RCAN - Interim Evalu

RCAN Investment

Programme evaluation

Interim report
A report for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
by Brian Wilson Associates and David Atkinson Consulting

Capacitybuilders 77 Paradise Circus Birmingham B1 2DT
T +44 (0)121 237 5100 E info@capacitybuilders.org.uk www.capacitybuilders.org.uk

Contents

Executive Summary 3
Section A : Report 9
1. Introduction 10
2. Methodology 14
3. Background to the programme 22
4. Baseline and context 26
5. Programme shape and inputs 38
6. Progress with outputs 50
7. Progress towards outcomes 58
8. Concluding comments 68
Section B : Appendices 75
9. A - Acronyms 76
10. B - Summary of RCAN business plans 78
11. C - Activity codes used to classify projects in the RCAN business plans 107
12. D - Criteria for selecting the in-depth sample 110
13. E - Projects selected for the telephone interviews 112
2
Evaluation of the RCAN Investment programme
Interim evaluation report
Executive summary
Abbreviations:
Defra – Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
RCAN – Rural Community Action Network
ACRE – Action with Communities in Rural England
The programme
Through the RCAN Investment Programme Defra provides funding for local RCAN member
organisations (often termed Rural Community Councils) and regional RCAN bodies. RCAN
is a third sector network, with ACRE as its national umbrella body, which promotes
community action in order to support the well-being of rural communities. The programme
assists the government’s aim that rural community needs (on housing, health, education,
economic development and so on) should be addressed through mainstream policy making
and delivery, rather than by creating separate rural policies. The emphasis which Defra
places on strategic influencing in this programme marks something of a shift from
predecessor programmes.
High level objectives for the programme are that:

• By 2010/11 RCAN will have helped achieve effective influence in the development
of local, regional and national policies and programmes, to benefit rural communities
throughout England.
• By 2010/11 national, regional and local government, public service providers and
third sector agencies will have greater awareness of rural priorities and needs.
third sector agencies will have responded to rural priorities and needs with relevant
initiatives and investment programmes as appropriate.
This report is an interim evaluation of the RCAN Investment Programme. Its primary aim
has been to assess progress against the objectives after approximately two years of this
three year programme. The Defra investment is worth £3.45 million per year over the 2008-
11 period or £10.35 million in total. The bulk of this is allocated among the 38 local and 8
regional RCAN members by ACRE, in its role as programme manager.
3

The evaluation: this research has examined various background documents, reviewed all
the RCAN member business plans, analysed information from an ACRE baseline survey,
assessed programme monitoring records for a sample of 10 members (8 local and 2 regional
bodies), visited those 10 RCAN members plus ACRE and conducted telephone interviews
with 24 organisations being influenced. It sought to understand the baseline position (in
2008) and the operating context (in the 2 years since), both of which can be expected to
affect performance. An evaluation framework was used to structure and interrogate the
programme information on its inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes.
Baseline: when the programme commenced in April 2008, ACRE conducted a baseline
survey which focussed on understanding RCAN members’ internal capacity and their
external relationships with local authorities. Responses to this survey show that:
• A fairly high proportion of local RCAN members (38%) had a seat on an upper tier
Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) Board.
• RCAN members had significant engagement with chief executives’ offices and policy
or strategy teams in upper tier local authorities.
• Roughly three-quarters of those authorities were providing some funding to their local
RCAN body.
• Generally, the strongest engagement was with authorities in the most rural areas and
the weakest engagement with authorities in mainly urban areas.
Use of resources: the programme is funding or part-funding 245 projects, which are
detailed in the RCAN member business plans. Just over two-thirds of these are classified as
‘strategic influencing’ projects, mainly seeking to influence policy priorities and
implementation for the benefit of rural communities. The remainder are classified as
‘support work’ projects, delivering advice and support services to rural communities. RCAN
members undertake a lot more work which is funded entirely from outside the programme,
though only some of this is shown in RCAN business plans.
Each project is assigned one of sixteen descriptor ‘activity codes’. As the chart on the next
page shows, the most common types of projects in receipt of programme money are the 51
with the ‘strategic influencing other’ code (which includes work with third sector infrastructure
consortia) and the 50 with the ‘strategic influencing of LAAs and upper tier LSPs’ code.
Every local RCAN member has at least one project engaging with LAAs and upper tier
LSPs. Among support work projects receiving programme money, the most frequent activity
code is that for ‘community-led planning’.
4

Number of programme funded projects managed by RCAN members, by activity code
60
50
40
30
20
10
Other funding sources: Defra’s investment of £3.45 million per year needs to be seen in
the context of a total annual turnover for the RCAN network of around £40 million.
According to RCAN business plans, in 2009/10 approximately £3 million from other sources
went into projects which also used some Defra programme money i.e. they were part-
funded. The RCAN Investment Programme had enabled most of the visited RCAN
members to lever in some of their funding from other sources.
The great majority of funding from other sources pays for support work with rural
communities, such as facilitation of community-led planning and advice for volunteer
management committees who own community assets. Many local authorities have
commissioned such services as a tangible contribution to their objectives and targets.
Predictably, this comes in the form of short-term funding arrangements, much of which
comes up for review in 2011. While the recession has not yet had much effect on this
external funding, there is a widespread expectation that it soon will.
By contrast, RCAN members rarely achieve and see little prospect of gaining funding from
other sources for the strategic influencing work. Statutory bodies and partnerships either
don’t think they need to be influenced or seem unwilling to pay for such work.
5

Activities and outputs: all 40 of the projects managed by the 10 visited RCAN members
have been taken forward. In terms of activities, the programme funds a great deal of
attendance at partnership meetings. Among the visited local RCAN members, more have a
place on an LSP Board or Management Group now than at the start of the programme.
However, in two-tier local authority areas participation in district LSP structures can be time
consuming and deciding on the right level of involvement is not easy. Some local RCAN
members focus on districts where outcomes seem most likely. Others maintain a broad
engagement, because LSPs are a source of information and it allows them to seize
opportunities for rural communities where they arise.
There is a strong relationship between strategic influencing activities and support work. This
is most obvious where information derived from community-led planning (CLP) is used by
RCAN members as evidence of rural priorities when attempting to influence statutory bodies
and partnerships. The relationship works the other way, too, and local RCAN members gain
credibility from their reach into rural communities.
Typical outputs from strategic influencing activity are responses to policy or strategy
consultations, research reports on rural trends or needs, funding applications for support
work or projects, rural strategy documents and communications material to influence partner
organisations or inform rural communities. Outputs from support work include enquiries
dealt with from village hall committees, needs surveys conducted by Rural Housing Enablers
and community plans completed which received advice.
Outcomes: among the ten visited RCAN members 46 outcomes were identified as achieved
and a further 10 as likely to be achieved soon. These included:
• Improvements to policy processes: notably where rural proofing or community led
planning approaches have been adopted by local authorities and partnerships.
• Amendments to strategy documents: either to enable rural areas to benefit more from
stated priorities or to make some rural concern an additional priority.
• Altering service delivery plans: so they will better suit the requirements of rural
communities from a specific service area.
• Securing funding: tapping into external sources so that rural communities can access
funding streams for things such as improvements to community buildings.
• Starting new programmes or projects: gaining agreement to new pilot projects or
programmes, almost all of them related to community led planning.
6

Improving existing delivery: so that services better meet the needs of rural residents.
There were also various outcomes resulting from support work projects with programme
funding, such as new rural affordable homes and improved community buildings.
There is considerable variation between RCAN members and projects in the extent to which
outcomes have been realised. This pattern shows no obvious relationship with funding
levels, staffing levels or local government complexity in different areas. There is, however, a
similarity between the most rural areas and the RCAN members with more outcomes. Other
contextual factors which appear important locally included local government re-organisation,
the strength of working relationships, the capacity of organisations influenced to respond and
the degree of fit between RCAN projects and priorities in local strategies.
Attribution: a question is how far these outcomes are attributable to the programme. The
evaluation framework found the great majority of outcomes could logically be linked back to
programme activities and outputs. Interviews with people in organisations the programme
seeks to influence found that (with just one exception) the outcomes were recognised. Most
often they said the RCAN member was the main player responsible for the outcome;
otherwise they generally said the RCAN member was one of a number of players
responsible. As a result of the RCAN members’ interventions, these outcomes were almost
always considered to have happened better (e.g. with rural content), often to have come
about faster and often to have had improved partner involvement. Value is placed on RCAN
members’ links to communities, their evidence base and their positive approach to
partnership working.
Wider agendas: from the outset Defra hoped the programme would reflect some “additional
important factors”. These included: tackling rural disadvantage, which RCAN members see
as a significant focus for their activities, in some cases underpinning everything they do;
embedding CLP in statutory processes, which the evaluation shows to be a key element of
the programme; and mitigating climate change, which is a growing area of work for many
RCAN members and for ACRE.
Three developing policy agendas have proved an opportunity for the programme, namely
community empowerment, developing the role of the third sector and climate change
adaption. As a result RCAN members are often representing the third sector (rather than
rural communities per se) and extending their work into urban areas.
7

Conclusions: in conclusion, some good progress has been made against the three high
level programme objectives. RCAN members have developed opportunities to raise
awareness of rural needs through their wide membership of statutory partnerships, as well
as their own networks and contacts. Gaining influence has proved easier to achieve with
authorities and partnerships in more rural areas, though there are some good exceptions.
As a result favourable changes made to policies and programmes, as well as new funding
streams and projects for rural communities, have been identified by this evaluation.
The picture in terms of outcomes to-date is therefore positive, if variable between RCAN
members and projects. Those outcomes can be attributed to programme activities to a
significant extent. This report also finds that there has been a good match between the
programme and Defra’s “additional important factors”.
The programme has helped develop the RCAN Network since 2008; the strategic influencing
work has grown and other funding sources have been tapped. As for the long-term financial
sustainability of the network, RCAN members may now be in a stronger position to seek
local funding for support work, but the programme cannot easily address the short-term
nature of such funding and there is a real risk it will become harder to access from 2011 as
budgets tighten.
This evaluation was undertaken for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and commissioned on its behalf by Capacitybuilders. The research and report writing was
completed by Brian Wilson Associates with David Atkinson Consulting.
8

Section A: Report
9

1. Introduction
This report is an interim evaluation of the RCAN Investment Programme, based on research
when slightly less than two years of the three year programme had elapsed. The report is
primarily written for the programme funder – the Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs (Defra) – though it will be of interest to a wider audience, not least to RCAN members
themselves. It has been researched and written by Brian Wilson Associates with David
Atkinson Consulting.
The RCAN Investment Programme
Under the Rural Community Action Network (RCAN) Investment Programme Defra provides
funding for the family of 38 county-based and 8 regional RCAN bodies. The programme
supports Defra’s aim, to ensure that the evidenced needs of rural people and communities
are addressed effectively through mainstream public policy and delivery1. It contributes to
Defra’s target (DSO8) on socially and economically sustainable rural communities.
Strategic outcomes that were set for the RCAN Investment Programme were:
• By 2010/11 RCAN will have helped achieve effective influence in the development
of local, regional and national policies and programmes, to benefit rural communities
throughout England.
third sector agencies will have greater awareness of rural priorities and needs.
third sector agencies will have responded to rural priorities and needs with relevant
initiatives and investment programmes where appropriate.
The programme commenced in April 2008. Defra grant funding is £3.45 million per year for
the spending review period 2008-11 or £10.35 million in total. The fund is managed and
distributed by Action with Communities in Rural England (ACRE), the national umbrella body
for the RCAN network. Programme benefits are intended to accrue at three levels: locally
through RCAN local bodies; regionally through RCAN regional bodies; and nationally
through ACRE. As explained later, ACRE’s national influencing work is funded from outside
the programme; their top-slice from the programme budget covers only administration costs.

1
Rather than create dedicated rural policies and initiatives, the national policy objective is to see
mainstream policies (for housing, transport, healthcare, the environment, economic development and
so on) taking proper account of rural needs and circumstances.
10

Objectives of the evaluation
The research brief asked that the evaluation investigate “the extent to which investment in
RCAN members had resulted in progress against the three strategic outcomes of the
programme”. In doing so it should make some assessment of efficiency, effectiveness,
impact and outcomes. Aims for this evaluation were to:
• Build an evidence base to underpin any future Government investment for strategic
influencing and other capacity building activities in the RCAN network.
• Identify and share areas of learning around strategic influencing activities.
• Pay specific attention to the impact of the programme on disadvantaged people in
rural communities.
Defra also asked that the following be covered:

• Evidence that rural issues are considered by mainstream statutory agencies.
• Other (non-programme) factors impacting on the programme’s strategic outcomes.
• The impact of the programme on RCAN members themselves.
• Any unintended outcomes resulting from the programme.
• Conclusions about the effectiveness of investing in strategic influencing activities.
Finally, Defra asked for the evaluation to take account of some “additional important factors”.
While not all of them are directly funded by the programme, they helped to justify Defra’s
investment. These factors are that:
• The longer-term financial sustainability of the RCAN network is enhanced.
• All parts of rural England continue to be served by the RCAN network.
• The network’s effort compliments that of the Commission for Rural Communities,
Regional Rural Affairs Forums and regional Government Offices.
• Rural community needs are represented in the development of key regional and sub-
regional strategies that will impact on disadvantaged people.
• RCAN members continue to play a pivotal role in promoting behavioural change
among rural communities to contribute towards climate change mitigation.
• RCAN member activities support Government priorities (PSA targets) on ‘fairness
and opportunity for all’ and ‘stronger communities and a better quality of life’.
• RCAN members continue providing guidance to local authorities and others on
community-led planning and community development in rural areas.
• ACRE will continue to provide expert policy advice to Government departments and
agencies.
11

Scope of the evaluation
This is a fairly broad and challenging brief. Nonetheless, it is worth re-stating that the
emphasis is upon evaluating the impact of the RCAN Investment Programme. The
approach, therefore, has been to focus on the outcomes achieved and to explore the extent
to which they have fed through from programme inputs, activities and outputs.
Since most of the programme consists of influencing activities, we define the outcomes to be
things such as favourable changes in policy, the addition of rural objectives to strategies and
new delivery arrangements or funding for rural communities. Of course, ultimately these
outcomes should contribute to improved conditions for rural communities (e.g. better access
to services), but that is beyond any realistic scope to measure and attribute. What can be
tested is the programme’s link to changes in policy and delivery arrangements.
Two other things which are out of scope are: business plan monitoring, to see whether the
outputs and outcomes cited in RCAN business plans have in fact progressed; and assessing
ACRE’s management of the programme (for which other arrangements are in place).
Structure of this report
The next chapter explains the evaluation methodology. This is followed by a chapter which
outlines the background to the programme and, hence, its rationale. Chapter 4 then
explores the baseline for the programme and RCAN members in 2008, and the context
within which it has been delivered in the (nearly) two years since. Chapter 5 looks at the
shape of the programme and its inputs (including funding); then chapter 6 considers
progress in reaching milestones and outputs; and chapter 7 turns to the outcomes so far. A
concluding chapter pulls together the main findings, addressing questions set in the
evaluation brief. Appendices provide more detail on certain aspects of the methodology and
(in appendix B) there is a summary of the RCAN members’ business plans.
12

Acknowledgements
The contract for this evaluation has been managed by Capacitybuilders on behalf of Defra.
Particular thanks are due to Richard Davey, Jessica Ellis and Kat Pearce at Capacitybuilders
for their timely advice and assistance. From Defra Caron Britton and Sam Cunnington have
advised at key stages of the work. We are also indebted to ACRE, especially Sylvia Brown
and Helen Mardell, for making information available to us as requested and in line with the
evaluation timescale.
Finally, thanks must go to all those from the RCAN network who gave up time to meet us
during the course of our fieldwork, as well as people in other organisations who agreed to
telephone interviews. They offered a very significant volume of information and enabled the
evaluation to proceed according to its plan.
13

2. Methodology
The approach
The majority of the RCAN Investment Programme funds influencing activities. From an
evaluation perspective this raises various issues.
For one thing RCAN members operate in a complex world, where various organisations are
seeking to shape policies and strategies – some sharing the same agendas and some
holding contrasting agendas. RCAN members may be influencing through co-operation with
others and consensus building.
Nor is influencing necessarily a predictable process. Although intended outputs and

outcomes can be set down in a business plan, reality may turn out differently. Unforeseen
opportunities to influence may arise and, conversely, external factors may intervene making
intended outcomes harder to achieve. It is possible that an influencing outcome is to stop an
agenda from sliding backwards.
As with any evaluation, there is the possibility that certain outcomes would have come about
anyway, with or without the activities of the programme under examination. A key question
is whether an outcome should be attributed to the programme. On the other hand, even if it
would have happened anyway, the programme may have caused it to happen better or
faster.
A fourth issue is that influencing activity can take a long time to reach fruition and deliver
outcomes. Some outcomes may only be evident after the current three year programme has
completed, so it is relevant to note expected or in-progress outcomes. That is especially
true in this interim evaluation report, the fieldwork for which was undertaken when the
programme was less than two years old. On the other hand, certain elements of the work
will have pre-dated this programme and so have had more than two years impact already.
So attributing outcomes to RCAN members is not a simplistic task. This report does not
pretend to reach a simple set of conclusions e.g. about outcomes per thousand pounds
invested. It does quantify wherever possible, but this needs to be seen alongside the
contextual material. Unsurprisingly, the methodology has therefore been to capture a mix of
quantitative and qualitative evidence.
14

