Gloucestershire Active Together Evaluation: Final Report

Gloucestershire Active
Together Evaluation
Final Report
January, 2017
Prepared by:
Dr Colin Baker
Prof Paul Courtney
Katarina Kubinakova
Dr Liz Ellis
Dr Elizabeth Loughren, and
Prof Diane Crone
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ...............................................................................................................iv
1.0 Introduction and background ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 Evaluation aims and objectives ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Structure of the report ............................................................................................. 2
2.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 The Active Together evaluation ....................................................................... 3
2.2 Analysis of the GCC applicant database ................................................................. 4
2.3 Process evaluation.................................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Procedure ........................................................................................................ 5
2.4 Participant interviews .............................................................................................. 5
2.4.1 Procedure ........................................................................................................ 5
2.5 SROI framework ..................................................................................................... 6
2.5.1 Creating the Theory of Change ........................................................................ 6
2.5.2 SROI Framework ............................................................................................. 8
2.5.3 Evaluative SROI .............................................................................................. 9
2.6 Evaluation ethics ................................................................................................... 10
3.0 Key findings .............................................................................................................. 11
3.1 Review of Gloucester County Council AT application data .................................... 11
3.1.1 Applicant type ................................................................................................ 11
3.1.2 Purpose of funding ......................................................................................... 11
3.1.3 Activity type ................................................................................................... 11
3.1.4 Nature of activity ............................................................................................ 11
3.1.5 Breakdown of funding .................................................................................... 12
3.2 Process evaluation................................................................................................ 12
3.3 Participant experiences ......................................................................................... 12
3.2.1 Simplicity and flexibility .................................................................................. 13
3.2.2 Rapid access to funding – ‘foreshortening’..................................................... 14
3.2.3 Sustainability and development opportunities ................................................ 15
3.3.1 Practical issues .............................................................................................. 16
3.3.2 Individual benefits .......................................................................................... 17
3.3.3 Social aspects................................................................................................ 18
3.3.4 Transforming spaces ..................................................................................... 18
3.4 Social Return on Investment (SROI) ..................................................................... 20
3.4.1 SROI survey respondent overview ................................................................. 20
3.4.2 Stakeholder materiality and investment in Active Together ............................ 20
3.4.3 Establishing impact and calculating the SROI ................................................ 22
3.4.4 Deadweight, attribution and displacement...................................................... 24
3.4.5 Drop off and discount rate .............................................................................. 25
3.4.6 Valuation of outcomes ................................................................................... 25
3.4.7 Calculating the social return of Active Together ............................................. 25
3.4.8 Sensitivity analysis ......................................................................................... 26
4.0 Discussion and recommendations ............................................................................ 30
4.1 Discussion ............................................................................................................ 30
4.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 31
5.0 References ............................................................................................................... 33
6.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................. 34
Appendix A: Interview schedule (process) ....................................................................... 34
Appendix B: Information letter ......................................................................................... 35
Appendix C: Voluntary informed consent ......................................................................... 37
Appendix D: Interview schedule (participants) ................................................................. 38
Appendix E: Forecast SROI - changes in outcomes ........................................................ 39
Appendix F: Review of AT applications (GCC data)......................................................... 40
Appendix G: Description of the financial proxies .............................................................. 42
List of Figures
Figure 1: Six stages of SROI ................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2: Key evaluation components and 7 evaluation objectives ........................................ 4
Figure 3: Active Together Theory of Change ......................................................................... 7
List of Tables
Table 1: Process of creating the Theory of Change .............................................................. 6
Table 2: Measurable Outcomes revealed through the ToC ................................................... 9
Table 3: Breakdown of funding ............................................................................................ 12
Table 4: Simplicity and flexibility .......................................................................................... 13
Table 5: Rapid access to funding ........................................................................................ 14
Table 6: Sustainability and development opportunities ........................................................ 15
Table 7: Practical issues ..................................................................................................... 16
Table 8: Individual benefits.................................................................................................. 17
Table 9: Social aspects ....................................................................................................... 18
Table 10: Transforming spaces ........................................................................................... 19
Table 11: Material stakeholders for each outcome and corresponding beneficiary numbers 21
Table 12: Investment in Active Together ............................................................................. 22
Table 13: Outcome indicators and corresponding values .................................................... 23
Table 14: Deadweight and Attribution values, by outcome group ........................................ 24
Table 15: Computation of benefit –to-investment for Active Together ................................. 26
Table 16: Outcome 1........................................................................................................... 27
Table 17: Outcome 2 .......................................................................................................... 28
Table 18: Outcome 3 .......................................................................................................... 29
Definition of Abbreviations / Terms

1. AT (Active Together) – The small grants scheme being evaluated
2. SROI (Social Return on Investment) - An outcome-focused methodology for
understanding the wider benefits to society of a given intervention
3. Attribution - How much of the outcomes were caused by Active Together
4. Deadweight - What would have happened even if Active Together had not taken place
5. Discount rate - Interest rate used to discount future costs and benefits to a present
value
6. Displacement – Extent to which the outcomes have displaced other outcomes
7. Drop off - The deterioration of outcomes over time
8. Materiality – Information that is likely to affect the stakeholders’ decisions if excluded
9. Grounded theory - A systematic qualitative methodology that constructs theory from
the interpretation of data
10. Indicator - A metric to measure changes in the outcomes
11. PV (Present value) - Value in today’s currency of money that is expected in the future
12. Stakeholder - Any individual with a material interest in the Active Together programme
13. Sensitivity analysis – A process to ensure that results are not being over-claimed and
that the underlying assumptions are not unreasonable.
14. ToC (Theory of Change) - A process for defining and understanding short, medium and
long-term goals and the factors which help, or detract, from their realisation.
Executive Summary
Background and methodology
 Gloucestershire County Council’s (GCC) Active Together (AT) programme aimed to

help encourage more participation in sport and physical activity across the county and
was open to a range of community groups, from sports clubs to scout groups and
parish and town councils, and schools.
 In September 2014 the University of Gloucestershire was commissioned Public Health

Gloucestershire to evaluate the AT programme as a means of establishing evidence
of whether the programme is a good way of using funds to encourage greater
participation in health enhancing activities.
 Using a mixed methods approach incorporating a Social Return on Investment

framework at its core, the evaluation sought to understand and value the changes that
occurred as a consequence of projects implemented with AT funding, and to develop
delivery and evaluation blueprint as a resource for other organisations and similar
programmes.
Key findings
1. The Gloucestershire County Council Active Together database
As at 15th September, 2016 a total of 404 applications had been made to Gloucestershire
County Council in respect of AT funding. Registered charities (24.3%) and sports groups
and associations (22.7%) accounted for the majority of applications. Just over one-third of
applications were made to purchase sports equipment or to refurbish a sports facility, while
improving green spaces and less informal activities involving families made up the majority
of other applications. Social activities and physical activity (52.7%) and sports (38.1%)
provided the main focus of activities. The majority of applications were focused on capital
and staff development (46.3%), and facilitating participation in health enhancing
opportunities (34.1%).
2. Process evaluation
Three main themes emerged through the analysis of data, including: simplicity and
flexibility; rapid access to funding, and sustainability and development opportunities.
These demonstrated the positive impact the funding made with respect to acting as
catalyst for change and a mechanism for community connectivity, in addition to the
appropriateness of the programme as a small grants scheme for supporting community
projects. The potential for stakeholders to network with other AT-funded projects was an
area for potential development in future similar programmes.
3. Participant experiences
Four distinct and interconnected themes emerged through data analysis including:
pragmatic issues relating to the projects (e.g. location, cost factors); individual benefits
(e.g. health improvements, new opportunities); sociability (e.g. camaraderie and
networks), and transformation (personal, geographical, social). Some of the benefits
described were directly attributed to AT and would not have arisen otherwise. Participants
also talked about further benefits, which, whilst not directly attributed, were identified as
being derived from AT participation.
i
4. Social Return on Investment
An initial Theory of Change (ToC) exercise was undertaken with stakeholders that had
received AT funding to ascertain the likely types of project being implemented, associated
outcomes, and stakeholder categories. Outcome areas were conceptualised broadly into
the following themes, along with a number of overlapping conditions necessary for
success:
Conditions
Outcome areas Short term Medium / long term
Community Ensuring a stronger future by A greater sense of
connections & attracting new members and independence for people of
resources funding all ages, and better
connected people building
stronger, safer and more
cohesive communities with
a clearer sense of
community spirit
Education & skills More people leading healthier
lives and learning new skills Creating sustainable and
innovative ways of doing
Health & well-being Fewer barriers and more things in order to achieve
inclusive opportunities for greater success
people to take part in physical
activity and sport
Findings of the SROI exercise suggest that every £1 invested in Active Together has
returned £7.25 to society in the form of social and economic outcomes across the three
outcome domains of community connections and resources, education and skills, and
health and wellbeing.
Subject to the limitations of case study approach and related issues, this represents an
indicative 725% return on investment for the Active Together programme.
Breaking down the magnitude of benefit according to the three outcome domains affected
by Active Together reveals that the programme is producing around two thirds of its
societal return in the areas of health and well-being, followed by community connections
and resources and then education and skills.
Recommendations
Recommendations for commissioners
 Small grants schemes such as Active Together provide a powerful means of engaging
with community stakeholders at different levels and to create a sense of ownership
over local projects. Future programmes should consider adopting similar approaches.
 The use of SROI evaluation approaches should be incorporated within the initial
planning phases of interventions to ensure that the full range of stakeholders,
indicators and contextual factors are included from a range of qualitative and
quantitative sources.
 Using public events and workshops to engage with people during planning stages will
help ensure that stakeholders for example, local councillors, and those benefitting from
ii
the programme understand what it is about, the role of evaluation, and their part within
it. This provides a means of building trust and ensures that the full contextual
complexity of programmes is understood.
 An SROI approach can be used for monitoring and evaluating programmes as they
evolve. This helps to reduce the need for more cumbersome reporting systems needed
to monitor programme effectiveness. It is important to maintain effective
communication between commissioners, stakeholders and evaluation experts
throughout the duration of the programme in order to support information sharing.
 The evaluation framework provided in this report provides a useful blueprint for future
similar programmes. The potential to include diverse stakeholders and beneficiaries is
clear. The use of SROI approaches is recommended in a time when services are
stretched and funding is hard to come by.
Recommendations for researchers
 Applying an SROI approach to a community health promotion programme provides a

means of capturing the wider social, personal and interpersonal, and economic
benefits for individuals and communities. Attempts to apply the method in this context
are few and far between. It is recommended that researchers work closely with
practitioners to devise similar evaluation approaches to advance knowledge in this
area.
 Researchers should ensure sufficient flexibility when devising SROI evaluations to

allow for new inputs as the evaluation progresses. This will ensure the most relevant
data are considered and assessed.
 Implementing SROI methodologies is likely to provide a useful means of exploring

deeper meaning of community engagement in interventions of this type and the that
extend beyond the lifespan of the evaluation. SROI should also help to foster more
innovative approaches and activities by focusing on outcomes rather than outputs.
This provides a broader way of evaluating success and failure in a more meaningful
and implicit way.
 The successful application of grounded theory to the SROI approach in this study
demonstrates the potential for further methodological development in this area. This is
not only in the interests of improving robustness, but also with respect to the
development of bespoke monitoring and evaluation frameworks for specific projects,
programmes and policy areas.
 More specifically to community health programmes, there may potential to combine

elements of SROI with Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) to more closely align them with
assessments of conventional health interventions.
iii
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Diana Billingham, Paul Cooke, Tim Lane and Alison Comley at
Gloucestershire County Council Public Health for their support in devising and implementing
the evaluation. We also thank all of the participants who gave their time to speak with the
evaluation team about their experiences of the Active Together programme, and to complete
the surveys that informed the impact estimates.
For citation purposes, please use the following: Baker, C., Courtney, P., Kubinakova, K., Ellis,
L., Loughren, E. A., & Crone, D. (2017). Gloucestershire Active Together Evaluation Final
Report. Cheltenham: University of Gloucestershire.
iv
Active Together Evaluation Final Report, January, 2017
Section 1
1.0 Introduction and background

