features
Data collection from

Intervention sample
Adjustment for non-

Comparison group
Longitudinal data?
Baseline samples
response + drop-
follow-up and/or
cross-sectional
Adjustment for
Post-baseline
Prospective?
confounders
residents?
samples:
out
Study
New Deal Yes Household survey: All Deprived areas in the Yes Yes Intervention: Intervention: NA Yes
39 ND areas - random same local authority 2002 and Sample size - 19,574; Follow-up - 10,638 (54%);
sample of 500 districts, with no NDC 2004 Response rate – not Programme level sample –
individuals aged 16+ funding and not given. follow-up sample plus cross-
from each area contiguous with NDC sectional sample (n=8,995) to
areas. Comparator: achieve 500 interviews per
Sample size - 2,014; area (n=19,633);
Comparator slightly less Response rate – not Total response rate - 69%.
deprived than given.
intervention. Comparator:
Follow-up rate 50% (n=1,010);
Full comparator sample size –
4048;
Total response rate – not given.
Neighbourhood Yes All 20 Round 1 20 similarly deprived Yes Yes Intervention: Intervention: NA Not
Management Pathfinder areas, aiming wards with no NM 2003 and Sample size - 10,097; Follow-up - size not given, not stated
Pathfinder to randomly sample 500 scheme, in the same 2006 Response rate – not considered representative;
households in each local authority areas given. Programme level sample –
where Pathfinders were follow-up sample plus cross-
located. Comparator: sectional sample to achieve
Sample size - 2,018; 400 households per area
Comparator slightly less Response rate – not (n=8,159);
deprived than given. Response rate – not given.
intervention, but
comparable. Comparator:
Follow-up – not given;
Full comparator sample size –
1567;
Response rate – not given.
Neighbourhood Yes Postal surveys of SHS: Local, similarly SHS: Yes SHS: SHS: Intervention: SHS: Only people with baseline NA Not
Wardens wardens (2002 and deprived areas but early 2002 Yes Sample size - 1,515; and endline data included in stated
2003) and scheme unclear how many areas and mid Response rate - not cohort analysis.
managers (2001 and and sampling from each. 2003 given.
2003) of all 84 schemes; SHS: Intervention:
123
7 in-depth case studies Comparator slightly less SHS: Comparator: Follow-up – 853 (56%).
(2001-3); sample deprived than Sample size – 473;
household surveys intervention Response rate – not SHS: Comparator:
(SHS) in 15 scheme given. Follow-up – 245 (52%).
areas chosen to be a
representative cross- Total sample 1,098 reduced to
section of all 84 948 with the withdrawal of 2
schemes – 13 used in scheme areas; there is no
the analysis. breakdown given of the split
between intervention and
comparator.
Single Yes Seven case study sites None – comparison Yes Yes Intervention: Intervention: NA Not
Regeneration selected from 300 against National 1996 and Sample size - 3,459; Follow-up – 1,353 (39%); stated
Budget Round 1 and 2 SRB datasets 1999/2001 Response rate – Programme level sample –
sites. Case study sites 59%. follow-up sample plus cross-
were chosen to reflect sectional sampling to create a
the variety of different comparable follow-up sample
types of problem areas (n=3,866);
within the SRB areas, Response rate – 59%.
and approaches to the
problems concerned.
Sure Start Yes All 150 SSLP Round 1-4 50 Sure-Start-to-be No Yes None Intervention sample sizes: Yes Yes
areas, aiming to sample areas (included in 12,575 families of 9 month-old
12,000 Round 5). children,
9 month-olds and 3,000 3,927 families of 36 month-old
36 month-olds and their Comparator more children;
families deprived than Interviewed 2003/4.
intervention
Comparator sample sizes:
1509 families of 9 month-old
children,
1101 families of 36 month-old
children;
Interviewed 2002/3.
Total sample response rates:

84% for families of 9 month-old
children,
73% for families of 36 month-
old children.
124
Evidence table 4.4 Community members’ experience of engagement: theme findings identified
Author/date Intervention and role of Type of Study Individual experiences of engagement

CE study and population/setting Health benefits Socio- Personal/social Dis-benefits
quality economic benefits
benefits
Attree 2004 Sure Start Local Community support Formal Confidence, self esteem
evaluation. workers/Sure Start qualifications (INT)
The programme involves Qualitative staff (INT) Empowerment (FG)
local families in building study: focus Potential route to
community capacity—training groups, Setting: NW England employment
community support workers interviews (FG)
to provide support services Socio-economic data:
for parents and carers of Level of Economically and
young children. evidence 1++ socially
disadvantaged area
Bolam et al CityNet (an ICT project) Qualitative Ambassadors (peer Physical benefits Confidence, self efficacy Disillusionment and
2006 study: educators) (INT) and self esteem (INT) disengagement
The project works with local interviews Supportive social (INT)
people to design web (and follow-up Setting: Nottingham, connections (INT)
interface and content, and telephone England.
recruits and trains interviews)
Ambassadors (peer Socio-economic data:
educators) to train others in Level of Project targets
information-communication evidence 1++ disadvantaged
technology (ICT) use. groups: young
African-Caribbean
men with mental
health difficulties;
long-term unemployed
men and women;
socially isolated
carers; older people;
and people living with
a limiting long-term
illness or disability.
Ziersch & Civil society groups Mixed- Local residents Keeping people Detrimental effects
Baum 2004 methods healthy (INT) on health—physical
Resident involvement in civil study: Setting: Adelaide, Positive for mental and psychological
society groups, including questionnaires Australia. health (INT) (INT)
voluntary associations, clubs, , interviews Socio-economic data: Fears for physical
organisations and societies. Traditional working- safety (INT)
class area with a
125

benefits
Level of historically strong
evidence 1++ ethnic mix
Winters & Drug misuse needs Mixed Community Research skills Increased confidence (INT)
Patel 2003 assessment. methods researchers drawn training (INT)
study: from BME community Employment in
This community-led project interviews, groups and voluntary health and social
aimed to assess need around questionnaires organisations care (S)
drug treatment, education
and prevention within BME Level of Setting: 47
communities. Using the evidence 1++ geographical locations
principles of rapid in England.
participatory assessments, a
research framework was
created to encourage and
build on the capacity of 47
BME community groups and
voluntary organisations who
took part in this project.
204 people were trained to

undertake research in their
own communities. Strategies
to engage the wider
community varied from
project to project.
Boyle et al Time banks Qualitative Time bank Improved physical Access to Increased self esteem and
2006 study: members/front-line fitness (INT) training (INT) confidence (INT)
Involving people as partners interviews staff/community action Reduced Research skills ‘Domino effect’ on social
in the delivery of services in researchers depression/ (INT) networks (INT)
the public and voluntary Level of stress levels (INT) ‘Stepping stone’
sector—co-production. evidence 1+ Setting: London, back into work
Glasgow and the (INT)
People drawn from the study Welsh Valleys. Economic gains
population (those outside (INT)
paid work) were trained to Socio-economic data:
become community action boroughs are
researchers. amongst the poorest
in the UK
Cole et al 2004 Housing planning—New Mixed New Deal for Empowerment (for some Consultation
Deal for Communities methods Community lay people) (FG) (S) fatigue (FG)
study: residents/NDC
126

benefits
Resident involvement in telephone officers.
formulating plans to tackle surveys,
low demand and unpopular document Setting: Three case
housing in their area. review, focus study areas—
Engagement techniques groups, Liverpool, Knowsley
range from consultation to interviews. and Hull.
membership of a Housing
Task group. Level of Socio-economic data:
evidence 1+ Neighbourhoods are
in the decile of most
deprived wards in
England
Del Tufo & Commission on Poverty, Qualitative Commission Transferable Personal empowerment
Gastner 2002 Participation and Power study: members. Six skills (INT) (INT)
interviews, ‘grassroots’ people Meeting new
Set up by the UK Coalition observation, with direct experience people/making friends
Against Poverty (UKCAP) group of poverty and six (INT)
evaluation people in ‘public life’.
Community engagement session. Staff and UKCAP
methods involved: members
o Commission meetings to Level of
consider evidence from evidence 1+ Setting: UK.
the ‘Voices for Change’
project, their own
experience and other
evidence
o Visits around the UK to
hear from local projects
and grassroots
communities about their
experiences
o Meetings with national
policy makers
Bickerstaff & Transport planning Qualitative Representatives of Practice in Consultation
Walker 2005 study: interest democratic skills fatigue/
Case study 1: Leafleting interviews groups/council and procedures overload (INT)
campaign. Round table officers/council (INT)
meetings with key Level of members
stakeholders (representatives evidence 2++
of interest groups). Focus Setting: Local
groups with sectors of the authorities in England
127

benefits
population thought to have
distinctive views on transport
(disabled, young people)
Case study 2: Consensus-

building methods involving a
cross-section of
stakeholders—
representatives of particular
interest groups – through
formal meetings and
community groups
Chau 2007 Service planning Qualitative Chinese older people Improved social contacts Costs in time,
study: focus (FG) money, energy and
Community engagement groups, peace of mind (FG)
central to the initiative. participant Setting: Working Tokenism (FG)
Working groups in 3 case profile groups in Yorkshire,
study areas adopted different questionnaires Manchester and
methods to influence service London
areas of their choice, Level of
including research with users. evidence 2++
A national conference
resulted in a Joint Statement.
Matarasso Community arts Mixed- Local residents, Feeling better or Adults learned Perception of personal Physical, emotional
1997 methods artists, cultural healthier (S) new skills (S) abilities/confidence (S) and relationship
Projects range from those study: focus workers, public Reduced alcohol Employment/ self (FG) costs (FG)
controlled by professionals to groups, service professionals, intake (INT) employment (S) Positive sense of rights (S)
those where lay people were interviews, funding agencies, Improved sense of Reduced anxiety (FG)
actively involved in decision- document local business and wellbeing (INT) about crime (FG) Increased
making, administration and analysis, media intergenerational/intercultu
management. observation, ral understanding (FG)
questionnaires Setting: UK (+ USA,
, observer Finland)
groups
Socio-economic data:
Level of Many case study
evidence 2++ areas experience high
levels of deprivation
Matthews 2001 Youth councils Qualitative Young people aged New skills Increased confidence and
study: focus 12-25 acquired (INT) self worth (INT) (FG)
The main focus of scheme is groups, (FG) Making a difference to
128

benefits
young people’s participation interviews Setting: East community (INT) (FG)
in local decision-making in Midlands, England
different types of forums— Level of
e.g., a youth council set up to evidence 2++
allocate funding to art-based
projects.
Ref 1: Watson Community Champions Large-scale Community Formal training Increased confidence and
et al 2004 Fund national Champions and courses (Ref 1) self esteem (Ref 2) (S)
evaluation Young Champions (S) (INT)
The Community Champions using multiple Knowledge of Increased contacts/
Fund supports individuals by data sources: Setting: England funding sources social networks (Ref 1 and
developing their skills, interviews, (Ref 2) (S) 2) (S)
through formal or informal telephone Practical skills
training, and providing access survey (Ref 1 and 2)
to information and wider (INT)
networks. It also supports Level of Direct, future and
them in driving forward evidence 2++ indirect
Ref 2: community projects and Large-scale employment
Johnstone & passing on their expertise to national outcomes (Ref 1
Campbell- others. evaluation only) (S)
Jones 2003 using multiple
data sources:
interviews,
telephone
survey
Level of
evidence 2++
Callard & Imagine East Greenwich— Qualitative Project participants Positive attitudes to Gaining Enduring confidence (INT)
Friedli 2005 an estates-based arts/health study: and youth workers health and transferable Development of a women’s
project. interviews wellbeing (INT) skills— technical empowerment group (U)
Setting: England and creative Exploration of cultural
The project provides Level of (INT) differences (INT)
opportunities for people to evidence 2+ Knowledge
work together to produce about drugs
displays, books, a calendar, (INT)
film, artworks and other Awareness of
health-related material. creative
technologies in
employment
(INT)
129

benefits
Edwards 2002 Single Regeneration Qualitative Disabled Physical impacts of
Budget study: people/regeneration engagement (INT)
interviews officers/SRB project
The project aims to involve managers/local
community Level of community
groups/representatives in evidence 2+ representatives
developing regeneration bids
and contributing to the Setting: London
decision-making process.
Gunn 2005 Local authority policy Qualitative Young people, front- Intrusive
planning study: semi- line workers, consultation
structured managers and elected methods (INT)
Young people (some looked- interviews members
after) participate in local
authority decision-making Level of Setting: England and
through surveys, evidence 2+ Wales
conferences, youth councils
and participation groups.
McInroy & Groundwork – Mixed- Community members Knowledge of Meeting/
MacDonald environmental regeneration methods involved in local authority interacting with others
2005 study: Groundwork planning (INT)
Varies across sites –mainly interviews, procedures (INT)
consultation, but some observation, Setting: Case study Knowledge of
resident involvement in survey areas in Liverpool, funding
regeneration and local Tameside, East procedures (INT)
volunteers engaged in Level of Manchester Learning
improving public spaces. evidence 2+ technical
Socio-economic data: language (INT)
Projects based in Opportunities to
socially and advance into
economically deprived employment
wards (INT)
ODPM 2004A Residents’ Consultancy National Consultants, clients, Enhanced skills

Initiative outcome residents, partner and and knowledge
evaluation other agencies, key (U)
Projects engage local using multiple officials Enhanced
residents (consultants) to case studies: employment
support the regeneration of survey, Setting: England prospects
their own localities through interviews, (consultants)
130

benefits
promoting greater community follow-up (INT)
engagement and more meetings and
responsive local service workshops
delivery.
Level of
evidence 2+
ODPM 2005B New Deal for Communities Qualitative NDC residents in 39 Adult learning Opportunities to socialise
(NDC) study: focus participating and training (FG) (FG)
groups neighbourhoods in Employment
Community engagement is a total, which typically potential (linked
key characteristic of the Level of house 9800 people. to training) (FG)
programme— involving evidence 2+ Increased
consultation with residents, Setting: Two NDCs in feelings of
building capacity, and each of nine regions security (crime)
resident involvement in (FG)
governance. Socio-economic data:
Neighbourhoods are
in the decile of most
deprived in England
Ref 1: Seyfang Time banks Mixed- Time Bank Help with Practical skills Increased confidence/self
& Smith 2002 methods members/co- underlying (FG) esteem (FG)
A time bank is a system of study: coordinators problems (e.g. Employment Increased social interaction
mutual volunteering, based in Interviews, depression) (INT) potential (INT) (FG) (S)
and owned by the local focus group, Setting: (FG) Time credits Improved social cohesion
community, which uses time survey Ref 1: UK—rural and Improved quality of saved money (FG) (S)
as a currency to facilitate urban sites life (INT) (FG) (ref 2 only) (INT)
exchanges. Level of
evidence 2+ Ref 2: South London
Ref 2: Seyfang As above Mixed- South London site is
2003 methods one of the most
study: economically deprived
membership areas in England.
survey, 53% of time bank
interviews, participants are from
focus group ethnic minorities; 80%
are jobless; 20% have
Level of a gross weekly
131

benefits
evidence 2+ income of under £100
per week
Church & Sustainable development Mixed- Key people from case Formal Increased confidence/self
Elster 2002 projects methods study projects, qualifications (U) esteem (U)
study: representatives of
Varies across case studies – questionnaires national organisations
the majority of projects use
volunteers to organise or Level of Setting: 17
deliver their services. evidence 3+ geographical areas
across the UK
Urban and rural
areas, many socially
and economically
disadvantaged
Key to source of data: INT=interviews; FG = focus group; O=observation; DA = document analysis; S= survey; U = unclear
132
Evidence table 4.5 Barriers and enablers to community engagement
Author/date Intervention and role of Type of study and quality Study population/ setting Barriers and/or Enablers
CE
Anastacio et Urban regeneration The study aimed to explore communities’ Residents of Enablers:
al 2000 experiences of small area regeneration disadvantaged areas • Experiences of technical support varied; some good examples of
Projects in England programmes and develop an audit tool to involved in CE including training.
monitor and evaluate structures and support young people. • Community reps and professional emphasized importance of resources
mechanisms aiming to facilitate effective for training and community work to be available from the start.
community participation. Data collection • Recognizing diversity within communities
involved a survey of 110 regeneration Barriers
partnerships in England, four purposively • residents felt agendas too often set in advance of community
sampled case study areas, face to face participation
interview survey with stakeholder sample • pressures to respond to official agendas even when these distracted
and focus groups with residents. Feedback community organisations’ attention away from their own agendas
sessions with residents and testing out of the • groups felt they were being defined as acceptable in terms of how far
audit tool. their agendas coincided with council agendas and/or private sector
interests (such as property development interest). Black and minority
Level of evidence 2++ ethnic groups were particular concerned about this
• Residents felt they were put under pressure with insufficient technical
support
• Community contributions were valued on some occasions and
denigrated on others, depending how closely they reflected official
agendas
• Lack of transparency—if board papers were not publicly available
community reps were in difficult position about reporting back
Audit Tool explored in 2 of the areas provides a way of mapping
• the context of participation
• quality of participation structures
• capacity of partners and communities to participate
• overall impact of participation
Barnes et al Deliberative forums ESRC-funded qualitative study. 3 questions: Communities in Barriers
2003 how do public bodies define public they wish disadvantaged areas, older • Unequal power of officials and lay members means that DFs are not
10 Deliberative Forums to engage with; what notions of people, minority ethnic sites for equal exchange of perspectives & knowledge
(DF) of various kinds representation do public officials and lay groups, younger people, & • Agencies sponsoring DFs use formal (e.g. through chairing meetings
studied in 2 cities in people bring to DF; and how do DFs different service users. and setting agendas) and financial authority to define rules of
England, including contribute to or help to ameliorate processes engagement
neighbourhood forums, of social exclusion. Methods included: • Notion of ‘the general public interest’ is privileged and voice of ‘counter
youth forums, older Mapping DF’s in 2 cities; cultures’ is marginalised
people forums. Observation of meetings; • Dominant discourse of officials reflects view of public as in need of
Paper draws on data from Semi-structured interviews with purposive capacity building and empowerment, lacking skills to engage rather than
four case study DFs in sample of officials and lay members of DF. of public services in need of fundamental cultural change to engage
one city. with lay people
Level of evidence 2+
133
CE
• The main focus of officials is on enabling the public to operate within the
current norm, rather than opening up possibility of changing the norm
• Four main factors act to define who can and cannot take part in DF:
o Discursive practices of officials and lay members constitute
the way that legitimate membership is defined and squeeze
out more inclusive expansionary practice of engagement
o Officials make assumptions about who is competent to
participate
o Way necessary skills for participation are defined—conflict
between technical & experiential skills: technical are
privileged
o Practices of participation: time, location, nature of dialogue
help to define who is target for engagement and exclude
some groups
• Policy context fosters new sites for CE but also introduces tensions
between local needs and national priorities. Tensions replicated locally
as officials seek to create boundaries around what is legitimate arena
for CE, limiting scope for engagement and allowing them to resist
inroads into their power and control.
Constraints on development of deliberative collaborative governance
formed by:
1. limited opportunity structures
2. Processes of deflection, accommodation & Incorporation
• Deflection: Fobbing off concerns with long time delays
• Accommodation: appearing to respond but lack of tangible outcome and
lack of feedback and transparency makes it difficult to identify who is
responsible for action in agencies
• Incorporation: citizens drawn into organisational discourse and
institutional practices through exchange
3. Tensions between different forms of governance:
• Collaborative (deliberative) focus: solving cross-cutting problems locally
• Managerial: focus on targets set nationally
• Direct control from the centre: audit and inspection
Each form of governance involves extension of control from above, creating
institutional constraints, and so limits capacity of participation initiatives to
shape policy and practice from below.
Barnes et al Health Action Zones This draws on the data from the national Diverse communities of Findings:
2004 evaluation of the HAZs in England. This was place and interest in • Little evidence that HAZ strategic directions were shaped by
Diverse methods and a process evaluation using a ‘theory of England. Not described in communities. HAZ characterised as partnership, not a community led
approaches for change’ approach. The specific research detail in the report. initiative (p.62)
community engagement. questions for the work on community • Experiential knowledge of communities was an important contribution
involvement were: to designing projects and developing strategies (p.63)
• What is the contribution of C. I. to • Reduced effectiveness of HAZ community involvement networks (CIN)
achieving HAZ objectives? in contributing to evaluation in later stages of HAZ
134
CE
• Can HAZs create the conditions in • Appointment of new Sec of State 2001 lessened impetus for
which C.I. meets the objectives of community involvement in HAZ
community participants as well as those • HAZs felt more vulnerable post-2001 and less co-operative with
of statutory agencies? The research evaluation because of fear of potential misinterpretation
reported here involved 5 in-depth case • Imposition of national agenda meant HAZ no longer seen as ‘driver’ for
studies. Data collection methods change and improvements locally.
included surveys, face to face • Development of community research to support particular policies or
interviews, document analysis and service changes enhanced CE but general awareness of limitations of
observation of meetings. participatory appraisal and other methods of accessing community
knowledge because formal rules constrained the extent to which
Level of evidence 2++ accountability for health services and policy can be expressed
downwards to local communities
• Collaborative capacity in HAZ generally required ‘catalystic leadership’,
trust, integrity, ‘permission to act’ from top (public sector)
Barriers
• Statutory partners’ limited knowledge of extent of existing community
and user organisations limited community engagement
• Statutory partners failed to understand importance of developing
mechanisms to translate community issues into action and to ensure
feedback to community
• Appointment of ‘specialist’ worker could limit CE, on the other hand Vol.
and Community sector felt statutory sector did not appreciate the
special skills involved in engaging with communities
• No clear agreement amongst partners about the purpose of CE
• Other initiatives (LSPs, NR) coming on stream made it harder to hold
partners together
Bauld et al Health Action Zones This paper draws on the full data set Diverse communities of Overall data do not support the view that HAZs made greater improvements
2005 collected for the national evaluation of the place and interest in to population health than non-HAZ areas between 1997 and 2001.
Diverse methods and HAZs in England. This was a process England. Not described in
approaches for evaluation using a ‘theory of change’ detail in the report HAZs were not able to realise the potential that was expected of them:
community engagement approach. The evaluation covered 26 HAZs • Planning for whole systems change: danger of placing too much
in England and the design was, multi- reliance on logical planning structures to make progress in alleviating
method, including surveys, face to face relatively intractable social problems
interviews, document analysis and • Building capacity for collaboration: relatively unbalanced contribution
observation of meetings. made by HAZs to developing inter-agency partnerships and engaging
communities
Level of evidence 2++ • Tackling inequalities: limited extent to which it is reasonable to expect
modestly funded local initiatives to tackle fundamental structural
problems
• The experiential knowledge of community members was an important
contribution to designing projects and developing strategies in many
instances
135
CE
• The experience of HAZs suggests that cross-sectoral partnership is
easier to establish within localities than across broader geographical
areas. It is also at this level that community involvement in governance
processes (such as making or scrutinising decisions) was evident, at
least in some areas
• Even in those areas where examples were given of community
members being involved in processes that shaped the development of
the HAZ, there was also an awareness of the limits to this, not least
because formal rules constrained the extent to which accountability for
health services and policy can be expressed downwards to local
communities
Overall there was little evidence that strategic directions were shaped by
communities or service users. On reflection, HAZs cannot be strongly
characterised as a community-led initiative (Barnes et al, 2004).
Beresford & Poverty/disadvantage & This was a narrative review of published The project sought to focus Key lessons learnt from the review:
Hoban 2005 place/regeneration evaluation reports from the different particularly on the • Inhibiting effects of traditional participative processes;
schemes included and web-based engagement of people • Centrality of powerlessness of poverty and disadvantage;
A range of participatory summaries of evaluations. The review aimed living in poverty, on welfare • Importance of starting with people’s own understanding of issues.
schemes & initiatives to identify and collate practical ways of benefits and on race Success factors: underpinning - all people need to have strong sense that
were reviewed, including enabling the involvement of people living on equality and difference. something tangible and worthwhile will come out of their involvement plus:
a Citizen Commission on low incomes in decision-making affecting • Capacity building to support people’s empowerment
the Future of the Welfare their lives. It also sought to identify barriers • Reaching out to people not expecting them to ‘come to you’
State; the Integrated Local to such involvement. The projects included in • Starting where people are and giving value to their experience
Development Programme the review were identified via the authors’ • Establishing accessible and user-friendly structures and processes
in Ireland; The JRF existing networks and the networks of a
• Ensuring access, including communication, physical and cultural
Commission on Poverty, group of people with experience in ‘user
aspects
Participation and Power; involvement’ focusing on poverty, place and
• Enabling both individual and collective involvement
resident involvement in disadvantage including community activists.
NDC; the NI Women’s This group was also involved in data • Helping to establish ownership of formulation and development of
Coalition, and various extraction and analysis. The authors are initiatives
regeneration initiatives. clear about the sources included in the • Recognising and clarifying power relationships
The type of involvement narrative review and the criteria used to • Linking participation with clear outcomes and change
covered by these select projects for inclusion, but make no • Working towards the independence of the participatory scheme
initiatives varied from attempt to quality-assure data sources. • Working for changes in welfare benefits so they do not unnecessarily
consultation and and inappropriately restrict involvement
information exchange to Level of evidence 2+ • Supporting development of independent groups and organisations for
community control. people with direct experience of poverty and disadvantage as a
continuing platform for them to develop their own ideas, perspectives
and activities
• Supporting development of specific black and minority ethnic groups
and organisations as well as working towards equal involvement in
arrangements for participation
• Building in monitoring, evaluation and follow-up
• Working to negotiate not assuming agreement—time to explore different
136
CE
views and interests
Barriers to involvement: underpinning all is uncertainty about whether
getting involved will actually achieve anything
• Personal: including sense of powerlessness due to long term
dependence on others; costs of involvement; time, effort &
determination required; literacy problems; difficulty of sustaining
involvement due to mental and/or physical health problems
• Institutional/political: Domination by officials/professionals; short-
termism, forcing consensus on community perspectives; local
community leaders acting as elites; complex array of funding/policies
confusing; problems defining ‘representation’; treating involvement as
‘add-on’ to existing culture rather than as central idea requiring cultural
change in organisations; tokenism; formal meeting culture not
conducive to dialogue; benefits systems discourages voluntary activism
• Economic & cultural barriers: difficulties promoting engagement in
areas experiencing long-term economic decline; lack of trust and legacy
of ‘us and them’; consultation fatigue with no visible outcomes; lack of
and marginalisation of organisations and infrastructures for alternative
‘voices’; professionals and lay people working together without
preparation and understanding
• Technical: problems of accessing ‘hard to reach’ groups; roles of
workers unclear; difficulty of funding support costs; shortage of qualified
community workers with relevant skills; pressure on agencies to
respond to national targets and priorities; lack of accessible formats and
technological support for certain groups (e.g. disabled people).
Bickerstaff & Transport planning Initial survey of all Highway Authorities in Residents living in two General conclusions:
Walker 2005 England followed by 2 case studies involving local authority areas could Pivotal constraint on deliberative governance: practical working of
Evaluation of processes 42 semi-structured interviews with 32 have been involved in the decision making and multiple pressures at work, particularly political
and outcomes of participants of deliberative approaches, 6 deliberative processes. affiliations, professional independence, serving or representing the
deliberative processes council officers and 4 council members. The two areas were community and central government objectives
used by Local Authorities Diversity sampling of participants to diverse. One reasonably • Participative initiatives dominated by particular and forceful interests –
to develop local transport represent different interests (residents, affluent rural with smaller civic, business and institutional – which neuter dissenting voices and
plans. Paper focuses on private section, interest groups). Study also urban areas; the other, reinforce unequal power relationships;
data collected from two involved analysis of outline and final local larger urban with problems • More powerful participants use range of strategies/tactics to influence &
local authority case study transport plans and comparison with of industrial decline. by-pass consensus position in some cases even before entering
areas. Deliberative interview data to check impact of deliberative deliberative process;
methods included: round approaches • Need to move away from consensus model and recognise decision
table stakeholder making involves conflict and partiality; recognise that attention to power
discussions (12 - 24 Level of evidence 2++ relationships and difference necessitates acceptance of unresolved
people); focus groups; disagreements
public meetings with • Key tension for participants was lack of discernable direct policy impact
exhibits, consensus Unintended problems for goal of deliberative governance/democratic
building methods (e.g. renewal:
whole system events); • Acquisition and manipulation of new professionalised planning
137
CE
community group knowledge by powerful interests (usual suspects) rather than
meetings, household incorporation of lay knowledge by planning authorities may widen
surveys inequalities in civic society
• Consultation fatigue—people have too many overlapping forums,
demanding too much time with no obvious policy outcome—growing
frustration and dissatisfaction with increasing disinclination to take part.
Barriers to engagement:
• Involvement experienced as process of co-option and neutering of
oppositional politics; participants cynical regarding drivers for
participative agenda & impact
• Agenda for debate strongly defined from ‘above’/structures inflexible to
revision
• Community knowledge did not determine or modify decision-making
process but was rather articulated through and organised by existing
professional structures
• Discussions and events were focused on generalities ignoring big
structural transport projects and avoiding all talk of money
• Deliberative process distorted by differential access to communicative
knowledge and resources
• Search for consensus seen by some to operate as mechanism for
silencing people rather than giving people voice
• Range of tactics —not always conscious—perpetuated power
inequalities and dominance of instrumental motivations including:
o Teleological action: people used argumentative techniques to
achieve their ends;
o Normatively regulated behaviour: groups sharing
values/interests worked together to pool power and ensure
particular instrumental outcomes. This process was
reinforced because of on-going involvement of particular
groups in the deliberative process so these groups become
expert in using the system;
o Dramaturgical behaviour: some individuals hide their ‘values’
to fit in but use alternative routes to have concerns heard by
council (e.g. big businesses)
Outcomes of deliberations:
• Officers did not act as neutral facilitators of local knowledge but
translated deliberative material and filtered it through technical language
and analytical frameworks—used upwards to justify and/.or validate
higher policy objectives or mobilise civil support rather than downwards
to sheer action
• Deliberative outputs serve symbolic role signalling good decision-
making rather than influencing it
• Examples of impacts given by officers tended to be results of large-
scale opinion surveys answering precise questions, not the more
138
CE
complex outcomes of the deliberative methods. Officers saw surveys as
more reliable & balanced than deliberative processes
• Participants’ testimonies more likely to be used to legitimise official
discourse rather than to present an alternative view
Birchall & Housing and social care Telephone survey of 392 members of 113 Diverse membership of Barriers:
Simmons users group in the field of housing and social user groups in public • Resources (time finances education) correlated with levels of
2004 A range of user groups. care selected at random from list of groups in housing and social care in participation
3 LA areas. (80% sample of group 3 local authorities: 1 in • The constraints affect initial decision but once people engage it has little
participants from 86% of all groups in the LA Scotland, 2 in England impact
areas). Convenience sample of 106 people Enablers:
not participating in user groups in the same • Finding ways of reducing ‘cost’ of initial participation
LA areas. 63 face-to-face interviews with key • Training—tenants group update important buddy scheme for new
informants including elected members, participants
senior officials, staff and service users in the • Confidence as resource—participants significantly more confident than
Local Authority areas non-participants; people received training; significantly more likely to be
confident
Level of evidence 2+ • Motivation – people wanting to put something into service or join
together with like-minded people, building sense of community
• Engagement with issues individual felt to be important was important
catalyst to initial participation (e.g. negative relationship with service
provider or desire for change). People being able to follow up on
personal interests is therefore important, but collective concerns begin
to become more important the longer people stay engaged
• Range of opportunities to participate is important, not just one way
• Social activities important part of mix: financial restrictions precluding
social activities will deter participation
• The longer people participate, the more collective their motivations
become, so need to try to keep people involved
• People need to feel they are being listened to, be asked to participate
and be given feedback on their input
Model of factors shaping involvement: Model includes 3 factors—needs,