Given the above challenges, the methodology has been based on four key elements:
• Gathering information about the baseline position of RCAN members when the
programme started in April 2008 and about the context – challenges and
opportunities – they have operated under since.
• Using an evaluation framework which placed programme information into a template
to show the progression from inputs, to activities, outputs and outcomes. This helped
organise the information and explore pathways towards outcomes (see examples in
the table below).
• Interviewing some of those being influenced by RCAN members. This has informed
the views reached about the attribution of outcomes to programme activities and
outputs. It also adds a layer of information from beyond RCAN members.
• Gathering and analysing evidence at two levels. The RCAN business plans of all
members have been examined, to gain a picture of the overall programme. Detailed
fieldwork then built on this by focussing on a sample of RCAN members. This added
depth and local context to the recorded information, and a better understanding of
the programme’s operation.
Examples of programme information in the evaluation framework

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcome
Example of strategic influencing project:
Project budget (£’000s) RCAN member Formation of a Adoption of the
2
Staff time invested (FTEs) preparation for and CLP sub-group CLP protocol
attendance at Draft CLP protocol in policy by 3
district partnership document district
meetings councils
Example of support work project:
Project budget (£’000s) Various regular Housing needs New affordable
Staff time invested (FTEs) activities of a Rural surveys completed housing units
Housing Enabler Potential
development sites
identified

2
CLP is community led planning.
15

Outline of the methodology
The evaluation method falls into seven stages, some of which overlap in terms of their
timescale. They are:
i. Project start up – during this phase the project scope and management
arrangements were confirmed. The availability and accessibility of programme data
and documentation was also clarified. A specific output was the project plan;
ii. Information review – a number of reports and documents explaining the

background to and context for the programme were reviewed. The RCAN business
plans of all 46 RCAN members were examined at this stage. This resulted in a paper
which analysed some baseline (2008) survey data, collated some contextual material
and summarised the RCAN business plans. At this point the list of 10 RCAN
members to be examined in-depth was agreed with Capacitybuilders, Defra and
ACRE;
iii. Framework development – an evaluation framework was developed, in order to set

out – for the 10 areas to be examined in-depth – the programme inputs, activities,
outputs and outcomes in a logical structure. This was initially populated with
information from two sources: their RCAN business plans; and their quarterly returns
on the Rural Intelligence & Outcomes (RIO) monitoring system, which is managed by
ACRE. This created an initial set of information about programme achievements and
about the linkages between inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. It also raised
many questions for the subsequent discussions with RCAN members;
iv. Capture of interim evidence – visits were made to each of the 10 RCAN members
being examined in-depth, as well as to ACRE to discuss its national influencing role.
These discussions covered: the baseline position in 2008; challenges and
opportunities since; progress with delivery of their RCAN business plans; financial
considerations; and evidence of contributions to Defra’s “additional important
factors”. Telephone interviews were then conducted with people in organisations
which these RCAN members have been seeking to influence, to test the outcomes
(so far) and explore their attribution to the programme.
16

This interim evaluation report has been written on completion of stage four, with the work up
to this point having taken place between October 2009 and March 2010. The gathering of
information from RCAN member visits and telephone interviews took place from mid January
to late February 2010. Remaining stages are:
v. Case studies – nine examples of programme activity will be chosen to illustrate good
practice and learning points for the family of RCAN members. They will be
researched and written up. The expectation is that the 9 examples will fit under two
or three themes, so that comparisons can be drawn and common threads identified;
vi. Capture of final evidence – this will repeat various elements described earlier, to
give an assessment at the end of the three year programme. For the 10 areas being
examined in-depth, the RIO monitoring data will be examined, return visits will be
made and more telephone interviews will be held with organisations being influenced.
An additional element at this stage will be a short survey to which all RCAN members
can respond. This will help to test emerging issues on the wider membership;
vii. Final reporting – a final evaluation report is due to be produced by April 2011 and
presented to the main parties soon after.
Selecting the in-depth RCAN sample
The 10 RCAN members examined in-depth consist of 8 local and 2 regional bodies. For the
local RCAN members, it was agreed that 1 should be from each English region3. To make
the sample as representative as possible, other selection criteria were:
• There should be a mix with above and below average programme funding
allocations.
• There should be a mix with above and below average staffing numbers (capacity).
• There should be a mix in more and less complex areas, as measured by the number
of principal local authorities (counties, districts and unitaries).
• There should be a mix from more obviously rural and from mixed (urban-rural) areas,
since organisations in mixed areas may be more urban-focused.
• Two should be in areas which recently underwent local government re-organisation.

3
Excluding the Greater London region, which RCAN does not cover.
17

• One should have experienced a significant decrease in its programme funding, as a

result of the revised allocation formula phased in from April 2009.
Criteria used to select the RCAN regional bodies were:

• One should come from a more complex and one from a less complex region, in terms
of numbers of local RCAN members and numbers of Local Area Agreements.
• They should reflect the 2 operational models i.e. one to be a distinct body (with its
own staff and budgets) and one to be a virtual body based around staff from its
constituent local members.
• There should be a regional spread, with – broadly speaking – one from the south and
one from the north.
Based on these criteria the in-depth sample is:

RCAN member name Geographic area covered
Buckinghamshire Community Action Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes
Dorset Community Action Dorset county
Bedfordshire Rural Communities Central Bedfordshire and Bedford Borough
Charity
Community Lincs Lincolnshire county (except City of Lincoln)
Community First Herefordshire and Worcestershire
Humber and the Wolds Rural East Riding of Yorkshire, Hull City, North
Community Council Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire
Community Futures Lancashire Lancashire
Durham Rural Community Council County Durham
South East Rural Community Councils South East region
North West Rural Community Councils North West region
Further detail on the selection criteria for these RCAN members is at Appendix D.
Selecting the sample of stakeholders
The aim was to conduct telephone interviews with 24 people in organisations which the
programme is seeking to influence. It was agreed that 2 of these people should be
associated with each of the 10 RCAN members selected above i.e. giving 20 interviewees.
The remaining 4 were to be people related to ACRE’s national influencing work. In the event
all 24 interviews were achieved.
18

As far as possible, they were chosen to represent the cross-section of RCAN business plan
projects, with the consultants and Capacitybuilders agreeing that sample. The interviewees
broadly reflect the mix of project types – see explanation of activity codes below. A number
are based in upper tier local authorities, some are from second tier local authorities and
some represent other sectors e.g. a Council for Voluntary Service, a County Association of
Local Councils and a regional Government Office. This reflects typical influencing targets,
such as Local Area Agreements, Local Strategic Partnerships and local Infrastructure
Consortia. The 4 related to ACRE’s work are from central government departments, a
government agency and a government established task force.
A list of the projects selected for these telephone interviews is provided at Appendix E.
Terminology
Finally, it is important to define some of the terminology used by the programme and in this
evaluation report.
‘RCAN business plans’ are the plans written by each of the 46 RCAN members. Initial plans
were drafted in 2008 when the programme commenced and (significantly) revised plans
were produced in April 2009.
Within the revised business plans the work is described in terms of ‘projects’, each of which
has an aim, resources and (in the case of strategic influencing projects) planned outputs and
outcomes.
These projects are divided into two types. One group are ‘strategic influencing’ projects and
they fund influencing activities at local, regional and national levels. The second group are
‘support work’ projects and they fund local RCAN delivery activities e.g. support for
community-led planning (CLP), advice services for community building committees, Rural
Housing Enablers, social inclusion projects.
Each project has been assigned one or more ‘activity codes’. There are 16 activity codes
which, between them, describe the range of programme activities. Typical strategic
influencing codes are 1 for “strategic influencing at national level” and 3 for “strategic
influencing of Local Area Agreements” (LAAs). Typical support work codes are 6 for “CLP”
and 9 for “rural affordable housing”. The full list of codes is given at appendix C. All projects
19

are assigned a primary code, but strategic influencing projects also have ‘linked codes’ to
indicate secondary benefits e.g. a project to influence a LAA (code 3) may also bring CLP
and social inclusion benefits (codes 6 and 14).
The word ‘leverage’ is used where the RCAN Investment Programme has helped a RCAN
member to negotiate or find other (non-Defra) funding sources. Where another funder
specifically agrees to contribute towards a project because it already has some Defra
programme funding, this may be considered ‘match-funding’.
The phrase ‘rural mainstreaming’ is used where, rather than have a dedicated rural activity
or programme, rural considerations are built into main activities and programmes, for
example on housing, economic development, health care or transport. The process of
taking rural considerations systematically into account is often known as ‘rural proofing’.
The term ‘third sector’ is used to encompass the full range of voluntary and community
organisations, charities, social enterprises and mutuals, in line with the definition by the
Office of the Third Sector.
Further explanations of programme ‘inputs’, ‘activities’, ‘outputs’ and ‘outcomes’ are given at
the start of the chapters respectively about them.
Strengths and limitations of the information
A good deal of useful programme information and data was made available to this
evaluation. There was considerable documentation about the background to and
establishment of the programme. ACRE had conducted a baseline survey of the local
RCAN members. The revised RCAN business plans, written in 2009 for the period 2009-11,
were in a useful format, following ACRE guidance and a template.
A few data limitations, though, should be flagged:

• Whilst the revised business plans provide generally consistent information about
project aims, inputs, and activities and so on, the initial business plans were variable
in style and the way they described the work. This reflects the transitional nature of
the first year of the programme.
• To initiate delivery in 2008, business plans were required at short notice. During the
programme’s first year the network was able to take decisions about how to collate
and report information in a more systematic and consistent format. As a result the
20

content of the initial and revised business plans cannot be directly compared and
consistent project-level funding information for 2008/09 does not exist.
• Less information was requested in RCAN business plans for support work projects.
Specifically, they do not show planned output or outcome information. This gap has
mainly been plugged from monitoring data and information gathered in the visits.
• There is variability in what has been logged as a planned output or an outcome in the
RCAN business plans. This is not uncommon in programme information and was
largely resolved through applying the evaluation framework and seeking further
information during the visits.
• There is similarly some inconsistency in the type of information being reported by
quarterly monitoring on the RIO system. Reports are a narrative, which tend to
emphasise activities and outputs (rather than outcomes). Again, this was largely
addressed through the evaluation framework and the visits.
• The nature of the evaluation has had to be somewhat different in respect of ACRE’s
national influencing work. Since it is not funded (by Defra) from the RCAN
Investment Programme, ACRE does not have a RCAN business plan or submit RIO
monitoring data. Their work is described in other documents and in a different way.
Discussions with ACRE, therefore, explored the breadth of their influencing and
certain key elements of that work.
21

3. Background to the programme
This chapter briefly outlines the history to the RCAN Investment Programme, which helps to
explain its structure and rationale.
Predecessor programmes
There is a long history of public funding for the work of the RCAN network. The Rural
Development Commission and its successor, the Countryside Agency, both funded the
network through Service Level Agreements (SLAs) until 2005/06.
The sequence of the Haskins report (2003), the Defra Rural Strategy (2004) and the
Modernising Rural Delivery Programme led to major changes in the way that rural policy was
managed and delivered. Policy and delivery functions were split to improve accountability
and more responsibility was devolved to regional or local organisations. The aim was to
bring delivery closer to rural communities and rationalise the funding streams, which it was
hoped would simplify processes and link programmes more clearly with strategic priorities.
Part of this change was Defra’s establishment of a new programme to support the RCAN
network, replacing that delivered through the Countryside Agency. The Rural Social and
Community Programme (RSCP) brought together a number of funding arrangements which
had been managed separately.
The RSCP was a two year fund, which ran from 2006 to 2008, to support the voluntary and
community sector in building sustainable communities and tackling social exclusion in rural
areas. It consisted of a funding element for RCAN members to support their advocacy role,
their work with others in the third sector in rural areas, and a small pot for regional projects.
This funding, worth £3.5 million per
year was generally referred to as ‘core’
funding.
However, the largest proportion of

RSCP funding, totaling £18 million
over two years, was allocated to sub-
regional partnerships and was for the
delivery of locally determined activities
22

which reflected local needs. Some of this money subsequently found its way to RCAN
members, where it was generally referred to as ‘project’ funding. The stated aims of the
RSCP programme were to:
• Enhance the capacity building capability of rural communities, so those communities
could work together to shape their own future.
• Help socially excluded individuals in rural communities to improve their life chances.
• Develop the capacity of the third sector, and of parish and town councils, to reinforce
the delivery of the first two aims.
Defra devolved responsibility for the management of the RSCP to the regional Government
Offices (GOs). Funding directed to the 38 local RCAN members was then managed via
SLAs. Responsibility for the development and delivery of sub-regional programmes was
passed to 47 local partnerships made up of third sector organisations, local authorities and
other statutory bodies. These partnerships were required to prepare a business case for the
proposed investment, which they submitted to their GO for approval.
The RSCP increasingly became a strategically focused portfolio of activity, with RCAN
members commissioned to perform five functions:
• Advocate, influence and support policy development at local, regional and national
levels to address the needs of rural communities.
• Work in partnership with the public, private and voluntary sectors to shape strategic
delivery initiatives to benefit rural communities, including shaping infrastructure
investment plans and their implementation.
• Build the capacity of rural voluntary and community sector groups and individuals,
including through community development activities, guidance, information,
networking and training.
• Undertake organisational development, including business planning and providing
professional development support and networking within and across regions for
RCAN officers and trustees.
• Develop and implement systems for monitoring performance and outcomes.
The three most commonly occurring themes for RSCP expenditure were rural housing,
community development support and parish plan grants.
23

Evaluation of the RSCP

An evaluation4 of the RSCP was commissioned by Defra during 2007, the primary focus of
which was the delivery of sub-regional programmes. It concluded that the overall structure
and approach of the programme was forward looking in certain key aspects and that it had
made a positive contribution towards building the capacity of rural communities. In
particular, the programme was found to be:
• Responsive to local circumstances.
• Generating partnerships which contributed to its success. Where GO
involvement was offered, that had made a difference.
• Inclusive of rural communities across a wide range of geographic areas.
Given the short duration of the programme, it was felt that the sustainability of its
achievements, at the time of its completion, could not be assured. Nor had the programme
been able to test sufficiently the potential opportunities that LAAs afforded to the third sector
where it was championing support for rural communities.
Rationale for a new programme
Alongside the RSCP evaluation and negotiations for the 2007 Comprehensive Spending
Review, Defra had a feasibility study undertaken to explore the case for, and possible means
of, providing support for RCAN members in future years.
This feasibility report5, managed by Capacitybuilders, took place at a time when national
policy ambitions included: mainstreaming rural activity across central, regional and local
government policies and programmes; growing LAAs to bring together local delivery partners
around common sets of local priorities; and developing the infrastructure support for the third
sector. The role of GOs was also altering, meaning that they no longer (generally) had direct
involvement in programme delivery.
Defra wanted any future investment in the RCAN network to be based on:
• A single contractual relationship with that network.
• A coherent overview of the impact this would have.
• Access to rural expertise and understanding, not least in relation to cross-
Government Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets.