Gloucestershire County Council’s (GCC) Active Together (AT) programme aimed to help
encourage more sport and physical activity across the county and was open to a range of
community groups, from sports clubs to scout groups and parish and town councils, and
schools.
There was £40,000 of funding available in each of the 53 county council electoral divisions in
Gloucestershire. It started in June 2014 and grant funding was available across the financial
years 2014/15 and 2015/16.
Funding could be used to encourage sport and physical activity projects in local areas e.g.
community walks, alternative sport classes, outdoor gyms, skateboard parks as long as it was
focused on getting local people physically active.
In September 2014, Public Health Gloucestershire commissioned the University of

Gloucestershire to evaluate the AT programme as a means of establishing evidence of
whether the programme was a good way of using funds to encourage greater participation in
health enhancing activities.
1.1 Evaluation aims and objectives
Aims
1 To understand and value the changes that occur as a consequence of projects

implemented with AT funding; and, in parallel;
2 To develop a blueprint for a delivery and evaluation model for the AT programme that can
be used in the future and as a resource for other organisations and similar programmes.
Objectives:
Objective 1: To consult with a full range of material stakeholders involved in the AT

programme including GCC staff, local councillors, local organisations and agencies, and
participants engaged in activities supported by AT in order to identify the planned and
expected outcomes and present them in a Theory of Change (ToC).
Objective 2: To conduct a prospective (forecast) SROI exercise to provide an initial
assessment of likely change in the identified outcomes
Objective 3: To develop an evaluation framework based on a SROI approach that will
establish evidence concerning the processes and outcomes associated with the AT
programme.
Objective 4: To assess programme data collected by GCC to establish the nature and scope
of projects funded through AT.
Objective 5: To provide GCC with a ratio of societal return derived from dividing the value
of the impact by the value of the AT investments.
1
Objective 6: To use the evidence acquired through the evaluation model and programme data
to assess the processes and outcomes associated with the AT programme and to make
appropriate recommendations for health and social care commissioners.
Objective 7: To establish a rigorous monitoring and evaluation framework outlining the
key elements required for effective implementation of the AT programme that can be used to
evaluate other AT programmes.
1.2 Structure of the report
The purpose of this report is to:
1. Present the methodology and key findings of the evaluation of the Active Together
programme.
2. Provide a summary and recommendations.
The remainder of this report is presented using the following structure:
Section Contents
Section 2 Describes the methods that were employed and the processes employed to
support the implementation of the evaluation and the SROI framework,
including creation of the Theory of Change, main outcomes and selection of
indicators.
Section 3 Presents the findings from the analysis of the applicant database, interviews
with stakeholders, participant experiences in AT-funded projects, and the
SROI exercise.
Section 4 This section presents the discussion and recommendations based on the
findings of the evaluation.
2
2.0 Methodology
2.1 Introduction
This section outlines the evaluation methodology and presents this in respect of each of the
evaluation components.
Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a government-recognised methodology that measures

and accounts for the broader concept of value and measures change in ways that are relevant
to the people or organizations that experience or contribute to it (Aeron-Thomas, Nicholls,
Forster, & Westall, 2004). SROI is useful in developing innovative evaluation approaches that
accommodate the complex and increasingly fragmented policy and social contexts in which
health interventions take place.
As a six-stage model (Figure 1) it has been promoted as a way of enabling social enterprises
to quantify the value of impacts and translate them into monetary values in order to understand
how they make a difference (Department of Health, 2010; Harlock, 2013; Nicholls, Lawlor, &
Neitzert, 2012).
Figure 1: Six stages of SROI
1. Identify 3. Measure 4. 5.
2. Map 6.
key & value Establish Calculate
stakeholders outcomes Reporting
outcomes impact SROI
SROI is outcome-focused and attempts to involve stakeholders at every stage of the research
process as a means of understanding the wider benefits to society of a given intervention,
programme or service (Arvidson, Lyon, McKay, & Moro, 2010; Nicholls et al., 2012). This
includes economic interpretations of value in addition to qualitative data that explores real
world contexts and experiences (Leck, Upton, & Evans, 2015; Lyon and Arvidson, 2011;
Westall, 2009).
The increasing number and depth of linkages between social enterprises, other community
organisations and local authority departments suggests that SROI has the potential to
demonstrate impacts of multi-agency efforts on people across multiple ecological contexts.
Health and social care policy in the UK has increasingly promoted partnership approaches
incorporating health professionals and community organisations delivering community
interventions as a means of securing greater efficiency, cost effectiveness and sensitivity to
local needs (Department of Health, 2006; 2010).
2.1.1 The Active Together evaluation
Social Return on Investment (SROI) provided the core component to evaluate the Active
Together programme in order to measure and account for the broader concept of value in
ways that were relevant to the people or organizations that experienced or contributed to it.
The main principles of SROI are to:

i. Involve stakeholders
ii. Understand what changes
iii. Value what matters
iv. Include only what is material
v. Avoid over claiming
vi. Be transparent
3
vii. Verify the result
These principles established the foundations of the evaluation components (Figure 2). In
support of the SROI approach an additional qualitative evaluation component was used to
provide supporting data that addressed the aims of the evaluation.
The qualitative component involved interviews with two key informant groups: those that were
responsible for or had received AT funding (e.g. local councillors (local organisations and
agencies); those who had participated in AT-funded activities. The purpose of the interviews
was to establish a series of case studies that explored AT programme processes, positive and
challenging factors, general and specific perceptions, and recommendations for the future.
In conjunction with the SROI evaluation framework, the case studies established evidence
concerning the processes and outcomes associated with the AT programme. In addition, an
analysis of the AT database held by Gloucestershire County Council Public Health was
conducted to establish further supporting data.
Figure 2: Key evaluation components and 7 evaluation objectives
SROI
1. Theory
of Change Qualitative interviews
AT stakeholders AT participant
2. Forecast
(process evaluation) experiences 4. Database analysis
SROI
3.Evaluation
framework
Outputs
5. Rate of 6. Processes, outcomes, recommendations
return 7. Blueprint monitoring and evaluation framework
2.2 Analysis of the GCC applicant database

Analysis of the Gloucestershire County Council Public Health Active Together applicant
database was conducted to establish information concerning the nature of projects approved
for delivery including the number, main activity type, and purpose of the requested funding.
This provided contextual data and a means of establishing the sample for the process and
participant (qualitative) interviews, and understanding the types of activities that were being
funded i.e. those focused on purchasing new equipment and projects targeting socially-
focused physical activity.
2.3 Process evaluation
In conjunction with the commissioner a purposive sample (Sarantakos, 2005) was employed
based on the logic of identifying information-rich cases that reflected the temporal dimension
of the programme and the diversity of stakeholders, geography and projects. The AT applicant
database provided the main source of information which was supported with opportunistic and
4
snowball approaches (Kemper et al., 2003; Sarantakos, 2005) whereby participants were
identified by existing interviewees.
2.3.1 Procedure
A semi-structured interview schedule (Appendix A) was designed in collaboration with the

evaluation commissioner to investigate AT programme processes, positive and challenging
factors, general and specific perceptions, and recommendations for the future.
A series of individual interviews, either in person or via a telephone, conversation was

conducted with local stakeholders representing diverse projects including youth and social
clubs, sports clubs, charities, and community groups from across all Gloucestershire districts
who had received AT funding. Interviews (n = 27) took place between July 2015 and November
2016 and were recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Information concerning the purpose of the evaluation was provided to all participants in
addition to a voluntary informed consent form (Appendices B and C). Data were analysed in
NVivo (11), a qualitative analysis software package using an inductive thematic approach
(Braun & Clarke, 2006) which was used to organise, identify and report themes in the data.
Interview transcripts were read and re-read and initial ideas noted down following which initial
codes were generated across the entire data set and then collated into emergent themes,
ensuring that data relevant to each theme was collated from the entire sample.
2.4 Participant interviews
Interviews with individuals participating in activities supported with AT funding were used to
explore general and specific perceptions concerning the impact of participation. The interviews
provided an important aspect of the SROI framework in helping establish evidence concerning
the extent to which the activities were responsible for how participants felt about themselves
and their community, and any changes they perceived to have happened as a consequence
of taking part.
2.4.1 Procedure
A purposive sample was developed in consultation with the evaluation commissioner based
on the logic of identifying information-rich cases that reflected the temporal dimension of the
programme and the diversity of geography and projects types. Due to the evaluation team not
knowing who the participants were, interviews with project stakeholders i.e. those in receipt of
AT funds were used as a means of accessing potential interview participants. This approach
allowed the evaluation team to locate information-rich cases who could provide detailed insight
into the activities run by the projects. Following identification, initial contact was made by email
in which information concerning the purpose of the evaluation was provided to all participants
in addition to a voluntary informed consent form (Appendices C and D).
A semi-structured schedule (Appendix D) was used to guide the interviews in order to provide
participants to discuss their personal experiences and to ensure evidence was acquired that
was relevant to the SROI framework for example, perceptions. Individual interviews (n = 7)
were conducted face-to-face or via the telephone between July 2015 and November 2016
from people participating in a variety of projects. These were recorded and transcribed
verbatim.
Where individual interviews were not possible, data were collected via visits to activities by
the evaluation team whereby a number of participants were spoken to during and after the
5
activities. This yielded an additional 15 participants from 4 further projects. In this instance,
researcher notes were used to record the nature of discussions.
As with the process interview data, interviews were analysed using an inductive thematic
approach to organise, identify and report emergent themes which helped convey what it was
that was going on in the eyes of the participants. Where possible all participants were provided
with information about the evaluation and a voluntary informed consent form. Where this was
not feasible i.e. attendance at an outdoor activity with no prior knowledge of attendees, the
purpose of the evaluation was provided verbally by the evaluation team, and verbal consent
acquired from all those spoken to concerning their involvement in the activities.
2.5 SROI framework
In SROI, monetary values are used to represent outcomes, which enable a ratio of benefits to
costs to be calculated. For example, a ratio of 3:1 would indicate that an investment of £1 in
the programme delivers £3 of social value. Because SROI is an outcomes focussed
methodology that seeks to understand and value the most important changes that occur from
an organisation, project or programme it relies on consultation with those who are
experiencing change. This ensures that the full range of benefits to all stakeholders is
considered rather than simply focusing on revenue or cost savings for one stakeholder.
The first task was to establish the scope of the AT programme via a Theory of Change (ToC)
exercise. This provided the basis for establishing the SROI framework. The evaluation
comprised two SROI exercises that helped to identify the categories of project most likely to
yield the greatest return to society, including:
i. Initial development of indicators to produce a prospective (forecast) SROI assessment of

