Move More Empowering Communities – A summary of key findings from the project evaluation.
Over the last few years, we’ve been working on the Move More Empowering communities project. This is a Sport England funded project, coordinated by Voluntary Action Sheffield, involving partners from across the physical activity sector. We’ve been fortunate to work with some great people and have achieved some good impact.
The project ultimately aimed to support people to be more active in ways that suit them. But, we also wanted to explore what does and doesn’t work, and under what circumstances, when it comes to community physical activity.
We have had ups and downs over the course of the project. But, we have learned a lot about what is most likely to work for people in different circumstances. We have also been able to work with other members of the Move More network to use this learning to inform other ways of working too.
This work is a small step towards bigger change, which takes time, and we hope that the lessons we have learned will help guide others who are trying to achieve similar things in their work. Read on for a summary of key findings…
The background
Move More Empowering Communities (MMEC) project aimed to support voluntary, community, faith, and social enterprise (VCSE) organisations across Sheffield, working with communities with the lowest levels of physical activity. The aim was to work with these communities to understand what works to enable physical activity at a local level, what factors affect this, and ultimately enable more people to be active in ways and places that suit them. We have been working on this project from Apr ’19 to Aug ‘22.
Themes
Findings are organised into five interacting theory themes, which explain how and in what circumstances organisations worked to enable physical activity. These are;
· Building capacity in the VCSE to understand the needs of the target communities (insight)
· Building on assets (use of facilities, green and blue spaces, networks)
· Working with partners
· Developing a supported and person-centred approach
· Building capacity to deliver activities
Figure 1 - Boxercise class delivered by experienced community development worker (Kellyanne from Manor and Castle Development Trust)
Building capacity in the VCSE to understand the needs of the communities we’re working with
All organisations were able to develop an understanding of the needs of target communities. Ring-fencing time for local officers to develop this insight made it central to local plans and provided a legacy of knowledge likely to be drawn on following the end of the funding period.
Time taken to establish trustful relationships was essential for honest communication about physical activity (both in conversation between organisations and clients, and between organisations and funders)
Who the officer is, their personality traits and their outlook is important. They need to be experienced in both community development and have a passion for physical activity, and their host organisation needs to be bought into the role and importance of physical activity. It was helpful, but not essential, that the local MMEC officer was from the community and already had established links to groups and networks in the area.
Building on assets
We used a strength-based approach. Key to this is recognising and building on what communities themselves identify as assets that help them to be more active. Places, spaces, facilities, individuals, networks, and groups. Our findings highlighted that at the start of the projects relevant assets were the individuals and organisations that were working with the community as well as local parks and open spaces. Most individuals were not making use of more traditional leisure facilities and / or travelling far to access blue and green spaces.
People appreciated being introduced to something new, by those that they trusted. Such as trips to the Peak District, the Botanical Gardens, the gym, and fun football / footysize sessions. The sessions included building confidence and practical knowhow about how to access these opportunities without the need for support in the longer term.
Whilst it is arguably less sustainable to simply deliver sessions, in the right circumstances, these give people who are furthest from physical activity more than just the benefit of the session but make them feel valued and boost their self-esteem. This is an important pre-cursor for people seeking out further opportunities.
Figure 2- Kids having fun at weekly football session lead by DESA. Invited in through the 100’s of families DESA have contact with through their formal and informal networks
Working with partners
MMEC enabled organisations to nurture a community base of interest in physical activity amongst those who are traditionally underserved. This increased demand for activities and opportunities. Prior to MMEC, organisations had tended to go to ‘the usual suspects’, that is those organisations who were well established and had a track record of effective delivery. MMEC broadened that base and opened a wider range of connections from which we have already seen a sustainable legacy.
Through the networking and conduit role played by VAS, enabled greater connectivity between VCSE organisations, for example by pairing smaller niche organisations with more established groups, which enabled greater reach and a wider range of support to be offered.
Important aspects of working in partnership therefore are to encourage facilitated opportunities for sharing learning and good practice between organisations and exploring ways to work together. Support to identify the ‘right’ partners to work with - what is going to work for different people with different needs (for example, choosing local providers who know the local community) and Move More continuing to explore ways to work with partners to potentially offer something different which might engage more participants, or those that are reluctant to be physically active.
Developing a supported and person-centred approach
The evaluation findings build on wider knowledge that supporting people who are less likely to be active to build physical activity into their lives takes a person-centred approach.
This is not just about putting on sessions that people have asked for but also about tackling wider needs simultaneously (for example, with childcare), and in some cases, as a precursor (for example with confidence building) to physical activity.
This takes considerable time and skill, but investment in working in this way shows high returns in engagement and sustained participation.
The evaluation approach, which did not stipulate high numbers of participants as a marker of success, freed organisations to work in a way which built quality interactions.
Figure 3 - Firvale Community Hub's Roma Slovak exercise and healthy eating class. Where, no doubt, people then went on to take part in other services (i.e. debt advice, advocacy) once in the building.
Building capacity to deliver activities
MMEC considered prior lessons that simply delivering activities did not tackle inequalities in physical activity participation. However, those who experience inequalities in physical activity are also highly likely to be living in deprivation and lack access to affordable, safe, and appealing options for physical activity. It is argued, therefore that some element of provision of opportunities at low to no cost is an important aspect of enabling physical activity.