4
GHK, Assessment of the Rural Social and Community Programme, Defra (2008)
5
Rubus Defra’s Future Funding Support for the Rural Community Councils’ Network in England –
Feasibility Study, Capacitybuilders (2007)
24

The feasibility study noted that under the RSCP there had been a significant shift towards
strategic influencing for RCAN members. A number of them could demonstrate success in
getting rural issues onto strategic agendas and making the case for resources to tackle rural
deprivation.
It went on to say that any new arrangements needed a standard framework which focused
on outcomes. It warned that a significant reduction in funding was likely to lead both to
reduced rural service delivery and strategic influencing. As for an organisation to hold the
single contractual relationship, ACRE was found to be the most appropriate option. In
December 2008 the Government announced that it would continue to invest in the RCAN
network for the coming spending review period and would do so through ACRE.
25

4. Baseline and context
RCAN members will each have been at different starting points in April 2008, in terms of
their capacities to deliver the new programme successfully. Moreover, in the (nearly) two
years since it began a range of contextual factors will have helped or hindered their ability to
deliver the programme and achieve outcomes. This chapter draws on three information
sources:
• A baseline survey conducted by ACRE with local RCAN members in April 2008,
which focussed on their (internal) capacity and their (external) relationships with local
authorities.
• Contextual information within the revised RCAN business plans, which give a picture
of strategic risks and opportunities in April 2009, with a particular focus on funding
sources and the impact of the recession.
• Further information gathered through visits to the sample of 10 RCAN members plus
ACRE. These were used both to explore issues in more detail and to consider the
wider programme context by early 2010.
The baseline for the programme
Relationships with local authorities: the baseline survey of local RCAN members contains
answers in respect of 64 upper tier (county and unitary) local authorities. Information was
unavailable for 7 other local authorities.
RCAN members were asked to score these authorities according to how well they
understood and focussed on rural issues. Most authorities (72%) fell into the middle two
categories, with the moderately good category the most frequently given (42%).
Q. How well upper tier local authorities relate to rural issues (4 = good and 1 = bad)
Rural issues score Number Percentage
4 7 11%
3 27 42%
2 19 30%
1 11 17%
Those authorities given the lowest score were generally largely urban unitaries, though
some of them bucked this trend and were scored well. Those authorities given the highest
26

score tended to be more obviously rural in character and some are known for their rural work
e.g. as Beacon Councils.
RCAN members were similarly asked to score the authorities according to their apparent
commitment to working with the third sector. On this measure a very large majority (93%)
fell within the two middle categories. Only one authority was felt to warrant the highest
score.
Q. How well upper tier local authorities relate to the third sector (4 = good, 1 = bad)
Rural issues score Number Percentage
4 1 2%
3 29 45%
2 31 48%
1 3 5%
In terms of the evaluation – without wishing to simplify – these baseline findings are quite
helpful, since most authorities were given similar (moderate) scores for their rural and third
sector relationships and many of the low/high scores were predictable.
Involvement in policy development: RCAN members were also asked about the various
ways they were involved in policy development by upper tier local authorities in 2008. The
most frequent form this took was as a consultee within a wide pool of organisations
consulted. More intensive consultation was less common, with 39% of authorities directly
consulting their RCAN member as a rural voice. Just over a fifth used RCAN members to
‘rural proof’ their policy plans.
It is notable that 38% included RCAN members on upper tier Local Strategic Partnership
(LSP) board structures6. This seems impressive, not least as it includes some mixed
(urban/rural) places. It is also worth noting that both this evaluation and a previous report to
ACRE7 found it easier for RCAN members to gain a place on lower tier (district) LSP boards
or groups.

6
It is possible some responses will have interpreted the question as referring only to LSP Boards,
whilst others will have taken it to embrace other LSP management and theme groups.
7
Rural Innovation, RCAN Allocation Formula, Evidence Base and Findings from Consultation – A
Briefing Paper (2008)
27

Q. How RCAN members are involved in policy development by upper tier local
authorities
Type of involvement Number (out of 64) Percentage
Consulted as part of a wide pool 40 63%
Directly consulted as the rural voice 25 39%
Invited to rural proof plans 14 22%
LSP Board member 24 38%
Other involvement 13 20%
Not involved 5 8%
Note: the percentages do not add up to 100% in this table, since RCAN members can be
involved in more than one way.
Once again the authorities not involving RCAN

members tended to be urban unitaries. At the
other end of the spectrum, three authorities
involved their RCAN member in all five of the
ways listed.
The survey asked RCAN members which

departments within upper tier local authorities
they worked effectively with (see chart below).
The most often cited was ‘environment and
transport’ (55% of authorities). A promising
feature was effective engagement with 44% of
CEO offices and 52% of policy and strategy
departments, indicating that many RCAN
members were connecting with the centre of
local authority strategic thinking. Economic
development also scored quite high. It is
tempting to see this overall pattern as reflecting
RCAN members’ interests on certain topics
(e.g. community-led planning and community
buildings), though it should be noted this
question was only asked in respect of upper tier
local authority functions.
28

Per cent of upper tier local authority departments RCAN members say they work with
effectively
60
50
40
30
20
10 Column1
0
ce
re
rs
t
re
h
ng
rt
gy
e
en
a lt
pl
po
lo
tu
ca
ffi
te
ni
eo
pm
c il
he
l
s o
ns
an
ra
Cu
ia l
g p
un
ic
st
tra
lo
Pl
e'
oc
Co
ve
bl
un
d
tiv
t/
t s
n
Pu
de
en
yo
cu
y a
ul
ic
xe
+
Ad
m
lic
n
om
on
f e
Po
re
v ir
ie
on
il d
Ch
En
Ec
Ch
Note: the percentages do not add up to 100%, since RCAN members can work with many
departments.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the departments where very few RCAN members said they were
involved were those dealing with culture and public health.
Local funding: RCAN members were then asked about the nature of the funding
relationship with their upper tier local authorities. Much the most common type of funding
was a conditional grant, which was provided by 53% of authorities.
Q. Funding relationships that RCAN members have with upper tier local authorities
Type of funding received Number (out of 64) Percentage
Service contract(s) 17 27%
Conditional grant(s) 34 53%
Non-conditional grant(s) 9 14%
Other type of funding 11 17%
No funding 16 25%
Note: the percentages do not add up to 100% in this table, since RCAN members can receive various
types of funding.
Three-quarters of authorities provided some form of funding to their local RCAN member,
though only one provided it with all 4 categories of funding. Almost all the authorities not
29

providing any funding were mainly urban unitaries, although some have a significant rural
hinterland.
RCAN members were fairly sceptical about the chances of finding local match funding for
this type of work. Some split their answer between the constituent upper tier local authorities
in their area, so results are presented on that basis.
Q. Chances of receiving local match funding for RCAN work

Likelihood Numbers (out of 44) Proportion
High chance (within 12 months) 13 30%
Medium chance (within 24 months) 7 16%
Low chance 24 54%
Almost a third fell into the optimistic category, but a small majority (54%) were pessimistic
about achieving local match funding. This is consistent with research ACRE produced in
2007/08 and funded by the Finance Hub8. It is difficult to discern any obvious pattern in the
detailed data e.g. between the most rural authorities and the likelihood of gaining match-
funding. This may be because some highly rural authorities, whilst sympathetic, had
especially tight budgets and/or were about to undergo local government reorganisation.
RCAN capacity: survey responses on this topic were available from 31 of the local RCAN
members, though in a few cases some felt unable to answer specific questions.
The RCAN members were asked about their strategic influencing effort in 2008 and,
specifically, how many hours per week their staff and trustees spent on such work. The
answers ranged from 85 hours to 15 hours. The overall picture was that;
• six spent at least 80 hours per week
• five spent between 60 and 79 hours per week
• thirteen spent between 40 and 59 hours per week
• four spent 39 or fewer hours per week.
This is quite a wide range, though almost half were in the 40 to 59 hours per week bracket.
It may be that the range reflects both staffing numbers and the complexity of local authority
structures, as well as respondents’ varying definitions of “strategic influencing”.
The survey also included a question about the state of RCAN members’ (rural) evidence
base, given its importance for demonstrating policy needs. The most common response

8
Finance Hub, The potential for mainstreaming rural investment, ACRE (2008)
30

was that their evidence base was “patchy” (19 of 28 responses), with the remainder offering
more positive answers (“comprehensive” or “very current”). While we cannot know how
“patchy” was interpreted, it implies that no RCAN members had a non-existent or very weak
evidence base.
Three topics of particular interest to the RCAN Investment Programme were asked about in
the 2008 survey, namely the priority that members gave to;
• strategic influencing
• community led planning
• and sustainable development (including climate change).
As the chart below shows, at this date strategic influencing and CLP were priority most by
local RCAN members.
Prioritisation given to issues by local RCAN members in 2008 (percentage)
25
20
15
Strategic influencing
10
Community led planning
Sustainable development
5
0
Main priority A high priority Core but A low priority
medium
priority
Transition to the RCAN Investment Programme: without exception the RCAN members
visited said they interpreted the new programme as focussing on strategic work and
influencing activities. A few felt there was some confusion, initially, about the extent of this
focus. In fact an intentional decision had been taken to leave open scope for the programme
to contribute funding to complementary support work. One local RCAN member sees its
Defra contribution to support work as simply paying for the time to secure partner support
and negotiate future local funding.
31

The strategic influencing focus was certainly not new for regional RCAN members, who were
not directly involved in support work. A few local RCAN members equally said the shift in
focus was not great for them, because they had already been using RSCP money largely for
influencing work or they had been on a trajectory where they were growing that aspect of
their work. However, for most of the local RCAN members visited it did mark a shift in
direction from the previous (RSCP) programme. Some described undertaking reviews,
variously to consider their influencing opportunities and organisational structures. A few
mentioned the cultural shift they had gone through, with at least one having retrained staff to
equip them with influencing skills.
For some RCAN members visited this focus was a welcome development and seemed a
logical use of Defra money; it made them think more strategically about their role. Those
where large-scale change was happening anyway (e.g. as a result of local government re-
organisation or the arrival of a new CEO) tended to see it as a chance to start afresh. Yet
most said the transition meant they received significantly less funding from Defra after April
2008. A majority had scaled back or ceased certain delivery activities at that stage (e.g.
support for CLP, community development work, Rural Housing Enabler work), with some –
though not all – resorting to redundancies or non-renewal of staff contracts. At the time
there were mixed experiences, in terms of finding local replacement funding for this support
work. Indeed, in a few cases RCAN members noted that the transition from RSCP to RCAN
Investment Programme coincided with the conclusion of other local funding streams.
It should be noted that the transition also created a new role for ACRE, as a programme
manager allocating resources to RCAN members and collating monitoring information back
from them. This changed the nature of the relationship between ACRE and the other RCAN
members, and it was recognised that this posed a risk. However, despite a revision to the
funding allocations and despite the introduction of some processes which go with the
monitoring role, there is little evidence it has strained the relationship. From ACRE’s
perspective it is actually seen as strengthening it, making it easier to collate RCAN-wide
information and evidence which it can deploy in its national influencing.
The context for the programme
To varying degrees the revised (2009-11) RCAN business plans all mention particular
challenges or risks, as well as opportunities or positive developments assisting their work.
(They also contain project level risks, but the focus in this report is on the strategic risks
identified.) This material was undoubtedly shaped by the fact that the business plan
32

template sought information on the changing financial situation for RCAN members and the
impact of the recession. However, information from the evaluation visits to 10 RCAN
members and ACRE have broadened this out considerably.
Funding challenges: RCAN members receive funding from many sources, which are time-
limited or subject to review, so the business plans paint a complex picture of funding streams
which are ending, continuing (perhaps at different levels) and being secured. Moreover it is
difficult to generalise about the trend in overall resource levels from this information. Some
business plans pointed to reducing funding overall, while others pointed to growth. A
similarly mixed picture emerged from the visits in early 2010, which also found that the
increases or decreases could be very significant. One trend since 2008 appears to be a
move away from core funding and non-conditional grants, towards funding for specific
projects or commissioned service delivery (which is often competitively tendered).
Particular challenges associated with local authority funding include:
• Reductions to the level of core SLA grants.
• The conclusion of short-term (project) grants, with no extension.
• Grants remaining at the same level, with no allowance for inflation.
• The bundling up of grants which previously went to many third sector bodies, into a
single large grant to one third sector body.
• The introduction of new procurement or commissioning processes, which RCAN
members may find difficult to access.
• An unwillingness, at least in some areas, to provide local funding for rural work
previously funded by Defra programmes (see detail in the next chapter).
• Uncertainty about funding in areas going through local government restructuring.
Quite a few revised business plans comment on the level of RCAN Investment Programme
funding itself, usually where they are one of the RCAN members who faced a reduction
when the allocation formula was altered from 2009/10.
Other challenges: a variety of other issues were noted, the main ones being:
• Recession: both revised business plans (in 2009) and the visits (early 2010) found
the majority view to be that it is too early to assess the implications of the recession
on RCAN member budgets. Much local authority funding comes in multi-year
agreements typically running to 2011. There was, however, real concern about the
upcoming period and the impact of the expected public sector austerity. Early signs
33

of recessionary impacts were: notifications (formal or informal) of reduced grants in

future years; fewer new funding opportunities coming forward; greater competition for
remaining grant opportunities; and increased demand for advice and support
services offered by the third sector. We return to this in chapter five;
• Local government review (LGR): featured in many business plans and was the
dominant contextual factor for two local RCAN members visited whose areas had
undergone re-organisation in April 2009 (Bedfordshire and Durham). Looked at as a
challenge, LGR can lead to a period where policy development slows, there is
uncertainty over local contracts and funding, a loss of existing contacts (especially in
district councils), a need to re-build relationships and influence, and the souring of
local partner relations. It can also become all-consuming in terms of RCAN
influencing time and effort. One or two business plans felt large unitary councils may
be less likely to engage on rural issues than smaller district councils. Enhanced two-
tier working and the sharing of back-office functions between districts was also
mentioned, though the impact of these seems more neutral. Further mention of
structural change arose in relation to the sub-national review – not least by RCAN
regional bodies – with the cessation of Regional Assemblies and formation of
regional leaders groups.
• Mainstreaming: many RCAN members cite the disbanding of rural teams and loss
of rural specialist posts within local authorities, regional Government Offices and
Regional Development Agencies. These had been their main point of contact in the
organisations.
• Empowerment models: new models and approaches to community empowerment
and neighbourhood working have been in development, which overlook or bypass
the existing widespread rural practices (supported by RCAN), such as community led
planning and parish charters.
• Local performance framework: the impact on local authorities and partner bodies is
seen by some RCAN members as detrimental. LAA improvement targets are easiest
to hit by focussing effort on urban centres and LAA monitoring rarely tracks progress
at a scale which distinguishes rural places. One RCAN member visited felt the
Comprehensive Area Assessment process, too, had focussed attention on larger
urban areas, since issues there had gained the auditor’s red flags.
• Urban authorities: a few of the business plans raise the challenge of working in
areas which are dominated by urban or metropolitan centres. The policy agenda
here may major on urban priorities, with rural concerns being peripheral and the rural
voice less easily heard.
34

• Internal organisational change: finally, it is important to note that certain RCAN

members have, themselves, been undergoing change during the programme period.
For example, in Buckinghamshire the RCAN member is merging with three local
Councils for Voluntary Service. This is inevitably a major call on management time
and priorities.
Opportunities: what some see as challenges, others will see as opportunities. Hence,
some of the same issues appear below. The main opportunities identified were:
• Organisational change: a positive spin is that change to partner organisations and

structures brings about new opportunities to gain influence. In this regard the
business plans mention new unitary local authorities, new third sector infrastructure
consortia, new rural boards and committees, a new rural portfolio holder (councillor)
and new Regional Select Committees of MPs. For one of the RCAN members
visited the experience of LGR has ultimately been a very positive one (in terms of
local authority receptiveness to rural issues and the outcomes);
• Funding sources: without re-iterating everything said above, many RCAN members
are successfully finding new funding sources to keep their budgets stable or growing.
They come from a variety of organisations, including first and second tier local
authorities, local strategic partnerships, regional development agencies, EU
programmes, the Big Lottery and other regeneration or partnership initiatives.
Capacitybuilders is mentioned in many business plans, including its Improving Reach
and Modernisation Fund programmes. There are numerous examples of new
funding creating posts and enabling new work areas to proceed. Some business
plans cite funding from outside the statutory sector, including registered social
landlords, private sector sponsors and trusts, though the visits confirmed the heavy
reliance currently on accessing local authority money.
• Business development: that said many RCAN members have been seeking to
develop or identify more diverse income streams. These include providing a
consultancy offer, charging for their services, developing completely new services
and renting out part of their office space. In a few cases this appears to be bringing
in substantial sums of money. There is a major project in one region (led by the
regional RCAN body, but involving all the local bodies) which is taking a fairly radical
look at possibilities for the future.
• Accountable body: a number of RCAN members have become the lead or
accountable body for the third sector infrastructure consortium in their county. A few
35

have gained responsibility for Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE)
Local Action Groups. One of the regional RCAN bodies visited has become the
Regional Empowerment Partnership. These responsibilities can bring with them
significant new resources, though (with the exception of the RDPE) it should be
noted that this is not solely for rural work.
• Role of the third sector: indeed, the growing policy interest in the role of the third
sector is seen as an opportunity. This is evident within ACRE’s national influencing
work and evident in some local areas where the LAA had adopted an improvement
target on the third sector. Some local RCAN members are leading the partnership to
deliver that LAA target (NI 7).
• Community empowerment: similarly – and despite the challenge noted above – the
growing policy agenda around community empowerment is widely seen as helpful to
RCAN work. There seems little doubt that it has provided a hook for much RCAN
strategic influencing and support work e.g. around CLP. Most local RCAN members
visited have been engaging with LAA structures around relevant improvement targets
(NI 3 and NI 4).
• Climate change adaption: some RCAN members visited said that the developing
policy agenda on adaption to climate change and encouraging individual or collective
action by communities is proving an opportunity for them, given recognition of their
reach into local communities.
• Working relationships: a good few business plans note positive relations and joint
working with the key organisations in their area, including local authorities, parish and
town councils, regional development agencies, regional Government Offices,
voluntary and community sector agencies, and other partnership structures. Indeed,
some stress the degree of willingness locally to work in partnership. One example of
an RCAN member visited shows that where third sector organisations are willing to
co-operate and agree on policy objectives they can use their time more effectively
and advocate consistent messages.
The findings in this chapter highlight the particular importance, for local RCAN members, of
their working relationship with upper tier local authorities. They also show that for most,
though not all, the introduction of the RCAN Investment Programme was a distinct shift in
emphasis towards strategic influencing. Certain developing policy agendas (and related
LAA targets) can be seen as opportunities for the programme, including community
empowerment, the role of the third sector and climate change adaption. A number of the
contextual factors may be either a challenge or an opportunity, depending on local
36

circumstances. One thing indicated is the degree of flux and uncertainty around local
funding sources. Another is that, whilst it is possible to generalise about the baseline and
context, there is also important local variation, most obviously where there is local
government restructuring.
37