consumer competence and availability of alternative providers. These
characteristics vary by service sector in at least four ways:
• the degree of intensity of the need (on a hierarchy of needs from frivolous
through important to life-saving);
• the degree of continuity of need (from occasional through intermittent to
continuing) and/or duration of need (from short term to long term);
• the degree of consumer competence in assessing the quality of the product
or service (from consumer-driven through to professionally dominated);
• the availability of alternative providers (from none thru limited to extensive)
The model suggests that the greater the intensity, continuity, and duration of
139
CE
need in a particular service sector, the more likely people will be to
participate. E.g.
• episodic/short-term users less likely to participate than ongoing/long-
term users;
• The more satisfied users are with service, the less likely they will
participate, & vice versa;
• The greater degree of consumer competence to assess service quality,
and the lower the availability of alternatives, the more likely people will
be to participate
Cairncross et Tenant Management National evaluation. Various elements to the Diverse populations of Good data on outcomes but process data limited.
al 2002 Organisations study: stakeholder interviews with key residents but primarily Main barriers to increasing the extent and effectiveness of TMOs are:
national organisations; lower socio-economic • Lack of knowledge of tenant management options
TMOs in public housing Survey of all local authorities in England to groups. • Poor networking and sharing of information between TMOs
estates. Responsibilities establish full list of existing TMOs (size, age, • A dwindling pool of potential activists: recruiting tenants to work actively
of the TMOs varied from etc.); with the TMO; loss of a key worker or Board member can affect the
relatively narrow Baseline postal survey of all TMOs covering sustainability of a TMO
responsibility for repairs to history, responsibilities, achievements, etc.; • Lack of expertise relevant to the work of the TMO particularly technical
full responsibility for all Case studies of 16 established TMOs and 2 expertise
aspects of the estate and developing TMOs selected from survey on • Disinterested or hostile local authorities. LA and official resistance to
broader following criteria: location, size, type of LA, giving up control to tenants. Main sources of disagreement included:
responsibilities/concerns level of BME group involvement; whether set o Level of allowances; division of repair responsibilities, lack of
to promote wellbeing of up under ‘right to manage’; liaison or understanding of TMO role and lack of commitment
the local populations. Semi-structured interviews conducted with amongst some local authority staff and members.
TMO board members and staff, LA staff and • Uncertainty over the consequences of large scale voluntary transfers
councillors; • Working for TMOs can be seen to be insecure and low status by some
Residents survey in the case study areas; staff
Documentary analysis including minutes of Success factors include:
meetings, policy and strategy documents, etc
• Positive support and commitment from LA crucial in terms of success
and sustainability, yet relationship often problematic
• Low turnover of staff employed directly by TMOs and good relationships
between staff and board: some staff attracted to work with TMOs
because of greater independence and lack of bureaucracy.
Chouhan & Black voluntary and Evaluation of extent to which funding for 200 individuals involved in Findings:
Lusane 2004 community groups Black voluntary and community groups Black voluntary and • Some funders do not see the link between the Black Voluntary and
contributes to capacity of sector to promote community organisations in Community Sector (BVCS) and civic participation
social inclusion and community engagement London, Leicester and • The BVCS is still a relatively new partner and the importance of the
in public policy arena. Survey of 150 funding elsewhere in England. BVCS is only just being realised
bodies asking for information about funding • BVCS finds it difficult to access funding and funding is typically
policy/practice. 20% response rate. Case short-term
studies: 10 areas of high density Black • Funders were trying to engage more with the BVCS
populations in London and Leicester with 4 • Consultation fatigue for some BVCS groups
areas with low density BME populations for
comparison. 57 voluntary and community
140
CE
groups involving 170 individuals. Data Enablers
collected via face to face interviews, focus • Training of local people as researchers to assist with focus groups.
groups and document analysis. • Involvement in BVCS groups/agencies provides a pathway into
wider CE such as becoming school governor, involvement in police
Level of evidence 2+ consultative committees, magistrates, involvement in mental health
organisations, etc.
• Existence of BVCS was seen to be vital for ensuring self-
determination and local empowerment
• Partnerships and other activities that brought funders into contact
with BVCS resulted in funders changing their strategies and views.
Barriers
• Poverty and discrimination are disincentives for black people to be
engaged
• Some members of BME groups felt that in general there was
neither commitment to social inclusion nor acceptance of important
role BME voluntary and community groups play in tackling social
problems
Church & Sustainable Around 100 projects combining Very diverse; included Success factors identified include:
Elster 2002 development environmental and social objectives were communities of place from • Support from CD workers: source of ideas, advice & inspiration;
identified though various regional and different socio-economic • Support from national issue based NGOs;
Wide variety of projects issues-based networks and direct backgrounds and in urban • Technical support from SRB and private sector;
focusing on environmental approaches to local organisations. and rural communities, • Direct group to group interaction important for learning and networking;
concerns to explore extent Postal survey of these projects with 63% BME groups (e.g. Hindu • Open and positive approach by the LA including better co-ordination of
to which they have response rate. and Chinese communities), their services;
succeeded in linking these 17 of these projects were selected for case and all age groups. • Strong relationships between project and other organisations key to
with social exclusion study work. sustainability;
issues. All projects Semi-structured interviews were conducted • Networking and managerial support;
involved communities of with co-ordinators, staff, steering group
• Time to learn;
place and/or interest and members and community activists. Two visits
• Funding: information and guidance on potential sources, flexible funding
they were selected on to each project and data also obtained via
sources; cost volunteer time into equation when community has to find
basis of type and size of document analysis.
matching funds;
project, individual quality National stakeholder interviews conducted
and geographical spread. with representatives from national • Good support systems locally including recognition of benefit from
Final list included: projects organisations with interest in sustainable projects, good quality information, training opportunities, and core
in England, Scotland and development support such as accommodation.
Wales, community based
projects, local Level of evidence 2+ Barriers:
authority/community • Problematic relationships with local authority;
partnerships, projects • Lack of access to good quality information based on good practice in
linking national NGOs and sustainable development;
local community groups, • Few or no linkages to national issue based networks;
regeneration-based • Lack of capacity for smaller projects to network including financial and
projects, health and time resources;
141
CE
environment projects and • problems associated with a lack of clarity at national policy level
employment generation
projects.
Cole & Smith Housing regeneration No comparison group/area but longitudinal Residents of a low income Barriers:
1996 study with baseline. Study involved: disadvantaged housing • Only minority of residents got actively involved
Evaluation of residents’ 1. Semi-structured interviews on 3 estate with long-term • Action teams didn’t work – workload for residents was too high,
involvement in an initiative occasions with snowball sample of key experience of decline. 12% frequency of meetings too great and business repetitive and too
to regenerate a public informants from local agencies LLSI, 27% Male bureaucratic
housing estate in the 2. In-depth interviews on two occasions unemployment, 69% H/H • Expectations of resolution of difficulties by residents were unrealistic.
North of England. Dept. of with members of stratified sample of 25 without car. • Residents were confused about their role and concerned about
Environment Estate households giving geographical spread professionals controlling the agenda
Action initiative funded and spread across household types on • Residents did not want control of or responsibility for things like
environmental the estate. Round 1: 35 adults and 6 allocation of properties, repairs or settling neighbour disputes
improvements 1992-1994. older children; Round 2: 32 adults
Joseph Rowntree Trust 3. Estate residents’ survey: Baseline 1989 Enablers:
funded study of most conducted by independent organisation • Training of all involved residents and professionals seen to be key to
effective ways of for council. Not clear how sample success of the approach
managing the estate after obtained. Round 2 by researcher • Participation in regeneration process of improvements is essential but
improvements and worked approaching people in first survey: 171 shouldn’t expect it to spill over into more durable structures
with residents to respondents—75% response rate
• Flexible approach to community engagement positive – allows residents
implement preferred
to be able to pull back when they felt like they were being unduly
management option. Level of evidence 1+
dominated by professional advice and giving them opportunity to
change rules of the game when they wanted to
Wide range of CE
Estate agreement with steering group allowed residents to influence standard
approaches from before
& level of services on the estate directly without direct management
funding bid developed,
responsibilities. Ensured multi-agency approach & partnership between
through improvements, to
residents & providers without stretching resources of community
discussions about how
estate should be
managed after
improvements. CE
approaches included
street meetings, parties,
open days for residents as
well as close work with
Residents Association
which had a seat on
project Advisory Group.
Cole et al Housing planning Evaluation involved: Review of all 10 NDC partnerships in Success factors:
2004 partnership delivery plans and housing England. • NDC partnership board important structure of engagement, but difficulty
Involvement of NDC area plans; telephone survey of reps from 10 NDC emerged in terms of representativeness—confusion over what it meant
residents in formulation of partnerships exploring how residents were and how it should be operationalised
plans to tackle low involved and potential barriers to • Findings highlight need for different/flexible engagement structures to
142
CE
demand and unpopular involvement; In-depth case studies of 3 NDC facilitate resident engagement
housing. partnerships: Hull, Knowsley and Liverpool. • Success also depends on a basis of trust, realistic timescales and a
Case studies included: document analysis; capacity of both residents and officers to rise above the most immediate
Residents involved in interviews with 20 key actors including NDC and parochial and take the longer and wider view – but demolition is
variety of ways in strategy partners reps; local housing providers; very difficult issue
formulation including door community groups; focus groups with • Success depends more on initial state of play between ‘partners’
knocking exercises, residents in each of case study NDCs. involved and quality of on-going relationship than on specific techniques
consultation with for engagement or resources to support engagement. Need to attend to
neighbourhood forums, Level of evidence 2+ preparing the ground prior to focusing on specific decision area
consultation caravans,
conferences, involvement Barriers:
through the NDC • NDC officers’ and local activists’ perceptions of residents' lack of
partnership community strategic thinking is barrier that served to exclude some
reps, NDC citizen juries, groups/individuals. For some respondents this was caused by the
tenants’ federations, a complexity of the task but others felt that residents had an
system of street reps, understandable desire to engage with issues closest to their concerns
street or neighbourhood • Some residents and officers felt that the low levels of engagement
meetings and strategy achieved resulted from people’s frustration at a perceived inability to
Steering Groups with influence housing plans of local providers, consultation fatigue and
resident reps. resident mistrust of local housing providers
• Explanations for the lack of trust in providers were linked to a perception
that the NDC was failing to deliver and a failure of people to distinguish
between NDC and social service staff
• There were conflicts and power struggles between residents, NDC and
local housing providers
• Insufficient opportunities for training in participation for residents
• Need for more careful thought about when, where and how to involve
residents
• Some residents felt burdened by being involved in decisions on
demolition of housing but despite this many felt that residents should be
involved
• Many residents felt strongly that the strategy formulation was agency-
and NDC-led
Gaster & Tenant involvement in Evaluation began in 1997 with baseline Residents of 3 estates: a Success factors:
Crossley 2000 housing interviews and continued until 1999. village of 1,100 properties • Values and working style of the CD worker assisted by considerable
• Semi-structured interviews at 2 time built between 1904 -1990s, experience
Evaluation of work of a periods: Round 1: 23 interviews; Round 2: an estate of 126 properties • Broad all-around vision for CD work & ability to respond to new ideas
community development 27 interviews with range of stakeholders, all built in 1990s, and an and issues
worker working with the including housing trust staff at all levels, estate of 133 properties • Commitment to CD vision from the highest level in the Trust
Rowntree Housing Trust CD worker, housing trust residents active between in 1990 involving • Application of specific skills for participation
(a Housing Association of in CD activities, members of parish council both rented and shared • Synergy with other workers and agencies
long standing) to support and other agencies including York Council ownership. Diverse socio-
143
CE
tenant involvement in and local voluntary organisations. economic backgrounds but • Clear work plan with timed targets
estate management. CD • document analysis mostly lower income. All in • Ability to balance clear leadership with truly democratic practice
activity varied and no Focus on developing performance or around city of York. combined with effective organisational support were key success
details given. The CD indicators for CD work from perspectives Particular focus on young factors.
worker was initially to of residents, CD worker, Housing Trust people and on concept of a • Development of infrastructure for democratic practice
focus on: future of a local officers and ‘outsiders’. Key issues for ‘balanced community’ as • Comprehensive resident involvement strategies and range of options for
community hall, young indicator included: empowerment of Housing Trust changed its involving residents—no need for a single model
people and safety, residents; supporting collective action; letting policy and council • Housing associations need to be clear about nature of residents’
encouraging volunteering challenging and supporting the Trust to had rights to allocate some involvement they are seeking, ranging from consultation to control.
and linking processes and reshape its internal and external role as properties. • HA staff need to be helped to develop new skills and new attitudes in
results of CD work with landlord and local agent of ‘governance’ order to take activities outside the mainstream of housing management
mainstream policies and and develop an organisational culture appropriate for new style of
practices of the Housing Level of evidence 2++ working
Trust. Thus worker was • Staff need time and resources including training and effective
to help shape relationship communication and consultation mechanisms for this to happen.
between residents and the
• Needs of communities should be put ahead of organisational needs.
Housing Trust.
• HA need to devolve decision making to point nearest to people affected.
• CD work either as specialist workers or skills for other workers needs to
be integrated into mainstream of HA work
• Need realistic expectations of what CD can achieve—clarify when it is
appropriate and when not
• CD work should engage specialist housing staff to develop their
understanding and ensure joint working
• CD work should be evaluated appropriately including establishing a
baseline describing situation and local capacity for change over time to
be measured
• HAs need to provide corporate support for CDs with clear plans for
sustainability of activities as CD support moves elsewhere.
• New community organisations are fragile—need long term support to
develop and mature
• Community activists also need support on an on-going basis
Goodlad et al Area-based initiatives Burton et al 2004 narrative review of ‘what Wide range of communities Factors shaping processes of involvement in ABI discussed under four
2005 works’ in CE in area based initiatives of place involved in the headings:
Explore the processes adopted a systematic approach to searching area based initiatives 1. The context in which involvement takes place including:
and impacts of CE in for studies and included 34 studies using included in the original • The history of previous ABIs in area and residents past experience of
context of Area-Based criteria that they were: in English and review but not possible to engagement initiatives;
Initiatives. The paper is concerned with the operation and/or impact describe type of • Institutional, policy and funding context in different national, regional
based on the narrative of named area based initiatives. Synthesis community in detail. and local settings;
review of CE in ABI consisted of a thematic analysis of the • The capacity of communities to respond to involvement opportunities;
undertaken by Burton et al included studies. • The demographic, socio-economic and political characteristics of areas
2004. Not possible to Each factor can be positive or negative: history of involvement may mean
describe specific methods Level of evidence 2+ community can respond rapidly to opportunities but may mean they are
144
CE
for CE included. mistrusting because of bad experiences. Similarly a strong identity with an
area may be positive or negative, excluding some groups from initiatives.
Complexity is also highlighted: Whilst some research suggests that low
income groups are less likely to get involved, evidence suggests that local
issues and opportunities for participation are more important than socio-
economic characteristics.
2. The resources required for involvement:

• Evidence that a wide range of resources including money, time, training,
staff with CD skills are important to success
• Evidence that skills and capacity of both community and professionals
need to be developed. Strong emphasis in the literature on
developmental issues including supporting community to understand
what they are part of and to cope with stressful role that brings
competing expectations from community and from professionals
3. The techniques, structures and methods used for involvement:
Who is involved and whom they represent:

• there is little information in the literature on the relative experience of
different techniques for involvement. Lots of concern in the literature
about 'who takes part' recognises particular difficulties for e.g. women
(lack of confidence, poverty child care); BME community members
disadvantaged by stereotyping, language and cultural differences;
disabled people face barriers associated with poor knowledge of ABI
initiatives, professional attitudes (don't see disability as an important
issue) accessibility problems
Hills et al Healthy Living Centres Final report of national evaluation of HLCs. Diverse communities of Facilitators of CE
2007 Multiple case studies in England, Wales, place and interest • Getting people engaged in health-related activities is a pathway to CE
HLCs in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Study design involvement in governance
Scotland, Northern included: 1. Diversity sample of HLC on • Building trust through welcoming/informal atmosphere in the Healthy
Ireland. Very diverse basis of activities ranging from provision of Living Centres or place of activity, meeting people on their own terms or
methods of CE health and social care to addressing wider in their area, developing sense of ownership as well as demonstrating
social determinants of health. cultural awareness and sensitivity promoted trust
2. Longitudinal surveys involving semi- • Building community capacity through training (run organisations, health
structured interviews with small purposive champion, exercise tutors, walk leaders), volunteering with clear
sample of HLC workers, volunteers and local support structures and employing people directly to deliver HLC
stakeholders; large scale survey of users of services
HLCs; cost benefit analysis. • Setting up structures which enable community members to be involved
in governance included direct involvement in management/steering
Level of evidence 1+ groups as board members/chairs, sub-groups as part of main structure
dealing with particular issues, community action teams which were main
decision makers on HLC, development with professionals being in
advisory roles
145
CE
• Promoting networking across projects and Healthy Living Centres
• Positive support from the Local Primary Care Trust in some areas
• Community development skills made a particularly important
contribution in some areas
Constraints on CE
• Communities’ attitudes towards HLC involvement (apathy, disinterest)
• Loss of funding made local people withdraw from engagement
• Rurality is associated with particular challenges
• Additional challenges associated with provision for people with special
needs to engage in CE
Lawless New Deal for Details of NDC national evaluation are Diverse communities of Perceptions of change:
2004A/B Communities. provided in table 3.1.9. Paper by Paul place in 39 of the poorest • Stakeholder agencies (e.g. police, social services, NHS) less optimistic
Lawless draws on data from the national communities in England. about change than NDC partnership board. e.g. 13 partnership board
No details on methods of evaluation focusing particularly on With 39 comparator wards think at least 75% of community groups are involved with local NDC - a
community engagement partnership working with communities. in other areas. Lawless view shared by stakeholders in only 1 in 8 of NDC areas
are provided in the reports 39 process evaluations of the NDC areas; 2004A looks explicitly at Constraints on CE:
of this evaluation, but trackers surveys of households in the NDC BME communities’ • Definitional considerations: what is the local community – NDC tend to
these are wide ranging, areas and the comparator areas and engagement in NDC. see this as residents less interested in other groups (e.g. voluntary and
including resident chairing database of secondary and routine admin private sector)
and membership of NDC data for each NDC area being updated over • Once people are engaged ‘standard litany’ of difficulties tends to
partnership boards, time. undermine longer-term commitment: burnout, declining interest, intra-
tenants’ community strife, disquiet at operation of formal boards, lack of
associations/management Level of evidence 1+ remuneration, formidable time commitments, lack of confidence, lack of
groups, various perceived skills, etc.
deliberative forums, • Very disadvantaged areas and, partly for this reason, residents lose
citizen juries, whole trust in local institutions. NDC seen by residents along with local
system events and one-off councils as amongst least trustworthy of organisations. Levels of trusts
consultations. Efforts are in all organisations are lower amongst NDC residents than amongst
also made to employ local national average.
residents where possible. • Tensions between the local neighbourhood concerns of the NDC and
This paper draws on all the district level concerns of the LSP, between decentralised local
strands of the national negotiation and introversion and centrally-imposed, locally-effected
evaluation to look at three performance management.
themes: community NDC and BME communities:
engagement, partnership • Across all NDCs, 24% of survey respondents are from BME
working and program communities, so very visible ‘minorities’.
cohesion and complexity. • But despite efforts, problems remain:
o BME rep on boards lower than should be for population
average
o Stakeholders in 31 NDC areas think NDC partnership has
engaged with fewer than 50% of BME groups
o A third of NDC partnerships did not have race quality strategy
146
CE
or policy
o Many don’t have systems to monitor trends such as ethnicity
of employees, or assumed beneficiaries of projects they
sponsor
o Attitudinal problems in small number of NDC partnerships
who felt that BME issues were not a problem for them
Lloyd et al Sure Start National evaluation of Sure Start—outcome Focus on the involvement Barriers to men’s involvement in Sure Start identified as:
2005 and process evaluation including case of fathers in the Sure Start • Lack of knowledge about Sure Start, particularly amongst men.
Multi-agency initiatives led studies. Details provided in table 3.1.9. initiatives. Disadvantaged • Totally female labour force deters men from engaging
by NHS aiming to give communities in some of • Gendered expectations about child care mean men are not targeted for
children living in low Level of evidence 1++ England’s poorest support
income households a neighbourhoods.
better start in life. Shift in children’s services distracting attention from partnership working with
parents will have implications for SS work in the future.
McArthur et al Estate regeneration The evaluation aimed to identify how Community Findings
1996 partnerships communities were involved in regeneration representatives on • community partnerships may be seen by professionals and councillors
partnerships; contributions of community partnership boards and principally about service delivery
On 10 public housing reps to decision-making process; impact of feedback to community • in authorities with a track record of CE, officials perceive a wider role for
estates community partnerships; what good practice groups. community representative ranging from devolved responsibility for
lessons could be learnt. Full report of distributing resources, to contributing directly to strategy development.
methodology is not available. 400 interviews • some officers had difficulty in formulating a distinct rationale for
were conducted with officials, other public community involvement, mostly in organisations/ authorities with wider
sector stakeholders, community geographical remit
representatives and residents on the estates. • officials linked to central government departments participate because
they follow political direction and seem to be unsure of what community
Level of evidence 1++ participation is meant to achieve and frequently their internal
administrative structures are not geared up to respond to small area
regeneration initiatives.
• community representatives with long-standing experience place
emphasis on quality and appropriateness of services rather than inter-
agency coordination
• community reps feeling that their input in discussions is not been given
same status as that of other partners and that they may rubber stamp
decision taken by officials
Barriers:
• it can be difficult for the community to 'keep up' with the decision-
147
CE
making process, particularly in the early days. Meaningful community
involvement seems to involve longer timescales for decision-making
than many participants expect
• partnership meetings can be difficult and intimidating experiences.
• community organisations have difficulty retaining a pro-active input into
a wide strategic agenda, even when backed by relatively heavy
resources
• conflict between the community and other partners principally occurred
when the community partner was relatively strong and able to challenge
the priorities or policies of other partners. Other partners did not always
welcome this
• the community may develop unrealistic expectations about what can be
achieved. Other partners need to take care to reveal the potential
limitations to the initiative and the resource constraints under which they
are working
• community reps feel their input in discussions is not given same status
as that of other partners; sometimes rubber stamping of decision taken
by officials
• some agencies felt that community participation led to additional
bureaucracy
Newman et al Deliberative Forums ESRC-funded qualitative study. 3 questions: Communities in Constraints on deliberative governance:
2004 how do public bodies define public they wish disadvantaged areas, older • Senior official and local politicians important influence on CE
10 Deliberative Forums to engage with; what notions of people, minority ethnic through:
(DF) of various kinds representation do public officials and lay groups, younger people, & o local political opportunity structures—controls how local
studied in 2 cities in people bring to DFs; and how do DFs different service users issues are defined and who defines them. Many services
England, including contribute to or help to ameliorate processes delivered locally are defined as outside local influence and
neighbourhood forums, of social exclusion. Methods included: therefore not subjected to CE
youth forums, older Mapping DF’s in 2 cities; o The public viewed as passive, child-like, lacking skills,
people forums. Observation of meetings; capacity and trust–persistent image of the public as in need of
Paper draws on all data Semi-structured interviews with purposive ‘skilling up’; focus on enabling the public to operate within the
from this study to consider sample of officials and lay members of DF. norm of the local system, not to change the system
the constraints on • Policy context: fosters new sites for engagement and collaboration but
deliberative governance. Level of evidence 2+ also introduces tensions between local need and national priorities.
Tensions replicated in public service agencies as they seek to create
See Barnes et al 2003 local/strategic boundaries which define where the public can and cannot
legitimately engage
• Professional power: used in this way, limits structure of engagement –
operates as a way of resisting inroads into professional power and
control. See also findings in Barnes et al 2003 above.
Osborne et al Rural regeneration Study aims to explore structures of 3 partnerships in each of 3 General problems/barriers/issues:
2002 partnerships. partnerships in rural regeneration (RRP), areas: Devon, Dumfries • Advisory and line management structures in RRP complex—potential
impact of community engagement within and Galloway, and Country for innovation but creates high transaction costs re time & money and
Involves 3 types of CE: them and the impact of rurality. Antrim. puts high premium on negotiating skills
148
CE
strategic (involvement in Comparison of 9 case studies (3 each in • Limited CE at strategic level—usually, professional rep (e.g. CD
funding and planning England, Scotland and Northern Ireland) to workers not elected). Professionals feel communities don’t have skills to
partnerships); explore impact of differing policy contexts operate at strategic level but also recognise that strategic arena isn’t
intermediate (involvement and modes of Local Government power structured to allow involvement. Some respondents argued that
in management of (e.g., EU funding in NI means LAs have community members less interested in involvement at strategic level
projects) and community relatively little influence on rural regeneration • Multiple sources and timescale for funding also a problem
(involvement in partnerships.) Study involved face–to-face • Problems with accountability of community reps on partnership – few
community regeneration interviews with stakeholders nationally, had formal mechanisms or channels of accountability back to
activities at local level). regionally and locally, interviews with community & timescales and processes of partnership mitigate against
EU project using workers and community members involved in development of these channels
‘animateur’ to encourage the local partnerships, document analysis • Key skills needed in partnership working in short supply: community
participation and and literature review. No details of how leadership (3 types: social enterprise, managerial leadership,
development in local respondents were selected. governance) negotiating skills and trust building. Training is critical.
communities. Aspects of rurality shaping CE:
Level of evidence 2+ • Geography: transport & communications, presence of market town with
critical mass of people. Strength of community identity can be positive
or negative (work to include and/or exclude)
• Complexity of RR and agency involvement 5 issues in particular:
growing focus on regionalism shifting focus away from local; too many
regeneration programmes too focused on economic development;
number of agencies causes confusion and ignorance even amongst
professionals; CE defined in different ways and not clear; small scale
funding schemes are important as way of supporting involvement.
• Human capital and social exclusion: specific nature of social exclusion
in rural areas (e.g. drifting away of young people, isolation of women
and older people, difficulties of engaging farming communities, lack of
collective identity).
Intermediary infrastructure bodies (local voluntary and community