outcome change over the course of the programme, and to refine the outcome and
indicator set.
ii. Evaluative SROI (or full SROI) - based on distance-travelled measures for outcomes over
the two years of Active Together.
2.5.1 Creating the Theory of Change
Prior to the forecast SROI a Theory of Change (ToC) exercise was conducted via three
workshops (November 2014 – February, 2015) comprising 33 people in total, to ascertain the
likely project types and associated outcomes and stakeholder categories. The key
stakeholders included recipients of AT funding for example, sports clubs and community
organisations, and county councillors.
The ToC process is explained in Table 1. This provided a means of understanding what was
important to include in the next steps of the evaluation, including the Forecast SROI exercise
and overall evaluation SROI framework (the ‘full’ SROI).
Table 1: Process of creating the Theory of Change
6
The development of the Active Together Theory of Change (Figure 2) helped to explain what
Criteria Information
Rationale for the ToC To map out the likely outcomes of the programme as perceived by AT
stakeholders
Stakeholder sample People who (1) had received AT funding (n= 22); (2) who were locally
responsible for awarding funds (n = 12 councillors).
Data collection Workshops led by the evaluation team using a standardised template to
outline short, intermediate and longer term outcomes.
Discussions were recorded and transcribed verbatim for accuracy.
Data analysis All data were entered into a software package to look for themes using
two main steps:
1. Data were explored to identify the main types of outcomes that were
relevant to the participants’ in the short and medium to longer term.
2. Data were explored for conditions i.e. a conceptual way of grouping
data about the what, why, where, how, etc. important to the
outcomes;
This included the identification of an overall theme that represented the
main outcome of the programme in Gloucestershire as perceived by
the participants.
Example theme Developing approaches that make sure organisations are better
connected and prepared
Example participant ‘…more people being physically active, more volunteers, better
quotation equipment and a change of attitudes towards community spaces so
there are more people coming more often.’
was important to include in the next steps of the evaluation, including the Forecast SROI and
overall evaluation framework (the ‘full’ SROI).
The overall outcome i.e. what participation in AT-funded activities was about was
conceptualised as improved health, well-being and community connection. Necessary for
achieving this was progress within three short term outcomes including: (1) fewer barriers and
more inclusive opportunities for people to take part in physical activity and sport; (2) more
people leading healthier lives and learning new skills, and (3) ensuring a stronger future by
attracting new members and funding.
These aspects provided the conditions for progress within the medium to longer term
outcomes of which two emerged via the analysis of participant data including: (1) a greater
sense of independence for people of all ages, and better connected people building stronger,
safer and more cohesive communities with a clearer sense of community spirit; (2) creating
sustainable and innovative ways of doing things in order to achieve greater success.
Three underpinning pathways expressed the nature of what it was that participants were
seeking to achieve through the AT programme, including:
1. A fairer society for all people;

2. More and better opportunities for education, physical activity and sport;
3. Developing approaches that make sure organisations are better connected and
prepared.
Figure 3: Active Together Theory of Change
7
2.5.2 SROI Framework
8
Following the completion of the ToC, a number of indicators were identified that provided a
means of assessing changes in the outcomes identified by the stakeholders highlighted in the
model. Indicators were identified for each outcome derived from the theory of change which
in turn informed the development of appropriate survey questions to evidence the change. In
some cases, a number of indicators were combined to create a composite score, especially
in the case of well-being outcomes so as to ensure the practical utility of the SROI framework.
Measurable outcomes revealed through the ToC and used to inform development of an initial
set of indicators are set out in Table 2.
To check the efficacy of the initial 15 indicators – both individually and as a set - prior to the
full SROI survey being conducted, a pilot survey was conducted. An initial sample of 28
participants was invited to take part (January – February, 2015), of which 16 people
responded. Following analysis of this data, outcome and indicators were refined to take
account of potential double counting in the model, yielding a more parsimonious set for
inclusion in the final SROI. A brief overview of prospective changes in outcomes is presented
in Appendix E.
Table 2: Measurable Outcomes revealed through the ToC
Pathway Outcome
A. A1 Improved well-being through development of cultural, recreational
Community and sports facilities
connections & A2 Improved access to community resources
resources A3 Greater integration of social, sport and special interest groups
A4 Improved social capital, community ties and strengthened civic
engagement
B. B1 Increased agency and self-awareness
Education & B2 Reduced social isolation
Skills
B3 Improved competence, engagement and purpose
B4 Improved physical, social and life skills and training
C. C1 Improved mental health
Health and C2 Safer and more positive environments
Wellbeing
C3 Stronger and more connected people and communities
C4 Reduction in chronic disease, LTC and medication
C5 Reduced burden on social care services
C6 Improved physical health and vitality
C7 Improved personal resilience and self-esteem
2.5.3 Evaluative SROI
The evaluative SROI involved a pre and post survey (conducted between March, 2016 and
October, 2016) to assess changes over time as reported by people taking part in AT-funded
activities. Surveys were designed to take no more than 15-20 minutes to complete, including
likert-type scales whereby respondents were asked to select a point on the scale that reflected
the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a statement relating to the respective
outcome.
Selection of the survey questions was guided by the indicators identified in the ToC and where
possible, were based on validated data collection tools for example, the Warwick-Edinburgh
9
Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), to ensure measurements were both conceptually and
empirically robust.
2.6 Evaluation ethics
Ethical approval for all aspects of the present study was given by the University of
Gloucestershire research ethics committee (Ref: CBAKERA201415) and the evaluation
commissioner.
All appropriate ethical guidelines were observed and taken into account to protect participants
involved in the study. Participants’ anonymity and confidentiality were assured through
adherence to University’s ICT security system protocols including password protected
computer access. All written material was stored securely in a locked filing cabinet in a locked
office and participant identities were protected using pseudonyms known only to the evaluation
team.
10
Section 2
3.0 Key findings
This section is divided into four parts. The first section provides an overview of the
Gloucestershire County Council AT applicant database. The second and third sections
present the findings from the qualitative interviews with AT funding applicants and individual
participants. The fourth section presents the results of the SROI exercise.
3.1 Review of Gloucester County Council AT application data
A database of AT applicant data was constructed to provide a means of exploring the nature
of projects approved for delivery including the number, main activity type and purpose of the
funding. Appendix F provides a detailed breakdown of the applicant data.
3.1.1 Applicant type
As at the final data retrieval point (15th September, 2016), a total of 404 applications had
been made to Gloucestershire County Council in respect of AT funding. Registered charities
(24.3%, n = 102) and sports groups and associations (22.7%, n = 95) accounted for the
majority of applications followed by community or voluntary groups (16%, n = 67), and town
or parish councils (15.8%, n = 66).
3.1.2 Purpose of funding
Just over one-third (36.1%, n = 146) of applications were made to purchase sports equipment
or to refurbish a sports facility, while improving green spaces (19.1%, n = 77) and less
informal activities involving families (16.6%, n = 67) made up the majority of other
applications.
3.1.3 Activity type
The majority of applications were focused on social activities and physical activity (52.7%, n
= 212), sports (38.1%, n = 153), and those focusing on walking, swimming or cycling
represented five per cent of applications. Healthy living-focused activities represented just
over four per cent.
3.1.4 Nature of activity
The nature of activity describes how the funding was used in relation to organisational goals
and priorities. The majority of applications were focused on capital projects / staff
development (46.3%, n = 186), and facilitation (34.1%, n = 137). Education and learning
represented approximately 12% of applications, club and talent development representing
approximately 3%.
11
3.1.5 Breakdown of funding
Table 3 provides a breakdown of the AT funding according to Gloucestershire districts and

applicant type (projects n = 404). Given the mean levels of funding it is clear that the requests
were modest, thus reflecting the purpose of AT as a small grants scheme.
Table 3: Breakdown of funding
Group Projects Total (£) Mean (£) Minimum (£) Maximum (£)
District
Cheltenham 67 308794 5758.12 480 34004
Cotswold 76 240628 4121.09 216 40000
Forest of Dean 72 206560 4279.30 200 15000
Gloucester 82 230682 3798.55 60 21000
Stroud 54 254355 6978.78 418 25000
Tewkesbury 53 149123 3813.64 340 20000
Applicant type
Community Interest Co. 13 49223 3894.07 818 11058
Community / voluntary 64 191167 3844.79 216 20000
Preschool / after school 2 7586 3793.00 1137 6449
Registered Charity 95 317355 4482.66 300 34004
Religious groups 8 17695 2211.88 340 5450
School/Academy 45 184650 4703.35 536 40000
Sports groups / assn. 90 276958 4497.32 200 25000
Town / Parish Council 64 306998 7241.32 500 38000
Other 19 47579 2767.29 60 6350
3.2 Process evaluation
Key themes that emerged from the data analyses included:

3.2.1 Simplicity and flexibility.
3.2.2 Rapid access to funding – ‘foreshortening’.
3.2.3 Sustainability and development opportunities.
These are presented in Tables 4 – 6 including selected participant quotes.
3.3 Participant experiences
Four distinct and interconnected themes emerged through data analysis including:
3.3.1 Pragmatic issues relating to the projects (e.g. location, cost factors).
3.3.2 Individual benefits (e.g. health improvements, new opportunities).
3.3.3 Sociability (e.g. camaraderie and networks).
3.3.4 Transformation (personal, geographical, social) (Transforming spaces, social
confluence).
These are presented in Tables 7 - 10 including selected participant quotes.
12
3.2.1 Simplicity and flexibility
Table 4: Simplicity and flexibility
Description & information Example quotations