Simply asking people what they want did not necessarily translate into high attendance, and a degree of trial and error was necessary to find an appropriate delivery approach. MMEC was designed to incorporate this by being flexible and for local organisations to change their approach as they learnt what did or did not work.
Consistently, the delivery of physical activities was enhanced when sufficient time and opportunity was built in for socialising before, during, or after the session.
Case Story - ISRAAC: Impact report
Please share a story of a time where you successfully supported someone to be more active and you felt proud because of it?
I supported a 58 year old woman who was from Sri-Lanka. Her daughter had seen it on our website and our walking group and phoned me to enquire. She told me, “My mum came to this country last year; she left her country due to domestic abuse by my dad. She is really stressed and can’t speak English. I work full time, and since she arrived, she is getting more depressed as she is unable to go out. But I know my mum loved to walk when she was back home”.
I suggested to her that she brought her mum with her for the first session. I also told her that we have some other women in the group who can’t speak English, but they are very friendly and they are from various backgrounds and ethnicities. She agreed and brought her mum.
Her mum was very nervous for the first session and hardly spoke to others, but after the walk she felt really good and said that she will come again next week. She came again and again and again; now she has opened up and has started to speak some English. She made some very good friends within the group. She started to get better and better every week with her English. I see her smiling and as a very happy person within weeks.
She asked me that she wants to learn English and would like to do some work. I gave her details for some courses. She has enrolled in some courses and has started taking sessions. Within 6 months she has significantly improved her English speaking and understanding, which has amazed us all.
She walks every single day and comes regularly to our walking group. Recently she completed a food hygiene course and started volunteering as a cook in a community project. Everyone loved her Siri Lankan dishes that they have offered her a paid job. It was unbelievable.
She said it all started with my walking group, which reduced my stress, helped me to socialise with others and build my confidence. She is still a regular member of our walking group.
Other lessons from other stakeholders outside the VCSE
Stakeholders reported that MMEC complemented and extended knowledge from the This Girl Can and Active Burngreave projects and provided an example of best practice for working with communities.
Several lessons have been learnt about how to commission and manage this work. This includes the need to invest in capacity, and to allow for flexibility, learning and adaptation as part of the contract and governance arrangements.
Figure 4 – Building on the SACMHA lunch club so physical activity can be delivered where people already are. Nothing draws people in like socialising and good food
There are still challenges and opportunities that this work did not address
The adequacy, consistency, and breadth of funding available to the VCSE. If this could be resolved it would provide a more enduring platform to retain and build on the trustful relationships, holistic and flexible support and diversity of offer which seems critical to working with communities.
The pooling of resources across the city in an equitable and timely fashion. Some opportunities were, and are still being missed by some elements of the MMEC work not being fully joined up with other elements of Move More and the wider health ‘system’ in Sheffield. Clear lines of responsibility to raise opportunities and resolve issues collectively should be part of the planning associated with future investments.
Sharing lessons across VCSE organisations and wider strategic partners in a timely manner and appropriate formats. Investment in community of practice, with support for VCSE officers and volunteers to attend, and a communications strategy, may go some way to alleviating this, as will key stakeholders taking responsibility to advocate and share the learning within their spheres of influence.
The key principles
“when you are thinking about what your role is in reducing inequalities, here is a set of principles for you to consider”
· Ring-fencing time for local officers allows local insight to be developed which can inform local plans and provide a legacy of knowledge and understanding of how to create impact
· Time taken to establish trustful relationships was essential for honest communication between organisations and clients, and between organisations and funders. Speed of progress is dependent on the level of trust
· Who the officer is, their personality traits and their outlook is important
· Recognising and building on what communities themselves identify as assets is key to successful strength-based approaches
· Working in partnership is more effective with facilitated opportunities for sharing learning and good practice between organisations and exploring ways to work together.
· It is key to identify the ‘right’ partners to work with by considering what is going to work for different people with different needs (for example, choosing local providers who know the local community)
· Person-centred approaches are critical. This is not just about putting on sessions that people have asked for but also about tackling wider needs simultaneously (e.g. childcare), and in some cases, as a precursor (for example with confidence building) to physical activity.
· Proper person-centred work takes considerable time and skill, but investment in working in this way shows high returns in engagement and sustained participation
· Contract arrangements which do not stipulate high numbers of participants as a marker of success, invests in capacity, and allows for flexibility, learning and adaptation will free organisations to work in a way which builds quality interactions and increase impact.
· Many VCSE partner involved in this work are subject to short term and unpredictable funding streams. There needs to be an enduring platform to retain and build on the trustful relationships, holistic and flexible support and diversity of offer which seems critical to working with communities.
· Pooling of resources across the city and its institutions in an equitable and timely fashion is an important part of approaches to work like this. Clear lines of responsibility and stipulation to raise opportunities and resolve issues collectively should be part of the planning associated with future investments
Thanks to Katie Shearn and Kerry Griffiths at SHU for their hard work and skill on this evaluation. The full evaluation report can be found here.
Found this interesting and want to chat more about these findings and their implications for your work? I’d be happy to discuss. Just send me an email on a.batty@vas.org.uk