infrastructure) determines success or otherwise of CE in RRP in all 3
nations:
• Promote communication
• Procure resources
• Provide trained facilitators
• Act as conduit of information to community and strategic partners
• Enable skills training for community members
• Act as honest broker between strategic level and community activities
dealing with funding and auditing
Key roles of intermediary bodies are:
• Horizontal capacity building: build capacity of community to engage in
projects focusing on local regeneration
• Vertical capacity building: build capacity of communities to participate in
strategic level partnerships
149
CE
4 key differences in context in 3 nations affecting accountability mechanisms,
funding structures and locus of power:
• Institutional context: no national bodies in Scotland or NI raising rural
issues
• Policy context: Scottish white paper gives much greater emphasis to
RRP
• Funding structures: NI peace and reconciliation process source of
funding
• Different models of local governance: LG powerful in Scotland, EU in NI
and plurality in England.
Russell 2005; Local Strategic National evaluation described elsewhere. Very diverse—no details of Problems/issues:
Sullivan & Partnerships Russell report focuses on key messages specific methods. Russell: • LSPs and partner organisations need to be clearer about what they
Howard 2005 coming out of evaluation in relation to Focus on engagement in want from VCS engagement and develop better understanding of both
LSPs – areas all over community participation programme, formulating and the constraints and the potential of the sectors
England including community and voluntary sectors. implementing strategies of • Culture of partnership can be limiting; need to clarify roles between
Sullivan & Howard concerned with range of LSPs. elected representatives and VCS representatives
activities underway under remit of LSP Sullivan & Howard: focus • CEN members can feel overwhelmed by number of council and public
on activities below the LSP sector officer in meeting
Level of evidence 2+ • Existing relationship between VCS and LA can influence scope and
effectiveness of involvement
• Close alliance between LA and LSP can be limiting factor to
involvement
• Partners inside and outside the VC sector are unclear about what is
expected and how to turn a general sense that participation is
necessary and beneficial into practical reality
Success factors:
• Trust and integration within VC sectors may be pre-requisite to achieve
representation
• Scope for LPSAs to focus on effective partnership working with the VCS
& to revisit compacts in relation to any changes brought by Local Area
Agreements, gaining knowledge and awareness of policies and plans
• VC sector needs time to build trust with, and gain recognition from,
other sectors; needs to be consulted and given access to decision
makers
Central government should:
• develop a clearer rationale about working in partnership with the VCS
• present a consistent message to their local agencies about working with the
VCS
• recognise the resource demands that involvement in partnerships makes
on individual organisations and the sector as a whole.
150
CE
Shiner et al Drug and Alcohol 37 drug action teams around the country and Diverse communities of Finding consistent pattern:
2004 Teams 3 case studies. Interviewed 47 people— place and interest in • Widespread support for the general principle of community involvement
professionals, community workers and England but
DATs’ work with volunteers. • Support fragmented and dissipated at the suggestion of reduced
communities - influences professional power and autonomy
on success or failure of Level of evidence 2+ • Thus CE was less widely accepted in those areas of work that are most
these initiatives. tightly professionalised and those activities which involve most decision
making power
Sustainable Sustainable Study aimed to identify what makes a Very diverse communities Key finding: Meaningful community involvement perceived by respondents as
Development development regeneration programme sustainable and of place and interest the foundation of all sustainable regeneration projects and programmes.
Commission what needs to be done to ensure that future
2003 Projects combining social, regeneration programmes combine positive Problems/barriers identified by respondents included:
economic and economic, social and environmental • Achieving representation
environmental concerns in outcomes. 3 elements: 1) Literature review; • Ensuring true participation at all stages in the process
wide range of areas 2) Interviews with respondents from 3 • Taking communities seriously
across England. government departments, 14 government • Need for support including networking of community activities
Approaches to involving agencies, 2 regional offices of Government, • people living on low income not able to make meaningful input, attend
communities of place and 2 regional development agencies, 8 local meetings and training sessions.
interest wide-ranging. authorities, 22 national and local vol • Timescales: too often not enough time given to ensure that dialogue
organisations, 5 professional bodies; 3 trust and capacity building can happen.
private sector companies, 7 academic • Power: inequality of power between communities and other bodies;
groups. 3) Case studies of 46 local small organisations face lots of barriers and struggle where big
regeneration and development projects organisations succeed – political processes can present barriers to
selected for diversity and focus on combining communities participating fully in decision making and delivery ,
social, economic and environmental
• Capacity: there is a need for more enterprise and community leadership
concerns.
skills and experience to help regeneration projects to become more self-
supporting
• Maintaining momentum over time: where involvement depends on a few
individuals problems are created by loss of key people. Not enough time
to foster and support next generation of activists
Planning system issues main problems identified:
• Window of opportunity for communities to object to planning
applications too small
• They have no right to appeal
• Lack of skills and resources within planning departments to encourage
greater community involvement
Success factors
• Implementing inclusive strategies encouraging strong community
leadership and ensuring community ownership of means of achieving
project goals.
151
CE
• Making links with schools to develop educational programme on
sustainable development for children. Key activists of the future
• Creating local employment training and community re-investment
opportunities
• Using practical environmental projects as focus for strengthening
community cohesion and furthering capacity of communities to help
themselves
• Using large scale environmental improvements to stimulate community
involvement and economic growth
Taylor 2006 Community Theory of change approach to evaluation. Community and Voluntary Findings
Participation Linked to national evaluation reported by Groups involved in the • CPP funding chests reached new groups and contributed to better links
Programmes others (ODPM 2005 A & B). Design involved CENs in 8 Neighbourhood by putting groups in touch
a survey of lead public sector organisations Renewal Areas • Evidence of progression from groups receiving funds, joined Community
Supporting Voluntary and in 3 areas, case studies in 8 areas receiving Engagement Networks (CEN) and developed links with local service
Community Group NR funding and a survey of 106 voluntary providers
involvement in public and community groups in these 8 areas. • Improvement of communication between voluntary and community
sector decision making. groups building structures
Level of evidence 2++ • Developing strategies to engage excluded (BME groups, people with
disabilities etc.) but still a problem
• Outreach and communication needed to improve
• CENs had established presence on LSPs and in areas with a history of
CE, voluntary and community sector (VCS) played important roles as
chairs of partnership or sub-groups
• CEN made LSPs meetings more open/accessible, but not much
evidence that CEN influenced mainstream
• BME members engaged in LSP came mainly from VCS and were
influential in raising equality issues and attitudes towards the VCS
• Developing membership of CEN a longer term process
• Sometimes links between VCS on CEN and community groups were
tenuous
• Effects of CEN on VCS mixed; some areas’ CENs brought sector
together, but in others, they further fragmented it
• Reconciling representation and leadership an issue; ambiguity from
officials who on the one hand talked about community reps being the
‘usual suspects’ (experienced community activists), and on the other
hand complained about community reps’ lack of experience when it
come to strategic decision making.
• Problem of CEN remaining independent, being influenced by statutory
sector; others remained ‘in opposition’ not engaging with real policy
issues
• Capacity of CEN representatives to have an influence in and through
LSPs depended on the extent to which the LSP had established its own
legitimacy and credibility as part of the pattern of local governance in
152
CE
the area. Where partners saw the LSP as irrelevant or inappropriate, it
was unlikely to provide an effective route for community empowerment
• Importance of skills: operating at a strategic level requires considerable
sophistication from CENs and a range of different skills, including:
o Engaging groups who have not been reached by other
initiatives
o Mediating between different interests within a diverse sector
o Commanding respect from LSP partners & small community
groups
o Negotiating with considerable sophistication and supporting
others to do so
o Managing a complex programme on limited resources
Three factors made securing relevant ‘skills’ difficult:
• highly competitive labour market for staff with CE and civil renewal
skills
• lack of continuity in central government’s commitment (i.e. short
term funding of CPP programme)
• VCS not investing in high-level skills themselves as they prefer to
use resources for more ‘visible’ activities on front-line
Tunstill et al Sure Start Local National Evaluation described in table 3.1.9. Parents and children in Barriers/Problems:
2005 Programmes disadvantaged areas in • Procedures mitigate against involvement (e.g. meeting format + timing)
Level of evidence 1++ England • Tension between sure start ‘girls’ (volunteers/local mothers) +
professional staff; professionals controlling agenda
• Professionals lack training in how to work with communities; knowledge
based approach more understood than community-led approach.
• local political tensions can be barrier—wider NHS resistance to well
funded SS projects
• Conflicting national policy (e.g. green paper on children's service) could
result in loss of community focus. Removes ethos of working with
parents as partners
Success factors:
• CEO essential to success
• Robust culture around PPI needed and robust political culture
supporting local programmes but no definition of what such a culture
would look like.
• Independence of some SSP from statutory agencies reduces
bureaucratic barriers
• Local mothers have high level of satisfaction with involvement;
accessibility improved and numbers engaged
Watson et al Community Champions Three elements to evaluation: interviews with All sections of communities Problems with delivery models:
2004 Fund snowball sample of national and regional in England; particular focus • Performance measured almost entirely by spend against budget not
officials (52 total), telephone interviews with on young people. Based in enough attention to issues of impact and quality
153
CE
CCF aims to increase random sample of 402 community some of the poorest areas • Making payments up front gives positive signal about trust and
skills of individuals to champions; 48 face-to-face interviews with of the country—Community important when organisation acting as banker has weak cash flow
enable them to act as adult CCs and 9 young CCs identified in Cohesion Areas. 1,703 CC • Fast-track payments provide much needed flexibility
inspirational figures, survey as having ‘a story to tell’ negative and appointed since 2003. • Clarification about the rules needed particularly on limits on how awards
community entrepreneurs, positive. Diversity sample to reflect gender, can be used and period over which they must be spent
community mentors and age, ethnicity, geography. • CCF not well enough published. Well-kept secret
community leaders. CCF • Need to secure better balance of interests on the selection panels.
supported by two other Level of evidence 1++ • Local networking could be done more effectively
funds also evaluated: CC Although methodologically this is highly Critical success factors
Support Fund—offers rated, in practice, the report contains very • Great deal of variability across project so almost impossible to identify
fund for You and Your little rich data on factors shaping common success factors through statistical analysis;
Community Award implementation, partly the authors argue
• Observational data suggest following are important:
Winners April 2002-March because the projects are so different that few
o Personal commitment
2004; and Pathfinder common success factors or barriers could be
o Passion for particular issues
Young CC Fund, funded identified.
o Getting others involved and interpersonal skills to motivate
by Home Office but
and support people
administered by DfES,
o Access to additional funding
which aims to encourage
o Adaptability and flexibility
more young people to
become involved in
community activities in 14
community Cohesion
Areas
Webster & Community mapping Participatory methods involving interviews Residents of large public
Johnson 2000 around food poverty and focus groups with local people. housing estates in Key findings: Participatory Appraisal (PA) methods can be used
disadvantaged areas in 3 successfully to:
Communities involved in Level of evidence 2++ English cities. • Engage large and diverse groups of people in the policy-making
participatory appraisal. process
Study sought to test PA • Strengthen partnership working between communities and public
and how successful it was agencies
in involving people in • Build capacity and develop knowledge and skills of community to
understanding local food understand issues and find sustainable solutions
economy and developing • Explore individual issues such as food consumption but yields collective
sustainable solutions. solutions; issues raised not only focused on food but wider community
Engaged people in issues such as transport, education, etc.
mapping in Success factors:
different/accessible • Requires structured training throughout the project (each area trained
locations such as local 10-20 community workers and residents)
schools, street work, door • Need for organisations/agencies to be flexible in their approach
knocking, community • Policy makers should be engaged at early stage and feed back to policy
groups, dip days (table in reference group providing more detailed and realistic action plans and
public spaces to enable keeping them engaged
public to comment or add
• Recognition of conflicting views
ideas to map),
154
CE
events/festivals, focus Locations and method of perform community mapping
groups, household visits, • local schools, street work, door knocking, community groups, dip
workshops, seminars, days ( table in public spaces to enable public to comment or add ideas
leaflets, newsletter to map), events/festivals, focus groups, household visits, workshops,
seminars, leaflets, newsletter
Producing a needs audit

• Enables people to define own priorities
• Learn about issues/solution through other peoples contribution
• Involving community to set out possible impact of solution suggested
within time frame
Williams 2004 Better Government for Aimed to explore how tensions between Key findings:
Older People opinions and values of LA and those • Analyses and describes ‘a model of discursive democracy which
expressed by participating publics are promotes dialogue between the public and government’
I of 28 pilot schemes for managed. Observation and analysis of • But model maintains elected representatives' exclusive right to
BGOP. 10 minutes of meetings: 9 steering team formulate and sanction public policy. Decision-makers invite
initiatives/structures meetings; 4 forum meetings; 12 Fifty Plus participants to participate to supply information, understand their views
established in this pilot meetings; structured conversations with & gain support on pre-existing agendas’
area, including older people participating in project and • Power is embedded in a pre-existing structure of relationships and it is
partnership, network, officials. this power that enables some definitions of the situation to be more
steering group, readily accepted than others'
confidence raising Level of evidence 2++
programme, consultation Methods to ensure control include:
programme for • Mutual translation, i.e. decision-makers enrol themselves into the
modernisation of social older person's programme in order to enrol older person into the
services etc. Paper procedures of the meetings and his/her focus on to the agenda item.
focuses on 2 of these Translation process involves four moments.
initiatives. - problematisation, where the principal actor defines the problems of
other actors and offers a programmatic solution
- interessement, where the principal actor maps a series of roles for
the other actors, which locks them into the program
- enrolment, a set of strategies designed to define and relate the
various roles of the actors
- mobilisation, a set of methods to ensure spokespeople are able to
enrol and mobilise others into the pursuit of his or her goals
• Managing citizens' agenda: five methods:
• pledge: decision-maker halting the alternative agenda by
committing him or herself to addressing the issue raised
• switching agenda: decision-maker argued that the issue raised
by the older participant was being addressed through what the
agency was already doing or planning to do
• pledging to take issue on board: decision-maker pledged to take
into account, take on board or think about the concern of the older
155
CE
person
• ignorance: 'ignorance' or the 'passive acceptance of the
displacement of the alternative agenda'
• attack: where the need to emphasise the importance of the
citizen's view is overridden by a desire to see the threat of their
agenda reduced. The person introducing the new agenda or the
agenda may be disparaged.
Williamson et Peace and See Osborne et al 2002 above Community involvement in Case studies of 3 partnerships in rural NI, which aimed at promoting
al 2004 Reconciliation the boards from rural social inclusion
Partnership Boards Level of evidence 2+ areas. • partnerships were able to bridge ethnic and religious divides
• partnerships demonstrated influence and benefits of EU policies and
Three EU-funded Projects funding
local Peace and • partnerships provide ‘bonding interaction’ and process of linking across
Reconciliation Partnership the divide achieved positive outcomes
Boards in Northern • progress toward peace and reconciliation difficult to measure
Ireland. Focus on quantitavely
promoting social inclusion.
Drawing on data from the 1. LEADER case study
same study as Osborne et • involvement of key people on partnership board and maintaining their
al 2002 above. involvement over time assured consistency in approach and good
working relationships
• strength of partnership was maintaining balance between representative
and participatory democracy and community involvement (composition)
• sectarianism was not an issues as people focused on partnership
activities
• needs time to build trust
2. Community Association partnership case study

• engaging people in joint activities more likely to bridge divide than
talking
• pursued inclusion through linking community organisations, but keep
them financially and constitutionally separate.
• partnerships achieved many award for environmental improvements
3. District partnership case study

• set up 3 initiatives to promote social inclusion: youth forum, community
capacity building, transport; youth forum developed and implemented
youth strategy
• funding resources provided opportunity for community groups to work
together for first time and community involvement felt to have made
strong contribution to partnership
• councilor’s attitude seen to be parochial by community and voluntary
156
CE
sector reps
some community reps had difficulty with legitimacy of their involvement
157
Appendix 1: Databases and web-based resources searched
A: Databases (downloaded into Endnote)

Medline
ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts)
CDSR (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews)
DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness)
SSCI (Social Science Citation Index)
CINAHL* (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature)
ISI Proceedings
Embase (Excerpta Medica)
Sociological abstracts*
Social Policy and Practice*
SIGLE (System for Index of Grey Literature in Europe)
HMIC* (Health Management Information Consortium)
PAIS* (Public Affairs Information System)
PsychInfo (Psychological Information)
National Research Register (NRR)
Social Care Online
Campbell C2 databases: C-spectr
(NB: Databases marked * were searched by NHS CRD, York.)
B: Web-based databases and websites (not downloaded into Endnote)

EPPI Centre databases: Bibliomap 1,DoPHER, TRoPHI
JRF Findings (Joseph Rowntree Foundation Findings)
http://www.jrf.org.uk
ReFER (Research Findings Electronic Register)
Campbell C2 databases: C-ripe
Healthy Living Centres website
New Deal for Communities website
Sure Start and National Evaluation of Sure Start websites
Department for Communities and Local Government
http://www.communities.gov.uk
Active Citizenship (‘Together we can’)
http://www.togetherwecan.info/
Engaging communities Learning Network
http://www.networks.nhs.uk
Renewal.net
(NB: For the mapping review, Worldcat, a British Library database, was also
searched, resulting in 8752 records, mostly in book format. It was agreed with
the PDG that it would be unmanageable to screen, retrieve and process full
papers for this database within the timeframe of the rapid review.)
158
Appendix 2: Medline Search Strategy (MSS2)

(with ‘less economically developed country’ filter)
#S1 Search for terms relating to community engagement in the Descriptor

field (mesh heading and subject descriptor field) or Title field
(in Medline accessed through OCLC FirstSearch)
(mh: communit* n4 engag*) or (su: communit* n4 engag*) or

((mh: communit* n4 develop*) or (su: communit* n4 develop*)) or
((mh: communit* n4 empower*) or (su: communit* n4 empower*)) or
((mh: communit* n4 involv*) or (su: communit* n4 involv*)) or
((mh: communit* n4 participat*) or (su: communit* n4 participat*)) or
((mh: communit* n4 collaborati*) or (su: communit* n4 collaborati*)) or
((mh: communit* n4 consult*) or (su: communit* n4 consult*)) or
((mh: communit* n4 partners*) or (su: communit* n4 partners*)) or
((mh: citizen* n4 engag*) or (su: citizen* n4 engag*) or

((mh: citizen* n4 develop*) or (su: citizen* n4 develop*)) or
((mh: citizen* n4 empower*) or (su: citizen* n4 empower*)) or
((mh: citizen* n4 involv*) or (su: citizen* n4 involv*)) or
((mh: citizen* n4 participat*) or (su: citizen* n4 participat*)) or
((mh: citizen* n4 collaborati*) or (su: citizen* n4 collaborati*)) or
((mh: citizen* n4 consult*) or (su: citizen* n4 consult*)) or
((mh: citizen* n4 partners*) or (su: citizen* n4 partners*))) or
((mh: public n4 engag*) or (su: public n4 engag*) or

((mh: public n4 develop*) or (su: public n4 develop*)) or
((mh: public n4 empower*) or (su: public n4 empower*)) or
((mh: public n4 involv*) or (su: public n4 involv*)) or
((mh: public n4 participat*) or (su: public n4 participat*)) or
((mh: public n4 collaborati*) or (su: public n4 collaborati*)) or
((mh: public n4 consult*) or (su: public n4 consult*)) or
((mh: public n4 partners*) or (su: public n4 partners*))) or
((mh: minorit* n4 engag*) or (su: minorit* n4 engag*) or

((mh: minorit* n4 develop*) or (su: minorit* n4 develop*)) or
((mh: minorit* n4 empower*) or (su: minorit* n4 empower*)) or
((mh: minorit* n4 involv*) or (su: minorit* n4 involv*)) or
((mh: minorit* n4 participat*) or (su: minorit* n4 participat*)) or
((mh: minorit* n4 collaborati*) or (su: minorit* n4 collaborati*)) or
((mh: minorit* n4 consult*) or (su: minorit* n4 consult*)) or
((mh: minorit* n4 partners*) or (su: minorit* n4 partners*))) or
((mh: ethnic* n4 engag*) or (su: ethnic* n4 engag*) or

((mh: ethnic* n4 develop*) or (su: ethnic* n4 develop*)) or
((mh: ethnic* n4 empower*) or (su: ethnic* n4 empower*)) or
((mh: ethnic* n4 involv*) or (su: ethnic* n4 involv*)) or
((mh: ethnic* n4 participat*) or (su: ethnic* n4 participat*)) or
((mh: ethnic* n4 collaborati*) or (su: ethnic* n4 collaborati*)) or
((mh: ethnic* n4 consult*) or (su: ethnic* n4 consult*)) or
((mh: ethnic* n4 partners*) or (su: ethnic* n4 partners*))) or
((mh: stakeholder* n4 engag*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 engag*) or

((mh: stakeholder* n4 develop*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 develop*)) or
159
((mh: stakeholder* n4 empower*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 empower*)) or

((mh: stakeholder* n4 involv*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 involv*)) or
((mh: stakeholder* n4 participat*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 participat*)) or
((mh: stakeholder* n4 collaborati*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 collaborati*)) or
((mh: stakeholder* n4 consult*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 consult*)) or
((mh: stakeholder* n4 partners*) or (su: stakeholder* n4 partners*))) or
((mh: population n4 engag*) or (su: population n4 engag*) or

((mh: population n4 develop*) or (su: population n4 develop*)) or
((mh: population n4 empower*) or (su: population n4 empower*)) or
((mh: population n4 involv*) or (su: population n4 involv*)) or
((mh: population n4 participat*) or (su: population n4 participat*)) or
((mh: population n4 collaborati*) or (su: population n4 collaborati*)) or
((mh: population n4 consult*) or (su: population n4 consult*)) or
((mh: population n4 partners*) or (su: population n4 partners*))) or
((ti: communit* n4 engag*)

(ti: communit* n4 develop*) or
(ti: communit* n4 empower*) or
(ti: communit* n4 involv*) or
(ti: communit* n4 participat*) or
(ti: communit* n4 collaborati*) or
(ti: communit* n4 consult*) or
(ti: communit* n4 partners*) or
(ti: citizen* n4 engag*) or

(ti: citizen* n4 develop*) or
(ti: citizen* n4 empower*) or
(ti: citizen* n4 involv*) or
(ti: citizen* n4 participat*) or
(ti: citizen* n4 collaborati*) or
(ti: citizen* n4 consult*) or
(ti: citizen* n4 partners*)
(ti: public n4 engag*) or

(ti: public n4 develop*) or
(ti: public n4 empower*) or
(ti: public n4 involv*) or
(ti: public n4 participat*) or
(ti: public n4 collaborati*) or
(ti: public n4 consult*) or
(ti: public n4 partners*) or
(ti: minorit* n4 engag*) or

(ti: minorit* n4 develop*) or
(ti: minorit* n4 empower*) or
(ti: minorit* n4 involv*) or
(ti: minorit* n4 participat*) or
(ti: minorit* n4 collaborati*) or
(ti: minorit* n4 consult*) or
(ti: minorit* n4 partners*) or
(ti: ethnic* n4 engag*) or

(ti: ethnic* n4 develop*)
(ti: ethnic* n4 empower*) or
160
(ti: ethnic* n4 involv*) or

(ti: ethnic* n4 participat*) or
(ti: ethnic* n4 collaborati*) or
(ti: ethnic* n4 consult*) or
(ti: ethnic* n4 partners*) or
(ti: stakeholder* n4 engag*) or

(ti: stakeholder* n4 develop*) or
(ti: stakeholder* n4 empower*) or
(ti: stakeholder* n4 involv*) or
(ti: stakeholder* n4 participat*) or
(ti: stakeholder* n4 collaborati*) or
(ti: stakeholder* n4 consult*) or
(ti: stakeholder* n4 partners*) or
(ti: population n4 engag*) or

(ti: population n4 develop*) or
(ti: population n4 empower*) or
(ti: population n4 involv*) or
(ti: population n4 participat*) or
(ti: population n4 collaborati*) or
(ti: population n4 consult*) or
(ti: population n4 partners*)) or
(kw: citizens w jur* or kw: citizens w panel+ or kw: community w forum or kw:
community w panel or kw: community w champion+ or kw: collaborative w
approach* or kw: rapid w appraisal or kw: health w trainer+ or kw: health w
champion+ or kw: neighbo?rhood w committee+ or kw: neighbo?rhood w
forum+) and
yr: 1990-2006 and ln= "english"

and yr: 1990-2006 and ln= "english"
#S2 ‘Less Developed countries’ filter (for Medline accessed through OCLC
FirstSearch)
((kw: Mexico or kw: Tanzania or kw: Zambia or kw: Uganda or (kw: Eastern w
Europe) or kw: Sudan or kw: Mali or kw: Kyrgyzstan or kw: Ethiopia or kw:
Ghana or kw: Bangladesh or kw: Senegal or kw: Nigeria or kw: Vietnam or kw:
Peru or kw: Amazon or (kw: Far w east) or (kw: North w Pacific) or kw: Ecuador
or (kw: Southern w asia) or (kw: SE w Asia) or kw: Brazil or kw: Russia or (kw:
Papua w N.G.) or (kw: papua w new w guinea) or kw: Philipines or kw: Grenada
or kw: Jamaica or kw: Benin or kw: India or kw: Pakistan or kw: China or kw:
Zimbabwe or (kw: Latin w America) or kw: Angola or kw: Cambodia or kw: Tibet
or kw: Nepal or kw: Indonesia or kw: Thailand or kw: Afghanistan or (mh:
developing w countries) or (su: developing w countries) or ((mh: South w
America) or (su: South w America)) or (mh: Africa or su: Africa) or (mh: India or
su: India) or ((kw: developing w countr*) or (kw: underdeveloped w countr*) or
(kw: under w developed w countr*) or (kw: third w world) or kw: Africa* or kw:
India*))
#S3 = #S1 AND #S2
#S3 Total number of refs containing filter (i.e. unwanted) terms
#S4 = #S1 NOT #S3

#S4 Total number of refs NOT containing ‘less developed countries’ filter
terms
161
Appendix 3: Screening titles and abstracts for relevance: the mapping

review
Duplicates MSS2 Mapping Review MSS2

removed n=11,351 n=31917
n= 177
Screened by
Lancaster
n=11,174
Records
excluded Records identified
as relevant n=3132 MSS2 combined
n=8042 total n=35049
Duplicates
removed
n=3523
MSS2_Total to
NICE n=31526
162
Appendix 4: Searching web-based databases and websites
Web-based databases
Name Reviewer Reviewer % No of
1 2 (10%) agreement included
records
Bibliomap 1 Pam Debbie 93 HPRV - 3
Attree Hornby HPSR -18
13/10/06 19/10/06 SDSR - 1
ECMS - 0
DoPHER Pam Debbie 88 HPRV - 17
Attree Hornby HPSR - 0
13/10/06 19/10/06 SDSR - 2
ECMS -1
TRoPHI Pam Debbie 80 HPRV - 1
Attree Hornby HPSR -15
13/10/06 19/10/06 SDSR -2
ECMS - 0
HRSR
SDSR
ECMS
Joseph Rowntree Foundation Pam Beth 72 HPRV - 0
Attree Milton HPSR -2
16/10/06 23/10/06 SDSR -76
ECMS -1
ReFER Pam Debbie 88 HPRV - 0
13/10/06 19/10/06 SDSR -2
ECMS -0
C-ripe Pam Debbie 100 HPRV -1
13/10/06 19/10/06 SDSR -1
ECMS -0
Totals HPRV 22
HPSR 39
SDSR 84 100
ECMS 2
100
Duplicates removed
163
Websites
Name Reviewer 1 No of included
records
Healthy Living Centres Beth Milton HPRV 0

17/10/06 HPSR 9
SDSR 9
ECMS 0
New Deal for Communities Beth Milton HPRV 0
25/10/06,30/10/06 HPSR 6
SDSR 40
ECMS 1
Sure Start and National Beth Milton HPRV 0
Evaluation of Sure Start 19/10/06,24/10/06,30/10/06 HPSR 0
SDSR 11
ECMS 2
Department for Communities Pam Attree HPRV 0
and Local Government 20/10/06 HPSR 0
http://www.communities.gov.uk SDSR 36
ECMS 1
Active Citizenship (Together Pam Attree HPRV 0
we can) 23/10/06 HPSR 0
http://www.togetherwecan.info/ SDSR 24
ECMS 0
Engaging communities Pam Attree HPRV 0
http://www.networks.nhs.uk 19/10/06 HPSR 3
SDSR 0
ECMS 0
Renewal.net Pam Attree HPRV 6
18/10/06 HPSR 11
SDSR 189
ECMS 2
Totals HPRV 6
HPSR 29
SDSR 309
ECMS 6
GRAND TOTAL SDSR records = 358 (duplicates removed)
164
Appendix 5: Excluded studies
[Abbreviations: JRF=Joseph Rowntree Foundation; YPS=York Publishing Services;

BMJ=British Medical Journal; ODPM= Office of the Deputy Prime Minister; DfES=
Department for Education and Skills; NESS= National Evaluation of Sure Start;
DETR= Department for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions; CRESR=
Centre for Regional, Economic, and Social Research; DCLG= Department of
Communities and Local Government]
1. (1996) An evaluation of six early Estate Action schemes. Available Not CE

from: URL: http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128683
2. (1998) Inclusive regeneration: LAs corporate strategies for tackling Outside scope of
disadvantage. Regeneration Research Summary No. 14. Sheffield: review
CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1128675
3. (2000) 1999 HIP data on best value, tenant participation and housing Outside scope of
management. Available from: URL: review
4. (2002) Analysis of 2000 HIP data on best value, tenant participation Insufficient detail
and other housing issues. Housing Research Summary. Sheffield:
CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.
5. Ahmed, I., Haines, S., Hunter, C., & Ravenhill, R. (2003) Citizens' Non-evaluative
jury: A tool for community consultation and development. Available
from: URL: http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case
study/Citizensjurytool.doc
6. Al-Kodmany, K. (2001) Supporting imageability on the World Wide Not CE
Web: Lynch’s five elements of the city in community planning.
Environment and Planning B—Planning & Design, 28, 805-832.
7. Alcock, P. (2005) ‘Maximum feasible understanding’—lessons from Non-evaluative
previous wars on poverty. Social Policy and Society, 4, 321-329.
8. The Allens Croft initiative. Renewal.net case study: West Midlands. Non-evaluative
Available from: URL: http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case
study/Allenscroftinitiative.doc
9. The Amicus Group: Community development course. Renewal.net Non-evaluative
case study. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case
study/Theamicusgroup.doc
10. Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (1999) Welfare as work? The Non-evaluative
potential of the UK social economy. Environment and Planning A, 31,
2033-2051.
11. Andersen, H., Munck, R., et al. (1999) Neighbourhood images in Not CE
Liverpool: ‘It's all down to the people.’ York: JRF and YPS.
12. Arthur's Hill time exchange. Renewal.net case studies: North East Non-evaluative
England. Available from: URL:
study/Arthurshilltime.doc
13. Aston Pride enhanced drugs policing project. Renewal.net case Non-evaluative
study. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case%20Study/Astonprid
eenhanced.doc
14. Audit Commission (2002) Community safety partnerships. London: Not CE
Audit Commission. Available from: URL: http://www.audit-
165
commission.gov.uk/Products/AC-REPORT/AD619288-33EE-4ebb-
A9ED-9CA7B344FD8C/com_safety_report.pdf
15. Auld, J. (2001) Consumers, cars, and communities: The challenge of Not CE
sustainability. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25, 228-37.
16. Bailey, P. (2004) Healthy Living Centres: Year two of the programme Duplicated evidence
evaluation. Big Lottery Fund Research Issue no. 4. Available from:
URL:
http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/er_eval_hlc_summary_yr2_uk.pdf
17. Bailey, P. (2005) Healthy Living Centres: Findings from year three of Duplicated evidence
the programme evaluation. Big Lottery Fund Research Issue no. 19.
London: Big Lottery Fund. Available from: URL:
http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/er_eval_hlc_summary_yr3_uk.pdf
18. Bailey, P. (2006) Learning from Healthy Living Centres: Year four of Duplicated evidence
the evaluation. Big Lottery Fund Research Issue no. 29. London: Big
Lottery Fund. Available from: URL:
http://www.healthylivingonline.org.uk/assets/files/big%20lottery%20y
ear%204%20evaluation%20of%20hlcs.pdf?PHPSESSID=14ddd932
148004943387c25418346fb7
19. Baine, S. (2005) An evaluation of the pilot phase of Investors in Outside scope of
Communities. Findings. York: JRF. Available from: URL: review
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Evaluationpilotp
haseiic.pdf
20. Baine, S., Camp, S., & Eversley, J. (2005) Investors in communities: Outside scope of
Lessons so far. York: JRF and the Chartered Institute of Housing. review
Available from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1903208963.pdf
21. Baines, M., Brayshay, M., Norman, D., Roy, D., Wallis, M., Walsh, P, Outside scope of
et al. (2001) Creating more choice for people with learning review
difficulties. Findings. York: JRF. Available from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/KNOWLEDGE/FINDINGS/socialcare/pdf/831.pd
f
22. Ball, M., & Maginn, P. (2005) Urban change and conflict: Evaluating Not CE
the role of partnerships in urban regeneration in the UK. Housing
Studies, 20, 9-28.
23. Barr, A., Stenhouse, C., and Henderson, P. (2001) Caring Outside scope of
communities: A challenge for social inclusion. York: JRF and YPS. review
24. BECOME employment programme, Sandwell. Renewal.net case Not CE
study/Becomeemploymentprogramme.DOC
25. Bellamy, C., Horrocks, I., & Webb, J. (1995) Exchanging information Not CE
with the public: From one-stop shops to community information
systems. Local Government Studies, 21, 11-30.
26. Bennett, K., Beynon, H., & Hudson, R. (2000) Coalfields Outside scope of
regeneration: Dealing with the consequences of industrial decline. review
Bristol: JRF and the Policy Press.
27. Bennett, S. (2005) Space in action: Charting the evolution of creative Not CE
public spaces. Green Places, June, 32-35. Available from: URL:
http://www.livingroofs.org/NewFiles/pg32_35_Space_n_action_revi%
5B1%5D.pdf
28. Bennett, T., Farrington, D., & Holloway, K. The effectiveness of Outside scope of
neighbourhood watch: Protocol for the Campbell Collaboration in review
166
crime and justice. Glamorgan: University of Glamorgan. Available

from: URL:
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/CCJG/reviews/NWProtocol.pdf
29. Bevan, M. (2000) Towards a regeneration strategy for York. Not CE
Findings. York: JRF. Available from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/040.asp
30. Bevan, M. (2003) New parish and town councils in urban areas: Outside scope of
Communities and DIY democracy. York: JRF and the Centre for review
Housing Policy, University of York. Available from: URL:
31. Biddulph, M. (2001) Home Zones: A planning and design handbook. Non-evaluative
York: JRF and the Policy Press.
32. Birklands community exchange. Renewal.net case study: East Non-evaluative
Midlands. Available from: URL:
study/Birklandcommunityexchange.doc
33. Blakey, H., and Richardson, P. (2004) Usual suspects or community Non-evaluative
leaders—What’s the difference? Summary of pilot online discussion
forum. Centre for Participation Studies, Bradford University, and
Yorkshire and Humber Regional Forum’s Active Partners Unit.
http://www.regionalforum.org.uk/publications_resources/knowledgeb
ase/400/149.pdf
34. Blandy, S., Green, S., & McCoulough, E. (2004) Boundary building in Not CE
NDC areas. Research Report 39. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield
Hallam University. Available from: URL:
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ndc/downloads/reports/RR39.pdf
35. Blank, L., Ellis, L., Goyder, E., & Peters, J. Complementary and Outside scope of
alternative therapies in New Deal Communities. Research Report 32. review
Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of
Sheffield. Available from: URL:
36. Blewitt, H, & Garratt, C. (1993) Tenant participation in housing Non-evaluative
associations: Report of two workshops. London: Community
Development Foundation.
37. Blundell-Jones, P., Petrescu, D., & Till, J. (2005) Architecture and Non-evaluative
participation. Abingdon: Spon Press.
38. Board Development: Some lessons from NDC Partnerships. Non-evaluative
Renewal.net Solving the Problem series. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Solving the
Problem/Boarddevelopmentsome.doc
39. Booth, C. (1996) Gender and public consultation: Case studies of Outside scope of
Leicester, Sheffield and Birmingham. Planning Practice and review
Research, 11, 9-18.
40. Boylan, J., Dalrymple, J., & Ing, P. (2000) Let’s do it!: Advocacy, Outside scope of
young people, and social work education. Social Work Education, review
19, 553-563.
41. Braintree community consultations. Renewal.net case study: East of Non-evaluative
study/Braintreecommunityconsultations.doc
42. Bridge Consortium. (2002) The evaluation of the New Opportunities Duplicated evidence
Fund Healthy Living Centres. London: Big Lottery Fund.
43. Bridge Consortium. (2003) The evaluation of the New Opportunities Duplicated evidence
167
Fund Healthy Living Centres: Second annual report of the Bridge

Consortium. London: Big Lottery Fund.
44. Bryson, J., and Buttle, M. (2005) Development of community Not CE
development loan funds in the United Kingdom. The Service
Industries Journal, 25, 273-288.
45. Burgess, P., Hall, S., Mawson, J., & Pearce, G. (2001) Devolved Non-evaluative
approaches to local governance: Policy and practice in
neighbourhood management. York: JRF and YPS. Available from:
URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1859353568.pdf
46. Burke, T. (2002) Gateway to the future (life skills training). Young Not CE
People Now, 157, 22-23.
47. Bush, I., Gillson, A., Hamilton, M., & Perrin, M. (2005) Public Outside scope of
participation—Drawing the boundaries. Water and Environment review
Journal, 19, 181-188.
48. Butler, A. (2005) A strengths approach to building futures: UK Non-evaluative
students and refugees together. Community Development Journal,
40, 147-157.
49. By the people. Renewal.net case study: East of England. Available Non-evaluative
study/Bythepeople.doc
50. CABE (2005) Creating successful neighbourhoods: Lessons and Non-evaluative
actions for housing market renewal. London: CABE. Available from:
URL: http://www.cabe.org.uk/AssetLibrary/2174.pdf
51. CABE (2006) New localism and community engagement: What it Non-evaluative
means for public space quality. Briefing. London: CABE. Available
from: URL: http://www.cabe.org.uk/AssetLibrary/8654.pdf
52. Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Hutchison, R. Faithful regeneration: The role Not CE
and contribution of local parishes in local communities in the diocese
of Birmingham. London: Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.abs.aston.ac.uk/newweb/research/cvar/forms/Diocese_E
xecSummary.pdf
53. Cambridge Economic Associates Ltd. (2005) National evaluation of Not CE
New Deal for Communities: Key findings from the survey of
beneficiaries. Cambridge: CEA. Available from: URL:
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ndc/downloads/reports/NDC%20key%20finding
s%20for%20the%20survey%20of%20beneficiaries.pdf
54. Campbell, M., & Meadows, P. (2001) What works locally: Key Not CE
lessons on local employment policies. York: JRF.
55. Carey, J. (2001) New deal down on the farm. Housing, Oct. Non-evaluative
56. Carley, M., & Kirk, K. (1998) Sustainable by 2020? A strategic Outside scope of
approach to urban regeneration for Britain’s cities. Bristol: Policy review
Press for JRF.
57. Carley, M. (2000) Key steps to sustainable area regeneration. Non-evaluative
http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/foundations/pdf/D10.pdf
58. Carley, M., Chapman, M., Hastings, A., Kirk, K., & Young, R. (2000) Outside scope of
'Urban regeneration through partnership: A study in nine urban review
regions in England, Scotland, and Wales.’ Bristol: Policy Press for
JRF.
59. Carpenters connect. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL: Not CE
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case%20Study/Carpenter
sconnect.doc
60. Carter, C., & Grieco, M. (2000) New deals, no wheels: Social Non-evaluative
exclusion, tele-options and electronic ontology. Urban Studies, 37,
168
1735-1748.
61. Cartwright, A., & Morris, D. (2001) Charities and the ‘New Deal’: Not CE
Compact relations? Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 23,
65-78.
62. Cebulla, A., Berry, J., & McGreal, S. (2000) Evaluation of Outside scope of
community-based regeneration in Northern Ireland: Between social review
and economic regeneration. Town Planning Review, 71, 169-189.
63. Cefnpennar: A green social economy. Renewal.net case study. Non-evaluative
study/Cefnpennargreensocial.doc
64. The Centre for Public Innovation. Sparking a brighter future. Non-evaluative
Renewal.net case studies. Available from: URL:
study/Sparkingbrighterfuture.doc
65. Chalmers, H., & Colvin, J. (2005) Addressing environmental Not CE
inequalities in UK policy: An action research perspective. Local
Environment, 10, 333-360.
66. Chanan, G. (2002) Community involvement: The roots of Duplicated evidence
renaissance? Urban Research Summary no. 5. London: OPDM.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/596/Communityinvolvementther
ootsofrenaissanceSummaryNo5PDF181Kb_id1128596.pdf
67. Chanan, G. (2004) The practical effects of community involvement in Non-evaluative
neighbourhood renewal: A toolkit of indicators. Neighbourhood
Renewal Unit and Community Development Foundation. Available
from: URL: www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=905
68. Chang, J., Morton, S., Rubenstein, L., Mojica, W., Maglione, M., Not CE
Suttorp, M., Roth, E., & Shekelle, P. (2004) Interventions for the
prevention of falls in older adults: Systematic review and meta-
analysis of randomised clinical trials. BMJ, 328, 680-687.
69. Cheesman, A. (2005) Muslim tenants in housing associations: Not CE
Feedback and engagement. Sector Study 46. London: The Housing
Corporation. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Muslimtenantsh
ousing.pdf
70. Church, C. (2005) Local Strategic Partnerships and the delivery of Not CE
sustainable development in London boroughs. London: Community
Environment Associates. Available from: URL:
http://www.london21.org/right/downloads/finallspreport.pdf
71. Civil Renewal Unit (2003) Building Civil Renewal: A review of Non-evaluative
government support for community capacity building and proposals
for change. London: Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/activecommunities/activecommunit
ies55.htm
72. Civil Renewal Unit. (2004) Firm foundations: The government’s Non-evaluative
framework for community capacity building. London: Home Office.
73. Civil Renewal Unit. (2004) Patient capital: A new approach to Non-evaluative
investing in the growth of community and social enterprise. London:
Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.togetherwecan.info/files/downloads/Reports/patientcap04
0511.pdf
74. Coalter, F., Allison, M., & Taylor, J. (2000) The role of sport in Not CE
regenerating deprived urban areas. Edinburgh: University of
Edinburgh and the Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.
169

http://www.sportdevelopment.org.uk/regeneration2000.pdf
75. Cockburn, T. (2005) Children’s participation in social policy: Non-evaluative
Inclusion, chimera, or authenticity? Social Policy & Society, 4, 109-
119.
76. CofroCo--Consultants from the community. Renewal.net case study. Non-evaluative
study/Cofrococonsultantsfrom.doc
77. Cole, I., Green, S., Hickman, P., McCoulough, E. (2003) A review of Not CE
NDC strategies for tackling low demand and unpopular housing.
Research Report 19. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.
78. Coleman, V., Smith, L., & Bradshaw, M. (2003) Enhancing consumer Non-evaluative
participation using the Practice Continuum Tool for family-centred
care. Paediatric Nursing, 15, 28-32.
79. Coles, B., Rugg, J., & England, J. (1998) Working with young people Non-evaluative
on estates: The role of housing professionals in multi-agency work.
York: JRF and the Chartered Institute of Housing.
80. Collins, C. (1999) Applying Bakhtin in urban studies: The failure of Not CE
community participation in the Ferguslie Park partnership. Urban
Studies, 36, 73-90.
81. Com.Café. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL: Non-evaluative
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case study/Comcafe.doc
82. Commission on Public Private Partnerships (2001) Building better Outside scope of
partnerships: the final report of the Commission on Public Private review
Partnerships. Summary. London: IPPR. Available from: URL:
http://www.ippr.org/uploadedFiles/taskforcesandcommissions/commi
ssions/cppp%20EXEC%20SUMMARY.pdf
83. Communities Scotland. (2004) A feasibility study into the application Not CE
of a community banking initiative model for housing association
tenants in the north and east of Scotland. Precis No. 56. Available
from: URL:
http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/docum
ents/webpages/pubcs_008585.pdf
84. Community Engagement in Policing. Guide to community Outside scope of
engagement. Available from: URL: review
http://www.communityengagement.police.uk/workspace/guide/index.
htm
85. Community matters: Neighbourhood consultancy programme. Not CE
Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL:
study/Communitymattersneighbourhood.doc
86. Community representation on strategic partnerships: The experience Non-evaluative
of Brighton and Hove. Renewal.net case study: South East England.
study/Communityrepresentationstrategic.doc
87. Community reward scheme for young people, Wornington Green Non-evaluative
detached youth project. Renewal.net case study: London. Available
study/Communityrewardscheme.doc
88. Cooper, N., Fleming, J., Marcus, P., Michie, E., Russell, C., & Soltau, Summary only - full
B. (1994) Lessons from Hulme. Housing Summary 5. York: JRF. report not obtained
170
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/pdf/H5.pdf
89. Cope, H. (2004) Social capital: The regeneration activities of the G15 Not CE
housing associations. Available from: URL: http://www.hyde-
housing.co.uk/documents/socialcapital.pdf
90. Coulson, A. (2005) A plague on all your partnerships: Theory and Not CE
practice in regeneration. The International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 18, 151-163.
91. Coward, S., Etherington, D., Macmillan, R., & Wells, P. (2005). Not CE
Neighbourhood wardens: More than the ‘eyes and ears’ of
communities? Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.
Research Report 60. Available from: URL:
92. Craig, G., & Ward, A. (2003) The role of research in supporting Not CE
developmental action: Experience from the Northern Fells. Journal of
Community Work and Development, 1.
93. Craig, G. (2000) What works in community development with Summary only - full
children? Summary. Basildon: Barnardo’s Publications. Available report not obtained
from: URL: http://www.barnardos.org.uk/wwcomdev.pdf
94. Craig, G. (1999) Take your partners? Voluntary sector views on Non-evaluative
partnerships. Benefits, 26.
95. Crawshaw, P., Bunton, R., & Conway, S. (2004) Governing the Not CE
unhealthy community: Some reflections on UK Health Action Zones.
Social Theory & Health, 2, 341-360.
96. Creating a sense of belonging: the experience of NDC partnerships. Non-evaluative
Renewal.net Solving the problem series. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Solving the
Problem/Creatingsensebelonging.doc
97. Croall, J. (1997) Lets act locally: The growth of Local Exchange Non-evaluative
Trading Systems. London: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
98. Crow, I, France, A., Hacking, S., & Hart, M. (2004) Does Not CE
Communities that Care work? An evaluation of a community-based
risk prevention programme in three neighbourhoods. York: JRF and
YPS. Available from: URL:
99. Crowther, D., Cummings, C., Dyson, A., & Millward, A. (2003) How Not CE
schools can contribute to area regeneration. Findings. York: JRF.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/housing/pdf/983.pdf
100. Cuijpers, P. (2002) Effective ingredients of school-based drug Not CE
prevention programs: A systematic review. Addictive Behaviors, 27,
1009-23.
101. Cummins, J., Skyers, S., Oosthuizen, R., & Poorman, J. Non-evaluative
(2004) Building community cohesion into area based initiatives: A
guide for residents and practitioners. London: ODPM & The Home
Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Policy%20Guidance/Buildi
ngcommunitycohesion.pdf
102. Curry, N. (2000) Community participation in outdoor Outside scope of
recreation and the development of Millennium Greens in England. review
Leisure Studies, 19, 17-35.
103. Dabinett, G. (2000) Regeneration communities in the UK: Non-evaluative
Getting plugged into the information society? Community
Development Journal, 35, 157-166.
104. Dale, Achieving partnership between tenants and housing Insufficient detail
171
officers. Applied Community Studies, 2, 73-96.

105. Dallimore, D. A flying start: Childcare for children, parents Outside scope of
and communities. Final Report. Welsh Assembly Government review
Childcare Working Group. Available from: URL:
http://www.ecoliinquirywales.org.uk/docrepos/40382/40382313/childr
enyoungpeople/403821/flying-start-e.pdf?lang=en
106. Dalziel, D., Hewitt, E., & Evans, L. (2007) Motivations and Non-evaluative
barriers to citizen governance. London: Department for Communities
and Local Government. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/472/MotivationsandBarrierstoCiti
zenshipGovernance_id1505472.pdf
107. Darlington communities project. Renewal.net case study: Non-evaluative
North East England. Available from: URL:
study/Darlingtoncommunitiesproject.doc
108. Darlow, A., & Percy Smith, J. (2006) Process evaluation of Not CE
community strategies and plan rationalisation. Annual Report 2006.
London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lbs/pri/prinews/Oct06News/CSPR%20Annual%
20Report%202005%20-%20published.pdf
109. Davies, J. (2004) The magic formula (community Not CE
engagement). New Start, 6, 20 Aug.
110. Davies, B, & Docking J. (2004) Transforming lives: Re- Non-evaluative
engaging young people through community-based projects. London:
DfES and the Neighbourhood Support Fund. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Transformingliv
esreengaging.pdf
111. Davoudi, S. (2006) The evidence-policy interface in strategic Outside scope of
waste planning for urban environments: The ‘technical’ and the review
‘social’ dimensions. Environment and Planning C: Government and
Policy, 24, 681-700.
112. DCMS Local Government Team. (2004) Leading the good Non-evaluative
life: Guidance on integrating cultural and community strategies.
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Policy
Guidance/Leadinggoodlife.doc
113. DEFRA (2005) Securing the future: Delivering UK sustainable Non-evaluative
development strategy. London: HM Government and the Stationery
Office. Available from: URL: http://www.sustainable-
development.gov.uk/publications/pdf/strategy/SecFut_complete.pdf
114. Delivering lifelong learning initiatives: Experience from Duplicated evidence
Norwich's NDC partnership. Renewal.net case study. Available from:
URL: http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case
study/Deliveringlifelonglearningndc.doc
115. Delp, L., Brown, M., & Domenzain, A. (2005) Fostering youth Outside scope of
leadership to address workplace and community environmental review
health issues: A university-school-community partnership. Health
Promotion Practice, 6, 270-285.
116. Department for Transport. Home Zones—public participation. Non-evaluative
Traffic Advisory Leaflet 8/02. London: Department for Transport.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/tal/trafficmanagement/homezone
spublicparticipation
172
117. DCLG (2006) Joining up for safer neighbourhoods: A theme Outside scope of
report from the Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder Programme review
National Evaluation. Research Report 31. London: DCLG. Available
from: URL:
http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/publications.asp?did=1839
118. DCLG (2006) National evaluation of the Street Wardens Outside scope of
Programme. Research Report 24. London: DCLG. Available from: review
URL: http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/publications.asp?did=1820
119. DETR. (2000) Joining it up locally. Report of Policy Action Outside scope of
Team 17. London: National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal. review
http://www.socialexclusionunit.gov.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=130
120. Department of Health (2003). Black and minority ethnic drug Duplicated evidence
misuse needs assessment project. Renewal.net Case study.
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case%20Study/Blackmino
rityethnic.doc
121. Derricourt, N. (1996) Project design and imaginative problem- Insufficient detail
solving in community development, Applied Community Studies, 2,
33-72.
122. Devins, D. (2004) Wired up Communities evaluation: Not CE
Findings from the Carpenters Estate. Research Report RR517.
London: DfES. Available from: URL:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR517.pdf
123. Dhami, D. (2003) Realising the potential: Recognising Not CE
residents’ achievement in neighbourhood renewal. NIACE for
Government Office West Midlands. Available from: URL:
http://www.niace.org.uk/Projects/PDFs/RealisingPotential.pdf
124. Diamond, J. (2004) Local regeneration initiatives and Non-evaluative
capacity building: Whose ‘capacity’ and ‘building’ for what?
Community Development Journal, 39, 177-189.
125. Dickinson, S (2005). Urban regeneration in an era of well- Non-evaluative
being. Local Economy, 20, 224-229.
126. Dobson, J. (2005) You are the strongest link (social capital). Non-evaluative
New Start, 17, 29 Jul.
127. Dominelli, L. (1999) Review essay: Community, citizenship, Not CE
and empowerment. Sociology, 33, 441-446.
128. Doncaster Central NDC Evaluation Unit. Involving residents Duplicated evidence
in evaluation: A case study of the Local Evaluation Panel, Doncaster
Central New Deal for Communities. Available from: URL:
study/Involvingresidentsevaluation.doc
129. Dorset Healthcare Trust. Building social capital in West Non-evaluative
Howe. Renewal.net Case study. Available from: URL:
study/Buildingsocialcapital.doc
130. Downing, D. (2001) In our neighbourhood: A regional theatre Not CE
and its local community. York: JRF.
131. Drugs and local communities. Renewal.net Overview series. Non-evaluative
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Overview/Toolkits/Drugs
Toolkit/Drugslocalcommunities.doc
132. Dudley Street neighbourhood initiative. Renewal.net case Non-evaluative
173
study/Dudleystreet.doc
133. Duncan, P, & Thomas, S. (2001) Evaluation of the Outside scope of
Community Champions and the Community Development Learning review – funding
Fund. Research Report 280. London: DfES. mechanisms
134. Duncan, P. & Thomas, S. (2000) Neighbourhood Not CE
regeneration: Resourcing community involvement. Bristol: Policy
Press and JRF.
135. Dunn, J. (1999) Transportation: Policy-level partnerships and Not CE
project-based partnerships. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 92-
106.
136. Dunnett, N., Swanwick, C., & Wooley, H. (2002) Improving Not CE
urban parks, play areas, and green spaces. London: Department for
Transport, Local Government, and the Regions. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Improvingurban
parks.pdf
137. East of England Regional Assembly. (2005) Sustainable Not CE
Futures: The Integrated Regional Strategy for the East of England.
SQW Ltd and Land Use Consultants. Available from: URL:
http://www.eera.gov.uk/Documents/About%20EERA/Policy/Integrate
d%20Regional%20Strategy/2005-10-
06%20EERA%2031%20Sust%20Futures(E)%20Final.pdf
138. Edwards, B., Goodwin, M., Pemberton, S., & Woods, M. Not CE
(1999) Partnership working in rural regeneration: Governance and
empowerment. Bristol: The Policy Press for JRF.
139. Effective communications: some lessons from New Deal for Duplicated evidence
Communities. Renewal.net Solving the problem series. Available
from: URL: http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Solving the
problem/Effectivecommunicationsndc.doc
140. Enforcement and access to drugs treatment in Gloucester. Not CE
study/Enforcementaccessdrugs.doc
141. Engaging local communities: Higham Hill community Non-evaluative
association. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL:
study/Engaginglocalhigham.doc
142. Engaging older people in The Bridge New Deal for Duplicated evidence
Communities. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL:
study/Engagingolderpeoplebridge.doc
143. Ellis, J., & Latif, S. (2006) Capacity building: Lessons from a Outside scope of
pilot programme with black and minority ethnic voluntary and review
community organisations. Findings. York: JRF. Available from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/KNOWLEDGE/findings/socialpolicy/pdf/1928.pdf
144. The environment trust. Renewal.net case study. Available Non-evaluative
study/Environmenttrust.DOC
145. Environmental task force, 3 Estates, Birmingham. Non-evaluative
study/Environmentaltaskforcethree.doc
146. ERS. REACT: Regeneration through Environmental ACTion. Outside scope of
Available from: URL: http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case review
174
study/REACTRegenerationthrough.doc
147. European Institute for Urban Affairs. (1998) Combating social Not CE
exclusion: Lessons from area-based programmes in Europe.
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/pdf/HR838.pdf
148. Evaluation of the SRB Challenge Fund: a partnership for Not CE
evaluation. Available from: URL:
149. Everitt, A. (2004) ‘They are, in fact, we’: Looking Well Non-evaluative
evaluation report 2004.
150. Fairnington, A. (2004) Communities that care: A case study Outside scope of
of regeneration from Wales. Critical Public Health, 14, 27-36. review
151. Faith communities in renewal: Lessons from New Deal for Duplicated evidence
Communities. Renewal.net Solving the problem series. Available
from: URL: http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Solving the
Problem/Faithcommunitiesrenewal.doc
152. Final evaluation of Enterprise Zones. Available from: URL: Not CE
153. Fordham, G., Gore, T., Knight Fordham, R., & Lawless, P. Not CE
(2002) The Groundwork movement: Its role in neighbourhood
renewal. York: JRF and YPS. Available from: URL:
154. Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (1999) Joined-up places? Social Not CE
cohesion and neighbourhood regeneration. York: JRF and YPS.
155. Foster, J. (2002) ‘People pieces’: The neglected but essential Outside scope of
elements of community crime prevention. Crime control and review
community: The new politics of public safety, Hughes, Gordon, &
Edwards [Eds], Devon, UK: Willan.
156. Foxcroft, D., Lister-Sharp, D., & Lowe, G. (1997) Alcohol Not CE
misuse prevention for young people: A systematic review reveals
methodological concerns and lack of reliable evidence of
effectiveness. Addiction, 92, 531-537.
157. Gaffney, M. (2005) Civic Pioneers: Local people, local Non-evaluative
government, working together to make life better. London: Civil
Renewal Unit and the Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/530/CivicPioneersLocalpeoplelo
calgovernmentworkingtogethertomakelifebetter_id1502530.pdf
158. Gaskin, K. (2003) Joining forces: The black and minority Not CE
ethnic twinning initiative: Evaluation and good practice. Research
Study 256. London: Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hors256.pdf
159. Gates, S., McCambridge, J., Smith, L, & Foxcroft, D. (2006) Not CE
Interventions for prevention of drug use by young people delivered in
non-school settings. Article no. CD005030. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD005030.pub2. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, 1.
160. George, M. (1996) Quality living. Community Care, 6.6.96, Non-evaluative
30-31.
161. Gepkens, A., Gunning-Schepers, L. (1996) Interventions to Not CE
reduce socioeconomic health differences: A review of the
international literature. European Journal of Public Health, 6, 218-
226.
162. Gewirtz, S., Dickson, M., Power, S., Halpin, D., & Whitty, G. Not CE
(2005) The deployment of social capital theory in educational policy
175
and provision: The case of Education Action Zones in England.

British Educational Research Journal, 31, 651-673.
163. Gilchrist, A. (2004) The well-connected community: A Non-evaluative
networking approach to community development. Bristol: Policy
Press.
164. Gillespie, L., Gillespie, W., Robertson, M., Lamb, S., Not CE
Cumming, R., & Rowe, B. (2003) Interventions for preventing falls in
elderly people. Article No.: CD000340. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD000340.Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2003, 4.
165. Gloucestershire neighbourhood projects network. Non-evaluative
study/Gloucestershireneighbourhoodprojects.doc
166. Goss, S. National evaluation of local strategic partnerships: Not CE
Issues paper: Leadership in local strategic partnerships. London:
ODPM and Department for Transport. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Leadershiplocal
strategic.pdf
167. Goth, P., McKillor, D., & Ferguson, C. (2006) Building better Outside scope of
credit unions. Bristol: The Policy Press and JRF. Available from: review
168. Gottfredson, D, & Wilson, D. (2003) Characteristics of Not CE
effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prevention
Science, 4, 27-38.
169. Gowman, N. (1999) Healthy neighbourhoods (Health Action Not CE
Zones). Municipal Journal, 12 Feb.
170. Gravell, C., & Lemos, G. (2000) The new leaders (community Not CE
entrepreneurs). Housing Today, 188, 15 June.
171. Green, J., & Chapman, A. (1992) The British community Not CE
development project: Lessons for today. Community Development
Journal, 27, 242-258.
172. Green, A. Employment strategies: NDC case studies. Not CE
173. Greencare. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL: Non-evaluative
study/Greencare.doc
174. Greets Green Partnership. (2006) Grants help valuable Non-evaluative
community groups grow. Case study. West Bromwich, Greets Green
Partnership. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Grantshelpvalua
ble.pdf
175. The Guinness Trust. The 2003/2004 Newcastle BME Non-evaluative
Housing Research Project. Available from: URL:
study/Newcastlebmehousing.doc
176. Hall, S., & Mawson, J. (1999) Lessons for area regeneration Not CE
from policy development in the 1990s. York: JRF. Available from:
URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/KNOWLEDGE/findings/housing/pdf/F359.pdf
177. Halliday, S. (2004) Skills for employability: Interim findings. Not CE
176

178. Hamer, L., & Smithies, J. (2002) Planning across the local Non-evaluative
strategic partnership (LSP): case studies of integrating community
strategies and health improvement. Health Development Agency.
Available from: URL: http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/400001
179. Harris, K, & Dudley, M. (2005) Public libraries and community Outside scope of
cohesion: Developing indicators. London: Museums, Libraries, and review
Archives Council. Available from: URL:
http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//I/id1410rep_pdf_6655.pdf
180. Harris, K. (2000) ‘Everyone gets hooked’: Exploring ICTs in Not CE
low-incomes neighbourhoods. Community Development Foundation.
181. Harrison, L., Hoggett, P., & Jeffers, S. (1995) Race, ethnicity, Outside scope of
and community development. Community Development Journal, 30, review
144-57.
182. Harrison, C., & Haklay, M. (2002) The potential of public Outside scope of
participation geographic information systems in UK environmental review
planning: Appraisals of active publics. Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 45, 841-863.
183. Harrison, M., & Phillips, D. Housing and black and minority Not CE
ethnic communities: Review of the evidence base. (2003) London:
ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Housingblackmi
nority.pdf
184. Harrison, C., Parker, P., & Honey, S. (2005) Stepping stones: Not CE
parenting skills in the community. Community Practitioner, 78, 58-61.
185. Hart, D. Drugs and community safety. London: Crime Non-evaluative
Concern. Available from: URL:
http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/publications5b.pdf
186. Hastings community network: Involving the GLBT Non-evaluative
Community. Renewal.net case study: South East England. Available
study/Hastingscommunitynetwork.doc
187. Hastings, J., & Thomas, H. (2005) Accessing the nation: Not CE
Disability, political inclusion, and built form. Urban Studies, 42, 527-
544.
188. Hastings, A. (1996) Unravelling the process of ‘partnership’ in Non-evaluative
urban regeneration policy. Urban Studies, 33, 253-268.
189. Hastings, A., Flint, J., McKenzie, C., & Mills, C. (2005) Not CE
Cleaning up neighbourhoods: Environmental problems and service
provision in deprived areas. Bristol: The Policy Press for JRF.
190. Haughton, G. (1999). Information and participation within Non-evaluative
environmental management. Environment & Urbanization, 11, 51-62.
191. Heenan, D., & McLaughlin, R. (2002) Re-assessing the role Not CE
of credit unions in community development: A case study of Derry
Credit Union, Northern Ireland. Community Development Journal,
37, 249-59.
192. Heller, K. (1992). Ingredients for effective community change: Non-evaluative
Some field observations. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 20, 143-163.
193. Help the Aged. (2002) Senior citizens’ forums: A voice for Non-evaluative
older people. London: Help the Aged. Available from: URL:
177
http://www.helptheaged.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A887A89E-A5B9-4BF6-
9EEC-
C56F5AD8367F/0/senior_citizens_forums_a_voice_for_older_peopl
e.pdf
194. Henderson, P, & Mayo, M. (2000) Raising the game: Non-evaluative
Learning the lessons from community-based regeneration. Scottish
Journal of Community Work and Development, 6, 59-69.
195. Hill, J, & Wright, G. (2003) Youth, community safety and the Not CE
paradox of inclusion. The Howard Journal, 42, 282-97.
196. Hodgett, S., & Johnson, D. (2001) Troubles, partnerships and Outside scope of the
possibilities: A study of the Making Belfast Work Development review
initiative in Northern Ireland. Public Administration and Development,
21, 321-332.
197. Hoggett, P. (1997) Contested communities: Experiences, Non-evaluative
struggles, policies. Bristol: Policy Press.
198. Holland, L. (2004) Diversity and connections in community Outside scope of the
gardens: A contribution to local sustainability. Local Environment, 9, review
285-305.
199. Horton, M. (1996) Laying the foundations for regeneration: Non-evaluative
Village appraisals in England and Hungary. Social Work in Europe,
3, 39-49.
200. House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. (2005) Non-evaluative
Reducing crime: The Home Office working with crime and disorder
reduction partnerships. Twenty-third report of session 2004-05.
London: The Stationery Office Ltd. Available from:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpub
acc/147/147.pdf
201. House of Commons & ODPM Housing, Planning, Local Non-evaluative
Government and the Regions Committee. (2005) Local Government
Consultation. Tenth Report of Session 2004-05. London: The
Stationery Office.
202. House of Commons & Public Administration Select Non-evaluative
Committee. (2005) Choice, voice, and public services. Fourth Report
of Session 2004-05. London: The Stationery Office.
203. Housing Corporation. Involve, revitalise, improve. At-a-glance Non-evaluative
Guide. London: Housing Corporation. Available from: URL:
http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/upload/pdf/glance.pdf
204. Housing Corporation (2002) Young people and housing Outside scope of
associations. The Big Picture Series. London: Housing Corporation. review
205. How to build capacity. Renewal.net Overview series. Non-evaluative
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Overview/How
To/Howbuildcapacity.doc
206. How to build social capital. Renewal.net How to do it series. Non-evaluative
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Toolkit/Howbuildsocial.doc
207. How to sustain community involvement. Renewal.net How to Non-evaluative
do it series. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Toolkit/Howsustaincommu
nity.doc
208. How to sustain neighbourhood renewal with time banking. Non-evaluative
Renewal.net How to do it series. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Toolkit/Howsustainneighb
ourhood.doc
178
209. Hubbell, A., & Dearing, J. (2003) Local newspapers, Not CE

community partnerships, and health improvement projects: Their
roles in a comprehensive community initiative. Journal of Community
Health, 28, 363-376.
210. Hughes, J., & Carmichael, P. (1998) Building partnerships in Insufficient detail
urban regeneration: A case study from Belfast. Community
211. Hughes, G., & Edwards, A. (2002) Crime control and Outside scope of
community: The new politics of public safety. Cullompton, Willan. review
212. Hunt, S. (1990) Building alliances: Professional and political Outside scope of
issues in community participation. Examples from a health and review
community development project. Health Promotion International, 5,
179-185.
213. Hutson, S., & Jones, S. (2002) Community self-build for Not CE
young homeless people: Problems and potential. Housing Studies,
17, 639-656.
214. Illsley, B., & McCarthy, J. (1998) Community-led planning? Non-evaluative
The case of Dundee. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 114, 103-
108.
215. Improvement and Development Agency. (2003) Taking Not CE
forward community cohesion in Leicester. London: I&DeA. Available
from: URL:
http://www.leicester.gov.uk/sys_upl/documents/departments/dpt_110
5.pdf
216. INclude Neighbourhood Regeneration Ltd. Renewal.net case Non-evaluative
study/Includeneighbourhoodregeneration.doc
217. Involve. The true costs of public participation. A summary of Forwarded to York
findings. Available from: URL: for cost effectiveness
http://www.involve.org.uk/mt/archives/blog_13/True%20Costs- review
Summary.pdf
218. Jack, G. (2005) Assessing the impact of community Not CE
programmes working with children and families in disadvantaged
areas. Child and Family Social Work, 10, 293-304.
219. Jackson, N. (1999) The council tenants’ forum: A liminal Non-evaluative
public space between lifeworld and system? Urban Studies, 36, 43-
58.
220. Jason, L., & Barnes, H. (1997) Substance-abuse prevention: Not CE
Beyond the schoolyard. Applied & Preventative Psychology, 6, 211-
220.
221. Jensen, L. Cultural theory and democratizing functional Not research
domains: The case of Danish housing. Public Administration, 76,
117-139.
222. Johnstone, G. Penal policy making: Elitist, populist, or Outside scope of
participatory? Punishment & Society, 2, 161-180. review
223. Jones, R. (2002) With a little help from my friends: Managing Non-evaluative
public participation in local government. Public Money &
Management, April-June, 31-36.
224. Kapasi, H. (2006) Neighbourhood play and community action. Non-evaluative
York: JRF and the National Children’s Bureau. Available from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1685-development-play-
community.pdf
225. Kennedy, L. (2001) Community involvement at what cost?— Outside scope of
179
Local appraisal of a pan-European nutrition promotion programme in review

low-income neighbourhoods. Health Promotion International, 16, 35-
45.
226. Kidger, J. (2004) Including young mothers: Limitations to New Not CE
Labour’s strategy for supporting teenage parents. Critical Social
Policy, 24, 291-311.
227. Kuhn, S. (1999) Expanding public participation is essential to Outside scope of
environmental justice and the democratic decision-making process. review
Ecology Law Quarterly, 25, 647-658.
228. Lakey, J. (2002) Health impact assessment: Evaluation of Not CE
New Deal for Young People. ReFeR summary. London: Department
of Health. Available from: URL:
http://www.refer.nhs.uk/ViewRecord.asp?id=754
229. Larsen, C. (2004) Facilitating community involvement: Duplicated evidence
Practical guidance for practitioners and policy makers. Development
and Practice Report 27. London: Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/dpr27.pdf
230. Lasker, R., & Weiss, E. (2003) Broadening participation in Not research
community problem solving: A multidisciplinary model to support
collaborative practice and research. Journal of Urban Health, 80, 14-
60.
231. Lawless, P. (2004) Locating and explaining area-based urban Non-evaluative
initiatives: New Deal for Communities in England. Environment and
Planning C: Government and Policy, 22, 383-399.
232. Lee, A., Mann, N., & Takriti, R. (2000) A hospital led Not CE
promotion campaign aimed to increase bicycle helmet wearing
among children aged 11-15 living in West Berkshire 1992-1998.
Injury Prevention, 6, 151-153.
233. Lee, J., Millward, A., Harridge, C., Wood, L., Trevorrow, E., Outside scope of
Deanwood, R., Britton, K., Glynn, J., & Kenyon, D. (2003) The review
relationships between community strategies and local development
frameworks. Final Report. London: Entec UK Ltd and the ODPM.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/477/TherelationshipbetweenCo
mmunityStrategiesandLocalDevelopmentFrameworksPDF679Kb_id1
145477.pdf
234. Legislative Theatre. Renewal.net case study. Available from: Non-evaluative
URL: http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Case
study/Legislativetheatre.DOC
235. Lemos, G. (1999) Building on a legacy (mutual aid). Housing Non-evaluative
Today, 132, 6 May.
236. Lester, C., & Temple, M. (2004) Rapid collaborative health Not CE
impact assessment: A three-meeting process. Public Health, 118,
218-224.
237. Levi, M. (1998) Jobs for the boys (and girls). Housing Today, Not CE
97, 20 Aug.
238. Lewis, J., & Randolph-Horn, E. (2001) Faiths, hope and Non-evaluative
participation: Celebrating faith groups’ role in neighbourhood
renewal. London: New Economics Foundation and Church Urban
Fund. Available from: URL:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/Faiths,%20hope%20and
%20participation.pdf
239. Leys News community newspaper. Renewal.net case study: Non-evaluative
South East England. Available from: URL:
180
study/Leysnewscommunity.doc
240. Loader, B., & Keeble, L. (2004) Challenging the digital divide: Outside scope of
A literature review. York: JRF and the YPS. Available from: URL: review
241. Local Government Association. (2003) Tackling pockets of Non-evaluative
deprivation: Lessons from local authorities' social inclusion work.
London: LGA. Available from:
http://www.lga.gov.uk/Documents/Publication/tacklingpocketsofdepri
vation.pdf
242. Local Network Fund. (2002) Creating magic: A celebration of Non-evaluative
innovative projects tackling child poverty from the ground up.
London: Community Links. Available from: URL: www.community-
links.org/CreatingMagic_pdf_media_public.aspx
243. London Churches Group for Social Action & Greater London Not CE
Enterprise. (2002) Regenerating London: Faith communities and
social action. London: Greater London Enterprise. Available from:
URL: http://www.gle.co.uk/downloads/Reports/GLE-Faith-
Communities-October2002.pdf
244. Lowndes, V, & Chapman, R. (2005) Faith, hope, and clarity: Non-evaluative
Developing a model of faith group involvement in civil renewal. Main
Report. Leicester: Local Governance Research Unit, De Montfort
University. Available from: URL:
http://www.togetherwecan.info/files/downloads/Reports/DMU%20fina
l%20report.pdf
245. Lupton, M. (2005) Easy listening (community radio stations). Non-evaluative
Inside Housing, 29 Jul.
246. Lupton, M. (1997) Zealous try. Housing, 33, 7 Sep. Non-evaluative
247. Lyons, R., John, A., Brophy, S., Jones, S., Johansen, A., Not CE
Kemp, A., Lannon, S., Patterson, J., Rolfe, B., Sander, L., &
Weightman, A. (2006) Modification of the home environment for the
reduction of injuries. Article No. CD003600. DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD003600.pub2. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews, 4.
248. MacDonald, K. (2003) Sustaining networks: How Outside scope of
regeneration partnerships learn and develop. York: JRF and YPS. review
249. Macnab, N. (2005) Archaeology and metal-detecting: A Outside scope of
model for engaging the local community in a greenfield development. review
York: JRF and YPS. Available from: PDF:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/185935324X.pdf
250. Macnaghten, P., Grove-White, R., Jacobs, M., & Wynne, B. Outside scope of
(1995) Public perceptions and sustainability in Lancashire: review
Indicators, institutions, participation. University of Lancaster &
Lancashire County Council. Available from: URL:
http://csec.lancs.ac.uk/docs/lancashire_public_perceptions_reportma
cnaghten.pdf
251. Marshall, F. (2004) Young people in NDC areas: Findings Not CE
from six case studies. Research Report 20. Sheffield: CRESR,
Sheffield Hallam University. Available from: URL:
252. Martin, S., & Boaz, A. (2000) Lessons from the Best Value Non-evaluative
and Better Government for Older People Pilot Programmes. Public
181
Money & Management, April-June 47-53.

253. Matthews, H. (2003) Children and regeneration: setting an Insufficient detail
agenda for community participation and integration. Children and
Society, 17, 264-276.
254. Matthews, G. (2001) Promoting the growth of the community Not CE
development finance sector. Findings. York: JRF. Available from:
URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/KNOWLEDGE/FINDINGS/socialpolicy/pdf/731.p
df
255. Matthews, H, & Limb, M. (1998) The right to say: The Non-evaluative
development of youth councils/forums within the UK. Area, 30, Mar.
256. Mayo, M. (1997) Partnerships for regeneration and Insufficient detail
community development: Some opportunities, challenges and
constraints. Critical Social Policy, 52, 3-26.
257. Mayo, E., Fisher, T., Conaty, P., Doling, J., & Mullineux, A. Outside scope of
(1998) Small is bankable: Community reinvestment in the UK. York: review
JRF and YPS.
258. McAlpine, P., & Birnie, A. (2006) Establishing sustainability Not CE
indicators as an evolving process: Experience from the Island of
Guernsey. Sustainable Development, 14, 81-92.
259. McCabe, T. (1997) Let the voice of true democracy be heard. Non-evaluative
Municipal Journal, 22 Aug.
260. McCulloch, K. (2000) Young citizens: Youth work, civic Non-evaluative
participation and the renewal of democracy. Youth and Policy, 34-45.
261. McGlone, P., Dobson, B., Dowler, E., & Nelson, M. Food Outside scope of
projects and how they work. Findings. York: JRF and YPS. Available review
from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/Knowledge/findings/socialpolicy/pdf/F329.pdf
262. McGrath, Y., Sumnall, H., Edmonds, K., McVeigh, J., & Bellis, Not CE
M. (2006) Review of grey literature on drug prevention among young
people. London: NICE. Available from: URL:
http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=316428
263. McGregor, A., Glass, A., Higgins, K., Macdougall, L., & Not CE
Sutherland, V. Developing people—regenerating place: Achieving
greater integration for local area regeneration. Findings. Available
from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/housing/pdf/753.pdf
264. McNeely, J. (1999) Community building. Journal of Not CE
Community Psychology, 27, 741-750.
265. Meegan, R., & Mitchell, A. (2001) 'It's not community round Not CE
here, it's neighbourhood': Neighbourhood change and cohesion in
urban regeneration policies. Urban Studies, 38, 2167-2194.
266. Meghji, S. (2006) Young regeneration (engaging young Non-evaluative
people and children). Children Now, 3-9 May.
267. Middleton, A., Murie, A., & Groves, R. (2005) Social capital Non-evaluative
and neighbourhoods that work. Urban Studies, 42, 1711-1738.
268. Milburn, T. (2000) Connecting with young people and youth Non-evaluative
issues. Youth and Policy, 46-57.
269. Miles, N., Tully, J., Hudson, R., Robinson, F., Queau, K., & Insufficient detail
Rotheroe, N. (2005) Social capital and economic development in the
North East of England: Promoting economic inclusion through
community based programmes and projects. Final Report. Durham:
Durham University, Miles Strategic Consulting and WYG to ONE.
182
http://www.dur.ac.uk/janet.tully/Conferences/Social%20Capital%20in
%20NE-%20Exec%20Sum.pdf
270. Missing Links capacity building initiative. Renewal.net case Non-evaluative
study/Missinglinkscapacity.doc
271. Moray Community. (2002) Moray Community Plan 2006- Not CE
2010. Available from: URL:
http://www.yourmoray.org.uk/Documents/ComPlan2006-2010.pdf
272. Morris, J. (1995) Renewing the inner city. Municipal Journal, Non-evaluative
17 Nov.
273. Morris, S. (1996) Policing Problem Housing Estates. Crime Outside scope of
Detection and Preventional Series, Paper 74. London: Home Office. review
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fcdps74.pdf
274. Moseley, M. (2003) Rural development: principles and Non-evaluative
practice. London: SAGE Publications.
275. Murray, M., & Greer, J. (2002) Participatory planning as Outside scope of
dialogue: the Northern Ireland Regional Strategic Framework and its review
public examination process. Policy Studies, 23, 191-209.
276. Myles, J. (2004) Community networks and cultural Not CE
intermediaries: the politics of community net development in Greater
Manchester. Media, Culture, and Society, 26, 467-490.
277. Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. (2003) Media and PR toolkit: Outside scope of
How to create effective, engaging communications. London: ODPM. review
278. Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. (2003) Negotiating CEN-LSP Not CE
protocols: A quick guide. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=219
279. Nelson, C., Dickinson, S., Beetham, M., & Batsleer, J. (2000) Not CE
Border crossings/translations: Resources of hope in community work
with women in Greater Manchester. Community, Work & Family, 3,
349-362.
280. Newcastle-Under-Lyme Western Urban Villages community Non-evaluative
programme. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL:
study/Newcastlewesternurban.doc
281. New Economics Foundation. Imagine: A briefing from the Non-evaluative
Centre for Participation. Participation Briefing. London: New
Economics Foundation. Available from: URL:
http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/uploads/doc_9320010181_Imagin
e.pdf
282. New Economics Foundation. Time banks: A radical manifesto Non-evaluative
for the UK. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Timebanksradic
al.pdf
283. Newham Council. (1997) Best value pilot application. Non-evaluative
http://apps.newham.gov.uk/democracy/bestvalue/Pilot/!bestval.pdf
284. Newman, J. (2002) Changing governance, changing Non-evaluative
equality? New Labour, modernisation and public services. Public
Money and Management, 7-14.
285. Newman, L., & Dale, A. (2005) The role of agency in Non-evaluative
183
sustainable local community development. Local Environment, Oct,

10.
286. Nilsen, O., & Kraft, P. (1997) Do local inhabitants want to Not CE
participate in community injury prevention? A focus on the
significance of local identities for community participation. Health
Education Research, 12, 333-345.
287. Nixon, J., Blandy, S., Hunter, C., Reeve, K, & Jones, A. Outside scope of
(2003) Tackling anti-social behaviour in mixed tenure areas. London: review
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/90/Tacklingantisocialbehaviourin
mixedtenureareasPDF470Kb_id1153090.pdf
288. North, P. (2000) Is there space for organisation from below Non-evaluative
within the UK Government's action zones? A test of 'collaborative
planning.' Urban Studies, 37, 1261-1278.
289. O'Bee, P. (1996) Empowering parents in a community-based Not CE
child accident prevention project. Health Visitor, 69, 273.
290. Ocean New Deal for Communities: Board development and Non-evaluative
training. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL:
study/Oceanboarddevelopment.doc
291. O'Cearbhaill, D. (1991) Help or Hindrance towards 1992? Non-evaluative
The Impact of Local Administrative and Political Structures on
Neighbourhood Development in Ireland. Community Development
Journal, 26, 139-146.
292. ODPM. (1995) Second interim evaluation of Enterprise Outside scope of the
Zones. Regeneration research summaries. London: ODPM. review
293. ODPM. (2002) Living places: Cleaner, safer, greener. Non-evaluative
London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/640/Livingplacescleanersafergre
enerPDF1302Kb_id1127640.pdf
294. ODPM. (2003) Equality and diversity in local government in Not CE
England. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/research/crosscut/equality/rprt.pdf
295. ODPM. (2003) Transferable lessons from the Enterprise Not CE
Zones. Urban Research Summary No. 12. London: ODPM. Available
from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/521/Transferablelessonsfromthe
EnterpriseZonesSummaryNo12PDF108Kb_id1128521.pdf
296. ODPM. (2004) Black and minority ethnic housing Outside scope of
associations and their involvement in local authority stock transfers. review
London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://communities.gov.uk/pub/393/BlackandMinorityEthnicHousingA
ssociationsFullreportPDF303Kb_id1153393.pdf
297. ODPM. (2004) Jobs and enterprise in deprived areas. Social Not CE
Exclusion Unit Report. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
298. ODPM. (2004) Statements of community involvement and Outside scope of
planning applications. London: ODPM. Available from: URL: review
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/416/StatementsofCommunityInv
olvementandPlanningApplicationsPDF336Kb_id1145416.pdf
299. ODPM. (2005) Citizen engagement and public services: Why Non-evaluative
neighbourhoods matter. London: ODPM and Home Office. Available
184
from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/899/CitizenEngagementandPubli
cServicesWhyNeighbourhoodsMatterPDF326Kb_id1162899.pdf
300. ODPM. (2005) Communities taking control: Final report of the Non-evaluative
cross-sector work group on community ownership and management
of assets. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/905/CommunityManagementand
OwnershipofAssetsFinalReportfromtheWorkGrouptotheNeighboud_i
d1164905.pdf
301. ODPM. (2005) Neighbourhood management: Working Non-evaluative
together to create cleaner, safer, greener communities. London:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Neighbourhood
managementworking.pdf
302. ODPM. Partnerships in community safety: Evaluating Phase Not CE
2 of Safer Cities programme. Regeneration research summaries.
London: ODPM.
303. ODPM. Regeneration of former coalfield areas: interim Not CE
evaluation. Regeneration research summaries. London: ODPM.
304. O'Grady, A., & Bailey, P. (2003) Emerging themes: Year One Duplicated evidence
findings from the Healthy Living Centres programme evaluation.
Summary. Bridge Consortium and the New Opportunities Fund.
305. O'Keefe, E., & Hogg, C. (1999) Public participation and Outside scope of
marginalized groups: The community development model. Health review
Expectations, 2, 245-254.
306. Olatundun, D. (2004) Black and minority ethnic participation Not CE
in credit unions in the West Midlands. Creating wealth in the West
Midlands through sustainable credit unions. ABCUL. Available from:
URL:
http://www.abcul.coop/lib/liDownload/32/BMEParticipationinCreditUni
ons-April2004.pdf
307. One Voice Neighbourhood Management Partnership. Non-evaluative
Shaping youth services to meet young peoples’ needs. Available
from: URL: http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/page.asp?id=1663
308. PageAdams, D., & Sherraden, M. (1997) Asset building as a Not CE
community revitalization strategy. Social work, 42, 423-434.
309. Paley, D. (2000) Altered estates: The regeneration game. Non-evaluative
Nursing Times, 96, 37-8.
310. Parker, S., Waterston, K., Michaluk, G., & Rickard, L (2002). Not CE
Neighbourhood renewal & social inclusion: The role of museums,
archives, and libraries. Glasgow: Marketing Management Services
International and School of Information Studies, Northumbria
http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//N/neighbourhood_pdf_5678
.pdf
311. Participatory rapid appraisal (PRA): Darnhill Estate: Non-evaluative
Heywood. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL:
study/Participatoryrapidappraisal.doc
312. Percy-Smith, J. (2000) Policy responses to social exclusion: Non-evaluative
Towards inclusion? Buckingham: Open University Press.
313. Phillips, B. (2004) Re-generation games: The politics of Non-evaluative
childhood in urban renewal. Community Development Journal, 39,
166-176.
185
314. Phoenix Community publishing and design, East Brighton. Non-evaluative

study/Phoenixcommunitypublishing.doc
315. Planning for real. Renewal.net How to do it series. Available Non-evaluative
from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Toolkit/Planningforreal.doc
316. Policy Action Team 4. (2000) Report of Policy Action Team 4: Non-evaluative
Neighbourhood management. London: The Stationer’s Office.
http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/seu/pagee783.html?id=94
317. Policy Action Team 9. Community Self-Help. London: Home Non-evaluative
318. Powell, K, & Dalton, M. Co-production, service exchange Non-evaluative
networks, and social capital. Social Policy Journal, 2, 89-105.
319. Power, A., & Rogers, R. (2000) Inner cities: survival and Non-evaluative
revival. Housing Today, 206, 19 Oct.
320. PriceWaterhouse Cooper. (2003) The public consultation on Non-evaluative
the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015. Belfast: Department of the
Environment, Planning Service.
321. Prior, D., Farrow, K., Spalek, B, & Barnes, M. (2005) From Outside scope of
anti-social behaviour to civil renewal: Findings from a research study review
in one urban district. Summary Report. Birmingham: Institute of
Applied Social Studies, University of Birmingham. Available from:
URL:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:g8QcK_ZuTH0J:www.active-
citizen.org.uk/files/downloads/Reports/05%252011%252010%2520B
irmingham%2520ASB%2520Findings%2520report.pdf+From+anti-
social+behaviour+to+civil+renewal:+Findings+from+a+research+stu
dy+in+one+urban+district&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk
322. Progress trust--accountable body. Renewal.net case study. Non-evaluative
study/Progresstrustaccountable.DOC
323. 'Project pathfinder': Barton Hill NDC neighbourhood cleaning Non-evaluative
team. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL:
study/Projectpathfinderbarton.DOC
324. Purdue, D., Diani, M., & Lindsay, I. (2004) Civic networks in Non-evaluative
Bristol and Glasgow. Community Development Journal, 39, 277-288.
325. Quilgars, D. (2004) Communities caring and developing: Outside scope of
Lessons from Hull. York: JRF, University of York, and YPS. Available review
from: URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1859351905.pdf
326. Quirk, B. (2006) Innovation in local democracy: The London Non-evaluative
borough of Lewisham. Local Government Studies, 32, 357-372.
327. Raco, M., & Flint, J. (2001) Communities, places and Not CE
institutional relations: Assessing the role of area-based community
representation in local governance. Political Geography, 20, 585-
612.
328. Raco, M. (2000) Assessing community participation in local Not CE
economic development—Lessons for the new urban policy. Political
Geography, 19, 573-599.
329. Rallings, C. & Thrasher, M. (2002) NDC elections: A study in Not CE
community engagement. London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit and
186
the ODPM.
330. Rawlinson, S. (2001) Building blocks for the future. Learning Not CE
Disability Practice, 3, 14-20.
331. Raynes, N., & Rawlings, B. (2004) Recreating social capital: Outside scope of
Intergenerational programmes and bridging networks: An English review
model--Phase 1. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 2, 7-28.
332. Readfearn, G. (2003) Art of engagement. Young People Non-evaluative
Now, 169, 29 Jan-4 Feb.
333. RegenSchool. Renewal.net case study. Available from: URL: Non-evaluative
study/Regenschool.doc
334. Repair and service centre (RUSZ) and repair network Vienna. Non-evaluative
study/Repairservicecentre.doc
335. Resident consultancy pilots: Westwood promoters. Available Non-evaluative
study/Residentconsultancypilotswestwood.doc
336. Residents’ Consultancy Pilots; Balsall Heath Forum: Duplicated evidence
Residents 4 regeneration (R4R). Renewal.net case study. Available
study/Residentsconsultancypilots.doc
337. Rimmer, A., & Harwood, K. (2004) Citizen participation in the Outside scope of
education and training of social workers. Social Work Education, 23, review
309-323.
338. Robson, B. (2000) Renewing urban areas. Axis, Feb, 55. Non-evaluative
339. ROOM, The National Council for Housing and Planning and Outside scope of
RDHS Ltd. (2002) Regeneration and housing associations. The Big review
Picture Series. The Housing Corporation. Available from: URL:
http://www.housingcorp.gov.uk/upload/pdf/regeneration.pdf
340. Rosen, P. (2001) Towards sustainable and democratic urban Non-evaluative
transport: Constructivism, planning, and policy. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 13, 117-135.
341. Roxburgh, I. (1996) Power to the people. Municipal Journal, 8 Non-evaluative
Mar.
342. Russell, H. (2001) Local strategic partnerships: Lessons from
the experience of the New Commitment to Regeneration. Findings.
York: JRF.
343. Rydin, Y., & Pennington, M. (2000) Public participation and Non-evaluative
local environmental planning: The collective action problem and the
potential of social capital. Local Environment, 5, 153-169.
344. The Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. (2000) On your Outside scope of
doorstep. London: The Sainsbury Centre. Available from: URL: review
http://www.scmh.org.uk/80256FBD004F3555/vWeb/flKHAL6TTEKS/
$file/on_your_doorstep.pdf
345. Samuels, T., & Perry, C. (2005) A SWOT analysis of Halton’s Not CE
Healthy Living Project: Prospects for sustainability. Executive
Summary. Available from: URL:
http://www.chester.ac.uk/cphr/resources/swot.pdf
346. Sancar, F. (1993) An integrative approach to public Outside scope of
participation and knowledge generation in design. Landscape and review
Urban Planning, 26, 67-88.
347. Scottish Homes. (2001) Empowering communities: The Not CE
impact of registered social landlords (RSLs) on social capital. Precis
187
No. 136. Available from: URL: http://www.scot-

homes.gov.uk/pdfs/pubs/255.pdf
348. Secker, J., Dass, S., & Grove, B. (2003) Developing social Not CE
firms in the UK: A contribution to identifying good practice. Disability
& Society, 18, 659-674.
349. Selman, P. (2001) Social capital, sustainability and Outside scope of
environmental planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 2, 13-30. review
350. Seyfang, G. Working outside the box: Community currencies, Non-evaluative
time banks and social inclusion. Journal of Social Policy, 33, 49-71.
351. Shaw, K., Frazer, S., Robbins, C., Smith, I., Fuller, C., Outside scope of
Geddes, M., Johnstone, C., & Nunn, A. Liveability in NDC areas: review
Findings from six case studies. Research Report 22. Sheffield:
352. Shepway Volunteer Centre Youth Challenge. Renewal.net Non-evaluative
case study: South East England. Available from: URL:
study/Shepwayvolunteercentre.doc
353. Shoreditch Trust housing community chest. Renewal.net Non-evaluative
study/Shoreditchhousingcommunity.doc
354. Shucksmith, M. (2000) Exclusive countryside? Social Not CE
inclusion and regeneration in rural areas. York: JRF. Available from:
355. Signpost Greenstead. Renewal.net case study: East of Non-evaluative
study/Signpostgreenstead.doc
356. Singh, B. (2005) Improving support for black disabled people: Not CE
Lessons from community organisations on making change happen.
York: JRF and YPS. Available from: URL:
357. Skelcher, C., McCabe, A., Lowndes, V., & Nanton, P. (1996) Not CE
Community networks in urban regeneration: ‘It all depends who you
know.’ Bristol: The Policy Press for JRF.
358. Skinner, E., Kambites, C., Derounian, J., & Howes, L. (2005) Insufficient detail
Community engagement and local leadership: The role for parish
and town councils. Good practice pointers. NALC and the
Commission for Rural Communities. Available from: URL:
http://www.yorkshirefutures.com/siteassets/documents/YorkshireFut
ures/0/D/0DB2DB93-7D2E-444D-A05F-
4215B00CC166/Community%20Engagement%20-
%20Parish&Town%20Councils.pdf
359. Slatter, P. (2001) After the crossroads: Housing associations Outside scope of
as community investors. York: JRF and YPS. Available from: URL: review
360. Smallbone, D., Evans, M., Ekanem, I., & Butters, S. (2001) Not CE
Researching social enterprise: Final report to the Small Business
Service. London: Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development
Research, Middlesex University.
361. Small Heath community forum. Renewal.net case study. Non-evaluative
study/Smallheathcommunity.doc
188
362. Smith, J. (1992) Community development and tenant action. Non-evaluative

London: Community Development Foundation.
363. Smith, G., & Stephenson, S. (2005) The theory and practice Non-evaluative
of group representation: Reflections on the governance of race
equality in Birmingham. Public Administration, 83, 323-343.
364. Smith, M., & Beazley, M. (2000) Progressive regimes, Non-evaluative
partnerships and the involvement of local communities: A framework
for evaluation. Public Administration, 78, 855-878.
365. Smith, J., Blake, J., Grove-White, R., Kashefi, E., Madden, Not CE
S., & Percy, S. (1999) Social learning and sustainable communities:
An interim assessment of research into sustainable communities
projects in the UK. Local Environment, 4, 195-207.
366. Smyth, J. (2003) CEN baseline report. Summary Report. Non-evaluative
London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. Available from: URL:
367. Social Exclusion Unit. (2001) National strategy for Not CE
neighbourhood renewal: Policy action team audit. London: Cabinet
368. Southern, A., & Townsend, A. (2005) Information and Outside scope of
communication technologies and their role in urban regeneration. review
Local Economy, 20, 266-279.
369. Speak, S. (2000) Children in urban regeneration: Non-evaluative
Foundations for sustainable participation. Community Development
Journal, 35, 31-40.
370. Spinks, A., Turner, C., McClure, R., Acton, A., & Nixon, J. Not CE
(2005) Community-based programmes to promote use of bicycle
helmets in children aged 0-14 years: A systematic review.
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 12, 131-
142.
371. Spinks, A., Turner, C., McClure, R., & Nixon, J. (2004) Not CE
Community-based prevention programs targeting all injuries for
children. Injury Prevention, 10, 180-185.
372. Springfield Community Gardens. Renewal.net case study. Non-evaluative
study/Springfieldcommunitygardens.doc
373. SQW Ltd., GFA Consulting, EIUA, Department of Land Not CE
Economy, University of Cambridge, University of Brighton, MORI, &
NOP. (2002) Scoping research: Main findings and implications for
stakeholders. Interim evaluation of Neighbourhood Management
Pathfinder Programme. London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit,
www.sqw.co.uk/nme/downloads/ScopingSummary.doc
374. Standing Conference for Community Development (2001) A Non-evaluative
strategic framework for community development. Sheffield: SCCD.
http://www.cdx.org.uk/resources/library/docs/sframepdf.pdf
375. Stanistreet, P. (2006) Ways of seeing further. Adults Non-evaluative
Learning, June, 22-25.
376. Strader, T., Collins, D., & Noe, T. (2000) Building healthy Not CE
individuals, families, and communities: Creating lasting connections.
Prevention in practice library. New York: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
377. Street, P. Scenario workshops: A participatory approach to Not CE
189
sustainable urban living? Futures, 29, 139-158.

378. Summerville, J, & Morris, G. (1998) We know best what we Non-evaluative
need: Local service networks: A community development approach
to work with older people. Kidlington: Anchor Trust. Available from:
URL: http://www.anchor.org.uk/publications_pdfs/we-know-best.pdf
379. Sustrans. From highway space to social space. Active Travel Outside scope of
News, Winter, 6. Available from: URL: review
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/AT/Active%20Travel%20News/I
nteractive%20AT%20News/AT%20News%206%20interactive.pdf
380. Tang, K., & Waters, N. (2005) The internet, GIS, and public Non-evaluative
participation in transportation planning. Progress in Planning, 64, 7-
62.
381. Taylor, S., & Doyle, L. (2003) Learning and skills for Outside scope of
neighbourhood renewal: Final report to the Neighbourhood Renewal review
Unit. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency. Available
from: URL:
http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/user/order.aspx?code=031521&src=
XOWEB&cookie_test=true
382. Team North Huyton intermediate labour market programme. Non-evaluative
Renewal.net case study: North West England. Available from: URL:
study/Teamnorthhuyton.doc
383. Temple, B., Moran, R., Fayas, N., Haboninana, S., McCabe, Not CE
F., Mohamed, Z., Noori, A., & Rahman, N. (2005) Learning to live
together: Developing communities with dispersed refugee people
seeking asylum. York: JRF and the University of Salford. Available
from: URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1859352871.pdf
384. Tenant Participation. The National Housing Federation Non-evaluative
Decent Homes pilot study module 3. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Tenantparticipat
ion.pdf
385. Thake, S. (2001) Building communities, changing lives: The Not CE
contribution of large, independent neighbourhood regeneration
organisations. York: JRF & YPS. Available from: URL:
386. Thom, B., Stimson, G., Harris, S., & Kelly, M. (1997) Local Not CE
action on alcohol problems in England: Ten years on. Drugs-
Education Prevention and Policy, 4, 27-38.
387. Time Banks. Renewal.net How to do it series. Available from: Non-evaluative
URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Toolkit/Timebanks.doc
388. Together We Can (2006) Community assets: The benefits Not CE
and costs of community management and ownership. London: HM
Government. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/505/CommunityAssetsthebenefit
sandcostsofcommunitymanagementandownership_id1502505.pdf
389. Together We Can. (2006) So What? Community engagement Non-evaluative
research in Yorkshire and Humber. Regional forum research digest
no. 1. Available from: URL:
http://www.togetherwecan.info/files/downloads/Reports/Digest%201
%20-%20Final%20Version.pdf
390. Towner, E., Dowswell, T., Mackereth, C., & Jarvis, S. (2001) Not CE
What works in preventing unintentional injuries in children and young
adolescents? An updated systematic review. London: NHS, Health
190
Development Agency. Available from: URL:

http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=502353
391. Towner, E., & Dowswell, T. (2002) Community-based Not CE
childhood injury prevention interventions: What works? Health
Promotion International, 17, 273-284.
392. Towner, E, & Errington, G. (2004) How can injuries in Not CE
children and older people be prevented? Health Evidence Network
Report. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe. Available
from: URL: http://www.euro.who.int/Document/E84938.pdf
393. Training for the voluntary sector. Renewal.net case study: Not CE
study/Trainingvoluntarysector.doc
394. Truman, C. (2000) Development of a community gym: User Not CE
perspectives and process evaluation. Available from: URL:
http://www.library.nhs.uk/musculoskeletal/ViewResource.aspx?resID
=117799&tabID=289&catID=7050
395. The trust for developing communities: Supporting Non-evaluative
neighbourhoods in Brighton and Hove. Renewal.net case study:
South East England. Available from: URL:
study/Trustdevelopingcommunities.doc
396. Turner, C., McClure, R., Nixon, J., & Spinks, A. (2005) Not CE
Community-based programs to promote car seat restraints in
children 0-16 years—A systematic review. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 37, 77-83.
397. Tye, R., & Williams, G. (1994) Urban regeneration and Non-evaluative
central local-government relations—the case of East Manchester.
Progress in Planning, 42, 1-7.
398. Tyler, N., ed. (2002) Accessibility and the bus system: From Not CE
concepts to practice. London: Thomas Telford.
399. Using action research to promote social capital. Renewal.net Non-evaluative
study/Usingactionresearch.doc
400. Wakefield Learning Partnership SRB3 Scheme. (2000) Not CE
Foundations for a competitive economy: Interim evaluation, June
2000. Available from: URL:
http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C920ED13-06CD-4188-
8DF1-6A508025A460/0/evalrepInterim.pdf
401. Walterton and Elgin Community Homes. Renewal.net case Non-evaluative
study/Waltertonelgincommunity.doc
402. Walton, F., Sanderson, I., Botterill, K., & Halliday, S. (2003) Not CE
Job brokerage: Early findings. Research Report 2. Sheffield:
403. Warburton, D. (2005) Is participation too expensive? Town Non-evaluative
and Country Planning, Oct, 74.
404. Warda, L., Tenenbein, M., & Moffatt, M. (1999) House fire Not CE
injury prevention update. Part II. A review of the effectiveness of
preventive interventions. Injury Prevention, 5, 217-225.
405. Watts, J., & Farnell, R. (1999) ‘Sent to Coventry?’ Not CE
191
Challenging exclusion through community-based training and

capacity building initiatives. Local Economy, Aug, 133-143.
406. West, L. (2005) The radical challenge of family learning. Outside scope of
Adults Learning, Feb, 11-13. review
407. Whittaker, J. & Hutchcroft, I. (2002) The role of future search Non-evaluative
in rural regeneration: Process, context and practice. Systems
Research and Behavioral Science, 19, 339-345.
408. Wiggins et al. "Sure Start Plus National Evaluation." Not CE
409. Williams, C., Aldridge, T., Lee, R., Leyshon, A., Thrift, N., & Outside scope of
Tooke, J. (2001) Local Exchange and Trading Schemes (LETS): A review
tool for community renewal? Community, Work & Family, 4, 355-361.
410. The Wrekenton lanterns project. Renewal.net case study: Non-evaluative
study/Wrekentonlanternsproject.doc
411. Wood, M., & Vamplew, C. (1999) Neighbourhood images in Non-evaluative
Teesside: Regeneration or decline? York: JRF and YPS.
412. Woodward, V. (2003) Participation the community work way. Non-evaluative
International Journal of Healthcare Technology & Management, 5, 3-
19.
413. Wright, S. (2004) Child protection in the community: A Outside scope of
community development approach. Child Abuse Review, 13, 384- review
398.
414. Yarnit, M. (2006) Building local initiatives for learning, skills Not CE
and employment: Testbed learning communities reviewed. Leicester:
NIACE and DfES. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/LC/Research/Buildinglocalinitiativ
es.pdf
415. Yarwood, R. (2002) Parish councils, partnership and Not CE
governance: The development of ‘exceptions’ housing in the Malvern
Hills District, England. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 275-291.
416. Young Voices in Regeneration. Renewal.net case study. Non-evaluative
study/Youngvoicesregeneration.doc
192
Appendix 6: Critical appraisal checklists
A: Literature Reviews
Study identification: Checklist completed by:
Author, title, reference, year of Impact Process Experience

publication
Consultation More than consultation
Rich data Thick description ECMS
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
How well was the literature review conducted? Should this literature review be included?
++ + - Yes No
Comments:
CRITERIA
1. Is the literature review organised around, and related to, a specific thesis or research question?
Yes No
Comments:
2. Are the publications reviewed appropriate for the scope of the review?
Appropriate Inappropriate Insufficient detail
Comments:
3. Is the rationale for the search strategy clearly described?
Yes No
Comments:
4. Does the review include a critical analysis of the literature presented, such as a discussion of
strengths and weaknesses?
Yes No
Comments:
5. Does the review cite and discuss evidence from studies that both confirm and disconfirm the
central thesis?
Yes No
Comments:
6. Does the review adopt a systematic/explicit/transparent approach to data extraction/synthesis?
Yes No Unsure
Comments:
7. Is the review well structured, with a clear argument?
193
Yes No
Comments:
Potentially relevant citations:
B: Primary evaluative research

Study identification: Checklist completed by:
Author, title, reference, year of Impact Process Experience

publication
Consultation More than consultation
Rich data Thick description ECMS
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
How well was the study conducted? Should this study be included?
++ + - Yes No
Comments:
CRITERIA
1. An explicit account of theoretical framework and/or a literature review is included.
Yes No Unsure
Comments:
2. The aims and objectives are clearly stated.
Clear Unclear
Comments:
3. The context in which the research was carried out is clearly described and is appropriate.

Comments:
4. The sampling and recruitment processes are clearly described and are appropriate.

Comments:
5. The research methodology, including data collection and data analysis methods, is clearly
described and is appropriate.

Comments:
6. There is evidence of attempts made to establish the reliability and validity of data analysis.
Reliable / Valid Unreliable / Not Valid Unsure

Comments:
194
7. Sufficient original data are presented to mediate between data and interpretation.
Sufficient data Insufficient data

Comments:
Potentially relevant citations:
195
Appendix 7: Studies graded minus for quality
1. Angoy Consultancy. New Deal for Communities faith pilots project. London:
http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=1317
2. Cole, I. (2001) Tenant participation in transition: Issues and trends in the
development of tenant participation in the local authority sector in England.
Housing Research Summary No. 147. London: DETR.
3. DEMOS (2003) Inside out: Rethinking inclusive communities. London:
DEMOS. Available from: URL:
http://www.demos.co.uk/catalogue/insideout_page226.aspx
4. Dibben, P. (2003) Transport, social exclusion and young people in rural
England. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Municipal Engineer,
156, 105-110.
5. Doy, E., Gilbert, D., & Maitland, L. Empowering young people in rural Suffolk.
Home Office Research Study 234. London: Home Office. (2001) Available
from: URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors234.pdf
6. Fitzpatrick, S., Hastings, A., & Kintrea, K. (1998) Including young people in
urban regeneration: A lot to learn? Bristol: Policy Press for JRF.
7. Furbey, R., & Wishart, B. (1996) Training for tenants: ‘Citizens’ and the
enterprise culture. Housing Studies, 11, 251-270.
8. Furbey, R., Dinham, A., Farnell, R., Finneron, D., Wilkinson, G., Howarth, C.,
Hussain, D., & Palmer, S. (2006) Faith as social capital: Connecting or
dividing? Bristol: Policy Press for JRF. Available from: URL:
9. Gustafsson, U., & Driver, S. (2005) Parents, power, and public participation:
Sure Start, an experiment in New Labour governance. Social Policy &
Administration, 39, 528-543.
10. Harrison, C., Munton, R., & Collins, K. (2004) Experimental discursive
spaces: Policy processes, public participation and the greater London
authority. Urban Studies, 41, 903-917.
11. Hemphill, L., McGreal, S., Berry, J., & Watson, S. (2006) Leadership, power,
and multisector urban regeneration partnerships. Urban Studies, 43, 59-80.
12. Hobby, L., & Robinson, J. (2005) Profile of Wirral Healthy Communities
(WHC) partnership project. Research Report No. 100/05. Available from:
URL: http://www.liv.ac.uk/haccru/reports/profile_WHC_2005_final_report.pdf
13. Kintrea, K. (1996) Whose partnership? Community interests in the
regeneration of a Scottish housing scheme. Housing Studies, 11, 287-306.
14. Kirton, A., & Lall, M. (2005) Community champions: Building networks of ICT
users in Newcastle NDC. Research Report No. 50. London: Institute of
Education, University of London. Available from: URL:
15. Lall, M., & Gillborn, D. (2005) Beyond a Colour Blind Approach: Addressing
Black and Minority Ethnic Inclusion in the Education Strand of New Deal for
Communities. Research Report No. 49. London: Institute of Education,
University of London. Available from: URL:
16. Lall, M. (2004) Exclusion from school: Addressing the hidden problem of
teenage pregnancy. Research Report No. 28. Educational Policy Research
Unit. Available from: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ndc/downloads/reports/RR28.pdf
17. Lall, M., Campbell, C., & Gillborn, D. (2004) Parental involvement in
education. Research Report No. 31. Educational Policy Research Unit.
Available from: URL: http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ndc/downloads/reports/RR31.pdf
196
18. Myers, P., Barnes, J., & Brodie, I. (2004) Partnership working in Sure Start
local programmes: Synthesis of early findings from local programme
evaluations. London: NESS. Available from: URL:
http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/documents/synthesisReports/396.pdf
19. Rausch, C., & Gillborn, D. (2003) Black and minority ethnic (BME) inclusion.
Research Report No. 12. London: Institute of Education, University of
London. Available from: URL:
20. Russell, H. (1998) A place for the community? Tyne and Wear Development
Corporation’s approach to regeneration. Bristol: Policy Press for JRF.
21. Smerdon, M., & Robinson, D. (2004) Enduring change: The experience of the
Community Links Social Enterprise Zone: Lessons learnt and next steps.
Bristol: Policy Press for JRF.
22. SQW (2005) Wolverhampton Neighbourhood Management Pilot Programme:
Case Study: Final Report. London: SQW. Available from: URL:
23. Waddington, D. (2004) ‘Making the difference’ in Warsop Vale: The impact of
government regeneration policy and community development on a
Nottinghamshire ex-mining community. Social Policy & Society, 3, 21-31.
24. Williams, C., Stott, M., Hodges, J., & North, P. (1996) New initiatives: An
appraisal of local exchange and trading systems in the United Kingdom. Local
Economy, 11, 259-266.
197
Appendix 8: Studies parked on level of evidence criteria
1. Ashworth, C. (2002) Changing cultures and building shared ownership. New

Initiatives, 256-261.
2. Barraclough, N., Bennington, J., & Green, S. (2004) Delivering Play Spaces in
NDC areas. Research Report 38. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam
3. Breitenbach, E. (1997) Participation in an anti-poverty project. Community
4. Cain, A., & Jones, P. (2003) Using public consultation in developing
Edinburgh's congestion-charging-based transport strategy. Transportation
Finance, Economics and Economic Development 2003 - Planning and
Administration. Washington: Transportation Research Board National
Research Council.
5. Carey, P., & Sutton, S. (2004) Community development through participatory
arts: lessons learned from a community arts and regeneration project in South
Liverpool. Community Development Journal, 39, 123-134.
6. Cemlyn, S., Fahmy, E., & Gordon, D. (2005) Poverty, neighbourhood renewal
and the voluntary and community sector in West Cornwall. Community
7. Cornwall, A., Lall, P., Kennedy, K., & Owen, F. (2003) Putting partnership into
practice: Participatory wellbeing assessment on a south London housing
estate. Health Expectations, 6, 30-43.
8. Dale, J. (1996) The impact of councillors on the process of participation.
Applied Community Studies, 2, 97-108.
9. Foley, P., & Martin, S. (2000) Perceptions of community led regeneration:
Community and central government viewpoints. Regional Studies, 34, 783-
787.
10. Greig, S., Parry, N., & Rimmington, B. (2004) Promoting sustainable
regeneration: Learning from a case study in participatory HIA. Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, 24, 255-267.
11. Hayton, K. (1996) A critical examination of the role of community business in
urban regeneration. Town Planning Review, 67, 1-20.
12. Laverack, G. (2006) Using a ‘domains’ approach to build community
empowerment. Community Development Journal, 41, 4-12.
13. ODPM. (2005) Improving delivery of mainstream services in deprived areas—
The role of community involvement. Research Report 16. London: ODPM.
Available from: URL: http://www.sqw.co.uk/pdfs/Improving-Delivery-of-
Mainstream-Services-in-Deprived-Areas.pdf
14. Silburn, R., Lucas, D., Page, R., & Hanna, L. (1999) Neighbourhood images
in Nottingham: Social cohesion and neighbourhood change. York: JRF &
YPS.
15. Sullivan, H., Knops, A., Barnes, M., & Newman, J. (2004) Central-local
relations in an era of multi-level governance: The case of public participation
policy in England, 1997-2001. Local Government Studies, 30, 245-265.
16. Sullivan, H., Downe, J., Entwistle, T., & Sweeting, D. (2006) The three
challenges of community leadership. Local Government Studies, 32, 389-508.
17. Temple, B., & Steele, A. (2004) Injustices of engagement: Issues in housing
needs assessments with minority ethnic communities. Housing Studies, 19,
541-556
18. Thake, S. (1995) Staying the course: The role and structures of community
regeneration organisations. York: JRF & YPS.
19. Warwick-Booth, Louise (2006) Community-based research: A step on the
path to social inclusion? Yorkshire and Humber Regional Review, 16, 23-24.
198
20. Williams, C. (1996) Local purchasing schemes and rural development: An

evaluation of LETS. Journal of Rural Studies, 12, 231-244.
199
Appendix 9: Data extracted studies
Aldbourne Associates and IRIS Consulting. (2003) Interim evaluation of tenant

participation compacts. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available
from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/152/InterimEvaluationofTenantParticipation
CompactsFullReportPDF361Kb_id1154152.pdf
Anastacio, J., Gidley, B., Hart, L., Keith, M., Mayo, M., and Kowarzik, U. (2000).
Reflecting realities: Participants’ perspectives on integrated communities and
sustainable development. Bristol: Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree
Foundation.
Attree, P. (2004) 'It was like my little acorn, and it's going to grow into a big tree': A
qualitative study of a community support project. Health and Social Care in the
Community, 12, 155-161.
Barnes, M., Newman, J., Knops, A., & Sullivan, H. (2003) Constituting 'the public' in
public participation. Public Administration, 81, 379-399.
Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Matka, E. (2004) The development of collaborative
capacity in Health Action Zones: A final report from the national evaluation.
Birmingham: The University of Birmingham. Available from: URL:
http://www.socialresearch.bham.ac.uk/downloads/HAZ_FINAL_REPORT_JAN_
2004_11.pdf
Bauld, L., Judge, K., Barnes, M., Benzeval, M., Mackenzie, M., & Sullivan, H. (2005)
Promoting social change: The experience of health action zones in England.
Journal of Social Policy, 35, 427-445.
Beatty, C., Dibbens, C., Goyder, E., Grimsley, M., Manning, J., Peters, J., et al.
(2005) NDC national evaluation: Health of NDC residents: Who has the most to
gain? Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University. Available from: URL:
http://ndcevaluation.adc.shu.ac.uk/ndcevaluation/Documents/Health%20of%20
NDC%20residents.pdf
Beresford, P., & Hoban, M. (2005) Effective participation in anti-poverty and

regeneration work and research. York: The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and
Brunel University. Available from: URL:
Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2005) Shared visions, unholy alliances: Power,
governance and deliberative processes in local transport planning. Urban
Studies, 42, 2123-2144.
Birchall, J., & Simmons, R. (2004) User power: the participation of users in public
services. London: National Consumer Council. Available from: URL:
http://www.ncc.org.uk/publicservices/user_power.pdf
Bolam, B., McLean, C., Pennington, A., & Gillies, P. (2006) Using new media to build
social capital for health—A qualitative process evaluation study of participation
in the CityNet project. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 297-308.
Boyle, D., Clark, S., & Burns, S. (2006) Hidden work: Co-production by people
outside paid employment. York: The new economics foundation and the Joseph
200
Rowntree Foundation. Available from: URL:

Cairncross, L., Morrell, C., Darke, J., & Brownill, S. (2002) Tenants managing: an
evaluation of tenant management organisations in England. London: Office of
the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/168/TenantsManagingAnevaluationofTena
ntManagementOrganisationsinEnglandPDF443Kb_id1154168.pdf
Callard, F., & Friedli, L. (2005) Imagine East Greenwich: A qualitative evaluation.
Independent Photography. Available from: URL:
http://www.ieg.org.uk/evaluation.html
Carr-Hill, R. (2003) Neighbourhood warden surveys, early 2002 and mid-2003:

secondary analysis of cohort members only. London: ODPM, NOP.
Chau, R.C.M. (2007) The involvement of Chinese older people in policy and practice:
Aspirations and expectations. York: University of Sheffield and the Joseph
Rowntree Foundation. Available from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1952-chinese-older-people.pdf
Chouhan, K., & Lusane, C. (2004) Black voluntary and community sector funding: Its
impact on civic engagement and capacity building. York: Joseph Rowntree
Foundation. Available from: URL:
Church, C., & Elster, J. (2002) Thinking locally, acting nationally: lessons for national
policy from work on local sustainability. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Available from: URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1842631381.pdf
Cole, I., Hickman, P., & McCoulough, E. (2004) The involvement of NDC residents in
the formulation of strategies to tackle low demand and unpopular housing.
Research Report 40. The Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research,
Sheffield Hallam University. Available from: URL:
Cole, I., & Smith, Y. (1996) From estate action to estate agreement. York: The
Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Policy Press.
Craig, G., Taylor, M., Bloor, Wilkinson, M., Bloor, C., Munro, S., & Syed, A. (2002)
Contract or trust? The role of compacts in local governance. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation. [I]
del Tufo, S., & Gaster, L. (2002) Evaluation of the commission on poverty,
participation, and power. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and YPS.
Available from: URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1842630822.pdf
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Neighbourhood

management: An overview of the 2003 and 2006 Round 1 Pathfinder
household surveys. Research Report 28. London: Department of Communities
and Local Government, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. Available from: URL:
http://www.sqw.co.uk/nme/downloads/NRURep28-
R1SurveyOverviewReport.pdf
201
EDuce, Ltd. (2005) Seeking the Lessons: Skills and Knowledge Programme
Evaluation. Research Report 19. London: EDuce, Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister. Available from: URL:
http://www.eukn.org/binaries/greatbritain/bulk/research/2006/12/seeking-the-
lessons.pdf
Edwards, C. (2002) Inclusion in regeneration: a place for disabled people? Urban

Studies, 38, 267-286.
Gaster, L., & Crossley, R. (2000) Community development: Making a difference in

social housing. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and YPS. Available from:
GFK/NOP. (2006) National Evaluation of Neighbourhood Management 06:

Programme Level. Available from: URL: https://survey.nop.co.uk/nme/
Goodlad, R., Docherty, I., & Paddison, R. (2003) Responsible participation and
housing: Restoring democratic theory to the scene. Housing Studies
Association, Autumn Conference. Available from: URL:
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/chp/hsa/papers/autumn03/Goodlad.pdf
Goodlad, R., Burton, P., & Croft, J. (2005) Effectiveness at what? The processes and
impact of community involvement in area-based initiatives. Environment and
Planning C-Government and Policy, 23, 923-938.
Grimsley, M., Hickman, P., Lawless, P., Manning, J., & Wilson, I. (2005) Community
Involvement and Social Capital. Sheffield: Centre for Regional Economic and
Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University.
Gunn, R. (2005) Young people’s participation in social services policy making.