5. Programme shape and inputs
The information in this chapter derives from the review of the RCAN business plans and
from supplementary information gathered during the visits. Appendix B summarises each of
the business plans in terms of their projects and resources (inputs).
Scale of the programme
According to revised (2009-11) business plans the RCAN Investment Programme is wholly
or partly funding some 245 projects. RCAN members undertake a great deal of other
activity. ACRE required information about certain of these activities, considered as ‘core’ for
the RCAN network, where it wished to understand the totality of activity. As a result those
activities appear as projects in RCAN business plans, whether or not they use Defra funding.
There are some 117 projects, funded entirely from other sources, listed in the RCAN
business plans. They, nonetheless, contribute to similar objectives. So while they are
technically out-with this evaluation – because they don’t use programme resources – they
can be seen as complimentary to the programme and its impacts. Indeed, many of those
projects indicate success in obtaining funding from local sources.
224 (91%) of the 245 projects funded by the programme are managed by local RCAN
members. The remaining 21 projects are managed by RCAN regional bodies. ACRE does
not describe its national influencing work in projects, as such, but clearly this forms another
substantive layer of activities. ACRE estimates that it has regular influencing activity with
around 25 organisations (though it has an infrequent influencing relationship with many
more).
As appendix B shows, there is great variation in the number of projects being managed by
local RCAN members in different regions. Those in the East Midlands, on average, put their
programme funding towards 10 projects, whilst those in the North East, on average, put
theirs towards 3 projects. (At an individual RCAN member level the range is from 1 to 16
projects.) One obvious explanation is the size of projects and how far RCAN members have
disaggregated topics into smaller projects. The other key explanation is the way in which
RCAN members use their programme funding. As explained later in this chapter, some tend
to use it to wholly fund a few projects, whilst others tend to put it towards a larger suite of
projects alongside other funding sources.
38

Mix of project types
Of the 224 local RCAN member projects, some 152 (68%) are strategic influencing projects
and the remaining 72 (32%) are support work projects. Only in the two midlands regions is
the pattern noticeably different, with an even split between these two types of projects.
RCAN Investment Programme projects managed by local RCAN members, by project

type
North North Yorks West East East of South South All local
Region> East West and Mid’s Mid’s England West East members
Project Humber
type
Strategic 6 12 9 15 25 17 37 31 152
influencing
Support 3 1 0 15 25 7 12 9 72
work
All 9 13 9 30 50 24 49 40 224
projects
As might be expected, almost all (19) of the projects managed by regional RCAN bodies are
coded as strategic influencing. The 2 which are not, though coded as support work, are in
fact very similar to projects in other regions which have been coded as strategic. This
project looked specifically at ACRE’s strategic influencing work (nationally), which is a major
part of its work, though it does also deliver rural support work to its members and act as a
project fund manager.
This fits with a finding from the visits to 10 RCAN members. Eight of those visited said that
the volume of their strategic influencing work had grown since the start of the programme,
with some saying significantly and one estimating that it had doubled. (Of the remaining two,
one thought the volume was unchanged and one that it had reduced.)
Project activity codes
The table on the next page lists the 16 programme activity codes in order, based on the
number of locally-managed RCAN projects allocated primarily to those codes in the RCAN
business plans. It should be noted that, as well as the primary codes, strategic influencing
39

projects are allocated other linked codes. For example, a project primarily about influencing
a LAA (code 3), may also contribute to CLP (code 6) or tackling disadvantage (code 14).
For local RCAN members the two most common (primary) activity codes are those for:
Strategic influencing “other” – this covers partnerships and bodies which are not local
authorities. It is wide ranging, but includes work with third sector infrastructure consortia;
Strategic influencing of LAAs and upper tier LSPs – all local RCAN members have at least
one project against this activity code.
Though not as common, it is worth noting that at third place in the table are projects which
seek to influence non-LAA owning local authorities (mainly districts) and their LSPs.
RCAN Investment Programme funded projects managed by local bodies, by activity

code
Region North North Yorks West East East of South South All 38
Activity code East West and Mid’s Mid’s England West East local
Humber bodies
5 Strategic 2 2 4 4 7 6 13 9 47
influencing other
3 Strat influence 3 3 2 6 5 8 11 8 46
LAAs and LSPs
4 Strat infl non- 1 2 1 3 4 2 6 5 24
LAA local auths
6. Support 2 1 0 4 5 3 3 2 20
community led
planning
2 Strat influence 0 3 1 1 5 0 4 5 19
at regional level
1 Strat influence 0 2 1 1 4 1 3 4 16
at national level
8 Support comm 1 0 0 4 5 1 2 1 14
owned assets
15 Support on 0 0 0 3 2 1 2 2 10
climate change
9 Support on 0 0 0 3 2 0 1 2 8
afford housing
40

Region North North Yorks West East East of South South All 38
Activity code East West and Mid’s Mid’s England West East local
Humber bodies
14 Support on 0 0 0 1 6 1 0 0 8
social inclusion
7 Support comm- 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 4
unity governance
10 Support on 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 3
transport/access
11 Support on 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 3
rural economy
13 Support on 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
health/social care
16 Generic 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
support
12 Support on 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
employment/skills
Column totals 9 13 9 30 50 24 49 40 224
The two activity codes for support work which crop up most frequently are those for:
• Community led planning; and
• Community-owned buildings.
Affordable housing is lower down the list. It should, though, be noted that support for Rural
Housing Enablers quite often appears in business plans as fully funded from other (non-
Defra) sources, such as local housing authorities and registered social landlords.
A noteworthy point is the extent to which there are linkages between programme activities at
different spatial levels. Nineteen locally managed RCAN projects contribute to regional
influencing and 16 contribute to national influencing. Most of these projects specifically refer
to feeding into RCAN regional body and ACRE work. Of course, it could be said that all local
RCAN members input to national and regional RCAN activity at certain times, but some have
chosen to formalise this into defined projects.
41

The next table shows, according to primary activity codes, the most common projects being
managed by regional RCAN bodies. Unsurprisingly, it is strategic influencing at a regional
level which has the most projects (9). Most of the other projects are supporting local RCAN
members in their region, and are coded as either influencing of LAAs/LSPs or influencing
“other” partnerships and bodies.
RCAN Investment Programme funded projects managed by regional bodies, by

activity code
Activity codes Number of projects
2 Strategic influencing at regional level 9
3 Strategic influencing of LAAs and LSPs 4
5 Strategic influencing, other 4
1 Strategic influencing at national level 2
6 Support for community led planning 1
16 Generic support 1
All other activities (4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15) 0
Total number of regional body projects 21
Though ACRE’s work is not coded, the main blocks of work discussed with it would most
likely be coded as strategic influencing at the national level (code 1). That said some
elements (e.g. co-ordinating dataset development) have particular applicability at local level.
Contribution to wider Defra objectives
This analysis provides some information about the programme’s contribution to Defra’s list of
“additional important factors”. This includes providing assistance to local authorities and
other bodies about community-led planning. For all bar one of the RCAN members visited
this was an important element of their programme work. Almost all were aiming to link CLP
with LAA processes and LSP structures, as a means of achieving community empowerment
objectives and/or as a source of evidence about local needs. Various outputs and outcomes
from this work are cited in the following chapters.
Defra was also keen that the programme should promote and assist behavioural change in
rural areas, contributing towards climate change mitigation. The local RCAN member table
above shows this to be the primary activity (code 15) for 10 projects. Further, it should be
noted that: it is a linked activity for many more projects; and the visits identified quite a lot of
42

support work on community buildings (code 8) that was contributing through activities like
energy audits.
Most of the RCAN members visited were contributing to behavioural change and climate
change mitigation is some shape or form, though the extent of this varied considerably.
ACRE has been playing a significant part through its membership of and input to the
Ministerial Task Force on the Third Sector and Climate Change. South East Rural
Community Councils has developed and disseminated a Sustainable 21st Century Rural
Community Toolkit. Another local RCAN member is trying to pilot a modular green
community building. For a few of the local RCAN members their contribution was more
limited to providing advice on energy efficiency for community buildings. Three mentioned
that they had to be careful not to tread on the toes of the local Groundwork organisation on
this agenda.
Defra was equally keen that the programme should have a significant focus on tackling
disadvantaged people in rural communities. Eight projects have social inclusion (code 14)
as their primary activity, though 5 of these are managed by the same RCAN member.
Again, many more projects across many more RCAN members have this code as a linked
activity. It should also be said that projects on activities such as affordable housing and
transport are aiming to benefit disadvantaged people.
All bar one of the RCAN members visited felt their programme activities were significantly
focused on tackling rural disadvantage. Some felt this because they could point to specific
projects or activities undertaken from their business plan. Others felt it was at the heart of
everything they do and almost all the work contributed; as one put it, “we’re not here to
support rural affluence”. Even though supporting community-led planning was seen as more
widely focussed (on whole communities), the RCAN approach to CLP is considered to be
inclusive and building support networks which benefit vulnerable people. Most of the RCAN
members visited were developing their evidence base on rural deprivation to inform their
strategic influencing, usually based around the, so-called, OCSI9 analysis of indicators.
Defra wish the programme to complement the work of regional Government Offices (GOs),
Rural Affairs Forums (RAFs) and the Commission for Rural Communities (CRC). GO and
RAF engagement was central to the two RCAN regional members visited. For one, along
with RDA engagement, it was the purpose of its RCAN project. The other provides the

9
Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (OCSI) have undertaken a rural analysis and mapping of the
Government’s index of deprivation for many RCAN members.
43

secretariat function for its RAF10, as well as sitting on the higher-level Rural Board. Some
local RCAN members have a regional strategic influencing project which covers engagement
with the GO and RAF (and others), though two of those visited had pulled back from regional
influencing leaving this to the regional RCAN body. Nevertheless, a number of the local
RCAN members visited held a place on their RAF; whether or not this was so seemed to
depend largely on the size and make-up of individual forums. One CEO was RAF co-chair
and their RCAN body had drafted the RAF’s rural framework document. Most RCAN
members registered positive relations with their GO, though half indicated that links had
lessened since 2008 either because the programme money no longer came through the GO
(as RSCP did) or the GO rural team had been disbanded.
ACRE considers its relationship with the CRC to have strengthened since 2008 and to be
good. The two have considered their relative strengths and how they can contribute to each
other’s work. Evidence was provided of joint working with and contributions to the work of
the CRC, including both policy advocacy and research/analysis. The CRC sometimes calls
on ACRE for a policy reality check, given the RCAN networks’ reach into communities.
Staffing input
Although there is no obvious way of calculating a statistic for this, the project descriptions in
the RCAN business plans indicate that the great majority of programme funding is spent on
staffing. Some projects are also funding (or part-funding) other things, such as research,
publications and events.
The table at Appendix B contains figures for the staff resources (full time equivalent numbers
or FTEs) associated with programme funded projects. Whilst of interest, these need to be
taken with some health warnings. First, there are only figures for 25 of the 46 RCAN
members; the information does not appear in the remaining business plans. Second, the
figures include projects part-funded by the programme, where the staffing level is not solely
a product of Defra money. Third, it seems probable that individual RCAN members will have
calculated their figures in slightly different ways.
Nevertheless, there is a fair degree of consistency to the figures and many of the differences
between RCAN members make sense in terms of their project portfolios. At the extremes
the local RCAN member figures range from 1.0 FTE up to 5.85 FTE, though more than two-

10
At least one other RCAN regional body, not visited, is known to perform this function.
44

thirds of them fall within the range 1.5 to 4.0 FTEs. Support work projects, where (part)
funded by the programme, can actually be quite staff-intensive e.g. requiring a Rural
Housing Enabler post or Community Buildings Adviser post. If the 25 local and regional
RCAN members which have provided figures are representative, then the staffing input for
the entire programme (of wholly and partly funded projects) is roughly 110 FTEs.
Among the RCAN members visited some CEO time was allocated to 30 of their 33 strategic
influencing projects. Much of the engagement with key partner organisations and
attendance at strategic partnership groupings would appear to be undertaken at this level,
which can consume (and so fund) a large proportion of the CEO’s time. Only rarely is any
CEO time allocated to a support work projects.
Nationally, ACRE’s influencing activities are quite heavily centred round the CEO role,
though a number of other staff contribute (including through their day-to-day activities).
Some RCAN members visited had created new posts, either business development
managers, whose role was to find future business, or a policy officer, with the aim of freeing
up more CEO time for strategic influencing activity.
Use of programme funding
The table below provides a summary analysis of projects managed by local RCAN
members, showing their programme funding. Of the 224 projects, some 89 (40%) are fully
funded by Defra RCAN Investment Programme money and 135 (60%) are partly funded by
the programme.
Projects managed by local RCAN members, by type of funding from the programme
No North Yorks & West East East of South South All 38
Region> rth West Humber Mid’s Mid’s England West East local
Ea bodies
Funding
st
Wholly 3 8 7 12 9 5 19 26 89
funded
Partly funded 6 5 2 18 41 19 30 14 135
Total 9 13 9 30 50 24 49 40 224
(wholly plus
partly)
45

Of the 21 RCAN Investment Programme projects being managed by regional bodies, 8 are
wholly funded by the programme and 13 are partly funded by it. ACRE’s national influencing
and advocacy work is mainly funded from within the grant it receives as a strategic partner to
the Office of the Third Sector (part of the Cabinet Office).
It is strategic influencing projects where Defra money is more likely to be the sole or the
main funding source and it is support work projects where Defra money is more likely to be
one of many sources or not contributing. Of the projects entirely funded from elsewhere and
mentioned in RCAN business plans, by far the most common are: 21 on community owned
assets; 20 on social inclusion; 18 on affordable housing; 17 on CLP; and 14 on climate
change.
Indeed, a tendency can be detected for RCAN members to have adopted one of two
approaches to using their programme allocation. Some have largely separated programme
(Defra) funding from other sources e.g. using it to pay for strategic influencing projects, while
local/other funders pay for support work. Others have mixed up funding sources, so
programme (Defra) funding contributes towards a larger number of projects which also have
local/other funders. These two approaches can clearly be seen in Appendix B by comparing
Somerset with Leicestershire & Rutland respectively.
The RCAN members visited were asked about their funding approaches. Many simply felt
that, given the steer about the focus of the programme, it seemed sensible to use the Defra
money for strategic influencing projects. Others said it was more of a pragmatic decision,
since funding would not be forthcoming from elsewhere for strategic influencing work, while
a case could be made to local authorities for contracting the support work.
Levels of funding
As noted earlier ACRE’s national influencing work is not funded from the RCAN Investment
Programme, though it contributes to programme objectives. Rather, ACRE records show
just in excess of £100,000 per year of its Office of the Third Sector funding is going on
influencing and advocacy work. It does, though, top-slice a modest sum from the RCAN
Investment Programme for the costs of administering it.
The RCAN Investment Programme provides £3.45 million per year. A small part of this is
held back for a Network Development Fund, for which RCAN members can submit
proposals to ACRE. The 8 regional bodies each then receive £15,000 per year. The bulk of
46

the budget (£3.08 million in 2009/10) is then allocated between the 38 local members. This
works out at an average of £81,000, though in practice the range (2009/10) is from £52,500
to £160,000, the distribution being based on an agreed allocation formula. These amounts
differ from 2008/09, when an earlier allocation formula was used, and it will differ a little in
2010/11 when mitigation funding (given to 6 local RCAN members who lost out in the re-
allocation) disappears.
Of course, the Defra money is typically just one of various funding sources for a RCAN
member. It is illuminating to place the figures above alongside those for other sources.
Recent work by ACRE has calculated that the total annual turnover of the RCAN network
(including the programme money) is around £40 million. This implies for every £1 the RCAN
network received from the (Defra) programme it gets around £10.50 from other sources.
Just over £8 million11 of the funding from other sources is shown in RCAN business plans,
with £3 million of this going on projects which are also part-funded by the programme.
Whilst there is a great deal of variation among local RCAN members in their share of the £8
million – from £5,000 up to £590,000 – it has not been possible to calculate comparable
figures for the wider income they receive which is not shown in these business plans.
The funding from other sources which appears in the RCAN business plans of regional
bodies is at much lower levels (average £27,000) than that for local bodies, largely reflecting
the fact that they are not directly involved with support work. However, again this must be
treated with caution, as there is likely to be further funding that is not shown in the RCAN
business plans.
RCAN members visited were asked

whether the programme (Defra money)
had enabled them to lever in other
funding sources. Six (and arguably a
seventh) had some evidence that this
had been the case. This was either
because they had convinced the other
funders through their strategic
influencing activity (paid for by the