The simplicity of the process and flexibility concerning the use of funding contrasted sharply with many previous applicants’ experiences.
Direct contact with local councilors helped develop a sense that the community as a whole was being valued and invested in.
Most saw the AT programme as a welcome opportunity to do more for their local “We needed to take some actions to engage with
communities and club members, to extend or upgrade their equipment and offer a the local community. That meant looking to promote
range of activities. For a small number of clubs this was the first real funding our sport, encouraging local people to join us and it
opportunity they have experienced. was at point where any financial support we could
find to help us develop the capability of running the
The AT funding provided an excellent opportunity to bid for significantly larger projects club, working in the community was actually
and to start innovative projects. This was particularly true for organisations in the important to us”..
county that needed match funding in order to apply for bigger pots of funding that
would enable them to implement larger scale projects. “…we just didn’t think we could do it from trying to
do fundraising events. And we just wanted to get on
Participants generally found the process straightforward and relatively simple in with it and I think we felt it would take us years to try
comparison to other funding application. Many valued the role of local councillors and and raise those sorts of money from #### days and
welcomed the fact that the use of the funding was at their discretion. picnics, and those sorts of things”.
Personal relationships and appropriate channels of communication were important. “We do not have a specific presence in a specific
There was variation in terms of the level of responsiveness by councilors. It was not ward, although we do deliver targeted work in
possible to determine if this was due to individual perceptions or expectations, or other specific locations – e.g. our venues, our Health
issues influencing the process. walks, and exercise class programme, targeted
support to specific institutions. Having to chase
Some organisations operating at a countywide level found the application process after 10 different councillors, with different project
frustrating, as they had to approach a number of councillors and the response in their ideas and preferences was time consuming- and
view was not timely and receptive. some were far more responsive than others”.
Beneficiaries were not aware of any support or advice available, as they did not have
the need to use it, or search for it when filling in the application. However, there were
remarks regarding the councillors’ contact details, as some people were unclear to
whom the application should be addressed.
13
3.2.2 Rapid access to funding – ‘foreshortening’
Table 5: Rapid access to funding

Relatively fast access to funding translated in many cases into realising projects sooner than was anticipated and on a wider scale. It acted
as catalyst for change and mechanism for community connectivity. Overall, the programme was highly commended and the majority felt that
it should be replicated.
Time between submission and receipt of funding was comparatively short with “In 2012 there were adults living under the bridge,
applicants receiving the funding within few weeks. Majority of applicants reported that litter and graffiti all around. When we started they
they received the funding within 4-5 weeks following an application. have moved away, we’ve cleaned it, there is still
some graffiti under the bridge, but it is cool for the
Stakeholders rated the access to funding positively and appreciated the non- teenagers. The litter was definitely reduced; before
bureaucratic approach throughout the application and implementation process. it was a dumping ground, big black bags
everywhere…”..
It was clear that participants were not generally aware of the level of scrutiny applied
to the process within Gloucestershire County Council nor activities that took place “There are specific children for whom the
concerning the monitoring or projects, particularly those in receipt of larger funding experience we’d offered was life-changing. There is
amounts i.e. ≥ £10,000. a huge enthusiasm from children and the parents
regarding what could be achieved in this way. For
The funding added value existing activities and provided a means of rapidly some individuals there were some dramatic
developing new projects. It was apparent that beneficiaries’ expectations concerning changes. If you can change the life of one child it’s
the level of communication from the council was not always consistent with the worth doing”.
information provided in the AT application form.
“It was very easy to apply for the grant and the
Being able to implement projects sooner than had originally been hoped had a number whole process was conducted quickly and
of unanticipated outcomes. These included reduced vandalism, new fundraising painlessly”.
opportunities, significant increases in number of trainers and coaches, and increases
in the memberships of organisations.
14
3.2.3 Sustainability and development opportunities
Table 6: Sustainability and development opportunities

The funding meant more security in relation to their future development and sustainability. Without the funding many activities would have
not gone ahead, or organisations would have struggled to provide the same range and quality of activities within the community.
The fundraising arena was perceived as very competitive. Small organisations are “‘…basically it has allowed us to reach a point when
traditionally disadvantaged compared to more experienced organisations in gaining we can cover the outgoings and hopefully made the
funding. The small grants provided by AT were highly compatible with the contexts, organisation more sustainable”.
goals and objectives of smaller organisations in the county.
“In the wider context for the organisation- in general
Many projects involved training coaches and increasing memberships, investing in people are afraid of fundraising, people are nervous
equipment and capital works, which were seen as strengthening the core building about asking and I think from a broader perspective
blocks of organisations sustainability and legacy of the funding in the longer-term. this has shown that we can do it and we can be
successful in fundraising. It really was incredibly
Embedding organisations within wider community, instilling greater confidence to motivating for us”.
achieve, motivation, membership growth, sustainability and visibility of organisation
supported by funding were acknowledged as the main changes in respect of the “We’re finding it difficult to get funding at the
funding. People felt proud to be able to be able to contribute to their local communities. moment. There isn’t much. It’s the economic
climate, a mixture of competition for the funding that
Some people felt that the legacy of the programme could have been strengthened by
is there, and more people going for it”.
supporting selected projects (especially those with strong local community focus) for
a longer time in order to see the full benefits.
‘The process of getting the funding is simple, but it
The AT funding acted as enabler, opening in some cases new avenues of funding, would be nice to have that funding for a longer
supporting sustainability, increasing organisational capacity, encouraging wider period allowing us to kind of really embed ourselves
participation and skills development. This contributed to existing efforts around within a community and offer a lot more to other
increasing impact, quality and sustainability and was a strong motivating force with groups within that area…’
respect to activities that developed and promoted local activities. This fostered a sense
of local cohesion. “…it gave us the opportunity to do something
different. Be broader, braver, wider. It demonstrated
AT funding helped organisations to increase their visibility within the communities they that we can do it”.
worked in through enhanced participation and greater local awareness.
15
3.3.1 Practical issues

Table 7: Practical issues

Active Together projects provided a diverse range of local opportunities that were located in communities where people lived or which
provided an important nearby and accessible resource, thus reducing the distance and cost associated with opportunities further afield. The
creation of new opportunities in addition to the support of those existing already was important for re-vitalising local communities and
providing sustainable activities that reflected local needs and preferences
Location was of considerable importance whereby the right location was key to “It means a great deal, it’s used a lot, we’re in a
people’s ability to access opportunities. Public transport, time of day and parking were small village. There’s not really much for them to do,
key considerations and it was perceived that the AT projects had given scope to help the nearest town is three miles away and so it just
address these issues, helping to work within local constraints around timing, location gives them something extra to do…especially if they
and access. haven’t got a garden, having a bit of space to meet
up with friends…”.
The flexibility provided by the AT funding provided a means of establishing the long-
term viability and sustainability of local projects. This was particularly evident in rural
“I am pleased it has been done locally, because on
communities who did not have access to a diverse range of resources and who often
nice days I can walk… if it wasn’t local, in the local
struggled to access funding and worried about the sustainability of activities.
village, then I would always have to use the car, or
try to get there on a bus, so you know being in a
For some, the setting up of projects was contingent on the funding from AT to begin
local area is another positive I think”.
with, providing new opportunities which became viable in the short term and then
sustainable in the longer term through fees. The funding was important for mitigating
the impact of austerity-driven funding cuts to services, particularly for projects that had “I am worried that it’s going to go away when the
helped to provide social and emotional lifelines to participants. funding stops. It will be devastating, this is how I get
through things, people around me will see that. It’s
The simplicity of the application process was recognised, as was the implicit trust that such an important project that it needs to be more
was established through contact with local Councillors and the Council team with securely funded”.
regard to the use of funds. This was in contrast to other funding streams that were
characteristically more onerous to access and more tightly controlled in terms of “The fact that it has been subsidised and hence
performance indicators. Being able to use the funds flexibly was critical for success, reduces the cost for people, which doesn’t
helping projects incorporate high degree of sensitivity and responsiveness to local necessarily apply to me, it certainly means that
needs and preferences. people are not put off by going to class; that they
can afford it”.
16
3.3.2 Individual benefits

Table 8: Individual benefits

A range of benefits were identified that accrued through participating in the AT-funded projects. These included improved wellbeing, physical
and mental health, and opportunities to develop new skills in new environments. These enriched peoples’ lives and helped people to
participate socially and feel motivated to continue their activities.
Opportunities provided through the projects had tangible benefits to all the participants “…since I started doing this and it is a lot of arm
interviewed in terms of their physical and mental wellbeing and sense of increased work, and although I did suffer to start with, now I
social participation which had positive effects on self-esteem and confidence. can hold my arms above my head for any length of
time…and it helps my arthritis problem”.
Improvements to physical health due to increased activity levels were a significant
benefit for participants of all ages and abilities, increased flexibility and mobility was “I completely have changed my life, my fitness level,
specifically noted by a number of older-aged participants. all that. It has changed everything for me…before I
never used to go outside, I was upset often, but now,
Developing new skills had both intrinsic value for project participants and extrinsic I go, even if it is a 10 min. bike ride or something,
value, especially for volunteers and organisers in enhancing future employability. rather be outside and doing something, like playing
a sport…”.
Non-sport activities were important for providing a means of improving physical health
without the need to undertake vigorous activity or require special clothing or equipment “I just want to meet people and build my skills and
for example, those involving play, gardening and gentle exercise. stuff, meet people, and build my confidence
because it’s good for that. I’ve always wanted to do
The diverse range of opportunities provided through the projects allowed participants Duke of Edinburgh but this is different as it’s for
to identify activities they could relate to and which motivated them to continue to people with learning disabilities which is good. I’m
develop their personal health and social connectivity. going to do all the bronze, and silver, so it’s good for
my CV, and to get more confidence”.
17
3.3.3 Social aspects

Table 9: Social aspects

Social aspects were recognised as a fundamental outcome to which participants made repeated references. This involved having
opportunities to leave their house or get out and about, interact with like-minded people in new surroundings and make new friends which
had the potential to create long-lasting and sustainable connections between people.
Social interaction was a key driver of participation in activities which in many respects “…it is beneficial socially as well, because apart from
superseded the activity that was being undertaken. This demonstrated the need for walking you are also meeting and talking to people…
contact with other people, the sharing of time together, and the opportunity to develop I do it with friends, going to gym is not for me, I like
new friendships. walking and gardening. I’ve met some nice people
here and learn and talk about other things…I’ve lost
The projects provided an important function in creating opportunities for this my husband 10 years ago and here I do not feel
interaction to take place. In this sense, the diverse range of activities provided by the lonely, alone”.
projects provided catalysts for interaction between people in which activities were not ..
ends in themselves but a means of developing companionship, sense of connection “it’s a lifeline, when my husband died I just stayed at
and happiness. home, I was very lonely. Coming here I’ve met new
people and everybody is so friendly, it means a lot
Social outcomes were important for helping people feel less lonely and isolated which to me”.
was particularly important for those living alone or who had other needs e.g. carers.
In this sense, the activities provided a welcome breathing space, a sense of normality “I’ve met loads of new great people along the way,
and balance. have done quite a lot. Have had such an incredible
experience with them…because through them I got
The development of informal networks suggested that the projects had the potential to know quite a lot of people and people that I have
to transform participants’ lives in ways that extended beyond the initial interactions made friendship with”.
that took place at the activities. Here, the projects acted as important local hubs which
provided an anchor point around which social networks could develop and interests “I want to come here and be with the others. We
shared between local people. have been round to each other’s houses and sorted
each other’s gardens out. We make tea, do some
gardening. So we’ve sorted each other’s places out
too!”
3.3.4 Transforming spaces
18
Table 10: Transforming spaces

