Background
Methods
'Fitter for Walking' intervention
Region | Local Authority | Project statusa
| |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of projects | |||||||||||
Primary groupsb
| Secondary groupsc
| Total | Number of groups registeredd
| Plannede
| Completedf
| In progress/ongoingg
| On holdh
| Declined to participatei
| Withdrew post-registrationj
| ||
London | Barking & Dagenham | 4 | 8 | 12 | 8 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Redbridge | 8 | 3 | 11 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | |
TOTAL | 12 | 11 | 23 | 16 | |||||||
North East England | Gateshead | 5 | 7 | 12 | 12 | 0 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Newcastle | 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Sunderland | 5 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
TOTAL | 14 | 9 | 23 | 22 | |||||||
North West England | Blackburn with Darwen | 11 | 14 | 25 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Bolton | 10 | 6 | 16 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | |
TOTAL | 21 | 20 | 41 | 14 | |||||||
West Midlands | Dudley | 7 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
Sandwell | 9 | 4 | 13 | 13 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | |
Wolverhampton | 6 | 5 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
TOTAL | 22 | 10 | 32 | 29 | |||||||
Yorkshire | Doncaster | 19 | 1 | 20 | 15 | 3 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 |
Rotherham | 15 | 1 | 16 | 14 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5 | |
TOTAL | 34 | 2 | 36 | 29 | |||||||
TOTAL | 103 (66.5%) | 52 (33.5%) | 155 | 110 | 15 (9.7%) | 47 (30.3%) | 48 (31.0%) | 21 (13.5%) | 3 (1.9%) | 21 (13.5%) |
Evaluation of implementation
Data source | Indicators assessed/collected | Objectives addressed | Implementation constructs assessed |
---|---|---|---|
Interviews/ focus groups with coordinators | • Leadership | 1 | Recruitment (Reach) |
• Project implementation including: context, recruitment and engagement of communities, working with local authorities and other partners, delivery of different intervention activities | 3 | Implementation processes (Adaptation) | |
• Barriers and facilitators for implementation | 4 | Factors affecting implementation | |
• Sustainability | |||
Implementation log | • Name of the registered group | 1 | Recruitment (Reach) |
• Key dates: | |||
Date of registration, date of community street audit, date FFW award presented, end date of project | |||
• Community characteristics: Target community, estimated size of the community on which the project might have an impact (number of individuals or households) | |||
• Location/route characteristics: | |||
The main route/area of interest and any local key destinations or trip generators | |||
• Project information: | |||
How the group was identified/recruited, the priorities of the group for the project | |||
• Barriers to walking | 2 | What was delivered (Dosage) | |
• Environmental improvements and activities delivered | |||
• Key stakeholders and partners involved in the project | |||
• Additional funding identified for project activities | |||
• Challenges specific to each project | |||
Attendance records | • Number of people attending events, community meetings and led activities | 1 | Participation (Reach) |
Pledge cards | • Number of pledge cards distributed/completed | 1 | Participation (Reach) |
Route user counts | • Number of people walking on specified routes in five FFW projects | 1 | Participation (Reach) |
Interviews and focus groups with FFW coordinators
Implementation log
Participation records
Analyses
Results
Reach (recruitment and participation)
Number of projects | Percent | |
---|---|---|
Recruitment methods | ||
Approached by a local community representativea
| 71 | 50.7 |
At a local community event | 19 | 13.6 |
At a local or regional meeting (e.g. local area/community forums) | 17 | 12.1 |
Coordinator approached centre, group or individual | 8 | 5.7 |
Through an existing FFW project or word of mouth | 8 | 5.7 |
Coordinator attended local community group meeting | 7 | 5.0 |
Activities | ||
Local Authority-led environmental improvements | ||
Removal of encroaching vegetation | 12 | 10.3 |
New or improved pedestrian signage | 9 | 7.8 |
New dropped kerbs or kerb improvements | 8 | 6.9 |
New, repaired or improved footpaths | 8 | 6.9 |
Resurfacing of footpaths | 8 | 6.9 |
General safety improvements (e.g. new fencing around pond) | 6 | 5.2 |
Extra bollards to control traffic flow and parking | 6 | 5.2 |
Installation of benches/seating | 6 | 5.2 |
New or improved street lighting | 5 | 4.3 |
Removal, repair or replacement of street furniture (e.g. railings); and installation of maps or noticeboards for maps | 5 | 4.3 |
Community-led environmental improvements | ||
Planting bulbs, shrubs or bedding plants | 33 | 28.4 |
Clean-up days | 12 | 10.3 |
Litter pick-ups | 8 | 6.9 |
Clearance of land or encroaching vegetation | 7 | 6.0 |
Promotional and awareness-raising activities | ||
Led walks | 60 | 51.7 |
Themed walks (e.g. a history walk or nature walk) | 18 | 15.5 |
Development of maps or resources to promote the improved route/area | 22 | 19.0 |
Community events, fun days, celebration events and street partiesb
| 19 | 16.4 |
School talks or assemblies | 19 | 16.4 |
Pledge cardsc
| 17 | 14.7 |
Walking challenges linked to walk to school month or week | 12 | 10.3 |
Dosage (what was delivered)
Implementation processes and adaptation (how the intervention was delivered)
“I think there has been a thing about the project becoming more and more structured as we’ve gone through… so it’s kind of progressively, we’ve got a much more structured way of dealing with it, probably much more consistently across the whole country”. (FG, 2011)
Preparatory phase
Delivery phase