11
Business plans sometimes say that funding shown has not yet been fully agreed and (conversely)
sometimes say that further funds will be sought.
47

programme) or because other funders had agreed to match programme money for specific
projects. One felt that the Defra money gave the work “a stamp of approval”. The other
four RCAN members could not yet identify any leverage. This did not mean they were
without other funding sources; as one put it, “we have not actually said we have RCAN
money, can you match it”?
Future funding
The visited RCAN members were then asked about the scope for attracting more local
funding. The answer here was a unanimous one. They recognised the scope with support
work. Resources were becoming tight but, in principle, they could go to local authorities and
others seeking funding for delivery; local statutory bodies will often pay to commission
tangible outputs that meet their policy objectives. On the other hand, eight said they could
not attract local funds for strategic influencing, while the other two thought that scope very
limited. Exceptions cited were payments for managing a county rural forum and for running
a RAF secretariat. More generally the views expressed were: “local authorities certainly
don’t think they need to be influenced”; “local authorities would say that they can do it
themselves”; and “if the Defra money ended the [organisation] would not disappear, but it
would be a very different organisation”. While there is a risk of circularity – with RCAN
members not seeking local funding for strategic influencing – the evidence from the
substantial sums they do attract is, indeed, that this is very heavily slanted to support work.
Local authorities that were interviewed welcomed input from RCAN members, but may be
unwilling to fund it.
If RCAN members (generally) are attracting substantial funds from other sources for support
work, it is also the case that – like most third sector funding – this is short-term in nature.
They constantly need to pay attention to extending or replacing current funding streams, as
well as seeking new opportunities. In that sense, the local funding they attract could not be
described as sustainable, though it may be unrealistic to expect more. With public sector
funding based on three yearly spending review periods, many RCAN members visited had a
series of budgets that were up for review or renewal by April 2011.
As noted before, RCAN members mainly consider it too early to assess the implications of
the recession on their budgets. Most said that their main current sources (SLAs and the like)
were expected to continue through 2010/11. However, they expressed concern about the
period from 2011 onwards. Some noted unwelcome messages coming from their main
funders and reviews being undertaken by those organisations (in preparation). One RCAN
48

member visited did feel that the recession had already affected them, since two RDA-funded
projects had been pulled shortly before contracts were due to be signed. The final
evaluation report should revisit this issue to explore the picture in the run up to April 2011.
RCAN members were asked about possibilities for tapping into funding from beyond the
public sector. This was not widely seen as a major source, though many had applied to
trusts and some had secured contributions from housing associations towards Rural
Housing Enabler posts. Business plans show a number letting out office space and one of
those visited described their trading arm (which offered training and insurance for village
halls). One RCAN member was exploring the scope to approach local businesses and a
significant regional project (funded by Capacitybuilders) is identifying business development
opportunities. The private sector was not seen as a source that would fund strategic
influencing work.
Defra hoped that the RCAN Investment Programme would help build the long-term financial
stability of the RCAN network. It has certainly helped sustain and develop the network
throughout the 2008-11 period. Strategic influencing work has grown and it has enabled
most RCAN members to attract other funding sources for their support work. It could be said
that RCAN members are consequentially now in a stronger position to seek other funding
sources, though the Defra programme cannot easily address the short-term nature of such
funding. Many RCAN members face considerable uncertainty in the run up to 2011,
especially given expectations of tightening public sector budgets.
49

6. Progress with outputs
This chapter examines the programme’s progress to-date in terms of activities and outputs.
It is based mainly on information gathered from the business plans, the RIO monitoring
system and from the visits to 10 RCAN members.
Some definitions are in order. For strategic influencing projects the ‘activities’ include things
such as attendance at partnership meetings, undertaking surveys and making presentations
at workshops. The ‘outputs’ are such things as action plans, bid documents and new
databases. That said, the distinction can sometimes be a fine one.
The support work projects are more traditional programme delivery and so the ‘activities’ are
the day-to-day functions of support staff like RHEs and community building advisers. For
these the ‘outputs’ are such things as numbers of housing needs surveys undertaken and
enquiries from village hall committees dealt with (respectively).
The evaluation framework
Placing the information about inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes into an evaluation
framework has demonstrated that the pathways to strategic influence can be complex (and
not a straight-line). Perhaps predictably, we have found:
• Unforeseen opportunities that arose and were seized by RCAN members.

• Pathways dropped by RCAN members e.g. because local circumstances changed.
• Pathways that did not secure their desired outcome (the opportunity having now
passed).
• Pathways that have achieved something, but not quite what had been intended.
Perhaps less predictably, we have found:
• Feedback loops, where outputs lead back to further necessary activities.

• Outputs from one strategic influencing project that re-appear in another (because
they also assist its objectives).
• Pathways that regressed e.g. where a local authority disbanded a CLP sub-group.
50

However, despite a fair degree of complexity, the main conclusion to be drawn from the
evaluation framework is that, almost without exception, the outputs can be seen to derive
directly from programme activities.
Programme activities
The 10 RCAN members examined in depth manage 40 projects which are receiving some
programme (Defra) funding. Activities have been recorded against all of these projects; all
40 projects have been taken forward.
Without doubt the most common activity against the strategic influencing projects would
seem to be attendance at committees and partnership meetings. To this should be added
the necessary preparation time and the follow up. RCAN members sit on a large number of
groups and sub-groups, which in part reflects the local governance structures they are
engaging with. One of those visited noted 50 partnerships and networks which it attends
(not all with statutory bodies). In two tier areas the district LSP structures can account for
many of these. Some local RCAN members focused their effort on a few districts and a
couple wondered whether they were trying to cover too much ground. Allied to this was
some frustration that much of the time in partnership meetings can be internally-focused on
structure and process, rather than looking at policy development where they can make their
pitch.
However, in largely rural counties it may be difficult to scale back involvement. It was noted,
too, that attendance gives the RCAN members the local policy understanding that assists
them in their wider operations. Another positive aspect, at least among those visited, was an
increase since the baseline (2008) in the number of local RCAN members who have a seat
on their LAA Board or Management Group.
It is worth adding that RCAN members were often consulted or given a committee place
specifically to act as the rural voice. However, seemingly just as common was being
consulted or given a committee place as a third sector voice (where they were expected to
look beyond rural issues).
Other typical strategic influencing activities would appear to be:

• Securing and holding bilateral meetings and negotiations.
• Performing secretariat functions for partnerships or groups.
51

• Undertaking surveys, analysis and other research.

• Collating information relevant to policy consultations or information requests.
• Contributing to policy and programme reviews.
• Scoping proposals and bid preparation.
• Putting together plans for events and wider engagement.
• Planning communications strategies.
• Identifying training or development needs (including for RCAN staff and trustees).
Many of these also apply to ACRE’s national role. It influences formally, by representation
on government and other committees and task forces, and informally, where its advice is
sought e.g. by Defra. Recently, a key activity for ACRE has been helping draft national
committee reports.
Activities for the RCAN member’s support work projects are the day-to-day functions of
those such as Rural Housing Enablers, Village Hall Advisers and CLP Support Officers.
Inter-relationship of activities
RCAN members were asked whether there was a relationship between their strategic
influencing and their support work activities (even where these were funded from outside the
programme). They were unanimous in their view that there was a strong relationship, using
phrases such as “inextricably linked” and “embedded”. One noted that their staff wouldn’t
distinguish between the two (it being the RCAN Investment Programme terminology which
makes the distinction).
The support work – especially CLP – is the means by which a lot of the evidence about rural
communities is gathered and it is this knowledge which lends credibility to the strategic
influencing. CLP provides a significant volume of evidence about rural community needs
and this is being used regularly in projects to influence LAA, LSPs and other structures.
Another example is information from RHEs which is being fed into a county housing
partnership. One RCAN member has its field staff complete monthly intelligence reports, the
information from which is re-used both during strategic meetings and in a published bulletin.
The fact that they have direct links with communities is equally seen, by partners and by
themselves, as legitimising their role as a rural voice.
The relationship also operates in the other direction. Strategic influencing projects often
52

create a policy climate that will assist the support work and frequently provide the channel
which leads to new funding being agreed for it. Communities have greater respect for RCAN
members, knowing that they are plugged in to the local policy structures. Indeed, they often
give communities the policy context they need to comprehend and point them to the right
policy buttons that will unlock action e.g. in order to address an issue identified in a
community led plan. Involvement in an array of support work can also bring fresh contacts
for RCAN members with statutory bodies, so providing them with new influencing
opportunities.
Such inter-related project activities often extend to the wider work of RCAN members i.e. to
activities which are out-with their RCAN business plans. As noted before, a great deal of the
support work does not involve programme (Defra) money, yet its usefulness for strategic
influencing may be just as strong. Similarly, one RCAN member visited pointed to research
it has been undertaking for a district council on children’s centres and for a Primary Care
Trust on access to health care. Both of these are helping to build its evidence base and to
feed its strategic influencing capacity.
Types of programme outputs
The most commonly recorded types of programme outputs against the 33 strategic
influencing projects which the 10 visited RCAN members manage are:
• Consultation responses and submissions (15 projects): RCAN members have
submitted many written responses to statutory bodies where they have been
consulted as part of a process of reviewing or developing policies, strategies and
programmes. In a few cases RCAN members are more closely involved and are
actually assisting the drafting of the rural or third sector element of the consultee
body’s document. It should also be noted that, whilst strictly speaking an activity,
they may encourage other organisations to submit responses.
• Bid documents, tenders and other funding proposals or applications (11 projects):
either alone or with partner organisations RCAN members have generated quite a
number of proposals and applications for support work and for one-off projects. In
nearly all cases the RCAN member envisages delivering them subsequently.
• Gaining a committee place (11 projects): an RCAN member achieving a place on an
existing committee or group should be seen as an output where this is the result of its
lobbying or negotiating activity. As noted above, the visits indicated an increase,
since 2008, in local RCAN members with places on LAA Boards and Management
53

Groups. There are a number of instances where the RCAN member has become
chair of a group, including for LAA theme groups.
• Research reports and analytical outputs (9 projects): many RCAN members now hold
an analysis of rural deprivation and some have developed a rural trends report for
their county. One of the regional bodies visited had led the creation (with that
region’s local members) of a rural evidence base.
• Rural strategy documents (8 projects): quite a few RCAN members have led or
contributed significantly to the production of a rural strategy document or similar, with
the intention that this will be used to push rural priorities and influence mainstream
policies.
• Communications and publicity material and events (8 projects): a few projects
involved a conference and there was an exhibition plus a tour for policy makers.
More frequent under this heading was the dissemination of new communications
material to inform local communities and community groups (e.g. an e-bulletin) or to
influence partner organisations (e.g. outlining RHE work).
• Guidance documents (6 projects): some RCAN members have generated good
practice case study material and guidance or toolkits. These seem typically to be
aimed at rural communities, to assist and inspire them, though they can be geared to
partner organisations.
• New groups (5 projects): some RCAN members have managed to establish or have
established a rural or topic sub-group in their area, preferably one with statutory
organisation backing and with links in to policy making processes.
• Databases (3 projects): similarly, outputs have included the creation or updating of
databases from activities such as CLP and support for community buildings. This
may include spin-off outputs which interpret the data. There is probably under-
recording of this output, since it can equally be reported against support work.
Fourteen other (unclassified) outputs were noted against these projects. It should, further,
be noted that outputs can sometimes be multiple against a specific project e.g. 3 bids were
submitted or 2 research reports were produced. There may also be a degree of general
under-reporting, despite endeavours to identify outputs; this seems most likely against
certain of the headings, such as consultation responses and communications material. The
figures can, nevertheless, be seen as indicating the types and extent of the more tangible
programme outputs.
54

Typical outputs from the support work projects are:

• Enquiries dealt with, in the case of advisory services for village hall and playing fields
committees.
• Housing needs surveys conducted, in the case of Rural Housing Enablers.
• Parish plans completed or underway, in the case of support for community-led
planning.
Extent of programme outputs
Outputs have been identified almost right across the range of 40 projects in the in-depth
sample. Put another way, all of the projects, bar one, has at least one tangible output
logged and the great majority of projects have led to a number of tangible outputs. The
exceptional project appears to have led to an intangible output (closer partnership working),
which may generate an outcome in due course. At this stage of the programme we would
hope to see broad evidence of outputs (if they are to lead to outcomes) and this is largely the
case. Some consolidation and further outputs should be expected in 2010/11.
Whilst all of the RCAN members visited are delivering outputs across their work, there is
apparently some variation in their extent. Some of this could be accounted for by under-
reporting, but there is some evidence of a relationship with the level of resources (budgets
and staff). Similarly, local government review seems to have some association with fewer
outputs, no doubt because it crowds out wider influencing activities and means RCAN
members having to devote more time to the basics of (re)building networks and contacts. It
has been easier to identify outputs for one of the regional RCAN bodies examined than the
other; one has defined very specific projects, while the other has adopted a more general
approach to relationship building with regional partners.
What can be said more confidently is that there are certain types of strategic influencing
output which seem common to almost all RCAN members, including consultation responses
and research reports or analyses. There are then some types of output which appear
clustered around a few RCAN members, including bid proposals/applications and producing
rural strategy documents.
As indicated above, recording outputs has not always been straightforward. Those listed
above are the more substantive ones, which are most likely to appear in RIO monitoring or
be recalled in discussion. However, it can reasonably be argued that beneath them is a drip-
55

drip of smaller outputs from the regular and ongoing contributions of RCAN members at
partnership meetings and the like. These can still build up to generate outcomes.
Equally, outputs associated with strategic influencing work can be fairly intangible. An
example would be where RCAN activity has led to local third sector organisations operating
in a more united way and speaking with a single voice. Other examples may be consensus
building in a partnership around a rural issue. It is clear that substantive RCAN member
effort goes into seeking such outputs and, for this programme, the softer awareness raising
of rural priorities and needs is an important element.
Such complexities would appear to explain why the evaluation framework occasionally
throws up what is an apparently causal link directly between an activity and an outcome.
Recognition of rural needs
One intangible output is the recognition of rural priorities and needs. The baseline survey of
local RCAN members in 2008 contained information about upper tier local authorities’
relationship to rural issues and the third sector. The visits conducted in early 2010 re-asked
the question. On rural issues there was a small majority saying that no change had taken
place (though some local authorities had improved or worsened). The view about these
authorities’ relationship to the third sector was slightly more positive; with one exception the
answer was no change or improved.
Similar questions were asked about second tier (district) local authorities during the visits.
Findings were that:
• With large numbers of districts the experience, unsurprisingly, varies a lot.