Research Policy and Planning, 23, 127-137. Available from: URL:
http://www.ssrg.org.uk/publications/rpp/2005/issue3/article1.pdf
Hills, D., Elliot, E., Kowarzik, U., Sullivan, F., Stern, E., Platt, S., Boydell, L., Popay,
J., et al. (2007) The Evaluation of the Big Lottery Fund Healthy Living Centres
Programme. London: Tavistock Institute and Bridge Consortium.
Johnstone, D., & Campbell-Jones, C. (2003) Skills for regeneration: Learning by

community champions. London: Educe and the Department for Education and
Skills. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Skillsregenerationlearning.
pdf
Johnstone, D., Johnstone, S., Garrard, S., Campbell-Jones, C., & Fordham, G.
(2005) Neighbourhood Renewal Advisers: Skills and Knowledge Programme
Evaluation Background Report 3. London: Educe and the Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
Lawless, P. (2004A) Locating and explaining area-based urban initiatives: New deal
for communities in England. Environment and Planning C—Government and
Policy, 22, 383-399.
Lawless, P., ed. (2004B) New Deal for Communities: The national evaluation. The
programme wide annual report 2003/04. Research Report 12. Sheffield: Centre
202
for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University, and
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from:
http://www.yorkshirefutures.co.uk/siteassets/documents/YorkshireFutures/1/5/1
524FE0B-4DE4-4FB5-B732-
2C3671A581D9/New%20deal%20for%20communities.pdf
Lloyd, N., O’Brien, M., & Lewis, C., eds. (2005) Fathers in Sure Start. London:
National Evaluation of Sure Start and Institute for the Study of Children,
Families, and Social Issues, University of London. Available from: URL:
http://www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/people/uploads/CharlieLewis20030929T175009.p
df
Matarasso, F. (1997) Use or ornament? The social impact of participation in the arts.
Comedia.
Matthews, H. (2001) Citizenship, youth councils and young people's participation.

Journal of Youth Studies, 4, 299-318.
McArthur, A., McGregor, A. & Hastings, A. (1996) Less than equal? community
organization and estate regeneration partnership. Joseph Rowntree
Foundation/Policy Press.
McInroy, N., & MacDonald, S. (2005) From community garden to Westminster: Active
citizenship and the role of public space. Manchester: Centre for Local Economic
Strategies. Available from: URL:
http://www.togetherwecan.info/files/downloads/Reports/Public%20Spaces%20A
c%20report%20final%20pdf.pdf
Melhuish, E., Belsky, J., & Leyland, A. (2005) National evaluation of SureStart: Early
impacts of SureStart local programmes on children and families. Report 13.
London: Dfes. Available from: URL:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/NESS2005FR013.pdf
Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Knops, A. (2004) Public participation and
collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy, 33, 203-233.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2004A) Evaluation of the residents' consultancy
pilots initiative. Research Report 10. London: Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister. Available from: URL: http://www.eukn.org/binaries/united-
kingdom/bulk/practice/2006/5/evaluationresidentsconsultancy.pdf
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2004B) Neighbourhood wardens scheme

evaluation. Research Report 8. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Neighbourhoodwardenssc
heme.pdf
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2005A) New Deal for Communities 2001-2005:
An interim evaluation. Research Report 17. London: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam
University, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Newdealevaluation2005.p
df
203
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister & Neighbourhood Renewal Unit. (2005B) Views
of New Deal for Communities – focus group report. London: Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ndc/ndc_reports_01.htm
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2006A) National evaluation of local strategic
partnerships: Formative evaluation and action research programme 2002-2005.
London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/5/EvaluationofLocalStrategicPartnershipsFi
nalReportPDF1070Kb_id1163005.pdf
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2006B) Neighbourhood management: At the

turning point?: Programme review 2005-2006. Research Report 23. London:
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
http://www.sqwgroup.com/nme/downloads/NM%2005-
06%20Annual%20Review%20-%20Key%20Findings%20(Published).pdf
Osborne, S., Beattie, R., & Williamson, A. (2002) Community involvement in rural
regeneration partnerships in the UK: Evidence from England, Northern Ireland
and Scotland. Bristol: The Policy Press and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Pawson, H., Fancy, C., Morgan, J., & Munro, M. (2005) Learning Lessons from the
Estates Renewal Challenge Fund. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/677/LearningLessonsfromtheEstatesRene
walChallengeFundPDF448Kb_id1152677.pdf
Rhodes, J., Tyler, P., & Brennan, A. (2005) Assessing the effect of area based
initiatives on local area outcomes: Some thoughts based on national evaluation
of the Single Regeneration Budget. Urban Studies, 42, 1919-1946.
Russell, H. (2005) Voluntary and Community Sector Engagement in Local Strategic

Partnerships: National Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships Issues Paper.
London: Department of Transport and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/336/LSPEvaluationIssuesPaperVoluntarya
ndCommunitySectorEngagementinLocalStrategicPab_id1162336.pdf
Seyfang, G. (2003) Growing cohesive communities one favour at a time: Social

inclusion, active citizenship and time banks. International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research, 27, 699-706.
Seyfang, G., & Smith, K. (2002) The time of our lives: Using time banking for
neighbourhood renewal and community capacity building. London: New
Economics Foundation.
Shiner, M., Thom, B., MacGregor, S., Gordon, D., & Bayley, M. (2004) Exploring
community responses to drugs. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and
London School of Economics and Political Science. Available from: URL:
Social Development Direct. (2003) Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme Evaluation:

participatory endline report. London, SD Direct.
204
Social Development Direct. (2004) Neighbourhood Wardens Scheme Evaluation:

final report. London, SD Direct.
Sullivan, H., & Howard, J. (2005) Below the Local Strategic Partnership: National
Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships Issues Paper. London: Department
of Transport and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Belowlocalstrategic.pdf
Sustainable Development Commission. (2003) Mainstreaming sustainable

regeneration. London: Sustainable Development Commission. Available from:
URL: http://www.sd-
commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/031201%20Mainstreaming%20sust
ainable%20regeneration%20-%20a%20call%20to%20action%20-
%20part%201.pdf
Taylor, M., Purdue, D., Carlton, N., Mackridge, R., Syed, A., et al. (2005) Making
connections: An evaluation of the community participation programmes.
Research Report 15. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Available
from: URL: http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/publications.asp?did=1418
Taylor, M (2006) Communities in partnership: developing a strategic voice, Social

Policy and Society;5:2:269-279.
Tunstall, R. (2001) Devolution and user participation in public services: How they
work and what they do. Urban Studies, 38, 2495-2514.
Tunstill, J., Meadows, P., Allnock, D., Akhurst, S., Chrysanthous, J., Garbers, C.,
Morley, A., & Van de Velde, T. (2005) Implementing Sure Start local
programmes: An in-depth study. London: The National Evaluation of Sure Start.
http://www.ness.bbk.ac.uk/documents/activities/implementation/861.pdf (See
also Tunstill, J., Allnock, D., Akhurst, S., & Garbers, C. (2005) Sure Start local
programmes: Implications of case study data from the national evaluation of
Sure Start. Children and Society, 19, 158-171.)
Watson, A., Owen, G., Crowder, M., & Ellis, B. (2004) Evaluation of the community
champions fund. London: ASW Consulting, DfES. Available from: URL:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR550.pdf
Webster, J., & Johnson, V. (2000) Reaching the parts…Community mapping:

Working together to tackle social exclusion and food poverty. London: Sustain.
Available from: URL: http://www.sustainweb.org/pdf/pov_reach.pdf
Williams, M. (2004) Discursive democracy and new labour: Five ways in which
decision-makers manage citizen agendas in public participation initiatives
Sociological Research Online 2004, 9. Available from: URL:
http://www.swetswise.com/swetsfo/swproxy?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.socres
online.org.uk%2F9%2F3%2Fwilliams.html&ts=1167747713489&cs=160856713
1
Williamson, A., Beattie, R., & Osborne, S. (2004) Addressing fragmentation and
social exclusion through community involvement in rural regeneration
partnerships: Evidence from the Northern Ireland experience. Policy and
Politics, 31, 351-369.
205
Winters, M., & Patel, K. (2003) The Department of Health's Black and Minority Ethnic
drug misuse needs assessment project. Centre for Ethnicity and Health,
UCLAN and the Department of Health. Available from: URL:
http://www.uclan.ac.uk/facs/health/ethnicity/reports/documents/rep1comeng1.p
df
Ziersch, A.M., & Baum, F.E. (2004) Involvement in civil society groups: is it good for
your health? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 493-500.
Reviews searched for references:
Andrews, R., Cowell, R., Downe, J., & Martin, S. (2006) Supporting Effective
Citizenship at Local Authority Level: background research for good practice
guidelines Promoting Effective Citizenship and Community Empowerment.
London, Department for Communities and Local Government.
Burton, P., Croft, J., Hastings, A., Slater, T., Goodlad, R., Abbott, J., Macdonald, G.
(2004) What Works in Community Involvement in Area-based Initiatives? A
systematic review of the literature. London, Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr5304.pdf
Chanan, G. (2003) Searching For Solid Foundations. London, Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/547/CommunityInvolvementandUrbanPolic
yfullreportPDF520Kb_id1128547.pdf
Dabinett, G., Lawless, P., Tyler, P., & Rhodes, J. (1999) A review of the evidence
base for regeneration. London: Department of the Environment, Transport, and
the Regions.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minster. (2005) Improving Delivery of Mainstream

Services in Deprived Areas – the role of community involvement. Research
Report 16. London, Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.sqw.co.uk/pdfs/Improving-Delivery-of-Mainstream-Services-in-
Deprived-Areas.pdf
Rogers, B., Robinson, E. (2004) The benefits of community engagement: a review of

the evidence. London, Home Office Active Citizenship Centre. Available from:
URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/510/TheBenefitsofCommunityEngagement
Areviewoftheevidence_id1502510.pdf
206
Appendix 10: Unretrieved studies
1. (1992) Gateway Project tackles unemployment and homelessness. Social

Housing, 4.
2. (1997) Citizens' juries. Laria News, Jan.
3. (2001) Women: A key to healthy communities. Community Health UK Action,
54.
4. (2002) A picture tells a thousand words: Virtual reality and computer
animation for community consultation. IT for Housing, 17.
5. (2002) Forth Sector. LEDIS Initiative A767.
6. (2002) Hip hip hooray! (Sheltered Housing Awards). Property People, 335.
7. (2002) Power to the people (Fernhill Youth Project). Right Angle, Winter.
8. Allen, L., & Martin, J. (2002) Governing education for community
regeneration. London: New Local Government Network.
9. Alsop, R., Clisby, S., Craig, G. (2001) Young, urban and female: Young
women and city regeneration. London: YWCA.
10. Assi, E. (2002) Limitations to community involvement in rehabilitation of
historic areas. In Brebbia, C., Martinduque, J., & Wadhwa, L. (Eds.)
Sustainable City li: Urban Regeneration and Sustainability. Southampton: Wit
Press.
11. Bannister, J., & Dillane, J. (2005) Communities That Care: An evaluation of
the Scottish pilot programme. Research Findings No 79. Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive.
12. Bauld, L. & Judge, K. (Eds.) (2002) Learning from Health Action Zones.
Chichester: Aeneas Press.
13. Brown, A. (2002) Community involvement: Findings from Working for
Communities. Development Department Research Programme Research
Findings No. 137. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
14. Brownill, S., & Darke, J. (1998) Rich mix: Inclusive strategies for urban
regeneration. Bristol: Policy Press for JRF.
15. Budden, C. (2003) A revealing look in the mirror (community development).
New Start, 14 Feb.
16. Bunce, C. Beacon of success. Nursing Times, 97, 22-24.
17. Burwood, S. (2002) Scrutinising success: Plymouth (community renewal).
Regeneration and Renewal, 18 Oct.
18. Business in the Community, Durham University, & Tioxide UK. (1994)
Community oracle: Revealing good practice in community enterprise and
partnership for the social economy.
19. Cadbury, R. (1990) Community planning: History and future. Women and the
Built Environment, No. 15/16.
20. Cameron, A., Harrison, L., Burton, P., & Marsh, A. (2001) Crossing the
housing and care divide: Integrating housing and social care for older people.
Housing Care and Support, 4, 15-18.
21. Cantle, T. (2005) Stick or bust. New Start, Nov.
22. Carley, M. (1995) The bigger picture: Organising for sustainable urban
regeneration. Town and Country Planning, 65.
23. CDF. (1992) Trends in communities and community development: A report for
signatories to the community investment charter. London: CDF.
24. Chanan, G. (2000) Capacity building county-wide: 'VOLCAAN' 2000.
Evaluation report. London: CDF.
25. Chanan, G., & Vos, K. (1990) Social change and local action: Coping with
disadvantage in urban areas. EFILWC & OOPEC.
207
26. Chapman, M., Kirk, K., & Carley, M. (2001) Community participation in social
inclusion partnerships. Development Department Research Programme
Research Findings No. 117. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
27. Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland & Scottish Council Foundation.
(2000) Beyond disappointment: Building better communities. Edinburgh:
CIHIS.
28. Chatterjee, P., & Bailey, D. (1993) False empowerment: Lessons from three
sociological autopsies of community action. Case Analysis, 3, 113-131.
29. Chelliah, R. (1995) Consulting and involving the public: Good practice in local
authorities: A report. London: Local Government Information Unit.
30. Church, C., Cade, A., Grant, A. (1998) An environment for everyone: Social
exclusion, poverty and environmental action. London: CDF.
31. Civil Renewal Unit & The Home Office. (2003) Building civil renewal: A review
of government support for community capacity building proposals for change.
London: Home Office.
32. Clark, D., and Southern, R. (2006) Comparing institutional designs for
neighbourhood renewal: Neighbourhood management in Britain and the
regies de quartier in France. Policy and Politics, 34, 173-191.
33. Clark, S. (2000) Learning curve (arts and disability). MailOut, Aug/Sep.
34. Clark, R., Rennie, R., Delap, C., & Coombe, V. (2000) Using people's juries in
social inclusion partnerships: Guidance for SIPs. Edinburgh: Scottish
Executive Central Research Unit.
35. Centre for Local Economic Strategies. (2002) Investing in the community:
Irwell Valley Housing Association. CLES case study No 2. CLES.
36. Coaffee, J., & Healey, P. (2003) 'My voice, my place': Tracking
transformations in urban governance. Urban Studies, 40, 1979-1999.
37. Cole, M. (2006) Evaluating the impact of community appraisals: Some
lessons from south-west England. Policy and Politics, 34, 51-68.
38. Coleman, J. (1999) Compassion, solidarity and empowerment: The ethical
contribution of religion to society. Social Thought, 19, 7-20.
39. Coleman, R., & Bell, L. (1999) Consultation can be effective—and fun too.
LGIU Briefing, Dec.
40. Colnutt, B., & Tansley, S. (1990) Inner city regeneration: A local authority
perspective. First year report of the CLES monitoring project on Urban
Development Corporations. CLES.
41. Communities that Care. (1997) Communities That Care (UK): A new kind of
prevention programme. London: CtC.
42. Cooper, C., & Hawtin, M. (Eds.) (1997) Housing, community and conflict:
Understanding resident 'involvement.' Aldershot: Arena.
43. Cope, H. (2005) Housing associations and social enterprise: Their role and
potential in the South East region. SEEDA & NHF South East.
44. Craig, L. (2003) Linked work and training trust central. LEDIS Initiative A802.
45. Craig, G. (1994) Poverty and anti-poverty work in Scotland: A review of
policy, practice and issues. Glasgow: Strathclyde Poverty Alliance.
46. Crawley, J. (2001) Changing the future: Tackling rural poverty and social
exclusion through the work of a community foundation. London: CFN.
47. Crook, J. (2005) Regional development agencies and black communities.
Race and Regeneration, Summer/Autumn.
48. Cumberbatch, S. (2005) Residents find a safer way. Surveyor, 20 Jan.
49. Davis, R., Lurigio, A., & Rosenbaum, D. (1993) Drugs and the community:
Involving community residents in combatting the sale of illegal drugs.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
50. Day, P., & Harris, K. (1997) Down-to-earth vision: Community based IT
initiatives and social inclusion. London: IBM & CDF.
208
51. Dayson, C., Paterson, B., Conaty, P. (2001) Investing in people and land:
Sowing the seeds for rural regeneration. Salford: University of Salford.
52. Dearing, J. (2003) The state of the art and the state of the science of
community organizing. In Thompson, T., Dorsey, A., Miller, K., & Parrott, R.
(Eds.) Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
53. DETR. (1998) Enhancing public participation in local government: A research
report. London: DETR.
54. DETR. (1999) Regenerating London's Docklands. London: DETR.
55. DETR & Cambridge Policy Consultants. (1998) Regenerating London's
Docklands: Technical report. London: DETR.
56. DETR & PriceWaterhouse Cooper. (1993) Evaluation of Urban Development
Grant, Urban Regeneration Grant and City Grant. London: The Stationery
Office.
57. Disson, J. (1998) Housing Associations and Housing Plus: The impact of
housing association investment on municipal housing estates in England.
International Sociological Association.
58. Dixon, R. (2005) Common ground: How to... approach community cohesion
work with young people. New Start, 30 Sep.
59. Dobson, J. (2006) Agents of change (housing association). New Start, 20
Jan.
60. Dowswell, T., Wilkin, D., Kirk, S., & Banks-Smith, J. (2002) Primary care
groups and trusts: A threat or an opportunity for the development of
community-based nursing in England? Journal of Nursing Management, 10,
283-289.
61. Duffy, J., & Omwenga, R. (2002) Strategic communications can enhance
Brownfield’s public participation. In Brebbia, C., Almorza, D., & Klapperich, H.
(Eds.) Brownfield sites: Assessment, rehabilitation and development.
Southampton, Wit Press.
62. Ellis, A. (2004) No overall control: Experiencing community development in
rural Britain. Manchester: Centre for Applied Social Research, University of
Manchester.
63. Evans, R., & Long, D. (2000) Estate-based regeneration in England: Lessons
from Housing Action Trusts. Housing Studies, 15, 301-317.
64. Fordham, G. (1995) Made to last: Creating sustainable neighbourhood and
estate regeneration. York: JRF.
65. Fordham, G., Kemp, R., & Crowsley, P. (1997) Going the extra mile:
Implementing Housing Plus on five London housing association estates. York:
JRF.
66. Francis, D., Grayson, J., & Henderson, P. (2002) Rich seam: Community
development in coalfield communities. London: CDF.
67. Garnett, T. (1999) City harvest: The feasibility of growing more food in
London. London: Sustain.
68. Geddes, M. (1997) Partnership against poverty and exclusion: Local
regeneration strategies and excluded communities in the UK. Bristol: Policy
Press.
69. Geddes, M., et al. (1994) Special issue: Poverty, the local economy and local
anti-poverty initiatives. Local Economy, 9.
70. Gibson, T. (1995) The real Planning for Real. Town and Country Planning,
64, 187-9.
71. Goodlad, R. (1996) Housing policy change and the dilemmas of community
participation. Scottish Journal of Community Work and Development, 1.
72. Goodlad, R., Hamilton, C., & Taylor, P. (2002) Not just a treat: Arts and social
inclusion—A report to the Scottish Arts Council. Summary report. Glasgow:
Centre for Cultural Policy Studies, University of Glasgow.
209
73. Gorbals Social Inclusion Partnership. (2004) Gorbals SIP independent

evaluation.
74. Goss, S. & Miller, C. (1995) From margin to mainstream: Developing user and
carer-centred community care. York: JRF.
75. Graham, S. (2000) Community centred (housing regeneration). Housing
Today, 26 May.
76. Green, G., Grimsley, M., & Stafford, B. (2005) The dynamics of
neighbourhood sustainability. York: JRF.
77. Greenhalgh, L. (1998) Habitat: Re-connecting housing to city policy.
Leicester: Comedia and DEMOS.
78. Grimsley, M., Meehan, A., & Tan, A. (2005) Designing for social inclusion:
Computer mediation of trust relations between citizens and public service
providers. In Fincher, S., Markopoulos, P., Moore, D., & Ruddle, R. (Eds.)
People and Computers Xviii—Design for Life. Godalming: Springer-Verlag.
79. Guinness Trust Group & Centre for Social Action. (2000) Youth agenda: A
good practice guide to working with young people on their home ground.
Leicester: De Montfort University.
80. HACAS Chapman Hendy. (2002) A picture tells a thousand words:
Community empowerment for regeneration - Virtual reality and computer
animation. Teesside: Virtual Reality Centre, University of Teesside.
81. Hackney Council Estate Management and Development. (2000) Choosing
change: Hackney's estate regeneration strategy.
82. Hague, C. (1990) The development and politics of tenant participation in
British council housing. Housing Studies, 5, 242-256.
83. Hague, H. (2005) It's good to talk but does anyone listen? (community
engagement). London Housing, Jun.
84. Haiman, D. (1998) Housing as a means of community led investment: Limited
equity cooperatives. Conference paper. International Sociological
Association.
85. Harbridge, E., & Crowhurst, G. (1998) How Meriden Street tenants run their
own show. Community Living, 11, 8-9.
86. Harrison, M. (1991) Achievements and options: Black and minority ethnic
housing organisations in action. Leeds: Armley.
87. Harrison, M. (1994) Housing empowerment, minority ethnic organisations,
and public policy in the UK. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 3, 29-39.
88. Hart, J. (1998) The rural housing trust: Providing village homes for village
people. Rural Focus, Autumn.
89. Hart, R. (1997) Children's participation: The theory and practice of involving
young citizens in community development and environmental care. London:
Earthscan.
90. Hashagen, S. (1998) Strengthening communities: Tackling health inequalities
through community action.
91. Hastings, G., Hughes, K., Lawther, S., & Lowry, R. (1998) The role of the
public in water fluoridation: Public health champions or anti-fluoridation
freedom fighters? British Dental Journal, 184, 39-41.
92. Hatchett, W. (1998) Village ways (urban villages). Housing, 34, May.
93. Hayton, K. (1995) Community involvement in economic regeneration—
Lessons from North East England. Community Development Journal, 30,
169-79.
94. Hellard, J. (2002) It's about getting engaged. Property People, 362, 21 Nov.
95. Henderson, P. (2002) Social inclusion and citizenship in Europe: The
contribution of community development. The Hague: Dr. Gradus Hendriks
Stichting.
96. Henderson, P., & Salmon, H. (1999) A community development perspective
on local governance. Local Governance, 25, Summer.
210
97. Henderson, P., & Salmon, H. (2001) Social exclusion and community
development. London: CDF.
98. Hicks, A. (2001) Institutions and civic participation: The case of community
involvement in program decision-making at a community centre. Dissertation
Abstracts International A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 62, 2253-A.
99. Hill, R. (2000) Healthy Living Centres: Progress and partnership. Community
Health Action, 52.
100. Hinks, N. (2003) Teenage picks. Community Care, 7 Aug.
101. Holden, S., & Craig, G. (2002) Engaging communities in the Hull/East Riding
Health Action Zone: the role of community development in addressing health
inequalities. In Bauld, L. & Judge, K. (Eds.) Learning from Health Action
Zones. Chichester: Aeneas Press.
102. Holmes, A. (1992) Limbering up: community empowerment on peripheral
estates. RIPE.
103. House of Commons. (2002) The effectiveness of government regeneration
initiatives: Memoranda submitted to the Urban Affairs Sub-Committee.
London: ODPM.
104. Housing Corporation. (1997) A Housing Plus approach to achieving
sustainable communities. London: Housing Corporation.
105. Houston, M. Evaluation of the Sure Start Community Development Initiative:
Harold Hill & Marks Gate.
106. Hudson, H., et al. (1999) Making LETS work in low income areas. Local
economy programme 1.
107. Hugill, B. (2001) Putting our future in faith (faith groups and regeneration).
Regeneration and Renewal, 1 Jun.
108. Hunt, S. (1995) Volunteers are beating burglars. Association of District
Councils Review, May/Jun.
109. Hurley, T., & Duxbury, D. (1999) Engaging disaffected young people in
environmental regeneration: A Groundwork activity report. London:
Groundwork.
110. Ingham, S., et al. (1999) Planning and participation. Streetwise, 9.
111. Involving local people in improving public services: Lessons from Salford
SARP.
112. Irwin, D. (2003) The Flax Trust. LEDIS Updated Initiative A501.
113. Ivers, V., & Granville, G. (1995) SCIPSHA Programme (Senior Citizens
Involved in Public Services, Health and Advocacy). Interim report 11.
114. Jacobs, B. (2002) Theories of change and community involvement in North
Staffordshire Health Action Zone. In Bauld, L. & Judge, K. (Eds.) (2002)
Learning from Health Action Zones. Chichester: Aeneas Press.
115. Jacobs, K. (2003) Creative force for change (education). Inclusion, Summer.
116. Janzon, K. (1994) Developing community care for localities.
117. Janzon, K., & Oldman, H. Case study 16: Developing community care plans
for localities.
118. Jolley, R., & Perry, J. (2004) What works: New trends in social housing
practice. Roof, Jul/Aug.
119. Jones, M., et al. (2004) Making healthy living sustainable. Community Health
UK Action, 63.
120. Jones, N., & Porteus, J. (1999) Working with older people: A community
development approach. Housing, Care and Support.
121. Jones, P. (2006) Giving credit where it's due: Promoting financial inclusion
through quality credit unions. Local Economy, Feb.
122. Jones, S. (2005) A partnership for learners and citizens. Update, Sep.
123. JRF. (1996) A route to opportunity—younger people, older people,
unemployed people, black people, and disabled people. Five booklets.
London: National Centre for Volunteering.
211
124. King, F. (2000) Growing a sustainable community. SUN Dial, Summer.

125. Land and Urban Analysis Ltd. (1990) Community businesses: Case studies of
good practice in urban regeneration. London: Department of the Environment.
126. Landor, J. (2006) Out of the frying pan (housing transfers). Regeneration and
Renewal, 5 May.
127. Landry, C., & Matarasso, F. (1996) The art of regeneration: Urban renewal
through cultural activity. York: JRF.
128. Lawrence, L. (1999) Empowerment to employment. Journal of Lifelong
Learning Initiatives, Apr.
129. Lemos, G., & Goodby, G. (1999) A new spirit of community: Developing
mutual aid at Byron Street Bradford 3. Bradford: Manningham Housing
Association.
130. Levett, R. (1995) Dear Roger. Local Environment News, Sep.
131. Lloyd, B. (2000) Networking to add value. Welsh Housing Quarterly, Summer.
132. Local Government Agency. (1997) Drugs and community safety: The
development of strategies. London: Local Government Management Board.
133. Lochead, T., & Thoms, G. (2001) Communities in business: Developing a
self-sustaining project for homeless people in Glasgow. Journal of Community
Work and Development, Spring.
134. Logie, D. (1997) Community participation in rural housing. Scottish Homes
working paper.
135. London Churches Group for Social Action & Greater London Enterprise.
(2002) Neighbourhood renewal in London: The role of faith communities.
London: GLE.
136. Lucas, K., & Ross, A. (1999) As long as a piece of string: Exploring the links
between sustainable development and social exclusion. Local Environment
News, Oct.
137. Macauley, A. (2003) Points mean prizes (rewarding tenants). New Start, 23
May.
138. Macauley, A. (2004) The heart of the matter (community-led regeneration).
New Start, 12 Nov.
139. Macintosh, A., & Smith, E. (2002) Citizen participation in public affairs. In
Traumuller, R., & Lenk, K. (Eds.) Electronic Government Proceedings. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
140. Mackay, D. (1996) We did it ourselves: An account of the Western Isles
community education project 1977-1992. Early childhood development:
Practice and reflections No. 9. The Hague: Bernard van Leer.
141. Maguire, K., & Truscott, F. (2006) Active governance: The value added by
community involvement in governance through local strategic partnerships.
York: JRF.
142. Manor and Castle Development Trust. (2001) Community economic
development action plan.
143. Marsh, G. (1999) The community of circumstance—A tale of three cities:
Community participation in St. Kilda, Knox, and Lewisham. Research in
Community Sociology, 9, 65-86.
144. Matthews, A. (1999) More than a landlord. London Housing News, Jul/Aug.
145. McAdam, S. (2000) Base neighbourhood strategies on residents' visions.
Urban Environment Today.
146. McArthur, A., Hastings, A., & McGregor, A. (1994) An evaluation of
community involvement in the Whitfield Partnership. Edinburgh: Scottish
Office.
147. McClintock, H., & Jalloh, S. (1996) Process or product? Surveyor, 23 May.
148. McGough, B. Community consultation and 'living at home' in Cheadle.
212
149. McGregor, A., Ferguson, Z., Fitzpatrick, I., McConnachie, M., & Richmond, K.
(1997) Bridging the jobs gap: An evaluation of the Wise Group and the
intermediate labour market. York: JRF & YPS.
150. McKendrick, J., et al (1999) Playgrounds in the built environment. Built
Environment, 25.
151. McLaughlin, H., Brown, D., & Young, A. (2004) Consultation, community and
empowerment: Lessons from the deaf community. Social Work, 4, 153-65.
152. Midgley, G., Mulno, I., & Brown, M. (1997) Sharing power: Integrating user
involvement and multi-agency working to improve housing for older people.
Bristol: Policy Press.
153. Miles, D. Analysis of health.
154. Milner, A. (1996) Community involvement: Making it work for women. MR and
AMA News, Mar.
155. Mir, Y., Davies, K., & Collins, C. (2007) Drug interventions programme: What
we learned from engaging with black and minority ethnic communities.
UCLAN.
156. Misra, A., Mukherji, R., & Wheeler, H. (2001) Terms of engagement (black
and minority ethnic communities). Axis, Apr.
157. Morley, D., & Benfield, J. (1996) Merseyside beats path to renewal. NCVO
News, Apr.
158. Morphet, J. (2004) The new localism. Town and Country Planning, Oct.
159. Morris, J., & Lindow, V. (1993) User participation in community care services.
London: Department of Health, Community Care Support Force.
160. Morris, J. (1993) Involving local people in urban renewal. Town and Country
Planning, Sep.
161. Morton, S. (1999) Sustainable homes project.
162. Mottram, L. (1991) Reclaiming the role of the community: CTAC at Chell
Heath. Town and Country Planning, Jan.
163. Muir, J. (2004) Community development in health: A Scottish perspective.
Journal of Community Work and Development, 5.
164. Munday, B. (2003) Secret of successful homes. Planning, 24 Oct.
165. Murray, M., & Greer, J. (1997) Interactive strategic planning and community
development: The Northern Ireland experience. Journal of Community
Practice, 4, 27-48.
166. Nash, I. (1999) College which doles out credit (lifelong learning). TES
Scotland, 26 Feb.
167. National Youth Agency. (2001) Young people's active community
involvement: The role of local youth services. Leicester: NYA.
168. Newman, I., & Geddes, M. (2001) Developing local strategies for social
inclusion. Local Authorities and Social Exclusion Network Research Paper 7.
London: LGIU.
169. Newman, T. Keeping in step.
170. Nock, M. (2001) Local strategic partnerships: Can they really be local? EG
Magazine, Mar.
171. O'Donnell, D. (2001) Community music. MailOut, Apr/May.
172. ODS. (2005) Developing good practice for effective community engagement
and housing needs assessment for minority ethnic communities. Precis No.
73. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland.
173. ODPM. (2003) Review of area based initiatives. London: ODPM.
174. Ogden, J. Open court.
175. O'Neill, M., & Williams, G. (2004) Developing community and agency
engagement in an action research study in South Wales. Critical Public
Health, 14, 37-47.
213
176. OECD. (1992) The challenge of urban regeneration strategies for community
and business involvement: Employment, youth and local development.
OECD/CDF International Conference.
177. OECD. (2003) Private finance and economic development: City and regional
investment. OECD.
178. O'Toole, M. (1992) Partnership in the community: The problems and
possibilities. Going Local, Summer.
179. Parker, D., Anderson, C., & Saddington, M. (2003) New community enterprise
network for Sunderland builds on success. New Sector, Jun/Jul.
180. People for Action (2000) Empowerment towards employment.
181. PEP, Ltd. (1999) 20 years on: PEP 1979-1999.
182. Power, A., & Tunstall, R. (1995) Swimming against the tide: Progress or
polarisation on 20 unpopular estates. York: JRF.
183. Priestly, S. (1992) Planning for public participation. Municipal Journal.
184. Pringle, B. (2004) Street level say-so (housing associations and public
services). New Start, 21 May.
185. Purcell, R., & Brown, S. (1995) New directions: A summary of an enquiry into
community organisations in Scotland. Glasgow: Scottish Community
Development.
186. Qaiyoom, R. (1993) Empty vessels, hollow sounds. Local government and
minority ethnic consultation. London: Sia.
187. Ram, M. (1995) The politics of research –Local consultation in a City
Challenge context. Sociology, 29, 275-292.
188. Robbins, A. Warwickshire Community Participation Project: Tackling
inequalities, empowering communities.
189. Robinson, D., et al. (2004) How housing management can contribute to
community cohesion: A research report. Coventry: CIH.
190. Round, M. (2002) Preventing the slow death of the urban community. Green
Government, Sep.
191. Round, P. (1994) Putting local people first in development. Cities
Management, Mar/Apr.
192. Rowe, S., & Zitron, J. (2002) Beyond bricks and mortar: Bringing regeneration
into stock transfer. Coventry: CIH.
193. Rushey Green Time Bank. Renewal.net case studies.
194. Saunders, R. (1997) Resident Services Organisations: A new tool for
regeneration. Manchester: PEP.
195. Saunders, R. (2002) Resident Services Organisations: Learning from real life.
Manchester: PEP.
196. Scottish Executive (2005) National standards for community engagement.
Scottish Executive.
197. Selman, P., & Parker, J. (1997) Citizenship, civicness and social capital in
Local Agenda 21. Local Environment, Jun.
198. Seyfang, G. (2002) Re-stitching the social fabric, one favour at a time. Town
and Country Planning, Sep.
199. Seyfang, G. (2002) Time on our side: Evaluating time banks as a new tool for
active citizenship. IPPR New Economy, 9.
200. Shelton, A. (1999) Credit where it's due (credit unions). New Start, 11 Jun.
201. Simms, C. (2000) Citizens now! A report into children's participation in
Liverpool; does the city need a children's bureau? Liverpool: Liverpool
Council for Voluntary Service.
202. Simpson, A. (2002) Active citizenship: Youth participation or youth exclusion?
Conference paper. Brisbane: International Sociological Association.
203. Sinclair, F. (1999) The active community: Innovative consultation and
participation methods for housing. London: London Housing Unit.
214
204. Skidmore, P., & Craig, J. (2005) Start with people: How community
organisations put citizens in the driving seat. London: DEMOS.
205. Skinner, S. (2001) Young people: A force for positive social change:
Rethinking young people's involvement in regeneration. Research Notes.
Leicester: Centre for Social Action, De Montfort University.
206. Smith, G. (2000) Faith makes communities work: A report on faith-based
community development.
207. Smith, P. (1998) Letting the public decide. LGIU Briefing, May.
208. Smulian, M. (2003) Faith in the city. Roof, May/June, 26-27.
209. Speller, V., Mulligan, J., Law, C., & Foot, B. (1995) Preventing injury in
children and young people: A review of the literature and current practice.
Southampton: Wessex Institute of Public Health Medicine.
210. Stevenson, R., Gibson, P., & Lardner, C. (2004) Evaluation of people's panels
and people's juries in social inclusion partnerships. Social research.
Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
211. Strategy Action Team. (1999) Inclusive communities: Report of the Strategy
Action Team. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
212. Sullivan, C. Newcastle upon Tyne: Newcastle Primary Care Trust.
213. Sullivan, H., et al. (2004) Power, participation and the practice of
accountability. Local Governance, 30, 42-51.
214. Tallentire, J. (2001) Testing times for the environment. Green Government,
May 2001.
215. Taylor, M. (2000) Making an exit (regeneration initiative exit strategies). SUN
Dial, Summer.
216. Taylor, M. (2003) Public policy in the community. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
217. Teeman, D., South, N., & Henderson, S. (1999) Multi-impact drugs prevention
in the community. In Marlow, A., & Pearson, G. (Eds.) Young people, drugs,
and community safety. Lyme Regis: Russell House.
218. Tenant Management Training Services. (2000) A TMO for Nightingale.
219. Thomas, M., & Thomas, M. (2001) Planning for "community participation" in
CBR. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 12, 44-51.
220. Thomas, A. (1990) Falling tenements: The rise of community rehousing.
Liverpool: Merseyside Improved Homes.
221. Thomas, D. (1995) Community development at work: A case of obscurity in
accomplishment. London: CDF.
222. Thompson, L., Story, M., & Butler, G. (2002) A collaboration model for
enhanced community participation. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, 3,
264-73.
223. Threshold Tenant Trust. (2001) Neighbourhood initiatives: Best practice
detailed report.
224. Trott, T. (2002) Best practice in regeneration: Because it works. Bristol: Policy
Press for JRF.
225. Vellacott, I. (1999) Giving a voice to local views. Planning, 11 Jun.
226. Waddicor, C. Integrating health with community planning and regeneration:
The Roundshaw participatory well-being needs assessment.
227. Ward, M., & Watson, S. (1997) Here to stay: A public policy framework for
community-based regeneration. Development Trusts Association.
228. Wheeler, K. (2001) Community participation in SIPs. Economic Development
Today, Sep.
229. Wheeler, R., et al. (1996) Empowerment and citizenship. Local Government
Policy Making, Mar.
230. Wilcox, D. (1994) Community participation and empowerment: Putting theory
into practice. York: JRF.
215
231. Williams, C. (2000) Harnessing Local Exchange and Trading Schemes

(LETS) as a tool for community renewal: The role of local government. Local
Governance, 26, Summer.
232. Williams, C., & Windebank, J. (1999) A helping hand: Harnessing self-help to
combat social exclusion. York: YPS.
233. Wilson, C. (2005) Community involvement in housing market renewal: The
first two years. Town and Country Planning, May.
234. Wyatt, D. Redruth Community Regeneration Project.
216
Appendix 11: Studies identified as relevant but not data extracted
1. Atkinson, R., Thomson, H., Kearns, A., & Petticrew, M. (2006) Giving urban policy its
‘medical’: Assessing the place of health in area-based regeneration. Policy and Politics
34 (1): 5-26.
2. Ball, M. (2002) Sure Start national evaluation: Getting Sure Start started. Theme Report
1. London: NESS. Available from: URL: http://www.surestart.gov.uk/_doc/P0000121.pdf
3. Barnes, M. (2005) The same old process? Older people, participation and deliberation.
Ageing & Society, 25, 245-259.
4. Barnes, M., Newman, J., & Sullivan, H. (2004) Power, participation, and political renewal:
Theoretical perspectives on public participation under New Labour in Britain. Social
Politics, 11, 267-279.
5. Barr, A., Kirkpatrick, D., Lindsay, M., & Taylor, P. (2005) Community learning and
development training for professionals engaged in community regeneration and
community planning. Edinburgh: Learning Connections, Communities Scotland. Available
from: URL:
http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/lccs
_008182.pdf
6. Bennington, J., Coward, S., & Green, S. (2004) Enhancing the neighbourhood
environment: The role of NDCs. Research Report 58. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Enhancingneighbourhoodenvironme
nt.pdf
7. Bickerstaff, K., & Walker, G. (2001) Participatory local governance and transport
planning. Environment and Planning A, 33, 431-451.
8. Black, S., & Conway, E. (1996) The European Community’s LEADER programme in the
Highlands and Islands. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 112, 101-106.
9. Blakey, H., Pearce, J., & Chesters, G. (2006) Minorities within minorities: Beneath the
surface of South Asian participation. York: JRF & YPS. Available from: URL:
http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/eBooks/1972-involving-south-asian-communities.pdf
10. Bridge Consortium. (2005) The evaluation of the Big Lottery Fund Healthy Living Centres.
Third Annual Report of the Bridge Consortium. London: Big Lottery Fund.
11. Burke, A., McMillan, J., Cummins, L., Thompson, A., Forsyth, W., McLellan, J., Snow, L.,
et al. (2003) Setting up participatory research: A discussion of the initial stages. British
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 65-69.
12. Burton, P., Croft, J., Hastings, A., Slater, T., Goodlad, R., Abbott, J., & Macdonald, G.
(2004) What works in community involvement in area-based initiatives? A systematic
review of the literature. Home Office Online Report 53/04. London: Home Office.
Available from: URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr5304.pdf
13. Cambridge Economic Associates (2005) National evaluation of New Deal for
Communities: Value for money strand. Cambridge: CEA. Available from: URL:
http://extra.shu.ac.uk/ndc/downloads/reports/NDC%20value%20for%20money%20strand
.pdf
14. Camina, M. (2004) Understanding and engaging deprived communities. Home Office
Online Report 07/04. London: Home Office. Available from: URL:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr0704.pdf
15. Campbell, M., Carley, M., Kearns, A., Wood, M., & Young, R. (2000) Regeneration in the
21st Century: Polities into Practice. Bristol: Policy Press for JRF.
16. Carley, M. (2002) Community regeneration and neighbourhood renewal: A review of the
evidence. Edinburgh: Communities Scotland. Available from:
http://www.communitiesscotland.gov.uk/stellent/groups/public/documents/webpages/cs_0
08706.pdf
17. Chanan, G. (2003) Searching for solid foundations—Community involvement and urban
policy. London: ODPM. Available from:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/547/CommunityInvolvementandUrbanPolicyfullreport
217
PDF520Kb_id1128547.pdf
18. Cole, I., Hickman, P., & Green, S. (2003) Cleaning up the neighbourhood: Dealing with
abandoned cars and fly tipping. Research Report No. 1. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield
19. Cole, I., McCoulough, E., & Southworth, J. (2000) Neighbourhood agreements in action.
York: JRF & YPS.
20. Cornwall, A., Lall, P., Kennedy, K., & Owen, F. (2002) Putting partnership into practice:
Participatory wellbeing assessment on a south London housing estate. Health
Expectations, 6, 30-43.
21. Craig, G., Taylor, M., & Parkes, T. (2004) Protest or partnership? The voluntary and
community sectors in the policy process. Social Policy & Administration, 38, 221-239.
22. Crawshaw, P., Bunton, R., & Gillen, K. (2003) Health Action Zones and the problem of
community. Health & Social Care in the Community, 11, 36-44.
23. DCLG. (2006) Housing: A theme report from the Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder
Programme national evaluation. Research Report No. 29. London: DCLG. Available from:
URL: http://www.sqw.co.uk/nme/downloads/NRURep29-HousingTheme.pdf
24. DCLG. (2006) Supporting effective citizenship at local authority level: Background
research for good practice guidelines 'Promoting effective citizenship and community
empowerment.' London: DCLG. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/330/Supporting
effectivecitizenshipatlocalauthoritylevelFullReport_id1500330.pdf
25. DETR. (2001) A review of the evidence base for regeneration policy and practice.
London: DETR.
26. Dobbs, L., Moore, C. (2002) Engaging communities in area-based regeneration: The role
of participatory evaluation. Policy Studies, 23, 157-171.
27. Docherty, I., Goodlad, R., & Paddison, R. (2001) Civic culture, community and citizen
participation in contrasting neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38, 2225-2250.
28. Dorrian, A., Tisdall, K., & Hamilton, D. (2001) Taking the initiative: Promoting young
people's participation in public decision-making in Scotland. London: Carnegie Young
People Initiative.
29. Duke, K., MacGregor, S., & Smith, L. (1996) Activating local networks: A comparison of
two community development approaches to drug prevention. London: Home Office.
30. Edwards, C. (2002) Barriers to involvement: The disconnected worlds of disability and
regeneration. Local Economy, 17, 123-135.
31. Egan, M., Bambra, C., Thomas, S., Petticrew, M., Whitehead, M., & Thomson, H. (2007)
The psychosocial and health effects of workplace reorganisation: A systematic review of
organisational-level interventions that aim to increase employee control. Report in
progress.
32. Eley, S. (2002) Community backed drug initiatives in the UK: A review and commentary
on evaluations. Health and Social Care in the Community, 10, 99-105.
33. Farnell, R., Furbey, R., Hills, S., Macey, M., & Smith, G. (2003) Faith in urban
regeneration? Engaging faith communities in urban regeneration. Bristol: Policy Press for
JRF.
34. France, A., & Crow, I. (2001) CTC—the story so far: An interim evaluation of
Communities That Care. York: JRF & YPS. Available from: URL:
35. Gregory, S. (1998) Transforming local services: Partnership in action. York: JRF & YPS.
36. Hamer, M., & Box, V. (2000) An evaluation of the development and functioning of the
Boscombe Network for Change, a health alliance or partnership for health in Dorset.
Health Education Journal, 59, 238-252.
37. Hastings, A., & McArthur, A. (1995) A comparative assessment of government
approaches to partnership with the local community. Urban Policy Evaluation, Challenges
and Change. London: Paul Chapman.
218
38. Johnson, Z., Howell, F., & Molloy, B. (1993) Community Mothers Programme—
randomized controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. BMJ, 306, 1449-
1452.
39. Johnson, Z., & Molloy, B. (1995) The Community Mothers Programme—empowerment of
parents by parents. Children and Society, 9, 73-85.
40. Johnson, Z., Molloy, B., & Fitzpatrick, P. (1997) Community Mothers' programme:
Extension to the travelling community in Ireland. Journal of Epidemiology and Community
Health, 51, 299-303.
41. Johnson, Z., Molloy, B., Scallan, E., Fitzpatrick, P., Rooney, B., Keegan, T., & Byrne, P.
(2000) Community Mothers Programme—seven year follow-up of a randomized
controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. Journal of Public Health
Medicine, 22, 337-342.
42. Johnstone, D., Johnstone, S., Brennan, A., Otero-Garcia, M., Campbell-Jones, C.,
Garrard, S. (2005) Skills and Knowledge Programme Evaluation—Background report 2.
Available from: URL: http://www.neighbourhood.gov.uk/publications.asp?did=1672
43. Johnstone, D., Johnstone, S., Tyler, P., Warnock, C. (2005) Brokering business
connections: Engaging business support for neighbourhood renewal. Full evaluation
report of the Business Brokers Pilot Programme. Cambridge: Educe and CEA. Available
from: URL:
http://www.csr.gov.uk/pdf/Light_bulb_cover_business_brokers_final_full_report.pdf
44. Knox, M., Alcock, D., Roderick, A., & Iles, J. (2002) Approaches to community
governance: Models for mixed tenure communities. Bristol: Policy Press for JRF.
45. Lowndes, V., Pratchett, L., & Stoker, G. (2001) Trends in public participation: Part 1—
Local Government Perspectives. Public Administration, 79, 205-222.
46. Lowndes, V., & Sullivan, H. (2004) Like a horse and carriage or a fish on a bicycle: How
well do local partnerships and public participation go together? Local Government
Studies, 30, 52-74.
47. Lucas, K., Fuller, S., Psaila, A., & Thrush, D. (2004) Prioritising local environmental
concerns: Where there’s a will there’s a way. York: JRF & YPS. Available from: URL:
48. Lucas, K., Ross, A.., & Fuller, S. (2003) What’s in a name? Local Agenda 21, community
planning, and neighbourhood renewal. York: JRF & YPS. Available from:
49. MacKinnon, D. (2002) Rural governance and local involvement: Assessing state-
community relations in the Scottish Highlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 307-324.
50. Macmillan, R., & Marshall, F. (2005) Home Office Civil Renewal Research Programme
2004-2005: Promoting community involvement through regeneration: Exploring the
configurational comparative approach. Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.
http://www.togetherwecan.info/files/downloads/Reports/05%2011%2024%20Sheffield%2
0Hallam%20RM%20Civil%20Renewal%20Final%20Report%20v.2%2014.11.05.pdf
51. Mathur, A., and Morrison, E. (2005) Community improvement... How children and young
people got involved. Edinburgh: Save the Children. Available from: URL:
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/scuk_cache/scuk/cache/cmsattach/3516_toolkit_report
.pdf
52. Mayo, M., & Anastacio, J. (1999) Welfare models and approaches to empowerment:
Competing perspectives from area regeneration programmes. Policy Studies, 20, 5-21.
53. McKeganey, N., Neale, J., Parkin, S., & Mills, C. (2004) Communities and drugs: Beyond
the rhetoric of community action. Probation Journal, 51, 343-361.
54. McShane, C. (2002) Deaf community development: An evaluation of work in Wales.
Norwich: School of Social Work, University of East Anglia.
55. Milligan, C., & Fyfe, N. (2005) Preserving space for volunteers: Exploring the links
between voluntary welfare organisations, volunteering, and citizenship. Urban Studies,
42, 417-433.
56. Moseley, M. (2004) Sustainable rural development: The role of community involvement
219
and local partnerships. Role of biodiversity conservation in the transition to rural

sustainability. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
57. Muir, J. (2004) Public participation in area-based urban regeneration programmes.
Housing Studies, 19, 947-966.
58. New Deal National Evaluation. (2003) Evaluating the New Deal for Communities
programme. London: ODPM.
59. New Deal National Evaluation. (2004) NDC Evaluation partnership handbook 2003-2004.
London: ODPM.
60. ODPM. (2004) Environmental exclusion review for Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.
Research Report No. 11. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
61. ODPM. (2004) Evaluation of the community facilitation programme. Research report No.
13. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
62. ODPM. (2004) Evaluation of LSPs: A briefing note for LSPs by LSPs. London: ODPM.
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Evaluationlocalcommunity.pdf
63. ODPM (2004) LSP Evaluation and Action Research Programme: Case studies interim
report: A baseline of practice. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/900/LSPEvaluationCasestudyinterimreportabaseline
ofpracticeJan2004PDF110Kb_id1136900.pdf
64. ODPM. (2004) Neighbourhood Management Pathfinder Programme national evaluation
annual review 2003/4. London: ODPM.
65. ODPM (2005) Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships: Interim report. London: ODPM.
http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Research/Evaluationlocalstrategicpartnerships.
pdf
66. ODPM (2005) National Evaluation of Local Strategic Partnerships: 2004 Survey of all
English LSPs. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/877/LSPEvaluation2004SurveyofallEnglishLSPsAug
ust2005PDF1315Kb_id1136877.pdf
67. ODPM. (2006) Alternative approaches to neighbourhood management: 6 full case study
reports. London: ODPM. Available from: URL:
http://www.sqw.co.uk/nme/downloads/NM%206%20full%20case%20studies%20(Publish
ed).pdf
68. ODPM. (2006) Alternative approaches to neighbourhood management: 7 case study
summaries + analysis. Research Report No. 27. London: ODPM: Available from: URL:
69. Orr, K., & McAteer, M. (2004) The modernisation of local decision making: Public
participation and Scottish local government. Local Government Studies, 30, 131-155.
70. Osborne, S., Beattie, R., & Williamson, A. (2004) Community involvement in rural
regeneration partnerships: Exploring the rural dimension. Local Government Studies, 30,
156-181.
71. Osborne, S., Williamson, A., & Beattie, R. (2002) Community involvement in rural
regeneration partnerships in the UK: Key issues from a three nation study. Regional
Studies, 36, 1083-1092.
72. Pickin, C., Popay, J., Staley, K., Bruce, N., Jones, C., & Gowman, N. (2002) Developing
a model to enhance the capacity of statutory organisations to engage with lay
communities. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7, 34-42. See also
evidence published in (2001) What’s to Stop Us? Overcoming barriers to public sector
engagement with local communities. The Strategic Action Programme for Healthy
Communities: Programme Summary. King’s Fund.
73. Purdue, D. (2001) Neighbourhood governance: Leadership, trust and social capital.
Urban Studies, 36, 2211-2224.
74. Purdue, D., Hambleton, R., & Razzaque, K. (2000) Community leadership in area
220
regeneration. Bristol: Policy Press for JRF.

75. Reid, B., Cole, I., & Hickman, P. (1999) Accounting for the uncountable: The costs and
benefits of tenant participation in housing modernisation and improvement. Coventry: CIH
for JRF.
76. Reynolds, T. (2003) Black to the community: An analysis of 'black' community parenting
in Britain. Community, Work, and Family, 6, 29-45.
77. Rhodes, J., Tyler, P., Brennan, A., Stevens, S., Warnock, C., & Otero-Garcia, M. (2002)
Lessons and evaluation evidence from Ten Single Regeneration Budget case studies:
Mid-term report. London: DTLGR.
78. Richardson, L. (2005) User engagement in public services: Policy and implementation.
Benefits, 13, 189-197.
79. Robinson, F., Shaw, K., & Davidson, G. (2005) 'On the side of the Angels': Community
involvement in the governance of neighbourhood renewal. Local Economy, 20, 13-26.
80. Rogers, B., & Robinson, E. (2004) The benefits of community engagement: A review of
the evidence. London: Home Office and Active Citizenship Centre. Available from: URL:
http://www.communities.gov.uk/pub/510/TheBenefits
ofCommunityEngagementAreviewoftheevidence_id1502510.pdf
81. Russell, H., Dawson, J., Garside, P., & Parkinson, M. (1996) City Challenge: interim
national evaluation. Regeneration Research Summary No. 9. London: ODPM.
82. Sullivan, H., Judge, K., & Sewel, K. (2004) ‘In the eye of the beholder’: Perceptions of
local impact in English Health Action Zones. Social Science & Medicine, 59, 1603-1612.
83. Taylor, D., & Tight, M. (1996) Feet first: Public attitudes and consultation in traffic calming
schemes. London: Transport 2000 Trust.
84. Taylor, M. (1997) The best of both worlds: The voluntary sector and local government.
York: JRF & YPS.
85. Taylor, M. (2000) Top down meets bottom up: Neighbourhood management. York: JRF.
86. Taylor, M., Zahno, K., Thake, S., & Nock, M. (2002) Exploring the field of residents’
consultancy. Research Brief No. RB 382. London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?projectid=
13552&resultspage=1
87. Taylor, P. (2006) Who are the capacity builders? London: Community Development
Foundation.
88. Tunstill, J., Allnock, D., Akhurst, S., & Garbers, C. (2005) Sure Start Local Programmes:
Implications of case study data from the National Evaluation of Sure Start. Children and
Society, 19, 158-171.
89. Tunstill, J., Allnock, D., Meadows, P. & McLeod, A. (2002) National evaluation: Early
experiences of implementing SureStart. Report 1. London: DfES. Available from: URL:
http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/NESSFR01PDF.pdf
90. Tunstill, J., Meadows, P., Akhurst, S., Allnock, D., Chrysanthou, J., Garbers, C., &
Morley, A. (2005) Implementing Sure Start Local Programmes: An integrated overview of
the first four years. Report 10. London: NESS, DfES. Available from: URL:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/NESS2005FR010.pdf
91. Uguris, T. (2004) Space, power, and participation: Ethnic and gender divisions in tenants’
participation in public housing. Ashgate: Basingstoke.
92. White, L. (2003) The role of systems research and operational research in community
involvement: A case study of a Health Action Zone. Systems Research and Behavioral
Science, 20, 133-145.
221

Community Engagement in Initiatives Addresses The Wider Determinants of Health - NICE UK - 2007

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Community Engagement in Initiatives Addresses The Wider Determinants of Health - NICE UK - 2007

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Social Determinants Effectiveness Review

Community engagement in initiatives

A rapid review of evidence on impact,

Universities of Lancaster, Liverpool and Central Lancashire

4th May 2007

2. The experience of community engagement for community members active in

Population impact of community engagement initiatives

What community engagement and development methods and approaches are

1. The impact of direct community engagement initiatives

a) Findings organised by topic

b) Findings organised by level of evidence

Level 2 evidence: This type of study provides weaker evidence of a relationship

Three studies 1 provided Level 2 evidence on the impact of direct community

2) The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives

a) Findings organised by topic

Environmental and socio-economic indicators: Evidence from four (2++) studies

Community engagement/involvement: Evidence from three (2++) studies suggests

b) Findings organised by level of evidence

Level 2 evidence: This type of study provides weaker evidence of a relationship

The experience of community engagement for active community members

a) Findings organised by topic

b) Findings organised by level of evidence

Seven studies provided Level 1 evidence on the experience of community

Fourteen studies provided Level 2 evidence on the experience of community

One study 40 provided Level 3 evidence on the experience of community engagement

Barriers to and enablers of community engagement initiatives

a) Findings organised by theme

could inhibit engagement. The particular difficulties faced by economically

Community resistance to engagement: Nine studies (1+ to 2+) provide evidence on

b) Findings organised by level of evidence

Level 1 evidence: This level of evidence includes mixed-method process evaluations

Eight studies provide Level 1 evidence on the barriers to community engagement

Enablers: Five studies provided Level 1 evidence on the enablers of community

Level 2 evidence: This level of evidence includes mixed-method process evaluations

Limitations of the review

Studies linking an understanding of barriers and/or enablers to the outcomes of

Other limitations included:

Section 2: Review Methodology 25

Section 3: Review Results 38

3.1.2 The impact of direct CE initiatives 40

Community engagement and involvement 46

3.1.3 The impact of indirect community engagement initiatives 49

3.2 Evidence on the experience of community engagement 69

3.3. Barriers and enablers to community engagement 83

The political context 97

3.4 Overall summary 103

Section 4: Evidence Tables 109

FIGURES AND TABLES

BGOP Better Government for Older People

BME Black and Minority Ethnic

CCF Community Champions Fund

CEF Community Empowerment Fund

CEN Community Empowerment Network

CLC Community Learning Chest

CPP Community Participation Programme

ERCF Estates Renewal Challenge Fund

LSP Local Strategic Partnership

NDC New Deal for Communities

NESS National Evaluation of Sure Start

NGO Non-Government Organisation

NMF Neighbourhood Management Fund

NRA Neighbourhood Renewal Advisor

social inclusion/exclusion/capital/empowerment/capacity building