Coordinators indicated that cold calling or sending letters to community groups inviting them to take part in FFW generally did not elicit any response. Once engaged, the coordinator typically attended a local meeting of the community group, gave a presentation about the benefits of walking and the FFW intervention and where appropriate encouraged the group to apply and register to participate.“I’ve been reactive rather than proactive and I think either way is valid but I’ve not had to go out and find somewhere or this could really do with doing…maybe I can put a community group in and around this project to get this project off the ground. It seems to be the communities that have come to me and said ‘I’ve got this specific issue in this area, can you come and look at this with me? Will you come and have a look at this path or this route?’ So I’m reacting to that rather than having to go out and seek projects and try and build something around that.” (FG, 2008)
Coordinators also provided community groups with a FFW manual which was developed in the first year of the intervention by Living Streets and the FFW coordinators. This aimed to build skills and knowledge in community members and promote community ownership of project activities to support sustainability beyond the duration of the coordinators’ involvement. The manual contained ideas and resources for improving the walking environment and increasing awareness of walking which the community could use to undertake these activities themselves.“It was quite a good learning curve if you like, not to pre-empt too much what the issue is in that area, it’s a large shopping area and the walking access wasn’t great and it needed some regeneration. But the residents group weren’t interested in that at all, it was the local path that they were bothered about.” (FG, 2008)
“Now when we’re setting out what we want to achieve at the start, it’s not too vague, it’s not too ambiguous, it’s with certain criteria to hit, I think that makes it a lot easier and that’s something we’ve only developed again over the last sort of six to eight months, the criteria and the manual and things like that. That all helps, I think that will make it easier to start and finish projects.” (Interview, 2010)
Factors influencing implementation (barriers and facilitators)
Theme | Barriers/challenges | Facilitators |
---|---|---|
Local knowledge and contacts | • Lack of knowledge of the local area where coordinators were working in areas unfamiliar to them • Lack of established contacts and partners where coordinators were working in new areas | • Coordinator living in the local area, being knowledgeable about the local area, understanding local issues and agendas, having an established network of contacts |
Intervention delivery | • Uncertainty at the start about how the project would be delivered • Lack of publicity materials and resources at the start of the intervention • Sending letters to community groups to invite them to participate in the intervention did not result in groups signing up • Recruiting hard to reach individuals/wider members of the community • Having one negative person in a group can have a substantial impact of the rest of the group • Limited funding and budgets cuts during the intervention • Timescales for engaging and working with communities and for making LA-led environmental improvements were much longer than expected • Maintaining momentum and community involvement whilst awaiting LA improvements • Gaining permission and approvals for intervention activities slowed progress • Difficulty in closing projects, particularly where the coordinator had become well embedded into the group • Coordinators were unable to work with the target number of groups due to the other barriers such as timescales and coordinator capacity • Recruiting the target number of individuals | • Flexibility to deliver the intervention to suit local needs and allow for local differences in context and operating processes • Development of a more structured intervention delivery pathway as FFW progressed • Developing contacts and linking in to existing local networks and organisations • Linking to existing projects e.g. urban regeneration schemes which helped provide additional local funding for FFW • Allowing the activities to be community-led • Use of resources e.g. the Community Street Audit helped with community engagement and provided credibility with LAs; the FFW manual enabled groups to develop and deliver their own activities providing a level of sustainability; the pledge cards were also a useful engagement tool; having case study examples from other FFW projects to help ‘sell’ the intervention to new groups • Distributing the audit report not only to the main contact in the LA, but also to other LA departments and community organisations helped to support implementation of the recommendations and lever funding • Coordinators had a budget of their own to spend on intervention activities which helped engage the LAs, other partners and communities • Ensuring the community group knew they were expected to take ownership of the project and not expect the coordinator to do all the work • Increasing reach of the intervention by working with secondary groups e.g. schools • The FFW award criteria played a role in providing focus for a community group; the award was important for communities in recognising their achievements |
Coordinator role | • Capacity of coordinator to work across multiple areas with multiple groups simultaneously and time management • Level of work involved with each group, even those who were proactive and confident • Managing perceptions of communities regarding the coordinator role (some thought they were purely walk leaders, others expected the coordinator to do all the work instead of the community group taking ownership) • Coordinator changes in two regions may have affected established relationships with local groups and partners | • ‘Getting known’ and having a presence/visibility in the community • Being proactive in working with LA to follow up on status of audit report and actions on recommendations • Maintaining contact and providing regular communication to community groups on the status of their proposed environmental improvements |