• The most rural districts are generally those which RCAN members find it easier to
work with.
• However, districts have very limited capacity and resources, which means some are
seen as showing little interest in new policy ideas.
• LAAs have swung the focus away from districts and onto upper tier authorities; and
• Some districts are felt to hold outmoded views of the third sector, equating it with
volunteering (and hence having no cost).
56

The evidence from the programme information is that RCAN members have wide
membership of local authority and statutory body partnerships and this has grown somewhat
since 2008. The same could be said of ACRE and its ability to gain places on relevant
national task forces and committees. It is clear from stakeholder interviews that the
contribution of RCAN members is (in almost all cases) much valued.
Summary comments
All of the projects managed by the in-depth sample of RCAN members are being taken
forward. For almost every project it is possible to identify tangible outputs and there is softer
evidence of intangible outputs, such as rural recognition and awareness (which may prove
as important). RCAN members are in a stronger position now than they were in 2008 in
terms of their membership of LAA structures. The evaluation framework also indicates that,
almost without exception, project outputs derive directly from the activities recorded against
those projects.
There is often a close relationship between strategic influencing and support work projects.
This is most obvious where support for CLP is generating a local evidence base that lends
credibility to the strategic influencing.
57

7. Progress toward outcomes
This chapter examines the programme’s progress to-date towards achieving outcomes. It
draws mainly on information gathered during the visits and from interviews with those the
programme seeks to influence. Outcomes are not generally being recorded on the RIO
monitoring system, so testing for them was a key part of the visits, to generate as full a
picture as possible.
For strategic influencing projects ‘outcomes’ are things such as favourable changes to
policy, the addition of rural priorities to strategies and new rural delivery arrangements or
funding put in place. New rural programmes and projects could either be delivered by the
organisations being influenced or by the RCAN member (if they are given the funding).
Ultimately these outcomes should contribute to improved conditions for rural communities,
but that is beyond the scope of this evaluation and arguably beyond any realistic scope to
measure or attribute.
For support work projects ‘outcomes’ are more traditional and include things such as new
affordable homes, in the case of RHEs, or implemented actions that arose from support for
community led planning.
It should be noted again that this assessment is made slightly less than two years through a
three year programme – a fact that is especially important in this chapter, since outcomes
can take considerable time to come about. It should also be noted that outcomes can be
extremely varied and at quite different scales. For example, one of the visited RCAN
members has – using its influence – secured changes within a city-region strategy document
and had improvements in access made at rural rail stations. These are at opposite ends of
the spectrum, but both are important in their own way.
Extent and types of programme outcomes
Across the 33 strategic influencing projects managed by the 10 visited RCAN members
some 46 outcomes were recorded as already having been achieved. A further 10 outcomes
were recorded as expected to be achieved in the near future. There were yet others
discussed with the RCAN members which remained work in progress and less certain at this
stage.
58

The outcomes for the local RCAN members are set out in the table overleaf. They include:
• Improvements to policy making processes: notably, where rural proofing has been
adopted or where community led planning has been adopted by local authorities and
partnerships.
• Amendments to strategy documents: either to enable rural areas to benefit more from
its priorities or to make some rural concern an additional priority.
• Altering service delivery plans: so they will better suit the requirements of rural
communities from a specific service areas.
• Securing funding: tapping into external sources so that rural communities can access
funding streams for things such as improvements to community buildings.
• Starting new programmes or projects: gaining agreement to new pilot projects or
programmes, almost all of them related to community led planning.
• Improving existing delivery: so that services better meet the needs of rural residents.
These outcomes revolve heavily around local authorities and the policy structures and
processes associated with the statutory sector. Even where projects focus on work with
other third sector organisations, this is often in order to achieve outcomes with statutory
bodies. Another interesting feature of the outcomes is how many are about linking up CLP
with statutory processes.
Outcomes from strategic influencing projects managed by 8 sampled local RCAN

members
Outcomes already achieved Outcomes almost achieved
Policy making improved: Policy making improved:
Rural proofing added to county equalities Unitary adopting CLP as an approach.
impact assessment.
Rural proofing via sustainability testing of
county SCS.
Rural proofing built into work of a LAA
thematic group.
County adopted CLP protocol.
Districts adopted CLP protocol.
County endorses CLP quality standard.
County parishes charter put in place.
Proposal for area structures dropped.
Parish representation on area partnerships.
59


Unitary developing a Comprehensive
Community Engagement Strategy.
Strategies amended: Strategies amended:

Adoption of a third sector (NI7) LAA target. Rural measures in a unitary third sector
Adaption of a district LSP to suit rural third strategy.
sector bodies. Revisions to a unitary SCS document.
Rural strategy document adopted by a
unitary LSP.
Rural strategy for city-region altered.
CLP now a key part of unitary community
engagement strategy.
Rural housing actions prioritised in sub-
regional strategy.
Rural proofing/drafting for a unitary’s
Sustainable Communities Plan.
Rural transport made a county SCS priority.
Priorities informed in regional rural narrative.
Service delivery plans altered: Service delivery plans altered:

District accessibility plan re-written. Rural measures in Local Transport Plan.
County waste policy plan amended.
Funding secured for: Funding secured for:

Rural social enterprise support in a county. RHE work linked to LAA reward grant.
Rural third sector delivery of a county LAA Support for CLP from the RDPE budget.
target.
Rural third sector frontline bodies to deliver
LAA targets.
Community building improvements for 13
communities whose bids were assisted.
Village hall improvements from a new local
authority grant fund.
60


Community buildings service (additional
funds).
Community building/playing field advice
service contracted.
CLP support funded by LAA reward grant.
Two new RHE posts from Area-Based Grant.
Rural transport co-ordination funding.
Programmes and projects implemented: Programmes and projects:

Two CLP pilots in more urban locations. Pilot to explore participatory budgeting.
Two CLP pilots by a new unitary.
Technical support commissioned from RCAN
member for an urban CLP project.
A pilot on CLP and community volunteers.
CLP project on community development.
Democratic leadership pilot project.
Third sector technical advice programme for
rural areas.
Delivery improved: Delivery improved:

Development of social enterprises as a result Third sector commissioned by PCT to deliver
of training. public health programmes.
Rural bus routes altered to improve access Moped loan scheme for young adults to
to health care. reach training and jobs.
Community access improved at rural rail
stations.
Other developments: Other developments:

Third sector learning and skills consortium
established.
The above table is for the eight visited local RCAN members. One of the two regional RCAN
bodies visited had also achieved various outcomes. Given the nature of its projects, largely
in support of other organisations, these were different in nature. Those relating to support
61

for the region’s local members, and so jointly secured with them, were: more communities
undertaking CLP (as a result of inspirational material generated); communities now
considering climate change mitigation actions (as a result of a toolkit); and two counties
reviewing their spatial planning of care for the elderly (as a result of rural analysis). An
outcome relating to its support for regional rural structures could be said to be progress with
actions from regional forum meetings. The other regional RCAN body might argue an even
more indirect outcome, where it fed evidence into the regional rural affairs forum and that
forum’s work subsequently influenced a Regional Spatial Strategy.
The project was only able to consider a few specific areas of ACRE’s national influencing
work. The most productive recent area would appear to be its input to the Ministerial Task
Force on Climate Change and the Third Sector. ACRE has been a long-standing participant
in this arena, having been instrumental in the development and delivery of the Every Action
Counts programme. Within the timescale of this programme it gained a seat on the Task
Force and helped shape its thinking, so it had something concrete to say about the role of
local level and collective community action to mitigate or adapt to climate change (instead of
the focus being just on individual actions). The recent report from this body contains a raft of
cross-government commitments which are favourable to rural (and other) community action,
significant chunks of the chapter on communities having been drafted by ACRE. Another
outcome identified from recent ACRE work was the development of the Big Lottery’s new
capital funding programme for community buildings. This stems largely from influencing by
ACRE and Community Matters, with ACRE making use of evidence from its recent survey of
rural community buildings. Some other work areas discussed with ACRE were less tangible,
so harder to pin outcomes to (which is not to question their value). They included work to
influence Defra about the rural evidence base and to co-ordinate effort better with the CRC.
The project also considered outcomes from support work managed by the visited local
RCAN members where they use programme money. This information was only readily
available from two of the four relevant bodies. For its CLP and community building projects
one could report:
• Half of all actions in recent CLPs having been completed (based on survey returns).
• Supported CLP actions having accessed £0.5 million in funding.
• Increased community satisfaction with parish councils in the CLP areas.
• Documentation to show new and improved activities in supported village halls.
• An extra £60,000 of Big Lottery BASIS funding to develop rural infrastructure
services.
62

For its community buildings and RHE work the other could report:
• Nine assisted village hall committees winning large Big Lottery grants for
refurbishment or new build (totalling £1.25 million).
• Thirty-five other village hall committees winning small Big Lottery grants (total £0.25
million).
• Thirty-one affordable housing schemes in the pipeline, with a few now completed.
Pattern of programme outcomes
There is quite some variation between the sampled RCAN members in the extent to which
they have thus far realised outcomes. This does not seem to be simply a question of
timescales i.e. it is not because those with fewer outcomes achieved are those with a larger
number in progress. Indeed, from the evaluation framework it is clear that generating
outputs does not necessarily lead to the achievement of outcomes.
The evaluation has looked to see if there is any apparent relationship between the pattern of
outcomes and four of the factors used to select the sample of 10 RCAN members. No
obvious relationship could be identified with three of them, namely the level of programme
funding, staffing numbers and local authority complexity. Some apparent relationship can be
seen with the fourth factor, rurality i.e. in general RCAN members have realised more
outcomes in the most rural locations. Other localised factors are probably at play and – from
the discussions with the sample of RCAN members – it could be inferred that the state of
working relationships with local and regional authorities or partnerships, as well as with key
individuals within them, is one of them. One specifically highlighted the role of individuals
and another recounted part of a project which stalled when a key individual moved on.
Some organisations or individuals are undoubtedly more amenable to being influenced.
Certain projects may simply be more challenging, in terms of reaching outcomes e.g. one
based around third sector organisations who are being corralled together by the county to
simplify its interface with them. Some other projects may be attempting to cover too much
ground and with effort spread thinly – particularly some with activity code 5 (other strategic
influencing, which can become a catch all). A couple of RCAN members noted that the
project structure in their RCAN business plan was not a particularly good description as it
had been retro-fitted onto the array of work. Conversely, there is some evidence that more
focused and better articulated projects are delivering outcomes.
63

Another factor seems to be the capacity of organisations being influenced and, therefore,
their ability to respond positively with outcomes e.g. some rural district councils. Certain
organisations undoubtedly have a better policy fit than others with RCAN bodies, such as
those LAAs adopting improvement targets on third sector capacity or on community
empowerment. Finally, local government re-organisation again appears as something that
can act as a brake on progress, though the two sampled local members affected have had
rather different experiences. For one of them it has, instead, proved mainly to be an
opportunity and there are already some significant outcomes.
Some of these factors are much more within the control of RCAN members than others.
Comments on outcomes
Whilst this report does not intend to make a simple value for money statement about such a
complex mix of outcomes, it notes that the package of outcomes set out above is for RCAN
members who in 2009/10 had allocated budgets from the programme totalling £662,000. Of
course, some funding from other sources was also involved – £353,000 in 2009/10, the great
majority of which has been for the support work projects.
Furthermore, the package of outcomes set out above was achieved by 8 of the 38 local and
2 of the 8 regional RCAN bodies, plus a portion of ACRE’s national influencing effort. If
those RCAN members are broadly typical of the wider membership it could reasonably be
extrapolated that the full list of outcomes to-date is somewhere between four-and-a-half
times and five times as long.
It is worth recalling that outcomes can take quite a long time to come about, so
proportionately more may accrue towards the end of the programme. Indeed, some may
only be realised after the three year lifetime of the current programme.
One further qualification is that outcomes have proved harder to trace for certain types of
RCAN project, most obviously those occurring between spatial levels. Projects managed by
regional RCAN bodies may depend largely on local members to turn them into outcomes.
Similarly, local RCAN members with national or regional strategic influencing projects are
contributing to work that can only become an outcome at those higher levels.
64

Attribution of outcomes to the programme
An important evaluation question is the extent to which these outcomes can or should be
attributed to the RCAN Investment Programme. There is always the possibility that other
(non-RCAN) organisations were more influential or that policy changes were made taking no
account of any external influence.
A first point to make, based on the evaluation framework and discussions with RCAN
members, is that the great majority of outcomes can be directly linked back to programme
activities and outputs. There is (only) an occasional mismatch or evidence that critical
activities/outputs came from outside the programme.
The interviews with 24 people in organisations being influenced by strategic influencing

projects shed considerable further light. Almost all of them recognised the outputs and
outcomes that had been claimed. Only one interviewee did not recognise them and there
was one other who recognised them in a slightly modified form. This provides quite a strong
verification of the programme information gathered. It is worth adding that two of the
interviewees thought the RCAN member concerned had under-claimed.
As noted at the front end of this report, RCAN members are often working alongside others
who are seeking to gain influence. Among the 24 interviewees: 2 said the RCAN member
was solely responsible for the particular outcomes discussed; 13 said the RCAN member
was the main player responsible; 8 said the RCAN member was one of a number of players
responsible; and (as already noted) 1 did not recognise the RCAN member as a relevant
player for the outcomes.
Eight of the interviewees said that the outcomes would not have come about at all without
the RCAN members’ input. Eleven others said they would have happened in some shape or
form anyway (with or without the RCAN member’s input) and a further 4 thought they would
partly have happened anyway. However, these responses needs very careful interpretation,
since the interviewees were mainly referring to policy or strategy documents and the like that
were driven by external processes e.g. a LAA delivery plan or a government sponsored
report. This does not mean there was not an additional rural outcome. More telling was the
extent to which they felt the RCAN members had helped improve those policies, strategies
and so on. The interviewees said: in 21 cases that they were better (e.g. more rural content)
as a result of RCAN member influence and input; in 13 cases that they came about faster
65

because of RCAN member influence and input; and in 17 cases that the RCAN member
helped pull together a coalition or energise partners in order to achieve the outcomes.
When the interviewees were asked (in an open question) what factors made RCAN
members’ contributions particularly helpful or successful, they most often cited their:
• Rural evidence and knowledge (mentioned by 9).
• Contacts and networks, including with rural communities (7).
• Joint or partnership working approach (7).
• Capacity and ability to deliver (3).
Summary comments
This chapter has set out the package of outcomes which have been achieved (or in some
cases almost achieved) by the sample of visited RCAN members. This, of course, is an
interim assessment. The full RCAN membership may, if the sample is typical, have
generated approaching five times the outcomes listed here. Those outcomes include
policies improved, strategies amended, delivery plans altered, new rural funding secured,
new programmes or projects, better delivery arrangements and (from the support projects)
actions directly benefiting rural communities. A key feature is the linking of CLP into local
statutory policy processes.
There is considerable variation in outcome realisation between different RCAN members

and between types of projects. It is not easy to isolate explanatory factors and this may
warrant further exploration when the fieldwork for the final evaluation report is undertaken. It
should be recognised, though, that outcomes are harder to identify for certain types of
projects.
The outcomes claimed for the
programme are widely recognised
by those being influenced. Most
frequently RCAN members are seen
as the main player responsible for
them. They are typically considered
to have made the relevant policies,
strategies and other initiatives better
and often to have brought them
about faster.
66

In view of progress to-date RCAN members were asked about their approach to the final
year of the current programme. A number said that no particular change was required and
their revised business plan (for 2009-11) still felt as if it was the right approach. Four thought
that they should focus their influencing effort on to fewer organisations, paying most
attention to those that seem more likely to generate outcomes. At least two outlined
ambitions to position their organisation, for example to strengthen their claim as the local
champion of rural communities.
67

8. Concluding comments
This final chapter draws on the main findings in order to address some key questions for this
interim evaluation. It should be remembered that, whilst it is possible to generalise, one
finding has been the considerable variation among RCAN members in terms of their local
circumstances, their approaches to the programme and the outcomes achieved.
Impact on RCAN members
The programme is widely interpreted by RCAN members as focussing on strategic work and
influencing activities, though some also use it to help fund elements of their support work.
When introduced, the programme meant a shift in emphasis for most local RCAN members,
leading some to re-appraise their work. For some others it simply continued a shift they had
already been making. It was not a change for the regional RCAN bodies and for ACRE the
main difference was assuming the programme management role, which gives it more access
to data from the network.
Focus of the programme
The RCAN Investment Programme is funding or part-funding 245 projects defined in the
business plans of the local and regional RCAN bodies. These emphasise strategic
influencing, with more than two-thirds of the projects defined as such (the rest being support
work). The more detailed activity codes show a large number of projects classified as
‘strategic influencing other’, which includes work with third sector infrastructure consortia,
and ‘strategic influencing of LAAs and upper tier LSPs’.
From a rural mainstreaming perspective it is helpful to find all the local RCAN members
attempting to influence LAA structures. Many held a seat on a LSP Board at the outset of
the programme, but the sample visited indicates that this situation has improved further
since.
Local funding of programme activities
This programme is funding the RCAN Network to the tune of £3.45 million per year. This
needs to be seen in the context of a total annual turnover for the RCAN network of around
£40 million. Only some of this appears in RCAN business plans, including roughly £3 million
(in 2009/10) of funding from other sources which has gone into projects part-funded by the
68

programme. The external money mentioned in those business plans comes from a wide
variety of sources, although a good deal is from local authorities. It is heavily skewed
towards the support work projects, where it funds support for community led planning, rural
housing enablers, advice services on community buildings and the like. As far as this
programme is concerned, regional RCAN members attract much less funding than local
members from elsewhere, because they are not delivering support work.
Funding sustainability
Defra hoped that the RCAN Investment Programme would help build the long-term financial
stability of the RCAN network. There is little doubt that it has helped sustain and develop the
network throughout the 2008-11 period. The volume of strategic influencing work has grown
and RCAN members have demonstrated how it has enabled them to tap into other funding
sources (mainly) for their support work. It can be said that RCAN members are,
consequentially, now in a stronger position to seek other funding sources.
However, there are two substantial qualifications. One is that almost all this funding comes
in three year packages (or shorter). Moreover, in line with the spending review period, a lot
of it is due for review/renewal/closure in April 2011. Although the recession has not directly
affected many RCAN member finances yet, there is a widespread expectation that 2011 will
be tough. The second qualification is that RCAN members have found it hard to attract other
funding for their strategic influencing work. Local statutory organisations are much more
willing to pay for tangible services delivered that contribute to their objectives or targets.
Progress with the programme
All of the 40 projects managed by the sampled RCAN members have been taken forward,
with activities recorded against them. The programme funds a lot of attendance at local and
regional partnership meetings, where RCAN members represent rural and/or third sector
interests. A range of outputs have also been identified, almost right across the range of
projects, including consultation responses, bids and proposals, new places gained on
groups, research reports, rural strategy documents and communications material or events.
It is clear that there are often links between projects, with outputs from one feeding another
(as well as with RCAN members’ work outside the programme). In particular, support for
community led planning has a strong link with strategic influencing, since it provides an
evidence base about rural community priorities.
69