The projects served to transform participants’ perceptions of physical and social spaces. This in turn acted as a kind of springboard for wider
community participation, resulting in the emergence of more groups that involved a spectrum of ages, abilities and interests.
Some of the project activities themselves played a role in transforming physical spaces “…We have children from other villages coming to
through regenerating or repairing facilities and public spaces. This provided people use it as well, who don’t have a playground…It’s
with a sense of achievement, purpose and fulfilment. ideal, absolutely ideal. It gives them something to do
when there’s nothing else around for them. But also,
Projects also transformed social spaces in that they were able to draw people into parents can socialize there as well, while they watch
positive social engagement and thus potentially strengthen communities by bringing their kids. It’s become a nice meeting point”.
people together. The notion of projects as social hubs helps understand their role in
providing ‘glue’ within communities which allow diverse people with similar interests
“We’re all different ages, different backgrounds. It’s
to bond within social networks.
a real intergenerational thing. Lots of different
people, but doing the same thing. It’s a real leveller.
Improved physical spaces also instilled a sense of greater satisfaction and safety in
We’re all here for the same thing, we’ve similar
local surroundings, the effect of which was to revitalise the purpose and potential of
interests”.
places in which people participated and instil a sense of local pride.
Participation in the activities helped established a reciprocal relationship between “The local school comes down here too. They don’t
participants and the physical and social spaces in which the activities took place. have much green space so this is a resource for
Using local resources helped bring them to life and for some participants the them. They’ve done a lot of artwork and stories on
investment of time and energy in their activities provided a sense of giving which the area, they’ve used it in school projects. That’s
enhanced perceptions of physical and social environments. really important, getting the children in the outdoors,
seeing the space, seeing us. It has a knock on effect,
it’s great – another thing you can’t measure in
money”.
19
3.4 Social Return on Investment (SROI)
This section is broken down into two sections. The first section provides an overview of the
SROI survey respondents. The second section reports the findings of the SROI including
calculations to determine the impact of the AT programme according to the identified
indicators.
3.4.1 SROI survey respondent overview
In total, 135 responses were received to the survey of which 42.7% were male (n = 56), the
mean age being 44 years old (range = 16 – 85). Nearly 92% (n = 121) reported themselves
as being White British. The majority (74%, n = 97) reported taking part in AT-funded activities
about once a week and 12% (n = 16) were recipients of AT funding, 12.6% (n = 17) both
having participated in and also received AT funding.
3.4.2 Stakeholder materiality and investment in Active Together
The first task in assembling the SROI model was to identify material stakeholders, or
beneficiaries for each of the outcomes. The nature of AT which involved the delivery of
community health benefits via a range of organisations and activities across the county
necessitated consideration of those groups who might access AT at different points, for
different purposes and get involved in different ways. Across this, however, it remained
important only to count those stakeholders who would materially benefit from the programme.
In other words, they would need to experience a material change as a result (at least in part)
from becoming exposed or taking part in Active Together.
Having identified material stakeholder groups for each of the 11 measurable outcomes
(reduced from 15 for data analysis purposes), it was then necessary to estimate the numbers
of stakeholders within each group. This was achieved by calculating the potential reach of AT,
across its target organisations and community groups, and in turn across the stakeholder
groups listed in Table 11.
Consulting the Gloucestershire County Council AT applicant database together with a range
of secondary data sources concerning sport and community organisations in the county
revealed that between 8% and 12% of all such organisations and community groups had had
meaningful involvement in the programme across the two-year period that the evaluation
extended (November, 2014 to November, 2016).
Taking the lower end of this figure provided a benchmark of reach for AT across the material
stakeholder groups. Thus, only those people suffering from poor mental health were deemed
to be material stakeholders for the outcome Improved mental health.
Using Gloucestershire GP Patient Survey (2016) state of health information showed there to
be approximately 25% people self-reporting poor mental health (i.e. feelings of anxiousness
or depression) in Gloucestershire. Taking the lower end of the 8-12% reach yielded an
estimate of 11,469 for the purposes of the SROI analysis.
20
Table 11: Material stakeholders for each outcome and corresponding beneficiary numbers
Outcome Material Stakeholders County n SROI estimate1

A1 Improved access to community resources Stakeholders experiencing limited access to
119,500 9,560
facilities and resources
A2 Greater integration of social, sport and special Community and sport organisations
100 8
interest groups
A3 Improved social capital, community ties and Sport volunteers and sports club members and
67,600 5,408
strengthened civic engagement Community and sport organisations
B1 Reduced social isolation People experiencing social isolation in the county 39,831 3,186
B2 Improved competence, engagement and New club and organisational members (any type)
7,100 568
purpose and those with new qualifications (any type)
B3 Improved physical, social and life skills and New club and organisational members (any type)
7,100 568
training and those with new qualifications (any type)
C1 Improved mental health People self-reporting poor mental health 143,361 11,469
C2 Safer and more positive environments People self-reporting a reduction in fear of crime 129,800 10,384
C3 Improved well-being through development of People active in sport
129,800 10,384
cultural, recreational and sports facilities
C4 Improved physical health, improvement in long People self-reporting less than average physical
117,812 9,425
term conditions and reduced treatment health and vitality
C5 Reduced burden on social care services People experiencing dependency, substance
70,971 5,678
abuse or other limiting health and control factors
1 Based on 8% reach.
21
Investment in Active Together
A central output of the SROI model is a ratio of benefits to investment. It was therefore
important to gain an understanding of the nature and scale of inputs and investment in AT,
which in addition to grant funding also encompassed other forms of investment including both
additional sources of funding and volunteer time in order that a realistic ratio of benefits to
investment could be calculated. This information is summarised in Table 12, and shows that
a total of £2.3m had been invested in Active Together.
Table 12: Investment in Active Together
Stakeholder Inputs description Source / Value (£)

Calculation
AT Grant 2,120,000
Pre-launch phase Outcome Manager 3 months full time 11,000
Active Together Project Outcome Manager 0.4 FTE x 22 32,267
Team months
Commissioning Officer 1.0 FTE x 22 56,833
months
Commissioning Support 0.5 FTE x 22 18,333
Officer months
Communications & Communications plan – GCC 1,500
publicity posters, mailshot to Town &
Parish councils
Digital Offer Web page GCC 500

Finance checks & Financial checks & 2 days a month 5,000
transaction costs processing of payments
Volunteer time / GCC 4,992.6

Councillors
UoG Evaluation UoG 49,880
Total Investment £2,300,306
3.4.3 Establishing impact and calculating the SROI
Measuring change in the outcomes
As described in section 2.5, data from the self-completed surveys was used to evidence
change in the identified outcomes and to populate the SROI model with proportional measures
to establish the impact of AT. Where necessary the 1-5 scales were standardised into
proportional measures1 to conform with the requirements of the SROI model. Indicator values
for the parsimonious set of 11 outcomes are given in Table 13.
1 Scale data was transformed into an appropriate functional range of 0-1, whereby scaled variables were
transformed in the form (X-min[X]/(max[X] – min[X]). This produced a transformation of the ordinal codes 1
through 5 (i.e. Strongly Disagree through Strongly Agree): 1=0; 2=0.25; 3=0.50; 4=0.75; 5=1.0.
22
Table 13: Outcome indicators and corresponding values
Pathway Outcome Indicator / Composite Value (%)

A. A1 Improved access to community resources % stakeholders who feel that community resources are +37
Community more accessible to them; member of more clubs or
connections & organisations
resources A2 Greater integration of social, sport and % organisations and interest groups reporting improved +14
special interest groups links with other groups and wider community
A3 Improved social capital, community ties Reported change in involvement in local events; club +34
and strengthened civic engagement membership and volunteering;
B. B1 Reduced social isolation Reported change in feeling lonely; in meeting socially +20
Education & with friends, relatives or colleagues; in feeling supported
skills B2 Improved competence, engagement and Reported change in involvement in local events; club +34
purpose membership and volunteering; (As a proxy for sense of
accomplishment; getting chance to learn new things;
what doing is worthwhile)
B3 Improved physical, social and life skills Reported change in skills acquired and developed; +34
and training feeling more employable
C. C1 Improved mental health Reported improvement in mental health (WEMWBS +17
Health & adapted short); feeling positive about myself; able to
Wellbeing make up my mind about things
C2 Safer and more positive environments Reported change in feeling safer in the community; +3
feeling more positive about the local area
C3 Improved well-being through Extent to which use of new and developed facilities has +15
development of cultural, recreational and resulted in increased life satisfaction; improved health
sports facilities and energy and increased optimism and self-esteem
C4 Improved physical health, improvement Extent to which people: have a long term condition that +17
in long term conditions and reduced limits daily activities; feel in control of their health;
treatment perceive their health to be good or very good
C5 Reduced burden on social care services Extent to which people: have drawn on support from +22
organisations to help them feel in control of their life;
know where to go to get health advice
23
3.4.4 Deadweight, attribution and displacement
Accounting for deadweight and attribution is an important element of the SROI methodology2.
Deadweight relates to the extent to which outcomes would have happened anyway without
Active Together while Attribution refers to the extent to which observed and anticipated
outcomes can be attributed to the programme as opposed to other projects, activities or
initiatives. Both measures are represented as proportions in the SROI model and were
informed through the collection of data in three stages: the story board workshops; the on-line
surveys, and in the case of deadweight, secondary data relating to salient metrics on health,
education and community activity.
Standard SROI survey techniques were employed to gather primary evidence of deadweight
and attribution through the on-line surveys. Context and outcome specific information relating
to deadweight was gathered through a series of open questions with responses used to
moderate the proportional estimates produced through the analysis of secondary data.
Respondents were asked to rank the extent to which observed changes occurring within the
principle outcome groups could be attributed to the projects as opposed to other projects or
activities, using a likert scale similar to that used for evidencing the outcomes.
Whilst material changes may have occurred through AT between 2014 and 2016 it was
important to take account of similar changes or trends that may have occurred for society as
a whole over the same time period. The potential for over-estimating deadweight could
therefore be greatly reduced and the impact estimations made more robust.
A range of national level secondary data was assembled to represent the main outcomes
revealed through the Theory of Change with proportional changes used to produce estimates
of deadweight (by outcome group) in the model. These estimates were triangulated against
the qualitative information gathered through the Storyboard exercises and online surveys to
further improve their accuracy. Values for deadweight and attribution calculated by outcome
domain are given in Table 14.
Table 14: Deadweight and Attribution values, by outcome group
Outcome group Deadweight Attribution
Community connections and resources 0.11 0.53

Education and skills 0.15 0.49
Health and Well being 0.07 0.56
Taking health and well-being deadweight as an example, secondary data indicates that around
7% of benefits would have occurred anyway, for example as part of the national drive towards
well-being improvements and/or changes to the delivery of health services at a local level.
Survey responses implied that 56% of observed health and well-being improvements could
be attributed to AT as opposed to other factors.
2 Displacement is a third measure, although it was evident from the Theory of Change work that the extent to which
the project had displaced other activities or benefits in the local area was negligible. It is therefore unlikely that
displacement was relevant in this case, but to adhere to the principle of not over claiming, and in the interests of
producing a conservative estimate, displacement of impacts after deadweight and attribution were taken into
account was estimated to be 10%.
24
3.4.5 Drop off and discount rate
It was important for the SROI ratios to account for diminishing impacts of AT over time, and
for the value of money to change over time, and these were accounted for by the inclusion of
estimates for drop-off and discount rate.
Drop-off is calculated by deducting a fixed percentage from the remaining level of outcome at
the end of each year. For example, an outcome of 100 that lasts for 3 years but drops off by
10% per annum would be 100, 90 and 81 in years 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Drawing on the
material gathered through the Theory of Change exercise and consulting benchmarks of drop-
off calculation used in comparable SROIs, a drop-off coefficient of 25% was applied to all
outcomes where the benefit period was longer than one year.
Discounting recognizes that people generally prefer to receive money today rather than
tomorrow because there is a risk (e.g. that the money will not be paid) or because there is an
opportunity cost of investing the money elsewhere. This is known as the ‘time value of money’
and it is standard practice to incorporate an annual discount rate into the impact calculation.
The basic rate recommended by HM Treasury is 3.5% and this is the rate used in the majority
of SROI studies. A yearly discount rate of 0.035 was therefore applied to all outcomes.
3.4.6 Valuation of outcomes
Central to the SROI methodology is the monetisation of outcomes in order that they can be
measured in a consistent way using a common currency. This allows computation of a ratio
of benefits to costs as the measure of impact which, expressed in monetary terms, can be set
against the initial financial investment.
The process of monetising the relevant outcomes involves identifying financial proxies for each
separate outcome. In other words, approximations of value were sought for each outcome,
which in some cases may not be wholly representative of the specific outcome in question.
They are instead the ‘best approximation’ (or one of the best) available through which to
assess the significance of the outcome to society or the state, and thus allow comparison with
other (monetised) outcomes.
A description of the financial proxies assigned to the relevant outcomes including their source
and rationale for inclusion is provided in Appendix G.
3.4.7 Calculating the social return of Active Together
All of the information set out in the previous sections was brought together in order to calculate
the impact and produce an indicative SROI ratio for Active Together.
This involved first calculating the Present Value (PV) of benefits, which involved multiplying
the number of stakeholders for each outcome by the indicator value before reducing the
outcome incidence to take account of deadweight and attribution. Annual total value figures
were calculated for outcomes lasting more than one year using compound drop-off estimates.
Finally, total values were converted to Present Values by applying HM Treasury’s coefficient
of 0.035.
This process was repeated for each outcome with the totals then summed to arrive at the Total
PV. It was then possible to calculate an initial SROI ratio that would indicate the financial
return to society for every pound invested in Active Together. To arrive at the ratio the
discounted value of benefits is divided by the total investment:
25
SROI ratio3 = Present Value
Value of Investment
Total PV in relation to the levels of total investment in Active Together is summarised in

Table 15.
Table 15: Computation of benefit –to-investment for Active Together
Total investment £2,300,305 % of societal return
Present value (PV) of all benefits £16,670,626 100%

(PV) Community connections and resources £5,274,413 32%
(PV) Education and Skills £702,484 4%
(PV) health and Well being £10,693,739 64%
Ratio of benefit-to-investment 7.25:1
Findings suggest that every £1 invested in AT returned £7.25 to society in the form of social
and economic outcomes across the three outcome domains of community connections and
resources, education and skills, and health and wellbeing. Subject to the limitations of case
study scope and related issues, this represents an indicative 725% return on investment for
the Active Together programme.
Breaking down the magnitude of benefit according to the three outcome domains affected by
AT reveals that the programme is producing around two thirds of its societal return in the areas
of health and well-being, followed by community connections and resources and then
education and skills.
3.4.8 Sensitivity analysis
The total Present Value (PV) of Active Together is made up of 11 outcomes across the three
domains. On further inspection it is found that over two thirds of the total PV accrues to 3
outcomes:
1. Improved well-being through development of cultural, recreational and sports facilities

(43%);
2. Improved social capital, community ties and civic engagement (19%);
3. Reduced burden on social care services (13%).
While the outcomes are conceptually grounded and the PV estimations derived through a
robust application of SROI protocols, it is prudent to undertake a sensitivity analysis on these
three outcomes, and test some of the assumptions on which the impact estimates are
contingent.
The aim of the sensitivity analysis is to challenge the robustness of the assumptions and in
turn examine how sensitive the SROI ratio is to changes in key indicators and proxies. This
allows a confidence range to be presented, based upon the information currently available.
3An alternative calculation is the net SROI ratio, which divides the Net Present Value (NPV) by the value of the inputs. The
NPV is the PV minus the total value of inputs. In this case it was deemed acceptable to only report the SROI ratio rather
than the net SROI ratio.
26
For each of the three outcomes the judgments made in arriving at their value are examined in
more detail and more and less favourable scenarios are calculated. Main assumptions (such
as deadweight, attribution and stakeholder population) are adjusted in order to compute upper
and lower limits of PV for each one, in turn examining the impact that this has on the overall
benefit-investment ratio. Applying the outside ranges of these proportional variations then
allows a confidence range to be computed for the Active Together ratio.
Table 16: Outcome 1 - Improved well-being through development of cultural,

recreational and sports facilities
Upper limit
Element Existing Possible variations
calculation
Stakeholder 10,384 11,400 Number of beneficiaries coming into
population contact with the projects steadily
increases
Financial proxy 3,600 3960 Public sector cuts increase
equivalent costs of outcome delivery
by 10%
Attribution 0.56 0.62 Number of other social prescribing
programmes in the county
decreases due to further public
sector cuts
Impact £7.1m £9.5m
Effect on SROI ratio 7.25 8.29 +14%
Lower limit
calculation
Stakeholder 10,384 9,500 Number of beneficiaries coming into
population contact with the projects is steadily
decreasing
Financial proxy 3,600 3,240 Public sector efficiency
improvements decrease equivalent
costs by 10%
Attribution 0.56 0.45 Number of other social prescribing
programmes in the respective areas
begins to increase as the good
practice spreads
Effect on SROI ratio 7.25 6.20 -14%
27
Table 17: Outcome 2 - Improved social capital, community ties and civic engagement
Upper limit
calculation
Drop-Off 0.25 0.1 Benefits of improved community
fall away less quickly as
engagement becomes self-
reinforcing
Financial proxy 1498 1650 Stakeholders place a higher value
on volunteering as the benefits
become more well known
Deadweight 0.11 0.05 Amount of equivalent change
deemed to be happening nationally
is overestimated
Impact £3.2 £5m
Lower limit
calculation
Drop-Off 0.25 0.4 Benefits of improved community
fall away more rapidly as
community health programmes
become more prevalent
Financial proxy 1498 1350 Underlying study over estimated
the value placed on volunteering
by 10%
Deadweight 0.11 0.20 More widespread volunteering
provides opportunities for
equivalent outcomes outside of
community health programmes
Impact £3.2 £2.0m
28
Table 18: Outcome 3 - Reduced burden on social care services
Upper limit
calculation
Self-reported 0.22 0.32 Beneficiaries under estimated the
change in outcome change in community impacts
Stakeholder 5,678 6,500 Increase in people suffering from
population dependencies in the county
Financial Proxy 1,380 1,970 Unit costs for social workers rise
due to shortage of skilled staff
Lower limit
calculation
Self-reported 0.22 0.12 Beneficiaries overestimated the
change in outcome change in outcome
Stakeholder 5,678 4,950 Successful community health
population programmes and social prescribing
begins to reduce numbers suffering
dependencies in target population
Financial Proxy 1,380 1,100 Unit costs for social workers fall in
line with demand as other forms of
outcome delivery increase
The results of the sensitivity analysis indicate that by varying some of the parameters for these
influential set of outcomes, the estimates of impact could be up to 14% lower and up to 19%
higher. Results of the above sensitivity analysis therefore imply that a confidence range of
between -14% and +19% of the overall ratio is appropriate, and would provide a more realistic
estimate of the return on investment for Active Together given the judgments and data that
have influenced their computation.
In the interests of ensuring that a conservative estimate is reported, the confidence range
presented below assumes that the derived benefit-investment ratio is accurate to within 80%,
with the confidence range falling with +/-20% of 7.25.
Benefit to Investment Ratio Confidence range

for AT
7.25 5.80 – 8.70
For the purposes of reporting it would therefore be appropriate to state that, based on distance
travelled data collected, the associated limitations of sample size and the assumptions
influencing the benefit estimates, the Active Together programme has been shown to deliver
a return to society of between £5.80 and £8.70 for every £1 invested in the programme.
29
Section 4
4.0 Discussion and recommendations

4.1 Discussion
 The SROI approach helped understand the complexities of the AT programme from
the perspective of those that it affected. It also promoted ongoing communication
between those implementing programmes, the evaluators and the commissioning
team at Gloucestershire County Council (GCC).
 The focus on outcomes (as opposed to outputs) revealed a much broader set of
benefits, covering community and education as well as health and well-being. This not
only gives a more rounded picture in terms of return on investment and the case for
future funding which can be contrasted with evaluation approaches that fail to capture
the wider social, personal and interpersonal, and economic benefits for individuals and
communities.
 The programme’s positive impact in a number of areas will help address longer-term
health issues in society through the improvement of quality of life and related skills and
competences. This is highly relevant to health promotion and suggests small grants
programmes are effective for supporting local communities.
 Overall, the programme has raised awareness of the public health agenda to elected
members and the county’s voluntary and community sector. In doing, so it has helped
to foster good relationships and mutual trust between GCC public health and the VCS.
This paves the way for more widespread rollout of similar community health initiatives,
and for social prescribing in that more inventive ways of delivering health are shown
not on only to work, but to have incidental benefits for the communities and wider
society.
 More generally, the programme approach and the findings help to make the case for
more innovative health and community health programmes. The local government
‘power of wellbeing’ encourages councils to use imaginative approaches and the AT
programme can be considered a good example of GCC using this power.
 Innovation often means suffering repeated failure and substantial investment before
returns are made. Using an approach that places the experiences of those involved in
such programmes at its heart has helped to show that AT is not only innovative, but
also that its returns are substantial, even over shorter time frames.
 A few challenges were noted which help inform future similar programmes; specifically,
the role of the local councillor. Some councillors embraced this responsibility and were
very active in seeking community groups and projects to support. Others chose other
channels to use to promote the grants programme such as working with the parish
council’s in their division. Some just waited until they were approached by a sports club
or group with a proposal. This highlights a great deal of local variation in the way
programmes such as this are implemented. Further, district-wide or countywide VCS
30
organisations found it hard to access Active Together because they worked at a wider
level than the divisions which the councillors represented. Collaboration and flexibility
between councillors provides an important means of overcoming this challenge in that
projects can be supported by two or members. There were a few examples where this
worked successfully particularly in the urban areas in Gloucester and Cheltenham.
 A small grants programme like Active Together contributes to market development and
shaping by supporting potential future providers and encouraging new approaches or
methods to find out what works. This is often through community ‘doing it for
themselves’ with little financial help whereby small grants can lever in additional
funding and help to grow volunteer capacity, thus increasing community resilience. The
AT grants have encouraged development of local solutions and by adopting the
‘engaged grant-making’ approach the council has built many positive relationships with
local charities and social enterprises who appreciated the flexibility the grants gave
them to help meet local needs without too many strings attached.
 The evaluation could have proved even more effective at capturing and measuring
change in the outcomes had it started earlier within the life of the AT programme.
Building monitoring and evaluation into a project from the outset helps to make sure it
captures all relevant information. Stakeholders could be considered as evaluation
partners who are capable of enhancing the evaluation design, data collection tools,
and awareness of the evaluation itself.
4.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings and discussion outlined above we make the following recommendations
for those engaged in the design, delivery and evaluation of community health promotion
programmes:
Recommendations for commissioners
 The use of SROI evaluation approaches should be incorporated within the initial
planning phases of interventions to ensure that the full range of stakeholders,
indicators and contextual factors are included from a range of qualitative and
quantitative sources.
 Using public events and workshops to engage with people during planning stages will
help ensure that stakeholders for example, local councillors, and those benefitting from
the programme understand what it is about, the role of evaluation, and their part within
it. This provides a means of building trust and ensures that the full contextual
complexity of programmes is understood.
 An SROI approach can be used for monitoring and evaluating programmes as they
evolve. This helps to reduce the need for more cumbersome reporting systems needed
to monitor programme effectiveness. It is important to maintain effective
communication between commissioners, stakeholders and evaluation experts
throughout the duration of the programme in order to support information sharing.
 The evaluation framework provided in this report provides a useful blueprint for future
similar programmes. The potential to include diverse stakeholders and beneficiaries is
clear. The use of SROI approaches is recommended in a time when services are
stretched and funding is hard to come by.
31
Recommendations for researchers
 Applying an SROI approach to a community health promotion programme provides a

means of capturing the wider social, personal and interpersonal, and economic
benefits for individuals and communities. Attempts to apply the method in this context
are few and far between. It is recommended that researchers work closely with
practitioners to devise similar evaluation approaches to advance knowledge in this
area.
 Researchers should ensure sufficient flexibility when devising SROI evaluations to

allow for new inputs as the evaluation progresses. This will ensure the most relevant
data are considered and assessed.
 Implementing SROI methodologies is likely to provide a useful means of exploring

deeper meaning of community engagement in interventions of this type and the that
extend beyond the lifespan of the evaluation. SROI should also help to foster more
innovative approaches and activities by focusing on outcomes rather than outputs.
This provides a broader way of evaluating success and failure in a more meaningful
and implicit way.
 The successful application of grounded theory to the SROI approach in this study
demonstrates the potential for further methodological development in this area. This is
not only in the interests of improving robustness, but also with respect to the
development of bespoke monitoring and evaluation frameworks for specific projects,
programmes and policy areas.
 More specifically to community health programmes, there may potential to combine

elements of SROI with Cost Utility Analysis (CUA) to more closely align them with
assessments of conventional health interventions.
32
5.0 References
Aeron-Thomas, D., Nicholls, J., Forster, S., & Westall, A. (2004). Social Return on Investment:
Valuing what matters. London: New Economics Foundation.
Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2010). The ambitions and challenges of SROI.
Birmingham: Birmingham University Third Sector Research Centre.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Department of Health (2006). Our Health, Our Care. London: The Stationary Office.
Department of Health (2010). Measuring Social Value. London: The Stationary Office.
Harlock, J. (2013). Impact measurement practice in the UK third sector: a review of emerging
evidence. Birmingham: Birmingham University Third Sector Research Centre.
Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddle, C. (2003). Mixed methods Sampling Strategies in
Social Science Research. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds). Handbook of mixed
methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 273-296). London: Sage.
Leck, C., Upton, D., & Evans, N. (2014). Social Return on Investment: Valuing health
outcomes or promoting economic values? Journal of Health Psychology. Published
online before print November 28, 2014. doi: 10.1177/1359105314557502.
Lyon, F., & Arvidson, M. (2011). Social impact measurement as an entrepreneurial process.
Birmingham: University of Birmingham Third Sector Research Centre.
Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., & Neitzert, E. (2012). A Guide to Social Return on Investment (2nd ed).
London: Office of the Third Sector, The Cabinet Office.
Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social research (3rd). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Westall, A. (2009). Value and the third sector: Working Paper on ideas for future research.
Birmingham: University of Birmingham Third Sector Research Centre.
33
6.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Interview schedule (process)
A. Organisation / group / association… name
B. Background and context

1. Roughly how long has your organisation been running?
2. How long have you been involved in the organisation? (months)
3. Please describe your Active Together funded project (aims, population, activities,
rationale).
4. Are you recording any outcomes related to your project? (if so, what)
C. Active Together processes

5. How did you learn about Active Together?
6. Why did you apply? (explore wider context if possible)
7. How did you apply? (explain process)
8. What was the time between application and receipt of funding?
9. Could you highlight some of the positive and negative aspects of the funding (generally
e.g. for club, the process…)
D. Outcomes
10. What changes do you think the funding has made for your organisation (sustainability
in context of wider factors e.g £/ planning…)?
11. What changes do you think the funding has made for your PARTICIPANTS?
12. Do you think the funding is the main reason for the changes you’ve seen? (please
explain)
13. What changes do you think would have happened without the funding?
E. Future
16. Do you think that the programme could be improved in any way (e.g. focus / target
organisations, etc, marketing and promotion, type of funding available)?
17. Is there anything else that you would like to mention that we haven’t discussed?
CAN YOU RECOMMEND / IDENTIFY MEMBERS OR PARTICIPANTS WE MIGHT

CONTACT
34
Appendix B: Information letter
Title of project:
Gloucestershire Active Together Programme Evaluation
Information Sheet
Active Together is a new grant scheme from Gloucestershire County Council that seeks to encourage
more sport and physical activity across the county.
Starting in October 2014, the evaluation will run for two years and will include a Social Return on
Investment assessment with a view to understanding and value the changes that occur as a
consequence of projects implemented through Active Together and to develop a blueprint for a the
delivery and evaluation of similar future programmes.
What is the purpose of the study?
The purpose of the study is to establish evidence concerning how new modes of local commissioning
work in practice. With the community now located firmly at the heart of the public health agenda there
is a need to understand the processes, outcomes and experiences of people involved. This will help
develop evidence to improve future programmes and generate recommendations for future research
and practice.
What will we do with the information?
We will produce a report for Gloucestershire County Council providing a summary of the findings. This
report will help us to understand what is good about the programme and what needs to be improved.
We may also produce papers for academic journals based on the evaluation’s findings.
Do I have to take part in the evaluation?
Taking part is entirely voluntary. It is up to you whether or not to take part. Even if you decide to
participate you are free to withdraw from the study at any time without stating the reason.
What will you be asked to do if you decide to take part?
If you agree to be involved in the evaluation you will be asked to take part in an interview with a view to
discussing various aspects of Active Together. This can be done face-to-face or over the telephone at
a time and place convenient to you.
At the interview you will be asked to answer only the questions that you want and there are no right or
wrong answers; it is only your opinions and attitudes of the programme that are of interest to us. The
topics of conversation will include questions about what you think of Active Together, the types of
outcomes you are interested in, and what has helped you or what has not been helpful. We may also
invite you to participate in a further interview later on in the evaluation
Your participation in the interview(s) is entirely voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time during
the interview, without giving any reason, without my medical care or legal rights being affected. You are
also free to request that the information you provide in the interview will not be used in the final
evaluation analysis or reporting. If you would not like the information you provide to be used you must
contact us within 4 weeks after the interview has taken place.
What are the possible benefits to taking part?
The information derived from the evaluation will help develop evidence to improve future similar
programmes and generate recommendations for future research and practice.
Who has reviewed the study?
The University of Gloucestershire Research Ethics Committee has approved the evaluation.
35
What do you do know?
If you would like to be involved in the workshop and evaluation, please return the reply slip below.
If you need further information on this study, please contact:
Dr Colin Baker, University of Gloucestershire, Oxstalls Campus, Oxstalls Lane, Gloucester, GL2 9HW.
Email: cmbaker@glos.ac.uk
36
Appendix C: Voluntary informed consent
DATE:
CONSENT FORM
Title of project: Gloucestershire Active Together (AT) Programme Evaluation
Name of Researchers:
Dr Colin Baker Professor Diane Crone

Professor Paul Courtney Dr Elizabeth Loughren
Katarina Kubinakova
Please circle yes or no
1. I confirm that I have read and understand the information sheet dated ............................ for the
above study and have had the opportunity to ask questions.
YES/NO
2. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without
giving any reason, without my medical care or legal rights being affected.
YES/NO
3. I understand that I am free to request that the information I provide in the interview will not be
used in the final evaluation analysis or reporting. To do so I must contact the evaluators within
4 weeks after the interview has taken place.
YES/NO
4. I understand if I participate the interview will be audio taped for the purposes of an accurate
account of my experiences and for data analysis purposes.
YES/NO
5. I agree to release any photos from my participation in the programme (if applicable).
YES/NO
6. I agree to take part in the above study. YES/NO
_______________________ ____________________ ___________________

Name of Participant Date Signature
________________________ ________________ ___________________

Researcher Date Signature
37
Appendix D: Interview schedule (participants)
A. Background
1. Gender
2. Age in years
3. Name of project / club / activity etc… involved in
4. How long involved in?
5. Have you heard about Active Together? (if so, how, from where…)
B. Taking part
6. How did you hear about the project / club / activity etc.
7. What opportunities did this offer to you? (different? Continuing?)
8. Why do / did you take part (take part with anyone else?)
9. Describe main activities that you did / do (general participation, coaching, education &
training etc…)
C. Outcomes
10. Have there been any changes following your participation? (please describe – physical
and mental health, general state of mind…
11. How are these important to you? (what does it mean and why)
12. Were there any other changes? (e.g. family, community, neighbours…)
13. Do you think the project / club / activity is the main reason for the changes you’ve
seen? (if so, how)
14. What change do you think would have happened without the project / club / activity?
15. What is your overall perception of the project / club / activities etc. (+ve / -ve)?
16. Is there anything else that you would like to mention that we haven’t discussed?
38
Appendix E: Forecast SROI - changes in outcomes
This does not provide data for all survey questions but seeks to illustrate changes (%)
attributed to AT across a number of factors on a ‘before and after’ basis with respect to
involvement in AT-funded activities:
Community connections & resources
57%
A little (25%)
14% Some (50%)
Quite a lot (75%)
15% A great deal (100%)
14%
Education & skills
14%
36%
A little (25%)
Some (50%)
36% Quite a lot (75%)
A great deal (100%)
14%
Health and well-being
21%
29% None at all (0%)
A little (25%)
29%
Some (50%)
14%
7% Quite a lot (75%)
A great deal (100%)
39
Appendix F: Review of AT applications (GCC data)

Cheltenham Cotswold Forest of Gloucester Stroud Tewkesbury
Variable Dean n (%)
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Applicant type
Community Interest Company 2 3.0 3 4.0 2 2.8 3 3.7 2 3.7 2 2.8 14 3.3
Community or voluntary group 14 21.2 13 17.3 11 15.5 9 11.0 9 16.7 11 15.5 67 16.0
Preschool and after school club 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 2 0.5
Registered Charity 17 25.8 13 17.3 16 22.5 27 32.9 13 24.1 16 22.5 102 24.3
Religious groups 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 7.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 1.7
School/Academy 9 13.6 10 13.3 6 8.5 11 13.4 5 9.3 6 8.5 47 11.2
Sports groups and association 11 16.7 15 20.0 20 28.2 23 28.0 6 11.1 20 28.2 95 22.7
Town and Parish Council 3 4.5 19 25.3 13 18.3 0 0.0 18 33.3 13 18.3 66 15.8
Other 9 13.6 2 2.7 2 2.8 3 3.7 1 1.9 2 2.8 19 4.5
Project type
Dance classes, cheer leading 1 1.5 0 0.0 2 2.8 1 1.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.0
Encouraging active travel/ walking / cycling groups 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 2 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.7
Exercise classes for older people 4 6.0 3 4.1 1 1.4 3 3.7 3 5.7 1 1.9 15 3.7
Improving green spaces 19 28.4 15 20.5 10 14.1 9 11.0 15 28.3 9 17.0 77 19.1
Increasing opportunities for disabled people 2 3.0 1 1.4 7 9.9 1 1.2 4 7.5 1 1.9 16 4.0
Less formal activities that involve families 10 14.9 13 17.8 9 12.7 20 24.4 4 7.5 11 20.8 67 16.6
Purchasing sports equipment / refurbishing facility 19 28.4 33 45.2 29 40.8 24 29.3 23 43.4 18 34.0 146 36.1
Projects for women & culturally sensitive 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 24 29.3 0 0.0 1 1.9 25 6.2
Provision of alternative sports 1 1.5 1 1.4 2 2.8 2 2.4 2 3.8 2 3.8 10 2.5
Supporting clubs to expand membership 10 14.9 7 9.6 10 14.1 1 1.2 2 3.8 10 18.9 40 9.9
Street games / Doorstep sport 1 1.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2
Activity type
Sports 23 34.3 27 36.5 28 38.9 33 40.2 17 31.5 25 47.2 153 38.1
Walking / swimming / cycling 1 1.5 3 4.1 6 8.3 6 7.3 2 3.7 2 3.8 20 5.0
Social / other PA 40 59.7 39 52.7 36 50.0 40 48.8 35 64.8 22 41.5 212 52.7
Healthy living 3 4.5 5 6.8 2 2.8 3 3.7 0 0 4 7.5 17 4.2
40
Contd.
Cheltenham Cotswold Forest of Gloucester Stroud Tewkesbury

Variable n (%)
Dean
n % n % n % n % n % n %
Nature of activity
Facilitation 23 34.3 24 32.0 25 34.7 36 43.9 15 27.8 14 26.4 137 34.0
Capital/staff 29 43.3 41 54.7 34 47.2 25 30.5 32 59.3 25 47.2 186 46.2
Services 0 0.0 3 4.0 4 5.6 1 1.2 1 1.9 2 3.8 11 2.7
Club & talent development 12 17.9 2 2.7 6 8.3 12 14.6 5 9.3 10 18.9 47 11.7
Education / Learning 3 4.5 5 6.7 3 4.2 8 9.8 1 1.9 2 3.8 22 5.5
Note: At the time of the final data collection point the AT programme was still live and receiving applications. This data, therefore, should not be taken as an accurate representation
of the overall number and type of applications made to the programme throughout its duration.
Funding distribution according to Gloucestershire district
Area N Total £ Mn £ SD (£)1

Cheltenham 67 308,794 5,758 5476.491
Cotswold 76 240,628 4,121 7099.896
Forest of Dean 72 206,560 4,279 3488.741
Gloucester 82 230,682 3,799 3578.848
Stroud 54 254,355 6,979 6331.389
Tewkesbury 53 149,123 3,814 3818.012
Note: 1 SD denotes Standard Deviation, which expresses by how
much the districts differ from the mean value of the total AT funding
for Gloucestershire.
41
Appendix G: Description of the financial proxies
Financial Proxy Proxy Value

Outcome Unit Source Year Notes/Rationale
Description (£)
Previously used by NEF in evaluating the

Estimated cost per impact on local communities of an
A1 Improved access to mile of a vehicle additional runway at Heathrow airport.
463.84 £ p.a SROI Wiki Vois Database 2002
community resources movement for leisure Based on cost savings of re-allocating
purposes resources. Based on cost saving of 4.46
per hr and 2 hours travel per week.
A2 Greater integration of
Cost of time spent Cost per Global Value Exchange, It would cost organisations staff time in
social, sport and special 823 2014
collaborating organisation p.a Whitebarn Consulting order to develop meaningful collaborations
interest groups
Volunteering would produce a similar set of

outcomes to those associated with
A3 Improved social capital,
strengthened social capital and civic
community ties and Value of volunteering
1497.6 £ per annum Unique search engagement. Based on living wage rate of
strengthened civic in England
£7.20 per hr) multiplied by average number
engagement
of hours per week volunteers undertake in
UK = 4 hrs per week.
Has been used to value increased

Global Value Exchange
Average spending on opportunity to interact with people from
B1 Reduced social isolation 57.2 £ per person p.a 2013 (From SROi report by 2013
social interaction different backgrounds in a previous SROI
Social value lab)
by the social value lab.
SROI on Growing Social

Value attributed to Capital (Wright and
Positive functioning is a similar outcome to
positive functioning Schifferes, 2012)
B2 Improved competence, improved competence, engagement and
for volunteers based 2,940 per person p.a http://www.thinklocalactper 2012
engagement and purpose purpose. Thus one could expect the same
additional median sonal.org.uk/_assets/BCC/
wage differential.
wages earned Growing_Social_Capital_S
ROI_-_March_2012.pdf
42
Participating in a relevant course or seeing

Cost of employability Global Value Exchange
a coach or councellor would provide a
B3 Improved physical, social skills training in http://www.globalvaluexcha
1,650 per person similar set of outcomes. Deemed by the
and life skills and training regular sessions with nge.org/valuations/search?
GVE to be a credible value for increase in
councellor/coach q=employability
basic skills.
SROI Wiki Vois Database -

The Troubled Families
Mental health service
Cost Database Reduction in the number of young people
costs per individual
C1 Improved mental health 942 per person http://neweconomymanche 2010 and adults suffering from depression will
(anxiety and
ster.com/stories/1336- reduce pressure on NHS over longer term
depression)
evaluation_and_costbenefit
_analysis
Spending on recreation and leisure would

help to achieve similar outcomes as use of
C2 Safer and more positive Average family spend Per person per Greenspace Scotland
106 2009 green space and walking/cycling routes
environments on sports/leisure anum SROI, FES
deemed to be safer and more positive.
Based on annual household spend of 243)
C3 Improved well-being Global Value Exchange According to the GVE evidence shows that
Effect of sports club
through development of http://www.globalvaluexcha membership of a sports club has the same
membership on 3600 £ per person p.a 2005
cultural, recreational and nge.org/valuations/search? impact on individual well-being as an
wellbeing
sports facilities q=sports%20well%20being increase in income of £3,600 per year
Cost of reduced Many people with long-term physical health

C4 Improved physical health, health care to conditions raise total health care costs by
Personal Social Services
improvement in long term maintain good at least 45 per cent for each person
232 per person p.a Research Unit (PSSRU) 2011
conditions and reduced physical health including hospital admissions and GP
2011
treatment (based one A&E and consultations for physical complaints
4 GP visits p.a) (PSSRU, 2011)
Unit cost of approved

Personal Social Services
C5 Reduced burden on social worker (ASW) Cost of approved social worked taken as a
1,380 per person p.a Research Unit (PSSRU) 2011
social care services for community social proxy for general social care services.
2011
care
43
Gloucestershire Active Together Evaluation Final Report
Contact:
Dr Colin Baker
University of Gloucestershire
School of Health and Social Care
Francis Close Hall
Cheltenham
GL50 4AZ
cmbaker@glos.ac.uk
January, 2017.
44

Gloucestershire Active Together Evaluation: Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gloucestershire Active Together Evaluation: Final Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gloucestershire Active Together Evaluation: Final Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gloucestershire Active

Definition of Abbreviations / Terms

 Gloucestershire County Council’s (GCC) Active Together (AT) programme aimed to

 In September 2014 the University of Gloucestershire was commissioned Public Health

 Using a mixed methods approach incorporating a Social Return on Investment

1. The Gloucestershire County Council Active Together database

Recommendations for commissioners

Recommendations for researchers

 Applying an SROI approach to a community health promotion programme provides a

 Researchers should ensure sufficient flexibility when devising SROI evaluations to

 Implementing SROI methodologies is likely to provide a useful means of exploring

 More specifically to community health programmes, there may potential to combine

1.0 Introduction and background

In September 2014, Public Health Gloucestershire commissioned the University of

1.1 Evaluation aims and objectives

1 To understand and value the changes that occur as a consequence of projects

Objective 1: To consult with a full range of material stakeholders involved in the AT

1.2 Structure of the report

The purpose of this report is to:

The remainder of this report is presented using the following structure:

Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a government-recognised methodology that measures

Figure 1: Six stages of SROI

2.1.1 The Active Together evaluation

The main principles of SROI are to:

vii. Verify the result

Figure 2: Key evaluation components and 7 evaluation objectives

2.2 Analysis of the GCC applicant database

2.3 Process evaluation

A semi-structured interview schedule (Appendix A) was designed in collaboration with the

A series of individual interviews, either in person or via a telephone, conversation was

2.4 Participant interviews

2.5 SROI framework

i. Initial development of indicators to produce a prospective (forecast) SROI assessment of

2.5.1 Creating the Theory of Change

Table 1: Process of creating the Theory of Change

1. A fairer society for all people;

Figure 3: Active Together Theory of Change

2.5.2 SROI Framework

Table 2: Measurable Outcomes revealed through the ToC

2.5.3 Evaluative SROI

2.6 Evaluation ethics

3.1 Review of Gloucester County Council AT application data

3.1.1 Applicant type

3.1.5 Breakdown of funding

Table 3 provides a breakdown of the AT funding according to Gloucestershire districts and

Table 3: Breakdown of funding

3.2 Process evaluation

Key themes that emerged from the data analyses included:

These are presented in Tables 4 – 6 including selected participant quotes.

3.3 Participant experiences

These are presented in Tables 7 - 10 including selected participant quotes.

3.2.1 Simplicity and flexibility

Table 4: Simplicity and flexibility

Description & information Example quotations

3.2.2 Rapid access to funding – ‘foreshortening’

Table 5: Rapid access to funding

Description & information Example quotations

3.2.3 Sustainability and development opportunities

_____ _

______ _