Working with local authorities and other partners | • Two LAs dropped out before FFW started due to being unable to commit resources and funding for the intervention • LA lack of understanding of the FFW intervention and their role • Some LAs wished to direct where the coordinator worked, or wanted the coordinator to work across the whole LA area which wasn’t feasible with coordinator capacity or where the intervention was most needed • All LAs functioned differently, coordinators had to understand this and work differently with each one • It took time for the coordinator to be accepted in the LA and have a full understanding of how the LA operated • LA processes and priorities did not always fit with FFW • The level of LA support varied; the key contact in the LA did not always provide sufficient support, or did not have the right contacts to support intervention activities • Changes of staff in the LAs affected intervention delivery • The level of support from councillors varied across areas • In some areas, there was resistance and negativity from local councillors regarding availability of funding and raising community expectations • Communication between LA departments was sometimes poor • Bureaucracy and paperwork was a hindrance to making quick progress with intervention activities • It became apparent that many different LA departments might have a role in improving the environment to promote walking, not just the transport department, however other departments in the LAs were not always aware of or engaged in the intervention • The timescales to get approval for work, planning decisions and environmental improvements made were much longer than expected • The transport departments sometimes had limited knowledge of what was happening on the ground in communities. Other departments became important for this e.g. neighbourhood management • In some areas LA neighbourhood management teams were disbanded during the intervention which affected delivery of FFW • Where there was no neighbourhood management structure, working with communities was much more challenging • Tracking the progress of audit reports once they had been submitted to the LAs was difficult and time consuming • In some LAs, provision of funding slowed down once the match fund target had been reached • Funding reduced during the course of the intervention due to budget cuts • Working with multiple partners, with different agendas and different ways of working was challenging | • LA being willing to provide match funding and resources to support FFW • Having the right contact in the LA facilitated intervention implementation and timescales for action • Knowing who to contact to ensure action takes place • In some areas, having a more senior member of staff helped with implementation, in others more junior members of staff were important in facilitating progress • LAs provided capacity to undertake work e.g. use of community pay back teams to clean graffiti from a bridge, or engaging the local navy to assist with a clean-up day • Having a neighbourhood management structure in place enabled coordinators to quickly access information about the local area, community groups and issues • Developing partnerships with local organisations provided additional support for FFW, increased publicity, built capacity, helped to identify community groups, ensured there was no duplication of activities and promoted long-term sustainability |
Working with communities | • Some FFW projects were based in urban regeneration areas and community experiences of this (changes to timescales, promises not kept, communities felt they were not listened to, changes made the community did not want) led to some resistance to FFW • Identifying a focus for the local project, sometimes the community group did not have a clear environmental issue they wished to address and were only interested in walking • Maintaining focus on changing the environment and promoting walking for transport; some groups only wanted led walks or focussed more on improving green space and recreational walking • Some coordinators felt they were ‘used’ to set up walking groups or to address agendas which were not the focus of FFW • Managing expectations; it was not always possible to make all the environmental improvements which were requested and slow timescales • Some community groups required a lot of support impacting on coordinators’ time and capacity for other groups | • Working in areas already targeted for regeneration helped generate funding and facilitated some community projects that had been started but were making no or slow progress • Working with existing and established groups who are passionate about their local area • Having a specific issue to focus on identified by the community group • Having a key contact or champion in each community group facilitated communication and intervention delivery |
The delivery of the intervention varied between LA areas depending on the internal structure of the LA, their understanding of and commitment to the intervention, the role of the main contact in the LA (and their capacity); working processes of the LA, communication channels across LA departments; the existence of a neighbourhood management team; and the funding available. Coordinators reported that the main contact in the LA was a key influence on what was delivered during the intervention regarding LA-led environmental improvements and that it is important to find the right person for this role. Factors to consider included the relevance of their role to the walking agenda, capacity to undertake activities required for the intervention, and ability/authority to act on the audit reports received and identify funding and work capacity to undertake improvements.“Each local authority area is very different and the whole set up of the counties is very different. So there’s a lot of need to understand how they work and who’s actually engaged with local people, it’s good to get an understanding of how each council works.”(FG, 2008)
In a number of communities, the group who registered for FFW had already identified an area that they wanted to improve prior to the intervention but were struggling to make progress, or had already started making some improvements but progress was slow. The coordinators felt that FFW had built on this and they had facilitated the groups to start work or speeded up the processes needed to make the improvements. The groups which were recruited to FFW were generally already established and active in their communities which facilitated intervention implementation.“We have got a common project but we have all put different spins on it and for me, that’s an important part because different things work in different areas.” (Coordinator, 2009)
At the start of the intervention no promotional materials had been developed which proved challenging for publicising the intervention:“I think when I first started, I tried to keep it as pure as I could and stick to the remit of the project as purely as I could by working with community groups and looking at ways to improve the walkability of their area. But over time, because the timeframes involved in making recommendations and putting reports in and work getting done, because some of the stuff I was doing last year is only just having an effect this year. So twelve, eighteen months on, it’s still in the process and not even been delivered yet. So with that in mind, I think that it has changed for me because every project can’t all be about doing audits, putting reports in, making recommendations, because there just isn’t time. So the projects have to be more diverse and they’ve had to look… not away from the remit of the project I think, but had to look more widely and encompass the groups where I know, even when I start with them, that it’s not going to involve an audit. And we’re not going to make recommendations but we just walked or we’ve just done the community clean-up and maybe not an audit, but I’ve tried to keep it pure and I thought this is what it’s about, it’s working with communities and it’s trying to deliver change on the ground and improvement to walking levels.” (FG, 2009)
Although the coordinators initially reported that the transport department was the most appropriate department to engage with in the LA, it became clear later that this was not always the best department through which to work with communities and that other departments or partners were needed in order to support this aspect of the intervention:“The first thing I did was get myself a stall there, we had very little paraphernalia, very little literature but we had little bits of stuff, so I was just kind of stood there giving my card out, really talking to people saying that, “You know, there’s this new project, it’s just about starting, getting started in [town],” but, you know, I didn’t have much to show anyone, I didn’t have any kind of case studies or anything really, I was just kind of telling them about what this project might be and how it might benefit people.” (Interview, 2011)
The timescales for engaging community groups, delivering the intervention and for LA-led environmental changes to be implemented was much longer than expected, and keeping groups engaged in the intervention during this time was a challenge:“You can’t really reach neighbourhoods through the transport team because they don’t really have any community contacts but I used the neighbourhood managers or coordinators to access local issues and tenants’ and residents’ associations or other local groups, and then, you know, you just work with them on the ground to try and achieve those improvements and then flag up things to the transport team where they can support it.” (Interview, 2011)
There were some challenges with regards to funding intervention activities. Although the LA provided funding for small scale infrastructural improvements, some activities fell outside of the LA remit or were not on LA-owned land therefore additional funding had to be sourced from other local organisations. During FFW there was a period of significant economic downturn in the UK. LA budget cuts during the intervention impacted on funding available for FFW and once match funding had been achieved there was little further investment in the intervention in some LA areas. The economic downturn may also have affected local investment in FFW through reduced funding availability in other local organisations and partners. The coordinators also had a budget which could be used for activities which helped to engage LAs, local organisations and communities in the intervention and to support intervention delivery. In some areas it was possible to attract additional funding through being in a regeneration area or through other local organisations e.g. housing associations or neighbourhood management.“It’s getting [audit recommendations] done in a timescale that people haven’t forgotten about it because it’s not realistic to get most of them done in 3 or 4 months or even 6 months because they’re just, that’s not how things work. But for communities 3 or 4 months is just absolutely ages and they’ve completely forgotten about the audits.” (Interview, 2010)
Ending projects and involvement with a community group was one of the main challenges: “I think probably a biggest challenge and maybe that’s because we don’t have a Fitter for Walking award yet, is closing off a community” (Interview, 2009). Coordinators became very closely involved with many communities, and it was difficult to end the relationship. The development of the FFW award was reported to be extremely helpful in addressing this issue as it helped to ‘finalise’ the input from the coordinators and close the project.“There’s quite a lot of long-term urban regeneration going on and there’s funding available for that. We’re hoping that by being hopefully in that area and quite high profile, that then can tie into their aims of the regeneration and steer funding.” (FG, 2008)