At this stage, almost two years into the programme, some 46 outcomes were identified from
the sampled RCAN members, with another 10 outcomes seemingly imminent. These
included amendments and improvements to policy making processes, to strategy
documents, to service delivery plans and to existing delivery arrangements, as well as new
funding streams and new programmes or projects for rural communities. They tend to be
centred round local authority and statutory body policy processes. Also identified have been
outcomes from support work projects (e.g. affordable homes, improved village halls, CLP
actions completed) and some outcomes which have resulted from ACRE’s national
influencing activity.
The sampled RCAN members make up something approaching a fifth of the whole network,
so outcomes could be scaled up accordingly to estimate overall progress to-date. Interviews
with people in organisations being influenced confirmed virtually all the outputs and
outcomes covered. The most frequent response was that the RCAN member was the main
player influencing the outcomes; in other cases they were usually one of a number of
players. Because of the RCAN members’ inputs, the outcomes discussed were almost
always considered to have happened better (e.g. with rural content), often to have come
about faster and often to have had improved partner involvement. The identified outcomes
can therefore be attributed to the programme to a significant extent.
Explanatory factors
It is useful to try and comprehend why there is variation between RCAN members and
between projects in the level of outcomes so far achieved, though this is rather speculative.
Outcomes generally seem to be greater in the more rural areas. Building strong working
relations with the organisations being influenced and key individuals within them is seen as
important, though it can still take time to result in outcomes. Important, too, is the capacity of
those organisations to take action
when influenced and the degree of
policy fit between local strategies and
the priorities of RCAN members.
Unsurprisingly, local government re-
organisation can slow progress, though
the evaluation has found that it can
also bring about opportunities.
Certain projects may lack focus or
70

attempt to cover too much ground. This is a difficult balancing act for RCAN members. By
engaging on many fronts they are poised to seize opportunities and may gather lots of useful
information. But they can also be pulled in many directions and devote time to engaging
with partners where outcomes are unlikely.
Meeting the programme objectives
The RCAN Investment Programme has three high level objectives, which are broadly: to
raise awareness of rural needs and priorities; to influence policies and programmes; and to
trigger appropriate responses from initiatives and investment.
RCAN members have built up considerable opportunities to raise awareness and to

influence strategic decisions through their membership of so many statutory partnerships, as
well as their networks and other engagement. Quite often they are the designated rural
voice on the partnership group. The organisations interviewed almost all valued their rural
knowledge and the influence they brought. The fact that RCAN members have direct access
to communities and hold a rural evidence base seem to be powerful selling points for those
they are seeking to influence.
Gaining influence remains easier to achieve in general with authorities and partnerships in
more rural areas, though there are some good exceptions. Indeed, in very rural areas
awareness can be so high already that RCAN members take on a rather different role e.g.
representing the local third sector or bringing specialist topic knowledge (such as housing).
The outcomes identified by the evaluation show that some favourable changes are resulting
to policies and programmes. This may be more obvious, so far, at the local and national
levels, though activities are underway to try and influence the forthcoming Integrated
Regional Strategies. The outcomes also show various new funding streams and new pilots
or projects which can be linked to the programme. Among these outcomes are a couple
which are potentially sizeable and which arose at the national level.
It seems fair to conclude that some good progress has been made, so far, against the three
high level programme objectives.
71

Contributing to wider ambitions
Defra has a set of “additional important factors” which it hopes to see reflected in the
programme. Long-term financial sustainability has been commented on above. Other
factors are picked up here.
The RCAN members visited (with one exception) felt their programme activities were
significantly focussed on tackling disadvantage in rural areas and some said it underpinned
everything they do. In any case, it clearly goes far wider than the projects which are
classified with the ‘social inclusion’ activity code. Outcomes on affordable housing, public
transport, access to healthcare and social enterprise seem directly to meet this criteria; the
RCAN approach to CLP also aims to be inclusive and to build support networks.
Promoting climate change adaption and mitigation features significantly in ACRE’s national
work and in the work of one of the regional RCAN members visited. This policy agenda is
seen as an opportunity by some local members and energy efficiency appears to be a
growing aspect of the advice given to community building committees. However, a few have
held back from going further because of concerns about impinging on Groundwork’s
territory.
A large number of the strategic influencing projects are seeking to embed community led
planning within statutory processes, using this to help local authorities and others meet their
goals for community engagement and empowerment. Many of the outcomes to-date relate
to this ambition, with authorities adopting CLP protocols and funding CLP or community
development pilot projects.
Complimenting the work of regional Government Offices, Rural Affairs Forums and the
Commission for Rural Communities is mainly a task for regional RCAN bodies and ACRE,
though local members sit on and input to RAFs where they are constituted to permit this.
One of those sampled provides the vice-chair for its RAF and had led the drafting of its Rural
Framework document. One regional RCAN body sampled has a project specifically to
support its regional board and forum (providing secretariat functions for the latter). Links
with GOs existed and appeared cordial, though a number of RCAN members said they had
reduced since 2008, either because the GO rural team no longer existed or because RCAN
money (unlike RSCP money) no longer came via the GO. It should be noted that many GOs
now operate ‘Place Teams’ – with responsibility for LAA areas – which could be key contacts
for local members. ACRE has regular CEO level meetings with the CRC, with the primary
72

purpose of better co-ordinating their national influencing work. ACRE also channels
information from the RCAN Network to the CRC when the latter issues its calls for evidence.
ACRE seems very willing to continue providing and grow its expert policy advice to
government departments and agencies. It maintains close ties with Defra and the Office of
the Third Sector, plus various agencies such as Capacitybuilders and the Lottery
distributors, providing both more structured and ad hoc advice. The issue may be rather the
willingness of some others to take up its offer of advice. Good links have been established
with parts of the Department for Communities & Local Government, but have been harder to
achieve with other relevant parts.
In all, the programme provides a strong match with these additional important factors.
Meeting the programme rationale
The RCAN Investment Programme was developed mainly in order to help secure rural
mainstreaming ambitions, recognising the local reach of the RCAN Network. This was
especially relevant, given the wish to influence the implementation of the local performance
framework. This interim evaluation has found that strategic influencing is the mainstay of
programme activities, with a high proportion of the outputs and outcomes relating to SCS’s,
LSPs and LAAs in some way or other. Work to support and co-ordinate other third sector
bodies is another key element of the work funded by the programme.
Indeed, an interesting feature is the extent to which RCAN members (sometimes through
work outside the programme) have broadened from representing rural and rural community
interests. This seems partly driven by policy and funding opportunities associated with
agendas on community empowerment and the role of the third sector. Two features of it are:
RCAN members given partnership places as the third sector representative; and outcomes
which are about extending CLP into urban neighbourhoods.
The programme was designed to achieve its objectives at local, regional and national levels
(albeit that ACRE’s influencing is funded from outside the programme). The links between
local, regional RCAN bodies and ACRE are a distinctive feature, with much of ACRE’s
credibility deriving from its ability to tap into local experience and evidence. Equally, a
number of the outcomes achieved at national and regional levels are creating policy and
funding opportunities for local RCAN members. There may be scope to articulate and
develop these linkages further within the programme’s delivery.
73

When the programme was formulated Defra were keen to see it focus on outcomes. These
are generally laid out within the RCAN business plans. It would seem useful to re-
emphasise them at this stage and to encourage more reporting against the outcomes in the
quarterly programme monitoring reports.
Issues for the final evaluation report
In advance of the final evaluation report in March 2010 there will be another round of visits to
the sample of RCAN members and a further set of interviews with organisations being
influenced. There will also be a survey circulated to the full RCAN membership.
This will be a chance to explore whether the progress to-date has been sustained and
developed further. It might be expected that more outcomes will come to fruition during the
programme’s third year (though others may take even longer).
One area that would seem useful to tease out during the second round of visits is why
certain projects and RCAN members have been achieving more outcomes than others. This
could explore a set of possible explanations.
Two closely linked financial questions could also usefully be returned to in some detail. One
is whether local funders seem likely to renew their funding from April 2011 onwards. The
other is whether the effects of the recession and public sector austerity have become more
apparent.
Finally, it should be noted that two of the sampled local RCAN members are facing a period
of substantive organisational change (e.g. a merger with CVS’s), which may well impact on
their progress.
74

Section B: Appendices
75

9. Appendix A – Acronyms
ACRE – Action with Communities in Rural England
CAA – Comprehensive Area Assessment
CLG – Department for Communities & Local Government
CLP – Community Led Planning
CVS – Council for Voluntary Service
Defra – Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs
DSO – Departmental Service Objective (which is a departmental target)
FTE – full-time equivalent (for staffing levels)
GO – regional Government Office
LAA – Local Area Agreement
LSP – Local Strategic Partnership
OCSI – Oxford Consultants for Social Inclusion (who analysed the index of deprivation)
OTS – Office of the Third Sector
PCT – Primary Care Trust
PSA – Public Service Agreement (which is a cross-government target)
RAF – regional Rural Affairs Forum
RCAN – Rural Community Action Network
RCC – Rural Community Council (otherwise called a local RCAN member)
76

RHE – Rural Housing Enabler
RIO – Rural Intelligence & Outcomes (the programme’s monitoring system)
RDA – Regional Development Agency
RDPE – Rural Development Programme for England
RSCP – Rural Social & Communities Programme (a predecessor to the current programme)
SCS – Sustainable Community Strategy
SLA – Service Level Agreement
VCS – voluntary and community sector (sometimes used instead of ‘the third sector’
77

10. Appendix B – Summary of RCAN business plans
A/ Local RCAN members

RCAN Number of RCAN IP funded RCAN IP project objectives Primary Annual funding RCAN IP project
member’s area RCAN projects projects (type) activity allocation staffing input
(funding) code (£’000s) (fte)
Fully Part Not Strategy Support 2008/09 2009-11

IP IP IP
Durham 3 0 1 2 1 Influence and participate in 3 83 92 2.05

LAA, thematic and area
partnerships
Develop third sector 5

infrastructure support services
Support for CLP, with area 6

partnerships
Northumber- 0 4 0 2 2 Influence the new unitary LAA 3 95 84 n/a

land
Input to work of LSP rural group 5
Support for CLP 6
Support for asset transfer to 8

communities
Tees Valley 0 2 6 2 0 Influence LAAs and embed 3 63 62 n/a
78


IP IP IP
CLP in unitaries’ engagement
Influence LSPs on access and 4

transport
North West region
Cheshire 1 2 4 3 0 Influence regional strategic 2 72 84 1.55

bodies, using CLP and working
with third sector partners
Participate in new unitary LSPs 3

and LAAs
Representation with other local 5

bodies
Cumbria 4 2 3 5 1 Input to national influencing 1 112 92 2.55

(through ACRE and other
channels)
Influence regional priorities of 2

RDA, GO and rural strategy
group
Influence LAA and participate in 3

its structures
79


IP IP IP
Representation on 5 district 4
LSPs and with National Park
Influence other local players on 5

rural needs
Support for CLP 6
Lancashire 3 1 0 4 0 Input to ACRE national 1 72 79 1.20

influencing
Build links with key regional 2

players e.g. GO
Research engagement 3
strategies to improve CLP
influence in LAAs
Support and consultation with 4

district LSPs
Yorkshire & Humber region
Humber and 2 2 3 4 0 Input to national influencing, 1 82 82 2.95

Wolds using conferences,
consultations and evidence
Regional level influencing, in 2
80


IP IP IP
partnership
Influence the LAA processes 3
Strengthen partnership 5
infrastructure to identify and
meet rural needs
Yorkshire 5 0 5 5 0 Ensure rural needs covered by 3 123 160 3.00

LAAs and their delivery
Influence district/non-LAA LSPs 4
Input to creation of sub-regional 5

partnership on research and
practice
Sub-regional network 5
development in South and
West Yorkshire
Develop regional working with 5

third sector partners
West Midlands region
Hereford and 7 2 1 5 4 Ensure rural affordable housing 3 96 83 3.95

Worcester is LAA target
81


IP IP IP
Embed CLP and its funding in 3

LAA
Raise profile and funding for 3

community owned buildings
Analyse needs data to 4

influence district LSPs
Raise profile of third sector on 5

rural issues
Support for CLP 6
Support for community 8

buildings work
Promote provision of affordable 9

housing
Embed environmental 15
sustainability within the local
RCAN member’s work
Shropshire 0 7 1 4 3 Influence national policies 1 133 83 n/a

through evidence and
consultation responses
82


IP IP IP
Influence regional policies, 2

including sub-national review
and regional spatial strategy
Embed CLP within LAA 3

structures
Stronger engagement with 5

statutory bodies
Support for CLP 6
Support service on community 8

building
Support for local environmental 15

action
Staffordshire 4 3 0 3 4 Embed CLP within LAA 3 75 74 n/a

processes
Embed CLP within district LSPs 4
Ensure rural issues 5

championed by county forum
Support for CLP 6
83


IP IP IP
Advice service on community 8

buildings
Support for the RHE 9
Support for social inclusion 14

work
Warwickshire 1 6 0 3 4 Ensure rural proofing of LAA 3 73 62 3.45

targets
(for 5 of 7
Ensure rural proofing of district 4 projects; n/a for
LSPs other 2)
Influence third sector 5

infrastructure consortium
Support for CLP 6

buildings
Support for the RHE 9
Support environmental 15
sustainability work
84


IP IP IP
East Midlands region
Derbyshire 4 5 1 7 2 Research on service delivery 1 78 79 n/a

during recession
Input to regional influencing 2

(through RCA EM and other
networks)
Influence and participate in LAA 3
Influence the district LSPs 4
Participate in county financial 5

inclusion partnership
Collate and disseminate rural 5

information
Participation in other local 5

partnerships (including on
climate change)
Support for CLP 6

owned assets
85


IP IP IP
Leicestershire 0 11 0 5 6 Input to national influencing 1 74 76 2.50

and Rutland (through ACRE and other
networks)
Work with networks to influence 2

regional policy
Influence and participate in the 3

2 LAAs
Influence the direction of district 4

LSPs
Work with the third 5

sector/infrastructure consortium
Support for CLP 6
Provision of community 8
buildings service
Policy influencing support 9

linked to RHE
Input to Vibrant Villages Grant 11

Scheme
Vulnerable groups 14
86


IP IP IP
work/inclusion proofing
Awareness raising on climate 15

change
Lincolnshire 3 3 3 4 2 Influence regionally on 2 115 92 5.65

affordable housing and
community assets
Influence LAA on affordable 3

housing and CLP
Work with district LSPs on 4

affordable housing and CLP
Play leading role in 5

Support for development of 6

CLPs

owned assets
Northampton- 0 8 5 4 4 Participate in national 1 75 69 n/a

shire community building networks
Participate in three regional 2
87


IP IP IP
topic groups
LAA engagement on CLP and 3

affordable housing
Participate in other local 5

partnerships, including lead
partner for LEADER
Support for CLP and linked 6

grant scheme
Support for County Training 7

Partnership

buildings
Feasibility study for older 13

people befriending scheme
Nottingham- 2 14 0 5 11 Input to national influencing 1 71 70 5.85

shire (through ACRE and other
networks) (for the 5
strategic
Work with networks to influence 2 projects only)
regional policy
88


IP IP IP
Influence service delivery by 4

districts
Support effectiveness of local 5

third sector (including
infrastructure consortium)
Support communities with CLP 6
Build capacity of local 7

organisations
Advice/support on community- 8
owned assets
Support for housing needs 9

surveys
Advice/support on 10
transport/access issues
Disadvantaged young people 14

project
Support for Wheels to Work 14

scheme
89


IP IP IP
Older people befriending 14

scheme
Promoting IT to the over-50s 14
Gypsy and traveller support 14

provision
Support climate change 15

awareness projects
East of England region
Bedfordshire 0 2 4 1 1 Influence SCS, LAA and local 3 61 62 3.20

authorities
Support for CLP 6
Cambridge- 1 1 4 2 0 Develop rural retail strategy 3 78 84 1.95

shire with LAA partners
Influence the LAA, using CLP 3
Essex 0 3 5 3 0 Influence the SCS and LAA 3 71 91 3.35
Strengthen links between CLP 4

and statutory plans
90


IP IP IP
Develop third sector 5

partnerships
Hertfordshire 2 1 6 1 2 Influence the LAA 3 49 63 1.00
Support for CLP 6
Support service for community 7

buildings
Norfolk 1 7 1 5 3 National role on development of 1 103 102 n/a

sustainable model for rural post
offices
Influence the LAA 3
Influence district LSPs and 4

community plans
Influence the county economic 5

strategy
Ensure third sector consortium 5

covers rural needs
Support for CLP 6
91


IP IP IP
owned assets
sustainability work
Suffolk 1 5 7 5 1 Influence LAA on CLP and 3 87 87 3.65

affordable housing
Engagement with LSP partners 3
Development of RDPE LAG 5

work
Influence local government 5

review
Influence the Primary Care 5

Trust
Moped scheme for travel to 14

work/training
South West region
Avon (former) 6 7 0 8 5 Input to SWAN regional 2 58 67 n/a

influencing
Influence South 3
92


IP IP IP
Gloucestershire LAA
Influence Bath & NE Somerset 3

LAA
Influence North Somerset LAA 3
Influence and participate in the 4

MAA
Influence Bristol City LSP 4
Participate in third sector 5

Support community 5
engagement with AONB
management plan
Support for CLP 6
Provide community buildings 8

advice service
Support service on affordable 9

housing
Pilot access to services project 10
93


IP IP IP
Support on transport and 10

access to services
Cornwall 1 6 2 3 4 Work with county in support of 1 128 97 n/a

village shops and post offices
Engage new unitary on 3

community gover-nance, third
sector’s role, health + social
care
Engage with new AONB 5

management plan
Support CLP and promote to 6

new unitary
Advisory service on village halls 8
activities arising from CLP and
community buildings
Advice and training for local 16

rural groups
Devon 0 3 5 3 0 Influence and participate in 3 118 112 n/a

LAA, economic partnership and
94


IP IP IP
any emerging unitary
Influence district LAs and LSPs, 4

including on CLP
Influence other partnerships 5

e.g. infrastructure consortium,
LAG, climate change
Dorset 1 3 4 4 0 Influence regional strategies 2 83 72 1.75

and decisions (through SWAN
and other networks)
Influence + participate in district 4

LSPs + plans
Build research and 5

communications, to influence
other
partnerships/organisations
Gloucester- 5 6 5 10 1 Contribute to ACRE and 1 83 67 1.35

shire national influencing
Promote Village Agent concept 1
95


IP IP IP
nationally
Participate in regional 2
influencing work led by SWAN
Influence Gloucestershire LSP 3

groups + LAA
Engagement with 4 district 4

LSPs
Influence community 5
engagement by county and
police
Lead role in third sector 5

Involvement with other local 5

partnerships
Help develop new thinking and 5

solutions
Produce state of rural 5

Gloucestershire report
Build parish council capacity 7
96


IP IP IP
and governance
Somerset 5 0 4 5 0 Participate in regional 2 108 79 4.50

influencing work led by SWAN
Influence the priority LAA 3

groups
Develop role of the third sector 3

in the LAA
Play leadership role on two 4

district LSPs
Engage with third sector 5

consortium and RDPE bodies
Wiltshire 1 5 3 4 2 Mainstreaming CLP (via LAAs) 3 87 85 2.25
Create rural lobby (with LAA 3

link)
Rural needs of super-garrison 5
Assist development of 5
CLP delivery support 6
97


IP IP IP
Create climate change vision 15
South East region
Berkshire 3 1 7 4 0 Influence and participate in 5 3 49 63 n/a

LSPs/LAAs
Representation and input to 5

RDPE LAG
Participation and joint-work 5

through county rural forum
Rural and third sector 5

representative on county
economic strategy board
Buckingham- 7 0 4 7 0 Contribute to ACRE national 1 63 70 n/a

shire influencing
Contribute to SERCC regional 2

influencing
Participation in regional Rural 2

Affairs Forum
Influence and participate in 2 3

LSPs
98


IP IP IP
Participate in 4 district LSPs 4
Support for county rural forum 5

and strategy
Participate in county Change- 5

Up consortium
Hampshire 4 4 2 4 4 Ensure regional bodies are 2 68 80 1.60

rural proofing
Embed CLP + climate change 3

projects in LAA
Link CLP to districts’ 4

community engagement
Help develop Hampshire Rural 5

Forum
Support for CLP activity 6
Advice service on village halls 8
Information service for rural 11

retailers
Facilitate action on community 15
99


IP IP IP
CO2 cuts
Isle of Wight 0 1 4 1 0 Influence and participate in LSP 3 73 52 1.00

and LAA, including rural
proofing of strategies
Kent 2 2 2 2 2 Influence and participate in the 3 74 97 n/a

LAA
Participate in regeneration 5
partnerships and grant
schemes
Influence expansion of CLP 6
Support for RHEs 9
Oxfordshire 7 2 3 7 2 Contribute to ACRE national 1 75 68 n/a

influencing
Input to national (RCAN) CLP 1

database
Participate in SERCC regional 2

influencing with GO, RDA, etc
Help embed SERCC network 2

within regional rural forum
100


IP IP IP
Influence LAA process, targets 3

+ governance
Involvement with 3 district LSPs 4
Play leadership role within 5

other specified partnerships
Support work of Rural Housing 9

Enablers
Support for community 11

shops/services
Surrey 2 0 6 2 0 Develop county rural 3 44 65 n/a

partnership to embed rural in
the LAA
Embed CLP into local authority 4

planning
Sussex 1 4 4 4 1 Influence changing regional 1 73 89 2.00

structures and assist ACRE
(for the 4
Engagement/influence at 3 strategic
county/LAA level projects only)
Engagement/influence at 4
101


IP IP IP
district level
Engaging rural people (events 5

and website)
Develop 21st century village 15

toolkit
102

B/ Regional RCAN bodies

RCAN Number of RCAN RCAN IP funded RCAN IP project Primary Annual funding RCAN IP
member’s projects (funding) projects (type) objectives activity allocation (£’000s) project
area code staffing
input (fte)
IP IP IP
North East 0 2 0 2 0 Build and facilitate 2 15 15 n/a

regional rural network for
(RuCANNE) advocacy
Develop influencing 5
services and resources
to support local members
and other partners
North West 1 0 0 1 0 Develop advocacy role 2 15 15 n/a

and collaboration
(NWRCC) between local RCAN
members
Yorkshire & 3 0 0 3 0 Develop regional views 1 15 15 n/a

Humber to inform national
consultations
(Y&HRCAN)
Build clarity among 2
partners on the nature of
rural issues and policy
responses
103

area code staffing
input (fte)
IP IP IP
Establish rural outcomes 3

within a sample of LAA
performance
management
West 0 3 0 3 0 Influence regionally by 2 15 15 n/a

Midlands developing a strategy to
build the rural voice
(WM RCAN)
Hold event with the RAF 3
to improve rural proofing
approaches
Implement report on 5
sustainable community
buildings
East 2 1 0 3 0 Single contact point for 2 15 15 n/a

Midlands regional consultations
(RCA EM) Provide regional rural 3
database, good practice
and briefings
Influence and participate 5

in regional groups and
104

area code staffing
input (fte)
IP IP IP
partnerships
East of 0 1 0 1 0 Develop rural voice on 2 15 15 1.50

England key regional strategies
(using evidence and rural
(RAE) proofing)
South West 1 5 1 4 2 IMD research and 1 15 15 0.35

(SWAN) national exclusion
lobbying
IMD research and 2

regional exclusion
lobbying e.g. on the
single regional strategy
Evidence to assist RCAN 3

members influencing
LAAs
Rural parity case through 5

meeting attendance and
lobbying
Regional network for 6

CLP staff
105

area code staffing
input (fte)
IP IP IP
Local RCAN member 16

network for information
exchange and
development
South East 1 1 1 2 0 Regional influencing 2 15 15 n/a

through Rural Board and
(SERCC) Rural Forum
Share and build 2

evidence and knowledge
with regional RCAN
members
106

11. Appendix C – Activity codes used to classify projects in the RCAN business
plans
Code Activity Description

Strategic influencing
activity:
1 Strategic influencing at Influencing government departments, MPs
national level or other organisations that work within the
national level.
2 Strategic influencing at Work on regional strategies and with
regional level regional partners (including research and
evidence collection).
3 Strategic influencing of Local Work with LSPs who have LAAs or those
Area Agreements that feed LAAs e.g. partnerships running
LAA blocks (including bridging/brokering of
CLP, research and evidence collection,
spatial planning and sustainable
communities).
4 Strategic influencing with non- Work with other LSPs e.g. local planning
LAA local authorities and LSPs authorities (including the types of activity
listed under code 3).
5 Strategic influencing with other Work with other partnerships e.g. AONB,
partnerships and organisations third sector consortia, rural forums
(including research and evidence
collection).
Support work activity:
6 Community led planning Promotion and facilitation of CLP within
communities.
7 Community governance Working with parish and town councils to
improve local governance, advocacy and
accountability.
8 Community-owned assets Support for those that own and manage
107


assets (including village halls and other
community facilities).
9 Rural affordable housing RHE activity supporting individual
communities, working to research needs
and bring forward sites. Delivery
relationship with local authorities and
others.
10 Transport and access to local Improving access to local services through
services transport initiatives and mobile services.
Also provision of services such as
broadband and telephony.
11 Rural economy and enterprise Activities that contribute directly to the local
economy. Support to communities for
retention of retail outlets, local enterprise or
the setting up of community enterprises.
12 Employment, skills and training Work to improve access to employment,
skills and training.
13 Health and social care Supporting access to healthcare or social
care support (including outreach and
mobile services).
14 Social inclusion Initiatives that are specifically targeted at
the most vulnerable members of the rural
population (by age, income, mobility,
ethnicity or other disadvantageous factors).
15 Climate change and Activities that either: demonstrate how
environmental sustainability environmental sustainability has been
embedded in RCAN work; or are initiatives
undertaken which contribute to this.
16 Generic support to rural groups Provision of generic training, support and
improve access to financial resources.
Reporting activity under this activity
108


requires identification of the degree to
which it is accessed by rural community
groups.
109

12. Appendix D – Criteria for selecting the in-depth sample
Regional RCAN bodies
It was agreed that three criteria would be used to select the 2 regional bodies. These were:
Size and complexity of the region, as measured by the number of local RCAN members it contains
and the number of eligible local area agreements (LAAs) it contains. One larger and one smaller
region should, be chosen;
How the regional body operates i.e. whether it is distinct from the local members in its region (with
its own brand and staff) or is a virtual organisation using staff based with local members. One of
each type should be chosen;
Regional spread, so there are bodies in obviously different parts of the country facing differing rural
circumstances. One more northerly and one more southerly regional body was chosen.
On that basis the two RCAN regional bodies chosen were: North West Rural Community Councils
(NWRCC), a virtual body which covers the smallest area in terms of eligible LAAs and equal
second smallest in numbers of local members; and South East Rural Community Councils
(SERCC), which is stand-alone and covers the largest area on both measures.
Local RCAN bodies
With eight to chose, it was agreed that there should be one selected from each region. The other
criteria were:
Budget allocation from the RCAN Investment Programme, since this is both an indicator of
resource and of expected workload (being based on rural population, rural area, the number of
eligible LAAs, rural deprivation, etc). The selection was a mix of those receiving above and below
the median allocation (£80k p.a.);
Staffing capacity of the RCAN member, as an indicator of resources which can be called upon.
Information supplied by ACRE was used to find a mix of those with more than and fewer than 20
members of staff;
Local government complexity, since the number of (principal) local authorities and LAAs bears
heavily on the influencing task. This gave a mix of those scoring 10 or more and less than 10 on
ACRE’s local authority complexity measure;
Rurality of the area, since this (or its corollary of urban-ness) may affect the willingness of policy
makers being influenced to consider rural issues a priority. This used information on the proportion
of the population resident in districts/unitaries classified as rural;
110

Local Government Review can be expected to generate additional influencing effort, so two RCAN
members were sought from areas experiencing this process during the programme’s lifetime;
Finally, it was deemed appropriate to include one RCAN member in receipt of mitigation funding,
which softened the impact of reduced programme funding allocation when the formula was
updated.
This is a complex mix and it was not easy to find such a combination. However, the following eight
local RCAN members were agreed, which provided a very good fit:
Selected local Region Funding Capacity LG com- Rurality LGR Mitig’n

RCAN members plexity funding
Durham NE Above Fewer High High Yes No
Lancashire NW Below Fewer High Low No No
Humber and Wolds YH Above More Low Low No No
Hereford and WM Above More High High No No
Worcestershire
Lincolnshire EM Above More Low High No Yes
Dorset SW Below More Low High No No
Bedfordshire EE Below More Low Low Yes No
Buckinghamshire SE Below Fewer High Low No No
111

13. Appendix E – Projects selected for the telephone interviews
RCAN member Selected project Activity

code
Durham Rural Influencing the County Durham Partnership 3
Community Council Developing third sector infrastructure support 5
services
Community Futures Improving partnerships (regionally) 2

Lancashire Pathways to influence in Lancashire 3
Humber & the Strategic influencing for Local Area Agreements 3

Wolds RCC Strategic influencing with other partners and 5
agencies
Community First Influencing the Local Area Authorities (LAAs 3

(Hereford and affordable housing)
Worcestershire) Influencing districts and their LSPs 4
(Worcestershire)
Community Lincs Influencing the Lincolnshire LAA (CLP) 3

(Lincolnshire) Strategic influencing with other sub-regional 5
partners
Bedfordshire Rural Influencing local authorities, LAAs and SCS’s 3

Communities As above (two from the same large project) 3
Charity
Dorset Community Involvement in regional networks 2

Action Working with non-local government partners 5
Buckinghamshire District based Local Strategic Partnerships 4

Community Action Buckinghamshire Rural Affairs Group 5
North West Rural Strategic influencing at north west regional level 2
112

RCAN member Selected project Activity

code
Community Councils As above (two from the sole project) 2
South East Rural Rural Board and Rural Forum 2

Community Councils Building regional capacity through networking 2
Action with Ministerial Task Force on 3rd Sector & Climate 1

Communities in Change
Rural England Sustainable rural communities 1
Developing the rural evidence base 1
Co-ordination on rural affairs with the CRC 1
The 24 interviewees were from the following mix of organisations:
• 2 central government departments;

• 1 non-departmental public body;
• 1 national third sector organisation;
• 2 regional Government Offices;
• 3 unitary council officers;
• 3 county council officers;
• 2 district council officers;
• 2 district LSP chairs;
• 2 Councils for Voluntary Service;
• 2 County Associations of Local Councils;
• 1 regional and 1 county level rural affairs forums;
• 1 regional and 1 local RCAN body (for projects inputting to other RCAN tiers).
113

RCAN - Interim Evalu

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

RCAN - Interim Evalu

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

High level objectives for the programme are that:

Number of programme funded projects managed by RCAN members, by activity code

The RCAN Investment Programme

Objectives of the evaluation

Defra also asked that the following be covered:

Scope of the evaluation

Structure of this report

Nor is influencing necessarily a predictable process. Although intended outputs and

Examples of programme information in the evaluation framework

Outline of the methodology

ii. Information review – a number of reports and documents explaining the

iii. Framework development – an evaluation framework was developed, in order to set

Selecting the in-depth RCAN sample

• One should have experienced a significant decrease in its programme funding, as a

Criteria used to select the RCAN regional bodies were:

Based on these criteria the in-depth sample is:

Selecting the sample of stakeholders

Strengths and limitations of the information

A few data limitations, though, should be flagged:

3. Background to the programme

However, the largest proportion of

Evaluation of the RSCP

Rationale for a new programme

4. Baseline and context

The baseline for the programme

Once again the authorities not involving RCAN

The survey asked RCAN members which

Q. Chances of receiving local match funding for RCAN work

Prioritisation given to issues by local RCAN members in 2008 (percentage)

The context for the programme

of recessionary impacts were: notifications (formal or informal) of reduced grants in

• Internal organisational change: finally, it is important to note that certain RCAN

• Organisational change: a positive spin is that change to partner organisations and

5. Programme shape and inputs

Scale of the programme

Mix of project types

RCAN Investment Programme projects managed by local RCAN members, by project

Project activity codes

RCAN Investment Programme funded projects managed by local bodies, by activity

RCAN Investment Programme funded projects managed by regional bodies, by

Contribution to wider Defra objectives

Use of programme funding

Partly funded 6 5 2 18 41 19 30 14 135

RCAN members visited were asked

6. Progress with outputs

The evaluation framework

• Unforeseen opportunities that arose and were seized by RCAN members.

Perhaps less predictably, we have found:

• Feedback loops, where outputs lead back to further necessary activities.

Other typical strategic influencing activities would appear to be:

• Undertaking surveys, analysis and other research.

Types of programme outputs

Typical outputs from the support work projects are:

Extent of programme outputs

Recognition of rural needs

• With large numbers of districts the experience, unsurprisingly, varies a lot.

7. Progress toward outcomes

Extent and types of programme outcomes

Outcomes from strategic influencing projects managed by 8 sampled local RCAN

Outcomes already achieved Outcomes almost achieved

Strategies amended: Strategies amended:

Service delivery plans altered: Service delivery plans altered: