Manchester Beacon Interim Review - August 2010

Manchester Beacon for Public
Report Title – Interim Evaluation
Engagement

Final Report for Steering Board

August 2010

Registered Name: EKOS Ltd
Registered Office: St. George’s Studios, 93-‐97 St. George’s Road, Glasgow, G3 6JA
Telephone: 0141 353 1994
Web: www.ekos-‐consultants.co.uk

EKOS Quality Assurance Record

Name and email Date
Prepared by: Madeline Smith 16 August 2010
Nicola Graham
Regina Trenkler-‐Fraser
Suzanne Munro
Proofed by: Lorna Bryson 16 August 2010

Quality Controlled by: Madeline Smith 16 August 2010

If required, copies of this document are available in large print by contacting
the author direct.
 As part of our green office policy all EKOS reports are printed double sided.

Contents

Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 9
1.1 Background 9
1.2 Evaluation Aims and Objectives 9
1.3 Approach and Method 10
1.4 Structure of the Report 11
2. The Manchester Beacon 12

2.1 Governance and Management Arrangements 12
2.2 NWDA Beacon Objectives 14
2.3 Manchester Beacon Objectives 15
2.4 Alignment of Objectives 16
3. Supported Activity 19
3.1 Funding 19
3.2 The Projects 20
4. Feedback from Stakeholders 24

4.1 Role 24
4.2 Rationale 24
4.3 Performance against Expectations 24
4.4 Objective 1 – PE is Encouraged and Supported 26
4.5 Objective 5: Deeper Partnership Working 27
4.6 Other Manchester Beacon Objectives 30
4.7 Additionality 31
4.8 Value for Money 32
4.9 Future Development Issues and Opportunities 33
5. Feedback from Participants 35

5.1 Background 35
5.2 Feedback from University Staff 36
5.3 Feedback from Non-‐University Staff 43
5.4 Important values in public engagement 49
5.5 National Survey Responses 50
6. Performance Against Objectives 57

6.1 NWDA Objectives 57
6.2 Manchester Beacon Objectives 60
6.3 Strategic Added Value 62
7. Learning Points and Recommendations 66

7.1 Conclusions 66
7.2 Issues and Learning points 67
7.3 Learning for NWDA 71
7.4 Learning for Beacon and Other Funders 72
7.5 Recommendations 74
Appendices 78

Executive Summary
Introduction
This report sets out the findings of the evaluation of the Manchester Beacon
for Public Engagement, focusing on the North West Development Agency’s
(NWDA) funding contribution.
The Manchester Beacon is one of six centres involved in a UK-‐wide initiative,
funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE),
Research Councils UK (RCUK), and the Wellcome Trust. The four year UK-‐
wide Beacons for Public Engagement initiative (2008/12) seeks to bring
about culture change in the way HEIs, their staff, and their students reach
out, listen, and engage with the public.
Manchester Beacon is a partnership between University of Manchester

(UoM), Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), University of Salford
(UoS), Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI), and Manchester: Knowledge
Capital (M:KC).
The Manchester Beacon secured additional funding from April 2008 to
March 2010 from the NWDA. Although the focus of this evaluation is the
NWDA funding which concluded in March 2010, it is in effect an interim
evaluation of the whole programme, which should inform the remaining
delivery time (to December 2011) and input to discussion of the future
direction of such initiatives.
NWDA Beacon Objectives
In April 2008 NWDA allocated £240,000 for Beacon related activity. The
specific objectives for the Manchester Beacon for the NWDA funding were:
• to achieve significantly improved understanding and appreciation of

the universities and institutions in the local area by residents of the
local communities by March 2010;
• to achieve much improved understanding and appreciation of
neighbouring communities by the universities and institutions;
• to put in place a number of (in the region of five) sustainable
engagements/projects that involve academics working with local
communities;
• to develop a cadre of up to 40 academics with an enthusiasm for, and
experience of, working with deprived communities; and

NWDA: Evaluation of Manchester Beacon
1

• to help catalyse an uplift in the number of local residents (in
particular those from deprived communities with no prior contact
with the Higher Education Institutions) with a positive attitude
towards working in the universities and other major employers, or
studying at (or with help from) those HEIs.
Manchester Beacon Objectives

Five themes and objectives were articulated and adopted by stakeholders in
the Manchester Beacon. These are described in more detail below:
Priority: Behaviour change

• Objective 1: Public engagement is encouraged, valued and supported
• Objective 2: Change perceptions and improve accessibility
Priority: Increasing Engagement level
• Objective 3: Increasing the relevance of institution activity and
connectivity with communities
• Objective 4: Improve the opportunities for sustainable two-‐way
learning
Priority: Deeper partnership working
• Objective 5: Develop deeper partnership working across the Beacon
partners and with the community
The overall objectives for the Manchester Beacon are strongly aligned with,
and contribute to, NWDA’s funding objectives for the Manchester Beacon.
Supported Activity
A total of seven sustainable engagement projects were delivered. The
projects were:
o ArcSpace Manchester
o UoM Development Awards
o Community Leadership Programme
o Cultural Awards
o Community Science Awards
o MMU Public Engagement Fellowships (funding levered by
MMU)
o Networking and Events (e.g. Comixed, Mapping Creativity,
Beacon Summit match-‐funded by HEFCE, RCUK, Wellcome
Trust funding).
Many of these projects involved several individual research and
collaboration projects, involving academics, cultural organisations and
community partners. A total of 29 individual collaborative projects have
been supported, many more than the five sustainable projects originally
anticipated.

2

Feedback from Stakeholders

In depth consultation took place with 20 different partners and
stakeholders.
Management and Structure
The management and delivery of the programme is viewed to be effective
and the project is felt to be well managed. The management and governance
structures (with the various committees and working groups) took a while to
be organised, but are now viewed to be working well.
The team is credited with driving forward the project successfully. The
approach is viewed to have been creative and energetic, if challenging. The
support from senior champions across the partners is seen as crucial and has
been very strongly endorsed across the Manchester Beacon.
PE Priorities
The work of the Beacon was felt to have strongly influenced the PE priorities
of the organisation, especially at a strategic level. PE is now evident in
strategic documents, faculty plans, grant applications, specific appointments
and is being built into promotions and performance criteria. More
profoundly the approach used by the Beacon has been adopted in other
Public and community engagement endeavours.
Partnership Working and collaboration

Although there is a long history of partnership working between the
partners, new relationships, and further collaborations were built because of
the Beacon. It was highlighted that each partner brings different strengths,
but they all had slightly differing agendas (i.e. Research focussed or
Community engagement focussed), which can be a challenge. MOSI’s
inclusion as a cultural partner was viewed to have added a great deal to the
programme, bringing a non-‐HEI perspective, PE professionalism and
expertise. Furthermore, M:KC’s supporting role, civic links and
understanding of the Beacon’s innovative approaches has been pivotal.
It was felt that the approach to engagement with the community has
changed from “doing this to” people to co-‐creation and an improving sense
of treating all as equals. In addition there was viewed to be a better
understanding about the diversity and richness of the community.
Other Beacon Objectives and wider benefits

The vast majority of those who responded felt that the image of the
organisations had improved with the community, with 93% feeling that the
institutions were more important and relevant to the local communities.
Access to facilities was seen as a more difficult issue, although improvement
had been made in certain areas.

3

All of the respondents felt that without the Beacon, although some PE
projects would still have happened, they would have been slower, of lower
quality, and lesser impact. The investment in the Beacon was viewed as
having had a large impact, through influencing and catalysing further
benefits, and reaching a high number of people. The Beacon was also felt to
be contributing to wider benefits, including leading learning, developing
capability and establishing Manchester as a centre of good practice.
Future focus
The main focus for the Beacon until the end of the current funding was felt
to be to build on the good work, to embed the change of culture and
reinforce the behaviours across the institutions, to sustain impact.
Mainstreaming PE and broadening engagement beyond the initial
enthusiasts was important, as well as exploring more joint projects.
Participant benefits
A total of 31 participants contributed to the evaluation through in depth
telephone interview and online surveys. Both Staff and Community group
members identified positive learning and personal benefits
A large majority of community members reported an improved relationship

between the university and the local community and felt the university was
better connected with the local community than before. For university staff,
92% of respondents felt that the university has a better understanding of the
local community and was better connected as a result of the Beacon project.
Participants reported gaining new skills and knowledge, increased

confidence, interest in new ideas through their involvement as well as
enjoyment. Significantly, a very high proportion either had already taken, or
planned to take, further action as a result of their participation.
A parallel analysis was undertaken from a wider survey of staff as part of the
UK-‐wide study of the Beacons. Whilst 70% of respondents to this survey
reported that they felt the work culture of their institution was supportive
towards PE activities, only 19% reported that they believed that the
institution rewards those who take part in PE activities. Of those surveyed in
the Manchester, 65% agreed that engagement with communities had
increased.
Performance against objectives

This evaluation evidences that the programme has delivered well against the
NWDA objectives set at the start of the funding. In many cases the more
quantitative elements have been exceeded, and evidence gathered shows
improvements in the more qualitative objectives.

4

An assessment has also been made against Manchester Beacon Objectives,

and good progress is evidenced here as well. In particular Objective 1 (PE is
valued and rewarded) and Objective 5 (deeper partnership working), which
in some ways are the underpinning objectives of the Manchester Beacon,
both showed good evidence of improvement.
Issues and Learning points
Partnership
The partners involved are very diverse, with different strengths and different
expectations. This diversity means they can learn from each other. The
cultural partner of MOSI has brought different strengths to the programme
and M:KC has helped bring support and an understanding of innovation.
There is a long history of partnership working across the partners. However
the Beacon has allowed new partnerships to be built, new relationships to
be formed, and a deepening of trust. A key factor for the Manchester
Beacon is the real commitment from the top across all institutions.
Approach
The approach taken by the Manchester Beacon, of listening in the first year,
although always part of the original proposal in the Beacon bid, has been
challenging for some. However the consensus seems to be that this has
improved the quality of delivery, and they are now doing better PE and not
just more of it.
Manchester Beacon is seen as one of the leading Beacons UK-‐wide. The
approach taken by the Manchester Beacon, the diversity of the partnership,
and the emphasis on local communities and two-‐way engagement differs
from other Beacons. The importance of senior champions, the relatively well
resourced team and the diversity they have managed to engender are all key
elements in this success.
Structure
The matrix structure, where the team is part of the Beacon but hosted in
their home institution, has brought both positives and negatives. Whilst
positive in that, the team members are all embedded within their
organisation, it is challenging to effectively try to align two agendas.
The working groups structure and their purpose took time to be established,
but are now more structured. As the programme goes into its final stages,
they need to make sure they put forward concrete recommendations to the
leadership group.

5

Overcoming barriers
Language is identified as a big barrier in initial stages of engagement.
Building confidence and capacity is a strong enabler towards two-‐way
engagement. Many of the projects initiated by the Beacon tackle this issue.
Building trust is a key challenge. It is based on personal relations and takes
time to develop. The role of the Beacon in using engagement through
networks, events and projects to facilitate, channel and build connections
has helped overcome this.
Learning from experience

There are good examples of learning from earlier projects feeding into new
project development, showing the value of a partnership programme, where
learning can be shared. Both success and failure can feed into this learning.
Following sharing and dissemination, it is also important to address what is
going to happen next as a result of the project/intervention to ensure they
are not just projects in isolation that then have no longer term impact. This
is a key element in building sustainability and long term change.
Broker / Catalyst role

The importance of the beacon team as a broker and channel for linkages
should not be underestimated. This works both between the partners and
with the community.
Early adopters
As is inevitable in a change management programme, those most engaged at
the early stages will be those who were already enthusiastic and early
adopters. This is also true for community participants where the most
interested are the ones most likely to become involved. This does allow a
small minority to accuse the Beacon of not going far enough and playing
safe. There is evidence, however, that new people are becoming engaged as
the programme progresses.
Raising Expectations
One risk in the Beacon approach is that having successfully raised demand
and built capacity within the community, this raises expectations. If this is
not sustained this may disappoint the community partners and the trust
reinforcing these relationships will be damaged. This is a key issue for
sustainability.

6

Embedding long term change

At present the beacon team have built networks and relationships, but this
is linked to the individuals, and is still disconnected from the institution.
With senior support and on the ground projects there is a top down and
bottom up approach. However, there are still many staff for whom PE is still
seen as an optional activity. Recognition and incentives, and systems and
processes, such as performance objectives, can help in this agenda become
embedded.
Whereas the impact of the Manchester Beacon (especially given the size and
scope of the project) should not be overstated, it nevertheless has
influenced and catalysed a whole range of changes, improvements and
connections, and built a momentum behind its activities.
Learning for NWDA

• innovative approach -‐ the approach taken by the Beacon is
innovative, involving engaging, listening, and identifying needs and
mutual benefits. There is potential learning here for other initiatives
where engaging diverse partners with differing agendas is at the core
of the programme;
• build across strengths -‐ as part of the Beacon programme the
Universities have worked closely in partnership, together with MOSI
and M:KC. This is a city wide approach, which respondents
considered to enhance civic pride and build Manchester’s reputation
as a centre of good practice;
• high Strategic Added Value -‐ this project has delivered high SAV
returns. Through leverage, influence and particularly the catalytic
role of the Manchester Beacon, this has been evidenced through the
evaluation; and
• maximising assets -‐ for NWDA a key purpose of investment was
maximising the assets of the Manchester corridor and building
coherent and attractive place. By promoting and adopting genuine
two-‐way engagement practices and building capacity and
connectivity with the local community the Beacon has helped
engender a more connected environment.
Learning for Beacon and Other Funders

• partnership -‐ a major strength of the Manchester Beacon has been
the partnership. This deeper level of partnership should continue to
be built upon and other opportunities explored, including the future

7

plans for public and community engagement and knowledge

exchange activity;
• role of broker -‐ the Beacon team has established itself as an
important broker in making connections and helping develop
linkages. The next step is to widen this element of connectivity.
• commitment from the top -‐ one of the successes of the Manchester
Beacon is the level of senior commitment, with strong champions
across all partners. This needs to be reinforced and embedded within
systems and processes that demonstrate the value, incentivise and
recognise PE;
• continual learning -‐ the learning from pilots and practice tested
through the Beacon needs to be continually reviewed and absorbed
into new approaches. Understanding of barriers and how to
overcome them has helped inform new activity. Ensuring this
environment for learning is not lost once the current Beacon funding
has concluded is an issue to be considered for the future;
• capturing impact and benefit -‐ the learning from this evaluation
process will be embedded into internal evaluation processes,
including a review of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
(M&EF), language and processes used and for the final evaluation to
maximise capturing of impact. In particular capturing the benefits
and impacts of interventions should be a high priority. In addition
consideration of how to coherently gather community perception of
improved image and relevance should be explored. It is also
important as part of the culture change to capture the change in
behaviours;
• Sustainability -‐ ambitions for the future must include how to keep
people driving at the same pace so as not to lose momentum once
the initial funding finishes. In addition having built expectations and
demand within community partners, thought must be given as to
how to continue to nurture those relationships, and ensure that
interaction is a continual process; and
• embedding good practice -‐ a major focus for the remainder of the
Beacon funding is to embed good practice into the institutions. This
could also be powerfully reinforced if the other funders of this
programme (HEFCE, RCUK, Wellcome Trust) ensured that recognition
of PE is built into their funding criteria rather than being seen as
separate. This could be a powerful incentive if reinforced from those
funding HEIs.

8

1. Introduction
This report sets out the findings of the evaluation of the Manchester Beacon
for Public Engagement undertaken between April and July 2010. The focus of
the evaluation is on the North West Development Agency’s (NWDA) funding
contribution.
This Section sets out the background to this evaluation, its objectives, and
the work carried out.
1.1 Background
The Manchester Beacon is one of six collaborative centres involved in a UK-‐
wide initiative to support public engagement between HEI’s and the general
public. The national Beacon initiative is funded by the Higher Education
Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Research Councils UK (RCUK), and the
Wellcome Trust.
The four year national Beacons for Public Engagement initiative (2008/12)
seeks to bring about culture change in the way HEI’s, their staff, and their
students reach out, listen, and engage with the public.
In Manchester, the initiative is a partnership between the University of

Manchester (UoM), Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU), the
University of Salford (UoS), the Museum of Science and Industry (MOSI), and
Manchester: Knowledge Capital (M:KC).
The Manchester Beacon secured additional funding from April 2008 to
March 2010 from the NWDA. Although the focus of this evaluation is the
NWDA funding which concluded in March 2010, it is in effect an interim
evaluation of the whole programme, which should inform the remaining
delivery time (to December 2011) and input to discussion of the future
direction of such initiatives.
1.2 Evaluation Aims and Objectives

The NWDA Monitoring and Evaluation Plan specified the detailed evaluation
objectives for the Manchester Beacon funding.
The objectives were to:
• establish the impact of the project against its original objectives;

9

• assess progress and achievements, including any differences from

those foreseen at the outset;
• assess how effective the project has been in delivering against its
objectives and targets;
• examine cost effectiveness, including consideration of qualitative
issues;
• comment on the sustainability of the project benefits;
• provide an assessment of Strategic Added Value (SAV); and
• set out the implications for future projects.
1.3 Approach and Method

The evaluation was structured and delivered in line with good practice
guidance set out in the RDA Impact Evaluation Framework (IEF) 1.
The evaluation comprised three main elements:
• a desk review of documentation and data relating to the NWDA
funded Beacon project;
• semi-‐structured face-‐to-‐face and telephone interviews with 20
stakeholders including:
project team;
o
funders; o
Manchester Beacon Steering Board members; and
o
working group members;
o

• a telephone and online survey of academic staff and community
groups staff/members involved in NWDA funded Beacon projects. A
total of 31 responses were received. (N.B. this is in addition to the 20
stakeholder interviews above). In addition data from a UK-‐wide
survey collected across all HEIs involved in the Beacons initiative
(with 356 responses from the Manchester Beacon HEIs) was also
analysed.

1
Evaluating the Impact of England’s Regional Development Agencies: Developing a Methodology
and Evaluation Framework, DTI Occasional Paper No. 2, February 2006.

10

1.4 Structure of the Report

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:
• Section 2 provides an overview of the Manchester Beacon initiative,

including governance and management arrangements and
objectives;
• Section 3 describes the Beacon projects funded by the NWDA;
• Section 4 sets out the feedback from stakeholders;
• Section 5 sets out the findings from the telephone and online survey
of project beneficiaries, and the analysis of the wider survey;
• Section 6 reviews the performance against NWDA and Manchester
Beacon objectives; and
• Section 7 presents the key learning points and recommendations.
A series of case studies on NWDA funded Beacon projects are included
throughout the report.
Appendix A contains details of the Manchester Beacon objectives and

evidence of success.

11

2. The Manchester Beacon

This Section sets out some background on the Manchester Beacon for Public
Engagement. It describes:
• governance and management arrangements;

• NWDA Beacon objectives and funding;
• Manchester Beacon clear Objectives; and
• areas of alignment between Manchester Beacon objectives and
NWDA’s objectives for supporting Beacon activity.
2.1 Governance and Management Arrangements

A Steering Board oversees and guides the direction of the Manchester
Beacon.
Its membership consists of the University of Manchester, the University of
Salford, Manchester Metropolitan University, the Museum of Science and
Industry, and Manchester: Knowledge Capital.
Each of the partners has a principal investigator on the Steering Board who is
the main champion (at Vice Chancellor, Deputy Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice
Chancellor level) in their organisation for the Beacon initiative. It also
comprises other senior representatives from across the partners. A number
of working groups have also been established to help progress areas of
importance for the Manchester Beacon programme. The governance
structure is set out in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Governance structure

12

The Steering Board meets four times per year and provides strategic
direction for the Beacon, approves the annual Beacon programme of
activity, monitors performance, and reviews input from its Working Groups.
Partners are actively engaged in four Working Groups, including:
• operations;
• recognition;
• evaluation and impact; and
• communications.
The Working Groups meet at least quarterly per year, involve senior staff
and are responsible for progressing activity and sharing learning in-‐between
Steering Board meetings. The Groups initiate, plan, deliver, and monitor
Beacon programme strands and monitor progress against the work plan
(including budgeting and staffing). Working Groups also ensure efficiency
and effectiveness of all operations, optimise liaison between partners and
between key individual activities (e.g. website, communications, external
affairs, etc.), and share learning across the partnership.
A Manchester Beacon project team has been established that are

responsible for the day-‐to-‐day management and operation of the
Manchester Beacon initiative.
The staff team includes a Creative Director, a Project Manager from each of
universities and MOSI (with 2 days per week allocated to the Beacon), and
an Administrator working full-‐time for the Beacon.
A matrix-‐management system is used. Line management responsibility for

the Project Managers rests with their own institution/organisation. They also
meet weekly with the Creative Director in relation to Beacon activity.
The overall management and governance arrangements are shown in Figure
2.2, over.

13

Figure 2.2: Overall governance and management arrangements
2.2 NWDA Beacon Objectives

In April 2008 NWDA allocated £240,000 for Beacon related activity. More
detail on this funding is set out in Section 3.
The specific objectives set by NWDA for the Manchester Beacon were:

local communities by March 2010;
neighbouring communities by the universities and institutions;
• to put in place a number (in the region of five) of sustainable
communities;

14

experience of working with deprived communities; and
with the Higher Education Institutions) with a positive attitude
towards working in the universities and other major employers, or
studying at (or with help from) those HEIs:
2.3 Manchester Beacon Objectives

An early step in planning for the evaluation process of the Manchester
Beacon was to set clear objectives that reflected the needs and aspirations
of all partners.
The articulation of objectives was informed by:
• a survey completed by the Steering Board, Project Team, Working

Group members, and community participants -‐ this explored key
priorities, evidence of success, issues, and challenges; and
• a Clear Objectives Workshop with stakeholders -‐ to discuss, refine,
and agree shared objectives for the Manchester Beacon for Public
Engagement, including themed areas of focus to guide programme
and project development.
The identification of clear objectives has helped those involved better
understand how supported projects/activities can contribute to the wider
Manchester Beacon initiative.
Five themes and objectives were articulated for the Manchester Beacon.
These are described in more detail below:
• Objective 1: Public engagement is encouraged, valued and

supported -‐ to establish internal systems and processes to help
embed public engagement as a routine part of staff roles and
responsibilities;
• Objective 2: Change perceptions and improve accessibility -‐ to
improve the depth of understanding within local communities of
what universities/cultural organisations have to offer and how it can
be accessed, including the development of a positive attitude/image;
• Objective 3: Increasing the relevance of institution activity and
connectivity with communities -‐ to improve the connectivity and

15

engagement between academia and the general public so that

activity is increasingly seen as important and relevant;
• Objective 4: Improve the opportunities for sustainable two-‐way
learning -‐ to foster more intensive and sustainable ways of joint work
between research and communities, including the co-‐creation of
research and knowledge exchange in both directions and increasing
community involvement in institution activity; and
• Objective 5: Develop deeper partnership working across the Beacon
partners and with the community -‐ a cross-‐cutting objective where
the focus is on the collaborative approach and added value through
collective working between the partner organisations.
The process further explored what evidence of success would be apparent
(i.e. how would we know the objective had been achieved) and is shown in
Appendix A. This informed a monitoring and evaluation framework that was
subsequently developed around the five objectives to enable the ongoing
assessment of the Manchester Beacon for Public Engagement. This
continues to be refined and informed by delivery experience.
2.4 Alignment of Objectives

The overall objectives and monitoring and evaluation framework for the
Manchester Beacon is strongly aligned with, and contributes to, NWDA’s
funding objectives for the Manchester Beacon.
Table 2.1 sets out the five objectives of the NWDA funded Beacon activity
(NWDA Development and Appraisal form), and details the relationship
between these objectives and the clear objectives developed as part of the
overall Manchester Beacon initiative.

16

Table 2.1: Alignment between objectives
NWDA Manchester BPE Clear Objective Contribution

Objective

To achieve significantly improved Objective 2: Change perceptions and improve
understanding and appreciation accessibility: Awareness raising activities, provision of
of the universities and institutions information, communications and the promotion of
in the local area by residents of facilities and services will help to improve local
the local communities by March communities’ awareness and understanding of the
2010. universities/cultural organisations.

To achieve much improved Objective 5: Develop deeper partnership working
understanding and appreciation across the Beacon partners and with the community:
of neighbouring communities by there is a focus on activities that demonstrate to
the universities and institutions. Beacon partners the value of working with the
community and the social capital generated as a
result.

To put in place a number (in the Objective 1: PE is encouraged, valued and
region of five) of sustainable supported: there is a commitment to the
engagements/projects that establishment of systems and processes, etc. that will
involves academics working with help embed public engagement as a routine part of
local communities. staff roles and responsibility. This supportive context
will encourage university/cultural organisation staff
to engage with communities.

Objective 3: Increasing the relevance of institution
activity and connectivity with communities:
increased involvement between university staff and
community representatives in each other’s events
and activities.

Objective 4: Improve the opportunities for
sustainable two-‐way learning: this will lead to more
intensive and sustainable joint working between
research and communities. Project activity will
increase the co-‐creation of research and knowledge
exchange in both directions, and the increased
community involvement in all institution activity
including new buildings, new curriculum etc.

17

Objective 5: Develop deeper partnership working

across the Beacon partners and with the community
there is a focus on increased partnership working,
sharing of expertise (internal and external PE) and
projects which involve joint working at
project/community level.

To develop a cadre of up to 40 Objective 1: PE is encouraged, valued and supported
academics with an enthusiasm there is a commitment to the establishment of
for, and experience of working systems and processes, etc. that will help embed
with deprived communities: public engagement as a routine part of staff roles and
responsibility.

Objective 3: Increasing the relevance of institution
activity and connectivity with communities:
increased involvement between university staff and
community representatives in each other’s events
and activities.

Objective 4: Improve the opportunities for
sustainable two-‐way learning: this will lead to more
intensive and sustainable joint working between
research and communities. Project activity will
increase the co-‐creation of research and knowledge
exchange in both directions, and the increased
community involvement in all institution activity
including new buildings, new curriculum etc.

Objective 5: Develop deeper partnership working
across the Beacon partners and with the community
there is a focus on increased partnership working,
sharing of expertise (internal and external PE) and
projects which involve joint working at
project/community level.
To help catalyse an uplift in the Objective 2: Change perceptions and improve
number of local residents (in accessibility: projects seek to develop a positive
particular those from deprived attitude towards, and improve the image of, the
communities with no prior participating organisations by the community,
contact with the HEIs) with a thereby, increasing community access and
positive attitude towards working understanding;
in the universities and other
major employers, or studying at Objective 3: increasing the relevance of institution
(or with help from) those HEIs: activity and connectivity with communities: activities
will seek to increase the involvement between
university staff and community representatives in
each other’s events and activities.

18

3. Supported Activity
This Section provides an overview of the projects funded through the NWDA
and other activities that support the overall Manchester Beacon initiative.
The focus has been on encouraging culture change in the way HEI’s, their
staff, and their students reach out, listen, and engage with the public
3.1 Funding
The NWDA contributed £240,000 towards the seven projects described
below. Funding has been used to cover staff costs and associated project
activity. Table 3.1 provides a breakdown.
Table 3.1: NWDA total funding
Activity 2007/08 2008/2009 2009/10 Total
Staff costs -‐ £40,000 £40,000 £80,000

Pilot projects, £10,000 £70,000 £80,000 £160,000
events,
evaluation
Total £10,000 £110,000 £120,000 £240,000
Source: NWDA Grant Offer Letter, dated 19 December 2008.
Table 3.2 shows the budget contribution from all funders.
Table 3.2: Partner and funders’ contributions
Budget (£000)
Source:
NWDA £240
HEFCE £1,200
Other partners’
contributions £720
Total £2,160

19

Table 3.3 reviews the budget allocation and expenditure for NWDA funding.
Actual expenditure for this project has been audited by Deloitte LLP.
Table 3.3: Capital, revenue and expenditure details
Budget Expenditure Variance

Source: Cap Rev Cap Rev Cap Rev
NWDA £240,000 £240,000 £0
Source: NWDA Exit report, June 2010.
3.2 The Projects

Five projects were directly funded through NWDA. It is worth noting that
several of the projects involved a number of discrete projects / engagements
involving academics and the community. A brief description is set out below
and more detailed case studies are included throughout the report:
• Cultural Seed Awards (September 2009 -‐ April 2010) -‐ this project
consisted of five knowledge exchange pilot projects which were
designed to promote partnership working between cultural assets,
community groups, and arts and humanities researchers/staff;
• Community Science Awards (October to November 2009) -‐ four
engagement awards were made to university staff and community
groups to work in partnership to develop activity to engage diverse
audiences at the Manchester Science Festival. Topic areas included
chemistry, atmospheric and environmental science, and astronomy
with events and activities delivered in community settings;
• Development Awards (May to November 2009) -‐ to address key
institutional culture change priorities identified by a strategic staff
engagement event, nine small development awards or ‘quick win’
projects were supported to demonstrate how the long term goal of
valuing public engagement of everyday university life could be
achieved;
• Manchester (July to November 2008) -‐ ArcSpace was the winning
project chosen from four under the Mapping Creativity initial
engagement activity. A Hulme-‐based creative cluster was set up by
community artists in St Wilfred's enterprise centre to foster and
support creative and ethical exchange between academics, creatives
and community groups; and

20

• Community Leadership (March 2009 to August 2010) -‐ a University-‐

community partnership programme to develop the leadership skills
of 30 Manchester residents and organisational development within
the third sector. The project aimed to increase relevance for civic,
community, business and cultural partners through organisational
development and personal development. Two projects were
delivered: Step Up and Inspiring Leaders.
NWDA funding also supported a number of other projects and activities.
These projects have levered in funding from elsewhere (i.e. MMU for the
Public Engagement Fellowships) for delivery, with the Manchester Beacon
facilitating networking, group meetings, support etc. These have contributed
strongly to the objectives of the Manchester Beacon:
• MMU PE Fellowships (September 2008 to November 2009) -‐ this was
established to fund genuine “two way” engagement projects to
address real needs identified by local communities. Six public
engagement projects were established opening up two-‐way
knowledge exchange and expertise with Manchester residents and
community groups. These intergenerational and intercultural
projects spanned a range of disciplines including Art and Design,
Computing, Microbiology, and Social Research. The six projects were:
o Hulme Sweet Hulme
o Moving Memories
o Manchester Methods
o Moss Side Stories
o The Manchester Conference for Black Parents, Children &
Young People
o Web Angels
• Networking Programme -‐ This supported a range of activity,
especially in the early “listening phase” of the programme, which
helped identify needs and inform the design of future projects, as
well as building an initial level of engagement and connectivity.
Examples included two key projects:
o Comixed -‐ designed as a way of bringing different people
together to explore ideas collaboratively using social media.
The first Comixed research was themed around science and
was planned to tie into the Manchester Science Festival. The
project was delivered in association with the Research
Councils UK because it took some of the RCUK’s cross-‐cutting
scientific challenges as a starting point for discussions. Issues

21

such as the digital economy, climate change, food security

and ageing were all discussed
o Mapping Creativity – this was a series of listening and
engagement processes, including a listening event (a meeting
of the external advisory board) which identified problems and
needs, networking events to meet potential collaborators,
running workshops, providing coaching and mentoring and
developing full blown proposals. The process included
collaboration with technologists and new media professionals
to help wider engagement. A public vote identified four
different projects for further development, one of which was
finally selected: ArcSpace Manchester.
In addition to the activity set out above, a range of other general networking
and dissemination events were held in order to build the understanding,
make relationships and raise the profile of the aims and objectives of the
Manchester Beacon (see Appendix B).
In summary NWDA funding supported a total of 29 different collaborative

projects, as well as facilitating the engagement process, and widening and
sharing learning across the programme.

22

Connectivity -‐ Cultural Seed Award
Cultural Seed Awards included five knowledge exchange pilot projects designed to
promote partnership working and learning between cultural assets, community groups, and
arts and humanities researchers/staff. This was informed by an initial workshop session
looking at the perceptions of barriers to engagement and partnership working. Funding for
Cultural Seed Awards was £7,380. “The Manchester Beacon is doing truly innovative work.
These pilot projects could feed into how research councils kick start these partnerships.”
BAAGS (Barriers, Access, Aspirations, Gaps) was led by The Louise Da-‐Cocodia Education
Trust, MMU and Zion Arts Centre. Funding of £1,500 was used to run participatory and
engagement workshops with young people (13-‐25 years) from South Manchester to
identify gaps, barriers, and access to education, training and employment opportunities -‐
“this project was the first time I have talked about my future, it made me think what I want
to do more seriously”.
The Exploring Yemeni Community History in Salford project was led by the Yemeni
Community Association, the Arts Unit (UoS), and the Ahmed Iqbal Ullah Education Trust.
Funding of £1,380 was used to progress a survey of the Yemeni Community using
participatory workshops, and a series of meetings to encourage the local community to put
forward ideas and shape future activity.
Disused Buildings activity was led by Manchester Creative Collectives, Institute of Social &
Spatial Transformation (MMU), and Manchester Architecture and Design Festival . Funding
of £1,500 was used to engage with the community to explore how disused buildings in
Hulme might be used by the community.
Collecting Thoughts was led by Zion Arts Centre, Manchester School of Art (MMU) and
MMU Special Collections. Funding of £1,500 was used to develop an informal space and a
methodology for sustainable conversations between people in universities, communities
and cultural venues. It sought to build trust and deepen relationships by establishing a joint
forum to exchange ideas and dialogue and increase the number of residents involved in
universities and cultural activities. “One of the great achievements has been the creation of
a network of potential collaborators.”
Migration Research Panel was led by the Greater Manchester Forum for European
Migrants, Salford Housing & Urban Studies Unit (UoS) and SEVA Manchester. It focussed on
sharing the findings of recent studies in migration to get the communities view on key
issues and gaps where further research is required. Funding of £1,500 was provided by
HEFCE and project leads were supported through support networking meetings
NWDA funding was used to fund support network meetings across the projects including a
final dissemination event and 3 support meetings with a Beacon project manager. A wide
range of impacts were reported by project participants including: a clearer understanding
of the opportunities to collaborate in partnership with other sectors; new links with local
community groups, universities and cultural organisations; increased accessibility; and
increased confidence.

23

4. Feedback from Stakeholders
This Section draws together the responses from a range of one-‐to-‐one
consultations with stakeholders, delivery partners and funders including the
Manchester Beacon team, members of the Leadership Group, the
Operations Group, the Communications Group, the Beacon team and wider
partners and stakeholders.
4.1 Role
In depth consultation took place with 20 different partners and stakeholders
who had various lengths of engagement with the Beacon. Some had been
involved from the very early stages of bid development, whilst others had
become involved more recently because of the specifics of their role or
through involvement with projects and disseminations events. Note that,
because of this variety it was not relevant for all respondents to answer
every question.
4.2 Rationale
There was variety of understanding of the strategic rationale and need for
the Beacon in Manchester. The main focus was felt to be:
• bringing a higher priority, and coordinated focus to PE activity within
the universities, including explicitly recognising the value of PE and
sharing learning in this area;
• the opportunity to work more effectively in partnership, including
building new partnerships;
• improving the perception of the institutions with the local
community; and
• engaging actively with the local community in co-‐creation.
4.3 Performance against Expectations

In general the Beacon was felt to have performed well against expectations.
There was some frustration at the initial stages with the emphasis on setting
up, listening and raising awareness rather than delivery. However this is
viewed in retrospect to have been a positive with the quality of resultant
activity improved for having taken that initial time for preparation and
consultation.

24

4.3.1 Challenges
Working in partnership with a number of partners and building those
partnerships was highlighted as a challenge. This is explored throughout
section 4.5 below.
The Manchester Beacon is a culture change programme, and it was
highlighted that changing behaviour is both long term and challenging. Also
the sheer size of the institutions involved, and the fact that this agenda
permeates all aspects of the institution, especially when compared with the
size of the team, means that a further challenge is the huge amount of work
to be done.
Engaging with the community was also highlighted as an issue. It was
reported that the community in general views the universities in their
locality with some apprehension. Relationships therefore have to be built for
trust to develop and engagement activity to be initiated to overcome that
apprehension.
Whilst PE is becoming a higher agenda item for universities, respondents
highlighted that it is still viewed as not as important as research, and
teaching. There were some fears expressed that whilst much progress has
been made, there were still those who viewed PE as a “box ticking” element
rather than giving it the priority that it should be within the universities.
4.3.2 Management and delivery

The management and delivery of the programme is viewed to be effective
and the project is felt to be well managed. The management and governance
structures (with the various committees and working groups) took a while to
be organised, exacerbated by changes in personnel, but are now viewed to
be working well.
The team in general is credited with driving forward the project successfully.
The approach is viewed to have been creative, energetic, if challenging.
The matrix management structure has caused some issues. Whilst positive in
that, the team members are all embedded within their organisation, and as
such understand each separate culture, it is challenging to also be trying to
work as a team and effectively try to align two agendas.
The support from senior champions across the partners is seen as crucial and
has been very strongly endorsed within the Manchester Beacon.

25

Other challenges raised were the time taken for set up, including recruiting
of staff, and the need for earlier defining the purpose and objectives of the
programme as well as roles (especially between national and Manchester
teams).
Most comments also focused on capturing the learning at an early stage to
maximise impact.
4.4 Objective 1 – PE is Encouraged and Supported
4.4.1 Impact on work priorities

The work of the Beacon was felt to have strongly influenced on the PE
priorities of the organisation, especially at a strategic level. PE was evident in
strategic documents, faculty plans, grant applications, specific appointments
and is also being built into promotions and performance criteria across the
institutions.
More profoundly the approach and methodology used by the Beacon has
been adopted by the organisations in other Public and community
engagement endeavours. A major example of this is the approach taken in
the MMU Birley Fields investment to engage with the local community,
where PE is built into the action plan.
4.4.2 Change in understanding of PE amongst staff

As shown in Figure 4.1, 94% of those who responded felt that there had
been a positive change in the understanding and appreciation of PE among
staff in their institution (31% very much), with a larger proportion reporting
a positive change for their own personal understanding and appreciation.

26

Figure 4.1: To what extent has there been a change in the understanding &
appreciation of PE

Note: N=14 and 15
Respondents described increased focus and energy for PE and talked of a
culture shift within their institutions.
However due to the size of the organisations, it was highlighted that not all
staff had undergone that shift. “For many people PE is still an optional
activity”.
4.5 Objective 5: Deeper Partnership Working
4.5.1 Partnership added value

Although there is a long history of partnership working between some of the
partners, new relationships had been built because of the Beacon. It was
highlighted that each of the partners brings different strengths, which is a
positive, but equally they all had slightly differing agendas, which can be a
challenge. However in general the partnership working and sharing of
different experiences and approaches was seen to have added value to the
outcomes of the programme, and increased learning.
MOSI inclusion as a cultural partner was viewed to have added a great deal
to the programme, bringing a different perspective, huge amount of PE
professionalism and expertise. Furthermore, M:KC’s supporting role, civic
links and understanding of the Beacon’s innovative approaches has been

27

pivotal in helping to engage more broadly and link strategically with other
actors in the region (not least NWDA).
At a project level there was sporadic evidence of partnership working, with
the majority of projects still being delivered at individual institutions.
4.5.2 Further partnership activity

As shown in Figure 4.2, 86% of those who responded agreed that as a result
of the Beacon, new partnerships beyond the Beacon partners had been
established, with 93% also evidencing further collaboration between the
Beacon partners.
Figure 4.2: Has the Beacon Initiative led to further partnership activity
which did not exist before?

Note: N=14 and 15

Examples given included the response to the Wellings Statement across the
universities, other joint funding bids, ArcSpace and renewable energies work
as well as the success of the Science Festival input.
4.5.3 Catalysed other activity

The majority (93%) of respondents agreed that the Beacon had catalysed
other/further activity as shown in Figure 4.3.

28

Figure 4.3: To what extent has the Beacon catalysed other/further activity?

Note: N=14
Although it was identified that there was a lot of activity previously in place,
and therefore was difficult to quantify, the respondents felt that the Beacon
was having a key influence.
The brokerage role of the Beacon in “networking with networks” and making
those linkages that could then lead to further activity was viewed to be an
important element to the successful approach.
4.5.4 Changed relationships between partners

Although there had already been existing partnership relationships, 85% of
those who responded felt that as a result of the Beacon the relationship
between the partners had seen a positive change. Although not
fundamentally changed it was described as being “deeper and broader” with
more sharing and trust and involving a wider group of people.
4.5.5 Changed relationship with community

Regarding relationships with the community, 88% felt that the Beacon had
helped change the relationship in a positive way, although it was
acknowledged to be still early days in this respect. It was felt by some to be
variable across the universities, and still focused on community leaders and
representatives rather than the wider community. Several respondents
highlighted that much more could be done in this area.

29

However, positively it was felt that the approach has changed from “doing
this to” people to co-‐creation and an improving sense of treating all as
equals. This was to be encouraged.
In addition there was viewed to be a better understanding about the
diversity and richness of the community, which informed engagement
practices.
It was felt that the Beacon team had built good relationships with the
community, but that was not necessarily seen as connected to their host
institution, i.e. the team had made those relationships rather than the
institutions.
4.6 Other Manchester Beacon Objectives
4.6.1 Evidence of change

The respondents were asked about progress towards other Beacon
objectives including image, access, joint activities and relevance. Table 4.1
shows the responses.
Table 4.1: Please describe what changes you have observed and to what
extent the Beacon influenced this change
Improved The learning
The learning
access to the organisation
organisation is
facilities Number of has become
Image of the undertaking
which have people more
learning
not been accessing
more activities
important
organisation together with
accessible to facilities and relevant
the local
the public to the local
community
before community
Improved very
much 0% 0% 7% 33% 13%
Improved to some
extent 87% 87% 87% 67% 80%
Not changed at all 7% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Changed to the
negative 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Don’t know 7% 7% 7% 0% 7%
Note: N=15
In general all of these aspects were felt to have improved to some extent
due to the influence of the Beacon. There was unanimity in the fact that
there are more activities taking place together with the local community.
Access to facilities was seen as a more difficult issue, but that improvement
had been made in certain areas although there was seen to be more

30

progress to be made here. 87% of those who responded felt that the image
of the organisations had improved with the community, with 93% feeling
that the institutions were more important and relevant to the local
communities.
It was commented that audiences and participation of university

engagement activity was more diverse than previously and that this
observation was an indication of improvements across these elements.
4.6.2 Unexpected impacts

A number of unexpected benefits from the Beacon programme were
highlighted, including the influence in approach to other community
engagement elements (e.g. MMU’s approach to engagement around the
Birley fields campus development), and how PE is an issue not just for
academic staff, but permeates across the organisations.
The diversity of approaches was viewed as being refreshing, and the Beacon
was also highlighted as being an excellent vehicle for promoting
communication and collaboration across the institutions.
In addition it was commented that the level of interest and participation
from the community was above expectations, although it was also
acknowledged that there are many different activities and influences
underway over and above the Beacon programme, so the attribution of the
Beacon in this was difficult to quantify.
4.7 Additionality
All of the respondents felt that if the Beacon had not existed, although some
of the projects would still have happened, they would have been of lower
quality, of lesser impact and slower to be delivered.
4.7.1 Wider benefits

The Beacon was also felt to be contributing to wider benefits, including
leading learning on PE, developing the capability of key players and
establishing Manchester as a centre of good practice as shown in Figure 4.4.

31

Figure 4.4: To what extent is the Beacon delivering/contributing to wider
benefits?

Note: N=14, 15 and 15, respectively
Although the Beacon is a small initiative, and it was highlighted that the
outcomes need to be viewed in proportion to this, the Manchester Beacon
was felt to be contributing innovative and diverse learning to the approach
of PE across the national Beacon programme and within the institutions
involved.
4.8 Value for Money

The investment in the Beacon is relatively small, and yet it was viewed by
respondents as having had a large impact, especially through influencing and
catalysing further benefits, and reaching a high number of people.
At a project level, only small amounts of money were invested in individual
projects, and this helped legitimise and recognise PE activity. From the
programme level the investment had leveraged in further funding and a
large amount of other resource (including staff time etc.).
It was commented that the programme itself doesn’t generate income, but
that it contributed to wider strategic agendas and helped stimulate
movement in the culture of the organisations.

32

4.9 Future Development Issues and Opportunities
4.9.1 In next two years

The main focus for the Beacon until the end of the current funding was felt
to be to build on the good work that had been done and to embed the
change of culture and reinforce the behaviours across the institutions, so
that the impact can be sustained.
Mainstreaming PE and broadening engagement beyond the initial

enthusiasts was also viewed to be important, as well as exploring more joint
projects.
4.9.2 Beyond the completion of the Beacon

Sustainability questions are already being addressed in discussions within
the working groups. It was acknowledged that there is a demand and energy
built through the existing activity that will be to an extent self-‐sustaining, but
that having raised expectations there is a challenge in meeting those and
keeping progress moving forward if the core team focus is no longer there.
However, in a time of funding restrictions the maintenance of the team in its
current form was felt to be unlikely and not in keeping with the agenda to
mainstream PE.
A well as action across the partners, ensuring that the research funders
make PE an integral part of funding awards will help incentivise and reward
PE activity, and should be embedded and monitored as part of grant award
criteria.

33

Community -‐ Community Science Awards
Following an application and selection process, the Manchester Beacon awarded four small
grants (£500 each) to academics, researchers, museum staff, and community groups to
work together to deliver community engagement activities during the Manchester Science
Festival which took place between 24 October and 1 November 2009. This was with a view
to generating a greater interest in science events among members of the community.
“The Manchester Beacon Community Science Awards were a great contribution to the
Manchester Science Festival and helped us open up the Festival to more people within hard
to reach audiences”
The School of Environment and Life Sciences at the University of Salford delivered a
chemistry demonstration for members of the community at the St Sebastian’s Community
Centre in Salford. This interactive session sought to inspire and invigorate those that
attended about chemical sciences as well as educate them on concepts such as the atom,
elements, compounds, and the chemical physical properties -‐ “many thanks for such an
entertaining, engaging and educative show, it was very inspirational, especially for kids.”
The Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Manchester involved members of
the community in research into weekly cycles of rainfall, and in particular whether it rains
more at weekends. It was considered to be a fun topic that the community would engage in
whilst still having legitimate science behind it. Members of the community collected data
using rain gauges and were invited to take part in a workshop during the Manchester
Science Festival to analyse the data and perform an experiment to guide their findings.
The Roby Community Centre in Longsight organised a visit for members of the community
to visit the Jodrell Bank Observatory for Astrophysics which forms part of the University of
Manchester. A member of staff from Jodrell Bank was also invited to give a talk about their
work during which local people had the opportunity to ask questions about their role and
work at the Observatory -‐ “it was great to receive the support from the Manchester Beacon
to organise the trip to Jodrell Bank for our South Asian Men’s Group.”
OMEGA (Manchester Metropolitan University) is a publicly funded partnership that offers
impartial, innovative and insights into the environmental effects of the air transport
industry and sustainability solutions. OMEGA used the funding to provide an information
and activity stand at the Manchester Science Festival where people could learn about
aviation and carbon offsetting. The overall aim was to directly make use of output from an
OMEGA study to help people understand carbon offsetting and how investment in such
schemes can bring climate change benefits when they choose to fly.
In total 600 people attended the events. 72% of attendees that completed an evaluation
form rated the events as “excellent”. The main reported impacts on participants were that
academics and community groups received support to deliver community engagement
activities and it provided networking opportunities. Plans are underway in relation to
further engagement activities for the Manchester Science Festival 2010.

34

5. Feedback from Participants
This Section sets out feedback from the telephone and online surveys of
individuals that engaged in the NWDA funded Beacon projects.
We also reviewed survey responses, provided by participating Manchester

universities staff, to the annual survey undertaken by Oakleigh (as part of
the national evaluation of Beacons). This was a larger survey of staff beyond
those who had been involved in Manchester Beacon projects and activity.
5.1 Background
A total of 12 in depth telephone interviews were undertaken with those
directly involved in the delivery of projects. The majority of these project
leads were university staff.
The telephone survey was supplemented with an online survey of wider
beneficiaries, including other staff, local residents and community groups.
Those consulted through the telephone survey were asked if they would be
willing to pass the online survey to those that had engaged in the projects.
Not all of the project leads had contact details for those that participated, an
issue which requires to be addressed in future, to ensure that the impacts on
participants are captured in a timely fashion. A total of 19 online responses
were received.
A total of 31 responses were received overall from the survey work which
sought to establish the:
• impacts from their personal experience;

• learning and personal benefits derived from involvement;
• changes that the projects have resulted in;
• future engagement activity; and
• suggestions for how best to further support public engagement
activity.
Feedback from university staff and local residents/community groups are

reported on separately in the following sections.

35

5.2 Feedback from University Staff
5.2.1 Profile of respondents

A total of 13 responses were received from university staff. A spread of
responses were received from senior academics, senior
lecturers/researchers, management, and support staff. This is positive as it
highlights the breadth of engagement in Beacon activity across different
levels of staff within universities.
Those consulted had been involved in one of the seven projects described in
Section 3 that received NWDA funding.
5.2.2 Impacts from personal experience

University staff were asked to consider the extent to which they agree or
disagree with a series of statements regarding their personal experience in
the projects. Figure 5.1 sets out responses.
Figure 5.1: Impacts from personal experience in the projects

N=13 (P.E. -‐ Public Engagement)

36

Overall, university staff were highly positive about the impact of their
involvement.
All staff agreed that they had a better understanding of the local community
and groups following involvement in the projects. Almost all staff reported
increased public engagements skills and an improvement in the quality of
their work (92% each).
A small number of staff disagreed with the statements -‐ the highest reported
level of disagreement was 15% (two responses) in relation to allocating
more time and feeling more supported to undertake public engagement
activity.
5.2.3 Benefits from participation

Staff were asked to specify the nature of any learning benefits gained from
participating in the projects. Figure 5.2 sets out responses.
Figure 5.2: Learning benefits
N=13
Staff were overwhelmingly positive about the learning benefits they derived
from participating in the projects.
All staff (or almost all staff) reported that they gained new knowledge, new
skills, better awareness of relevant issues, and improved quality of work

37

from engagement in Beacon projects. Other benefits reported included
developing new partnerships and making friends.
Staff went on to report a wide range of benefits from their involvement in
projects. The main benefits cited include the development of new
relationships and contacts (100%), that the experience was fun and brought
enjoyment (85%), and increased confidence (69%). Figure 5.3 sets out
responses.
Figure 5.3: Personal benefits gained from participation

Note: N=13 (Percentages total more than 100% due to multiple responses)
University staff reported a variety of unanticipated benefits arising from

their involvement. This included:
• a better appreciation of the scope and value of public engagement
and of two-‐way engagement in particular;
• a better understanding of different approaches and methods of

public engagement;
• recognition of their contribution from colleagues and other people;
• increased engagement with other university staff that they had no
previous contact with;
• establishment of long-‐lasting partnerships;

38

• the value of securing different perspectives from the involvement of
other people;
• media coverage; and
• the development of new ideas.
5.2.4 Negative effects

While involvement was rated positively overall, a few comments were
provided around negative effects resulting from participating in the project,
including:
• can be time consuming (e.g. working weekends/longer hours);

• contribution not acknowledged (e.g. no time in lieu);
• disconnect between approaches to public engagement would like to
have used compared to what the university was comfortable with;
• sometimes viewed as of secondary importance; and
• administration details and procedures (e.g. slow payment processes).
5.2.5 Future action

It is envisaged that involvement in public engagement activity will lead on to
further related action.
It is therefore positive that the majority of staff have already used the skills
and experiences gained from the projects in further activity (62%), with the
remainder reporting that they plan to do so in the future (38%). Figure 5.4
sets out responses.

39

Figure 5.4: Future action taken or planned
N= 13, 13, 13, 11
The majority of staff reported that they had already or planned to involve
more community members in academic work for co-‐creation and knowledge
exchange and get further involved in projects with the community (85% and
76% respectively).
Views were more mixed, however on whether staff would become a
representative on a local community forum or groups -‐ 45% were not sure
and a further 18% said that this was unlikely to happen.
5.2.6 Improving perceptions, accessibility and wider changes

Staff were asked for views on whether the projects had an impact on
improving the perception and accessibility of the university/cultural
organisation -‐ from their perspective as well that of the local community.
Figure 5.5 sets out responses.

40

Figure 5.5: Improving perceptions

N = 13, 13, 13, 9, 9, 12, 7
In the main, staff were positive about the changes in perceptions, etc.
resulting from the supported projects.
Most staff were of the view that the university/cultural organisation had a
better understanding of the local community (93% reported some
extent/very much), that the policy of the university/cultural organisation
towards public engagement had improved (77% some extent/very much),
and that the local community had an improved perception of the
university/cultural organisation (61% some extent/very much).

41

Staff were then asked to specify wider changes resulting from the projects.
Figure 5.6 sets out responses.
Figure 5.6: Resulting changes arising from projects

N = 8, 12, 12, 12, 11, 11
From the Figure above, of those that responded it can be seen that all have
participated in further research and knowledge exchange activities.
Staff were also positive about the extent to which connections and the
relationship between the university/cultural organisation and the local
community had improved -‐ 92% and 83% reporting that there had been a
positive shift respectively (some extent/very much).
Staff were more likely to report that they were not participating in a joint
forum to improve the dialogue between the learning organisations and the
local community (55%).

42

5.2.7 Supporting future engagement activity
Staff provided a range of recommendations for decision-‐makers within
universities/cultural organisations to foster further engagement activity with
local communities.
Some suggestions included:
• time is the biggest barrier -‐ some staff undertake engagement work
in their own time;
• focus of universities is on research and getting papers published -‐
needs to be greater explicit support to enable staff to feel that they
can get involved;
• it is not fully recognised or valued yet within universities -‐ while some
staff mentioned that it has become higher profile and more explicit in
plans, etc, it needs to be embedded in HR policies (job
roles/descriptions, reward and recognition, research funding etc) and
supported by staff at all levels;
• funding is important for projects -‐ given cuts in education sector
budgets and competing priorities there needs to be a real
commitment and priority given to engagement activity;
• grant size -‐ small scale funding made it difficult to cover actual costs
of the project, need to be realistic about what can be delivered;
• there requires to be a greater number of senior academics involved
and leading on activities;
• development of an e-‐forum or mailing list that makes it easier for
those involved to link with others;
• relevant training for staff; and
• supported activity should not be one-‐off -‐ there is a risk that it could
be viewed as tokenistic.
5.3 Feedback from Non-‐University Staff
5.3.1 Profile of respondents

A total of 18 responses were received from non-‐university staff. Responses
were typically from members or staff of a range of community groups and
organisations. Responses were received from those involved in a number of
the projects, including Inspiring Leaders, Cultural Seed Awards, Manchester
Science Festival Community Awards, and Public Engagement Fellowships.

43

5.3.2 Benefits from participation
Community group staff/members were asked specify the nature of any
learning benefits gained from participating in the projects. Figure 5.7 sets
out responses.
Figure 5.7: Learning benefits

N = 18, 17, 17, 18
Overall, community group staff/members were highly positive about the

impact of their involvement.
The majority of respondents agreed with each statement and reported
increased knowledge, skills, awareness of relevant issues, and improved
quality of work. Other benefits reported include having learned more about
partnership working and developing new contacts.
A small number reported disagreement -‐ the highest reported level of
disagreement was in relation to quality of work had improved (17%).
Community group staff/members also reported a wide range of other

benefits from their involvement in projects. The main benefits cited include
the development of new relationships and contacts (94%) and that the
experience was fun and brought enjoyment (83%). The same benefits were
reported earlier by staff. Figure 5.8 sets out responses.

44

It is also positive that community group staff/members reported a growing
interest in new activities following involvement in the projects (61%).
Figure 5.8: Personal benefits gained from participation

N=18
Community group staff/members reported a variety of unanticipated

benefits arising from their involvement, including:
• it fostered partnership working between organisations that have not

collaborated together prior to the Beacon;
• it opened channels for communication between different partners;
• positive links were created with universities (good support and

feedback);
• made new contacts within the voluntary sector; and
• it helped to generate new ideas to be taken forward.

45

5.3.3 Negative effects
As with university staff, community group staff/members rated involvement
positively overall. Very few comments were provided around negative
effects resulting from participating in projects, these included:
• challenges in reaching particular target groups within the community

(1); and
• delays from university staff responding to email/telephone

correspondence (1).
5.3.4 Future action

All respondents had already or planned to get involved in other projects, and
the majority had or planned to access services/facilities of the
university/cultural organisation and use skills gained from initial involvement
(93% and 86% respectively). Figure 5.9 sets out responses.
Engaging as a representative on a forum or committee of the

university/cultural organisation was typically viewed as a longer-‐term
outcome of participation. Almost half were not sure whether they would
engage in this way (47%).
Figure 5.9: Future action taken or planned

46

N = 15, 14, 14, 15
5.3.5 Improving perceptions, accessibility and wider changes

As above, community group staff/members were in the main positive about
changes in perceptions, etc. resulting from the supported projects. Figure
5.10 sets out responses.
Figure 5.10: Improving perceptions

N = 18, 17, 16, 15, 16, 14, 15
Community group staff/members were positive that the universities/cultural

organisations had a better understanding of the local community (and vice
versa) -‐ 76% and 83% respectively. Respondents also reported an increased
awareness of services/facilities as well as an interest in finding out more
about the universities/cultural organisations.
Community group staff/members were more likely to disagree with or were
not sure about accessing facilities/services for the first time as a result of
their involvement (60%), whether policies of universities/cultural

47

organisations towards public engagement had changed (57%), or whether
accessibility had improved (31%). It might be that that there is a need for
further communication activity to inform communities about recent changes
and developments in this area.
Community group staff/members were also asked to specify wider changes
resulting from the projects. Figure 5.11 sets out responses.
Figure 5.11: Resulting changes arising from projects

N = 16, 14, 16, 16, 14, 15
Similar to university staff, respondents were positive about the extent to
which connections and the relationship between universities/cultural
organisations and the local community had improved -‐ 69% and 63% of
community group staff/members reported that there had been a positive
shift respectively (to some extent/very much). A high proportion had also
participated in research activities and knowledge exchange with the
university/cultural organisation (64%).
While showing signs of progress, community group staff/members were

more likely to disagree or not know whether more community members

48

were represented on decision making bodies or committees of the
university/cultural organisation as a result of the projects (73%) or whether
there was an increased participation in joint forums to improve dialogue
(64%).
5.3.6 Supporting future engagement activity

Community group staff/members provided a range of recommendations for
decision-‐makers within universities/cultural organisations to foster further
engagement activity with local communities.
Some suggestions included:
• supported activity should not be one-‐off -‐ there is a risk that it could
be viewed as tokenistic or forced. There is a need to maintain and
enhance dialogue with local communities;
• stronger flow of communication, information, sharing research

findings, etc. -‐ in particular in relation to follow-‐up, next steps,
reporting back to communities to ensure that awareness is raised;
• increased promotion -‐ e.g. joint meetings, website, forum, etc. to
ensure that dialogue is maintained and developed;
• university spaces need to be made more accessible and welcoming
(can be a daunting environment); and
• greater sharing of university knowledge and expertise with

communities.
5.4 Important values in public engagement

Those that responded to the online survey were asked for views on the five
most important values in engaging with local communities. Figure 5.12 sets
out responses.
The most commonly reported values centred on consultation, openness,

accessibility, and a shared vision.
There were some differences in responses between university and non-‐
university staff. The former were more likely to report values such as respect
and openness. This was followed by having a shared vision and consultation.
Non-‐university staff were more likely to express values such as accessibility
(none of the university staff surveyed identified this as an important value),
sensitivity and consultation.

49

Figure 5.12: Important values in undertaking public engagement

N = 19
5.5 National Survey Responses

This section is based on a review of survey responses provided by staff of the
three universities involved in the Manchester Beacon in January 2010 as part
of the UK-‐wide evaluation process of the Beacon initiatives.
Involvement in public engagement
Respondents were asked about the extent of their involvement in public
engagement activity (Table 5.1).

50

Table 5.1: Involvement in public engagement
Management Teaching/ Total

Research
Included in job 62 39% 33 17% 95 27%
description
An appraisal target 29 18% 39 20% 68 19%
A criterion for promotion 8 5% 40 20% 48 13%
Overall, only 27% of staff reported that public engagement is included in
their job description -‐ this is higher for management than teaching/research
staff.
Public engagement is an appraisal target for less than a fifth of staff (19%)
and even less reported it as a criterion for promotion (13%). A greater
proportion of teaching/research staff reported this was the case even
though fewer teaching/research staff reported that public engagement was
included in their job description.
Feel supported to undertake public engagement activities
Table 5.2 shows that less than half of staff feel supported to undertake
public engagement activities by their institutional systems and procedures
(41%). Management feel more supported than teaching/research staff.
Table 5.2: Supported to undertake public engagement
Number %
Management 75 47%
Teaching/Research 69 36%
Total 144 41%
Respondents were then asked to consider a series of statements around
feeling supported to undertake public engagement activities. Table 5.3 sets
out the proportion that agreed a great deal or to some extent.

51

Table 5.3: Extent staff feel supported to undertake public engagement

Research
Peers/colleagues in my 124 78% 129 66% 253 71%
department are supportive
towards those who take part in
P.E. activities

The work culture of my 122 77% 126 65% 248 70%
institution is supportive towards
those taking part in P.E. activities

My line manager is generally 116 73% 137 70% 253 71%
supportive towards those who
take part in P.E. activities

Senior Management, including 101 64% 109 56% 210 59%
Deans and Vice Chancellors are
generally supportive

The institution I work for rewards 32 20% 37 19% 69 19%
those who take part in PE
activities
In the main, staff feel supported by their peers/colleagues and line managers
to take part in public engagement activities (both 71%) and feel that the
culture of their institution is supportive (70%).
However, staff feel that senior management is supportive to a lesser extent
(59%) and significantly fewer report that they are rewarded for taking part in
PE (19%).
Across all of the statements, management feel more supported than
teaching/research staff.
Barriers to public engagement
Over two-‐thirds of academics reported that there are barriers to becoming
more involved in public engagement activities (70%) (Table 5.4).

52

Table 5.4: Any barriers to becoming involved in public engagement
Number %
Yes 131 70%
No 37 20%
Don’t know 18 10%
Total 186 100%
The main barrier to participating in public engagement activity was a need
for more time to spend on teaching/research (58%). This was followed by a
need to spend more time on administration or that they would have to do it
in their own time (both 30%). Table 5.5 sets out responses.
Table 5.5: Barriers to public engagement
Number %
I need to spend more time on my research/teaching 107 58%
I need to spend more time on administration 56 30%
I would have to do it in my own time 56 30%
There is not enough funding 42 23%
Lack of opportunity 39 21%
I am already involved enough 38 20%
There is little senior level support 30 16%
I would get no recognition 26 14%
I don’t know how to 18 10%
There would be little benefit for me 17 9%
I am too junior 11 6%
I do not have the training 10 5%
I don’t have the confidence 7 4%
Contentious nature of my research 4 2%
English is not my first language 4 2%
I feel I am encroaching on the work of the Press 4 2%
Office or External Relations staff
I just don’t want to 2 1%
I would be bad at it 1 1%
I am only in the UK for a limited period 0 0%
Peer pressure 0 0%
The following questions were added to the Oakleigh survey by the
Manchester Beacon.

53

Impact of the Beacons for Public Engagement Initiative
Staff were asked to consider the extent to which the Beacons for Public
Engagement initiative had an impact on their own work priorities and those
of their peers. Table 5.6 sets out the proportion of staff that reported an
impact (a great deal or to some extent).
Table 5.6: Perceived impact of the Beacons initiative on priorities

Research
Increased public engagement as 44 28% 48 24% 92 26%
a priority for me
Increased public engagement as 51 32% 51 26% 102 29%
a priority for my peers
Just over a quarter of staff feel that the Beacons initiative has increased
public engagement as a priority for themselves (26%) and slightly more feel
that it has for their peers (29%). Management were slightly more likely than
teaching/research staff to report that public engagement had increased as a
priority.
Has the institution’s engagement with the community increased
Staff considered the extent to which their institution had increased the level
of engagement with local communities over the last two years i.e. since the
start of the Beacons initiative. Table 5.7 sets out the proportion that
reported that engagement had increased (a great deal or to some extent).
Table 5.7: Level of engagement by institution has increased

Research
For the institution 108 68% 123 62% 231 65%
For your department/faculty 78 49% 99 50% 177 50%
Overall, almost two-‐thirds agreed that their institution’s level of engagement
with communities had increased, whilst less reported that their own
department/faculty had increased engagement over the same period (50%).
Has partnership working with other institutions in Manchester increased
Less than a third of staff feel that partnership working with other Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) has increased (a great deal/to some extent)
over the last two years:

54

• management -‐ 55 responses, 35%;
• teaching/research -‐ 54 responses, 27%; and
• total -‐ 109 responses, 31% .

55

Catalyst -‐ Development Awards
The University of Manchester Development Awards ran from May to November 2009 and
involved various schools/faculties within UoM, other Beacon partners, community
organisations and primary schools. It sought to address identified institutional culture
change priorities. Nine development awards that totalled £7,500 were made to support the
long-‐term goal of valuing public engagement as part of everyday university life.
The projects included:
Building dialogue with local communities to develop collaborative health histories;
Development of a Dermatological Sciences/School of Translational Medicine public
engagement policy through engagement of South Asian communities to better understand
information requirements; Primary Science Collaboration explored the development of a
cross-‐Beacon HEI partnership based on a chemistry show for primary school children and
parents/carers.
Think About it comprised listening activity with young women from three local youth
centres and youth workers to better understand attitudes and aspirations to third level
education; Sustainable Consumption Institute comprised a feasibility study on the
development of a community-‐university partnership in Ardwick to facilitate a transition to a
low carbon lifestyle focusing on food and energy; An Ideas Workshop for Scientists
involved informal public engagement activities to support researchers devise creative and
interactive ways to explain their research to children and adults.
Supporting staff to engage with service users involved the development of interactive
training tools for staff in the Arthritis Research Centre to engage with a recently formed
users group and embed public engagement into induction of all new staff; Mentoring for
Public Engagement explored the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
(EPSRC) PPE Award mentoring scheme to inform the development of an internal mentoring
scheme to support researchers; and Manchester Museum Community Network assessed
how the Museum consults and involves communities in its policies and developments.
“There is now a greater willingness amongst some members of my centre to explore new
approaches to public engagement -‐ not simply as a box to be ticked”.
A total of 43 university or equivalent staff were involved, 316 community members
(including school children), and 8 community organisations. Those involved presented the
findings and key lessons from their projects at the Beacon summit on 9 November 2009.
Feedback was positive with all those who responded to the evaluation reporting that they
acquired new knowledge and understanding of public engagement and over half agreed
that their understanding of the value and importance of public engagement has changed.
“I have always thought that some kind of ‘public engagement’ was important ... – what is
different is that now I have more experience of this – which includes how demanding and
time consuming it has been, as well as how rewarding it can be.”

56

6. Performance Against Objectives
This Section reviews the performance of the Manchester Beacon to date
against its NWDA and Manchester Beacon objectives, and provides an
assessment of Strategic Added Value (SAV).
6.1 NWDA Objectives

The single programme Development and Appraisal form for the programme
identifies that the local communities in the wards of Hulme, Ardwick, Moss
Side and Rusholme experience disproportionately high incidences of
economic and social exclusion and see local educational establishments as
having little relevance to their lives. The programme therefore aims to
reduce the “perceived walls” between local communities and the
universities, increase understanding and connection, raise levels of interest
and through this support the planned growth of the corridor area.
The overarching aim of the project was “to use social impact as a driver for
culture change within universities to support and value cultural, public and
community engagement with local communities.2”
The five main objectives of the project and the achievements reported
against these are described below:

local communities by March 2010, as measured by ongoing
qualitative evaluation:
Community participants have been engaged in multiple projects from the
Manchester Beacon as detailed in previous sections, as well as broader
engagement activities.
In survey and interviews with community group staff / members involved in
Beacon projects carried out for this evaluation, 83% reported that the local
community has an improved perception of the university, with 79%
reporting they were more aware of the facilities and services offered by the
university.
In addition 63% reported an improved relationship between the university

and the local community and 73% felt the university was better connected
with the local community than before,

2
NWDA Project Exit Report

57

neighbouring communities by the universities and institutions, such
that relevant aspects of HEI strategy and planning is informed by the
priorities of local communities by March 2010:
In a parallel survey for university staff engaged in Beacon projects 92% of
respondents felt that the university has a better understanding of the local
community as a result of the Beacon project, with a similar proportion
reporting that the university was now better connected to the local
communities.
In addition 77% of respondents reported that the policy of the university
towards public engagement has changed.
This is reflected in some concrete actions by the universities. UoM have set
up a Public Engagement Advisory group facilitated by the Beacon project
manager so that engagement becomes embedded within their new strategic
goal 3, social responsibility. MMU Executive has embedded two-‐way
engagement into the Action Plan for the Birley Fields campus development.
• to put in place a number (in the region of five) of sustainable
communities, and activities requested by and appreciated by those
communities, by March 2010:
A total of seven sustainable engagement projects were delivered. Five of
these directly received funding from NWDA support for delivery, and others
levered in alternative funding, but were supported in delivery through
NWDA funding. The projects were:
o ArcSpace Manchester
o UoM Development Awards
o Community Leadership Programme
o Cultural Awards
o Community Science Awards
o MMU Public Engagement Fellowships (funding levered by
MMU)
o Networking and Events (e.g. Comixed, Mapping Creativity,
Beacon Summit).
Many of these projects actually involve several individual research and
collaboration projects, involving academics, cultural organisations and
community groups / members. As such a total of 29 individual collaborative
projects have been supported, many more than the five sustainable projects
originally anticipated have been initiated through the Beacon.

58

In addition wider networking and awareness from the Manchester Beacon
has also been supported.
It should be noted that learning has been shared across the programme (for
example the MMU fellowship projects adapted and adopted Beacon
methodology in including a public vote to choose projects) resulting in a
wider impact across the whole programme.
experience of working with deprived communities:
This target has been exceeded as the Manchester Beacon has supported
projects and created networks. 89 academics have been involved directly in
delivering projects funded through NWDA support. In addition a much wider
cohort of academics were involved and supported by the funding through
networking events, wider dissemination and sharing elements of the
programme. By March 2010 the Manchester Beacon reported 344 staff
involved in the network.
with the HEIs) with a positive attitude towards working in the
universities and other major employers, or studying at (or with help
from) those HEIs:
In the surveys and interviews for this evaluation, the vast majority of
community members reported that they either already had or planned to
get involved in further projects with the university as a result of their
participation with the Beacon programme, and would use the skills and
experience they had gained.
As detailed in earlier sections, some of the projects were specifically
targeted at building the capacity of community members. For example The
Community Leadership programme (Inspiring Leaders and Step Up) provided
personal and professional development to 30 individuals (50% from BAME
background) living and working in target areas adjacent to the Corridor.
Participants learned new skills and have increased confidence as a result.
Overall the project has delivered well against NWDA objectives, exceeding
targets set in many aspects.

59

6.2 Manchester Beacon Objectives
The five shared objectives for the Manchester Beacon are reviewed briefly in
turn to provide an assessment of progress to date of the impact of the
project.
6.2.1 Public engagement is encouraged, valued and supported

This objective aligns closely with the core objectives of the main funders
(HEFC, RCUK, Wellcome Trust).
Evidence gathered in this evaluation shows good progress against this
objective. Feedback from participants in Beacon projects report an increase
in PE skills and a perception that PE is more valued in their organisation.
This is reflected in changes made at strategic and operational levels within
the partner organisations, such as the inclusion of PE in strategic documents
and mission and building PE into appraisal, promotions, recruitment and
other HR processes.
However analysis of the wider staff survey (carried out as part of the
national evaluation) reports that less than 20% report that it is included as
an appraisal target, or feel that the institution rewards those who take part
in PE. By contrast the same survey indicates that 70% feel that the work
culture is generally supportive towards those undertaking PE.
This suggests that although good progress had been made here, there is still
work to be done to embed this activity.
6.2.2 Change perceptions and improve accessibility

The perception, image and accessibility of the institutions is viewed to have
improved. Data gathered for this evaluation from those involved in Beacon
projects indicates that 83% report that the local community has an improved
perception of the institutions.
Although there had been some improvement in accessibility, this was
acknowledged to be a more difficult issue. However there had been some
progress in this aspect as well, with good examples of using university
facilities and equipment (e.g. ArcSpace computer re-‐usage).
“Sometimes just a room with a projector is extremely useful”

60

6.2.3 Increasing the relevance of institution activity and
connectivity with communities
The wider survey of staff indicates that 65% agree that the level of
engagement with the community had increased over the lifetime of the
project.
This was reflected in the survey of Beacon project participants and
stakeholders, who identified an increased level of activity with the
community, with 73% reporting an increased level of connectivity with the
community.
However, even within the Beacon participants the work of the institutions
was not necessarily seen as relevant, with only 50% identifying this as having
improved.
6.2.4 Improve the opportunities for sustainable two-‐way

learning
The focus of different projects funded through the Beacon has been to
encourage and initiate collaborative co-‐creation with the community.
Examples of successful pilots such as the UoM development awards and the
Cultural seed awards have brought researchers, cultural organisations and
community groups / members together in research activities.
Participants have reported positive learning benefits (new skills, knowledge

and improved work outputs) and also personal benefits (new relationships,
increased confidence, interest in new activities and enjoyment) as a result of
their involvement.
6.2.5 Develop deeper partnership working across the Beacon

partners and with the community
Although there was already a history of partnership working across the
institutions involved, this evaluation has identified evidence of an increase in
that partnership, including new relationships being built and a deeper,
broader element of partnership.
This is certainly true at a strategic level, although project delivery is largely
still within an individual institution.
Partnership with the community has also improved, notably through a

change in approach influenced by learning from the Beacon. Importantly,

61

participants surveyed as part of this evaluation report a high level of interest
in taking further action and implementing their skills and experience. This
suggests that this activity has the potential to be ongoing.
The Beacon team itself has helped act as a channel and broker for
communication, and linkages between partners and with the community.
Overall good progress has been made against the objectives, in particular
Objectives 1 and 5. There is a need to ensure that the benefits of projects
are captured effectively on an ongoing basis.
6.3 Strategic Added Value

This section considers the Strategic Added Value (SAV) of the Manchester
Beacon.
In general due to the nature of the programme it is unlikely that many direct
economic impact will arise from the activity of the Beacon, although there
have been some direct benefits already evidenced (e.g. ArcSpace community
organisation is established and employing local people). However the main
contribution will be in the programme’s SAV.
SAV is the added value over and above what is realised by co-‐ordinating
strategy and influencing others to help achieve its objectives/desired
outcomes. A summary description of the key elements and the contribution
towards generating SAV is set out below.
Strategic catalyst role/leadership -‐ this is where the initiative can be said to
have encouraged partners and stakeholders to undertake desirable patterns
of behaviour or investment that will contribute to shared objectives/ support
strategic delivery.
A key element of the Beacon is its brokerage role. Its approach is to
undertake small pilots and publicise success, as well as influencing partner
organisations to adopt and embed good practice.
Partners have signed up to the five shared objectives that aim to foster a
supportive environment to support public engagement between partners
and local communities, and through the Beacon are undertaking
coordinated actions and sharing learning across the institutions.
Given the size of the project this catalyst approach is essential. As a result
the Beacon has also become the “door of entry” for PE involving the
community.

62

Contribution to broader policy development/intelligence -‐ where the
initiative has undertaken or stimulated activity which serves to inform and
define what needs to be done by different actors including individuals and
groups, public and private sector in order to promote strategic delivery.
Contribution to this element is evidenced by changes in policy and practice
seen in the organisations. PE is now incorporated into strategic aims and
goals, and built into HR, promotions and appraisal policies.
In addition it could be argued that Manchester Beacon is leading learning in
Public engagement nationally. This has raised the profile of its performance
in this area as experiences and learning is shared.
Strategic influence -‐ the extent to which the initiative contributes towards
setting the policy agenda and generates stakeholder interest and co-‐
operation, leading to greater alignment of strategic intent across partners.
Further, achieving alignment and inter-‐locking of the priorities and
investment plans of partners.
There is evidence from this evaluation of deeper partnership working as a
result of the Beacon. Examples have been gathered of new partnerships, and
also greater sharing between existing partners, including the success of the
Science Festival, and the joint response to the Wellings statement.
As mentioned, Partners have also signed up to five shared objectives that
aim to foster a supportive environment to support public engagement
between partners and local communities.
Currently the majority of activity is still delivered separately, even though
learning is shared. However discussions on the future approach to PE are
being undertaken together which is encouraging for a future joint approach.
Leverage -‐ reflects the scale and nature of the resources contributed to the
promotion of public engagement as a result of the project and the influence
and activities of levered funding and other resources from partners and
stakeholders in support of objectives.
The project has been successful in leveraging additional funding to the
project. The NWDA funding was part of a package of funds.
In addition the project has subsequently levered in additional funding from
the individual institutions Examples of additional leverage include:
• MMU committed £60k of institutional resources for the PE

Fellowship scheme;

63

• £5k from DCMS-‐National Museums Liverpool to develop
programmes working with Refugees and Asylum seekers
• £4k Roberts Innovation Fund for cross-‐faculty PE resources for

postgraduates and young researchers.
• £10k funding from AGMA for the Manchester Science Festival to
develop its community programme around Greater Manchester.
• £30k funding from the Wellcome Trust for the Manchester Science
Festival to work with Nowgen and Contact Theatre engaging young
audiences in Science.
A huge amount of individual’s time has also been invested, far exceeding the
original expectations and commitments at both a project and senior
strategic level.
As a result the view is that the Manchester Beacon is delivering Value for
Money for its investment.
Engagement -‐ this is the extent to which the initiative has brought together
stakeholders working across in the region to improve the design and delivery
of projects and programmes.
The whole purpose of the programme was to tackle this issue in a
partnership approach. One of the main objectives of the programme has
been agreed to be greater partnership working. Good progress has been
made in this element.
Prior to the Manchester Beacon, partners undertook public engagement

activity. However Beacon activity has brought a greater focus and co-‐
ordination to engagement work among those involved. The Manchester
Beacon has resulted in a more joined-‐up, connected, and coherent approach
to public engagement activity, with partners encouraged to work together,
to develop joint projects, and share information and experiences, etc.
In addition the focus was to build partnerships and work together with the
local community.
Through learning from the Beacon programme, a change in approach has
been more evident, with a strong listening agenda built into the engagement
process.
Overall this shows there has been a strong SAV contribution for the
programme.

64

Capacity -‐ Community Leadership

The Community Leadership programme consisted of two complementary projects -‐ Step
Up and Inspiring Leaders.
Step Up seeks to support and mentor leaders representing marginalised
community/voluntary organisations from BAME communities. This was informed from an
initial “listening” activity which identifies leadership skills and capacity as a key need
vocalised by the local communities in order to build effective two-‐way PE.
Participants took part in a half-‐day training session in Mentoring and Coaching. Nine
training sessions have been delivered to date. Subject areas include performance
management, negotiation skills, decision making, change management, and creative
thinking. Feedback has been extremely positive, and several course participants have now
taken up the opportunity for further mentoring from senior university staff including
mentoring on the UoM Ethics Committee and with UoM Corridor Manchester staff
member.
"With this training I will become a valuable resource in my local community" Step Up
Participant
The Manchester Beacon Partnership also commissioned MISPA (Manchester Institute of
Sport and Physical Activity) at Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) to deliver a free
leadership training programme (Inspiring Leaders). This project was delivered between
November 2009 and April 2010.
Inspiring Leaders was open to local leaders in the voluntary and community sector in
neighbourhoods adjacent to Manchester based universities: Ardwick, Moss Side, Rusholme,
Longsight and Hulme. It was expected that half the learners would come from BAME
backgrounds.
Inspiring Leaders consisted of a seven-‐day training programme to support the development
of leadership in the third sector. Training was delivered in weekly sessions (six in total). This
was followed by a final session three weeks later. The training sought to equip individuals
with the appropriate leadership skills to sustain and develop their organisations for the
benefit of their communities; and identify, train and support programme graduates with
cascading their leadership knowledge and skills to their peers and communities. The
sessions were on a number of topics including leadership and learning, managing your
organisation, sustaining your organisation, managing relationships and reflection and action
planning.
“The course has been inspiring and I have found more confidence to speak up and put my
ideas and myself forward in a way I never did before”
“The course has been enlightening, inspiring, challenged my thinking and most important,
helped me question my set goals”
All participants reported that they would recommend Inspiring Leaders to other people and
that their confidence had increased. Participants’ self-‐perception of their leadership
abilities increased by 15% over the course of their involvement.
“I gathered so much information, knowledge, advice and inspiration in such a short time”.

65

7. Learning Points and Recommendations
7.1 Conclusions
The four year national Beacons for Public Engagement initiative (2008/12)
seeks to bring about culture change in the way academic institutions, their
staff, and their students reach out, listen, and engage with the public.
The Manchester Beacon in particular also wished to focus on improving
engagement with local communities, and build an environment conducive to
the opportunity for co-‐creation and two-‐way learning, as well as building
partnership working.
It is by nature a culture change programme, and as such is long term.
Although the focus of this evaluation is the NWDA funding which concluded
in March 2010, it is in effect an interim evaluation of the whole programme,
which should inform the remaining delivery time (to December 2011) and
input to discussion of the future direction of such initiatives.
7.1.1 Performance against objectives

This evaluation evidences that the programme has delivered well against the
NWDA objectives set at the start of the funding. In many cases the more
quantitative elements have been exceeded, and evidence gathered shows
improvements in the more qualitative objectives.
An assessment has also been made against Manchester Beacon Objectives,

and good progress is evidenced here as well.
In particular Objective 1 (PE is valued and rewarded) and Objective 5 (deeper
partnership working), which in some ways are the underpinning objectives
of the Manchester Beacon both showed good evidence of improvement.
In addition the programme was shown to have high Strategic Added Value
contribution, and was viewed to be delivering Value for Money.
Due to the long term nature of the programme, the NWDA funding will
contribute to future impacts and benefits beyond this element of funding.
7.1.2 Participants benefits

Both Staff and Community group members identified positive learning and
personal benefits from their involvement in the programme.

66

They reported gaining new skills and knowledge, increased confidence,
interest in new ideas as well as enjoyment.
Significantly, a very high proportion either already had, or planned to take
further action as a result of their participation, which suggests an ongoing
interest and enthusiasm for further engagement.
7.2 Issues and Learning points

A number of elements were raised in the process of the evaluation.
7.2.1 Partnership
The partners involved are very diverse, with different strengths and different
expectations. This means they can learn from each other. In addition a
certain amount of competition between the university partners has driven
improvement.
“The partnership has driven a positive spiral of competitiveness”
In particular the cultural partner of MOSI has brought different strengths to
the programme. As a museum they are already used to operating in a public
engagement environment. Diversity has proved a good thing, despite
sometimes different commitments and agendas. There has been evidence of
mutual benefits e.g. science festival, where MOSI provides a platform, and
universities the content, with the beacon facilitating the brokerage.
There is a long history of partnership working across the partners. However
the Manchester Beacon has allowed new partnerships to be built, new
relationships to be formed, and a deepening of trust and sharing.
A key factor for the Manchester Beacon is the real commitment from the top
across all institutions. This is extremely important, as PE is therefore placed
as part of the core strategy, not just a side element. There are still challenges
in getting this implemented and embedded, but having very senior
committed champions across the institutions is a major benefit that will help
deliver this agenda.
7.2.2 Approach
The approach taken by the Manchester Beacon, of listening in the first year,
has been challenging for some partners, who were keen to be engaged in
delivery. However the consensus seems to be that this has improved the

67

quality of delivery in the subsequent time, and they are now doing better PE
and not just more of it.
One learning of the process, especially in the early stages of the project, is
that a certain amount of chaos helps generate energy, ideas and
engagement. If a project is too corralled it may not be as innovative.
However, it can be challenging to manage the outcomes.
A key success of the Beacon has seen not only more activity, but also a
change in approach from the partner organisations, who are increasingly
looking to work with the community to see what can be done together,
rather than just delivered, and treating all participants as equals.
“I thought the Beacon would be a project, but in fact it’s more of a
movement!”
There is more activity taking place with the community and as a result the
channels of communication are therefore open. However it is also worth
noting that the use of language has changed, becoming more open, and
understanding of the diversity of the community i.e. that it is not one entity.
Manchester Beacon is seen as one of the leading Beacons nationally. The
approach taken by the Manchester Beacon, the diversity of the partnership,
and the emphasis on local communities and two way engagements differs
from other Beacons. The importance of senior champions, the relatively well
resourced team and the diversity they have managed to engender are all key
elements in this success. Sharing the learning with, and learning from, the
national programme and other Beacons is important to maximise the value
of the overall programme, and opportunities for this should be maximised.
7.2.3 Structure
The matrix structure where, the team is part of a Beacon but hosted in their
home institution can be both good and bad. On the positive side, this helps
embed the PE ethos in each organisation. The downside is that the culture of
each institution is very different, and this makes it harder for the beacon
team to coalesce as a team. This has taken a while to become established,
and now appears to be working better.
In addition the working groups structure took some time to be properly
established and their roles clarified. The working groups are now more
structured, and as the programme goes into its final stages, need to make
sure they are putting forward concrete recommendations to the leadership
group.

68

7.2.4 Overcoming barriers
Language is identified as a big barrier in the initial stages of engagement.
People feel unwilling to challenge academics on communication. Giving
academics the skills to be more approachable is important. In addition,
building confidence and capacity is a strong enabler towards two-‐way
engagement and co-‐creation. Many of the projects initiated by the Beacon
tackle this building capability issue directly. In addition, the feedback from
participants about building confidence and new skills is an important benefit
to capture at the time of project implementation.
Building trust is a key challenge. It is based on personal relations and takes
time to develop.
Unexplored perceptions are also a barrier. Interestingly some projects

reported that they assumed a lack of interest and demand in their area of
research/activity from the community. However, once they started exploring
they found this was not the case. The role of the Beacon in channelling
connections and facilitating conversations has helped overcome this.
“Sometimes it is our own perceptions that hold us back”
There were also practical barriers highlighted as part of delivering the
projects, including being able to commission and purchase from small
community groups, administration procedures and slow payment processes,
which were found to be difficult in some circumstances, given the financial
systems in place within the institutions and funders.
7.2.5 Learning from experience

There are good examples of learning from earlier projects being fed into new
project development, e.g. MMU adopting the Mapping Creativity public
voting methodology as a way to generate interest and buy in. This shows the
value of approaching the issue as a partnership programme, where learning
can be shared. Both success and failure can feed into this learning.
“There is no downside from learning. We can learn from success and failure”
Dissemination and sharing is essential. Team members report having to do
things three times, once to participate, once to capture and share and a
third time to tell others (especially senior staff) about it. Case studies and
videos also help capture valuable elements.
Following sharing and dissemination, it is also important to address what is
going to happen next as a result of the project / intervention to ensure that

69

they are not just projects in isolation that have no longer term impact. This is
a key element in building sustainability and long-‐term change.
7.2.6 Broker / catalyst role

The importance of the beacon team as a broker and channel for linkages
should not be underestimated. This works both between the partners and
with the community.
Beacon has a major role in joining different networks together. People will
listen to peers so their trusted networks are important for sharing and
convincing messages. This approach is also important because of the size of
the Beacon programme. There is a need to seed some initial activity and
linkages and encourage the spread from there through networks.
“We’re building an ecosystem”.
7.2.7 Early adopters

As is inevitable in a change management programme such as this, those
most engaged at the early stages will be those who were already
enthusiastic and early adopters, i.e. the programme will encourage those
who were already keen to engage. This is also true for community
engagement where the most interested are the ones most likely to become
involved.
This does allow a small minority to accuse the Beacon of not going far
enough and playing safe. However the programme is giving visibility and
“permission” to those engaged with PE, and opening channels of
communication and connectivity with the community. There is also evidence
that new people are becoming engaged as the programme progresses.
These successes can be built on.
7.2.8 Raising Expectations

One risk in the current Beacon approach is that having successfully raised
demand and built capacity within the community, this raises expectations. If
this is not sustained this may disappoint the community partners and the
trust reinforcing these relationships will be damaged. This is a key issue for
sustainability, especially for the future. Even currently if funding is project
specific, how to maintain those contacts once the funding has ended is
important to address. In addition making sure that project results are fed
back into the community who helped generate them is essential. There is

70

evidence that this is not always happening, which damages the potential or
future relationships.
7.2.9 Embedding long-‐term change

Maintaining trust is an issue for sustainability beyond the life of beacon
funding. At present the Beacon team have built networks and relationships,
but this is linked to the participants and the team and is still somewhat
disconnected across the institutions and within their systems and process.
Passing responsibility for those relationships to others in the organisations is
important in the last years of the Beacon funding. It needs to move beyond
the team. (The operations group are already beginning to address this
question).
The change agenda is huge. So far, with senior support and on the ground
projects there is a top down and bottom up approach. However, there is still
a large number of staff for whom PE is still seen as an optional activity. This
is unlikely to change in two years, but incentives, strategic goals, and
systems and processes to embed these agendas are starting to be developed
and adopted. There is a need to continue to reinforce the approach.
Progress has been good in strategy and policy, but there is a need to make
sure this becomes a practical reality and not just a tick box exercise.
PE is higher up the agenda within the universities, but was identified by
respondents as still a poor fourth behind funding, research rating, and
teaching. Although part of promotions, there is a potential that it could be
seen as either / or (research or PE) rather than strengthening both. If not
embedded there is a risk it will be seen as second class.
In addition it was emphasised that PE is not just an academic issue, but
permeates throughout the whole institution.
Whereas the impact of the Manchester Beacon (especially given the size and
scope of the project) should not be overstated, it nevertheless has
influenced and catalysed a whole range of changes, improvements and
connections, and built a momentum behind its activities. The Manchester
Beacon is a four year programme, and this needs to be embedded in the
remaining time of the programme.
7.3 Learning for NWDA

There are a number of learning points that can be usefully drawn from the
Manchester Beacon programme:

71

• innovative approach -‐ the approach taken by the Beacon is
innovative, involving engaging, listening, and identifying needs and
mutual benefits. This has fostered an environment of co-‐creation
rather than just delivery and as such will hopefully bring long term
gains beyond the life of the project. There is potential learning here
for other initiatives where engaging diverse partners with differing
agendas is at the core of the programme. However removing
practical barriers (e.g. purchasing and payment process limitations)
for such innovative approaches, especially when engaging with small
community organisations, needs to be explored;
• build across strengths -‐ as part of the Beacon programme the
Universities have worked closely in partnership, together with MOSI.
Each have brought different strengths to the programme, and have
shared learning throughout the partnership. This has meant that the
programme has built on the combined strengths, rather than each
institution developing in isolation. This is a city wide approach, which
respondents considered to enhance civic pride and build
Manchester’s reputation as a centre of good practice;
• high Strategic Added Value -‐ this project was in many ways an
unusual investment for NWDA as it was not anticipated to deliver
direct economic benefit. It was however anticipated to bring high
SAV returns. Through leverage, influence and particularly the
catalytic role of the Manchester Beacon, this has been evidenced
through the evaluation; and
• maximising assets -‐ for NWDA a key purpose of investment was
maximising the assets of the Manchester corridor and building
coherent and attractive place. By promoting and adopting genuine
two-‐way engagement practices and building capacity and
connectivity with the local community the Beacon has helped
engender a more connected environment. Learning from this
approach has already been embedded in other investments in the
area.
7.4 Learning for Beacon and Other Funders

There are a number of learning points that can be usefully drawn from the
Manchester Beacon programme for the Beacon and other funders:
• partnership -‐ a major strength of the Manchester Beacon has been
the partnership. Although it can be challenging to work across so
many partners, each has brought different skills. Partnership working
has improved and learning and sharing of experience (as well as a

72

certain amount of competition) has helped improve learning and
drive implementation. This deeper level of partnership should
continue to be built upon and other opportunities explored, including
the future plans for public and community engagement and
knowledge exchange activity;
• role of broker -‐ the Beacon team has established itself as an
important broker in making connections and helping develop
linkages. Whereas this has been successful in catalysing additional
activity, the next step is to widen this element of connectivity. There
is a danger that those links are made only with the Beacon team and
not with the wider institutions. As such embedding and broadening
the points of contact is an important focus.
• commitment from the top -‐ one of the identified successes of the
Manchester Beacon is the level of senior commitment, with strong
champions across all partners. This ensures that an emphasis is being
put on changing behaviours both from a top down and a bottom up
approach. The importance of senior commitment cannot be
underestimated, but needs to be reinforced with systems and
processes that reward and recognise PE;
• continual learning -‐ the learning from pilots and practice tested
through the Beacon needs to be continually reviewed and absorbed
into new approaches. Understanding of barriers and how to
overcome them has helped inform new activity. This has been
successfully done as part of the programme so far (e.g. approaches
adopted in other engagement activity). However ensuring this
environment for learning is not lost once the current Beacon funding
has concluded is an issue to be considered for the future. i.e. how to
continue to drive forward progress and instil improvements;
• capturing impact and benefit -‐ capturing the progress and impact of
culture change is complex. There is a need for learning at the time of
the project, not only what was done, but what has been the impact
and changes in behaviour. The learning from this evaluation process
will be embedded into internal evaluation processes, including a
review of the M&EF, language and processes used and for the final
evaluation to maximise capturing of impact. In particular capturing
the benefits and impacts of interventions should be a high priority, as
well as the changes in behaviour, for example where some
participants have gone on to champion further activity. In addition
consideration of how to coherently gather community perception of
improved image, relevance should be explored. This potentially could
be tested with a community survey, but this needs to be managed
alongside other parallel activity. Alternatively it may be more

73

appropriate to evaluate this for the project rather than the overall
institutions;
• long term perspective -‐ change on this scale takes longer than four
years. Ambitions for the future must include how to keep people
driving at the same pace so as not to lose momentum once the initial
funding finishes. In addition having built expectations and demand
within community partners, thought must be given as to how to
continue to nurture those relationships and service that demand, and
ensure that interaction is not seen as a “one off”, but a continual
process. In an environment where any future funding is under
question, how to build that incentive without specific funding models
must be considered as part of the sustainability discussion; and
• embedding good practice -‐ a major focus for the remainder of the
Beacon funding is to embed good practice into the institutions. As
mentioned above, part of this is to build robust systems and
processes that reinforce the practice in the institutions, and ensure
they are valued and adhered to. This could also be powerfully
reinforced if the other funders of this programme (HEFCE, RCUK)
ensured that recognition of PE is built into their funding criteria
rather than being seen as separate. This could be a powerful
incentive if reinforced from the centre.
7.5 Recommendations
The learning points from the evaluation are applicable in many aspects of
the programme. However, for ease of management and to ensure the
learning from the evaluation is used to improve the overall impact, they
have been distilled into a number of recommendations for the different
working groups within the Manchester Beacon to lead and to action in the
remaining time of the project.
Steering Board
• The Steering board is requested to endorse the recommendations from the
evaluation;
• The steering board is requested to strongly lobby national funders on the
importance of building recognition of PE into funding processes;
• The role of senior champions was shown to be very important. The steering
board are requested to continue to support the Beacon objectives at the
highest level;

74

• The steering board are requested to ensure that the working groups put
forward concrete recommendations for action.
Operations Group
• The Operations group is requested to lead actions on sustainability;
• In particular this should focus on broadening points of contact beyond the
Beacon team, and maintaining momentum once the initial funding finishes;
• Identifying solutions to some practical barriers to engagement

(administration and procurement processes) should also be addressed.
Recognition group
• The Recognition group is requested to lead actions on reinforcing progress
through systems and processes;
• Identifying actions to ensure this is truly embedded and implemented is a
priority;
• This should apply to all staff not just academics;
• There is a perception that the importance of PE (and other third stream
activity) is still viewed as of lesser importance than research, and teaching.
Establishing mechanisms where PE can be seen as enhancing research as
opposed to separate should be explored;
• To ensure raised expectations through engagement with the community are

not disappointed, and to ensure engagement is not “one-‐off”, building
incentives for engagement without specific funding mechanisms must be
explored.
Communications group
• The Communications Group are requested to lead actions on sharing and
dissemination and assisting learning through the programme;
• As well as the experience of the projects, sharing approaches which can then
be reapplied should be a valuable addition;
• Sharing learning with and from other Beacons will help maximise the value
to the whole programme.

75

Evaluation and Impact group
• The Evaluation and Impact group are requested to lead actions related to
capturing the widest benefits of the programme, and most importantly
progress on culture change;
• The evaluation processes, and the learning from this, must include not only
what has been done, but also impact and changes in behaviour, and
catalysing further activity;
• To reflect the learning from this evaluation, the M&EF should be reviewed
and internal evaluation processes updated appropriately.

76

Creativity: -‐ ArcSpace
ArcSpace Manchester was the successful project selected under the Mapping Creativity
engagement activity progressed by the Manchester Beacon.
It is a virtual and physical launch pad for creative and ethical exchange, run by local
community artists and academics. The creative cluster was set-‐up in Hulme by community
artists in St Wilfred's Enterprise Centre to foster and support creative and ethical exchange
between academics, creative industries, and community groups. ArcSpace provides a free
computer hub with internet access, workshop space, and training in recycling for creative
and ethical skills exchange for sustainable living.
A holistic approach has been taken with a view to:
• building pathways for local people as local employees, creative’s, thinkers and do-‐
ers;
• building capacity and network development;
• encouraging local people to use free software and recycled computers and to learn
skills effectively enough to pass them to others through Peer to Peer learning;
• helping people understand concepts of Open Source Technology and Education and
to promote third sector development for predominantly creative organisations;
• transfer ethical and environmental skills e.g. recycling computers and other
materials which ties into findings by recent UNESCO reports; and
• promote local businesses and the integration of local people into ethical trading
principles as social and cultural regeneration tools.
University staff have delivered workshops and provided computers for recycling. A notable
success is that an MMU academic now sits on the ArcSpace Board -‐ ensuring that two-‐way
engagement and dialogue continues and develops.
ArcSpace has a very diverse membership with over 50 members and is very diverse
including researchers, strategists, MCs, writers, musicians, filmmakers, students, lecturers,
editors, community elders, young people, etc.
The project has also begun to generate its own income from Learning Skills and
Transformation Fund, Arts Council England, and the Carbon Innovation Fund.

77

Appendices
Appendix A: Objectives and Evidence of Success

Appendix B: Examples of additional Beacon activity

78

Appendix A: Objectives and Evidence of Success

Objective Evidence of Success
Objective
1: PE is • PE embedded into Learning Institutions’ plans and
Encouraged and strategies;
Supported • PE written into job profiles;
• PE incorporated into performance appraisals/
rewards;
• evidence of PE training/CPD/student studies/
teaching/research design; and
• staff time allocated to PE.
Objective 2: Change • improved communication and signposting of services
Perceptions and and activities;
Improve Accessibility • facilities are open and accessible to community;
• improved awareness raising of support mechanisms
e.g. bursaries for local residents, adult learning etc; and
• increased accessibility of staff, academics, research
and knowledge.
Objective 3: • increased academic activities involving communities;
Increasing the • increased university involvement with community
Relevance of activities (research or not);
Institution Activity • increased visibility of university staff in the
and Connectivity with community;
Communities • evidence of communities actively participating in
project/research implementation;
• increased community participation in influencing and
decision making processes in the Universities; and
• evidence of improved communication/translation of
research to and in a community environment.
Objective 4: Improve • increased involvement with and co-‐creation of
the Opportunities for institutional activity;
Sustainable Two-‐Way • evidence of exchange of knowledge and skills; and
Learning • evidence of active forums for the exchange of ideas,
dialogue and concerns.
Objective 5: Develop • evidence of added value of partnership through
Deeper Partnership collective working;
Working Across the • collective working is valued and embedded;
Beacon Partners and • evidence of more joint working at project level;
with the Community • evidence of sharing of expertise; and
• evidence of pooling of resources.

79

Manchester Beacon Interim Review - August 2010

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Manchester Beacon Interim Review - August 2010

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Final Report for Steering Board

2. The Manchester Beacon 12

4. Feedback from Stakeholders 24

5. Feedback from Participants 35

6. Performance Against Objectives 57

7. Learning Points and Recommendations 66

Manchester Beacon is a partnership between University of Manchester

NWDA Beacon Objectives

• to achieve significantly improved understanding and appreciation of

Manchester Beacon Objectives

Priority: Behaviour change

Feedback from Stakeholders

Partnership Working and collaboration

Other Beacon Objectives and wider benefits

A large majority of community members reported an improved relationship

Participants reported gaining new skills and knowledge, increased

Performance against objectives

An assessment has also been made against Manchester Beacon Objectives,

Issues and Learning points

Learning from experience

Broker / Catalyst role

Embedding long term change

Learning for NWDA

Learning for Beacon and Other Funders

plans for public and community engagement and knowledge

In Manchester, the initiative is a partnership between the University of

1.2 Evaluation Aims and Objectives

The objectives were to:

• assess progress and achievements, including any differences from

1.3 Approach and Method

The evaluation comprised three main elements:

1.4 Structure of the Report

• Section 2 provides an overview of the Manchester Beacon initiative,

Appendix A contains details of the Manchester Beacon objectives and

2. The Manchester Beacon

• governance and management arrangements;

2.1 Governance and Management Arrangements

Figure 2.1: Governance structure

Partners are actively engaged in four Working Groups, including:

A Manchester Beacon project team has been established that are

A matrix-­‐management system is used. Line management responsibility for

Figure 2.2: Overall governance and management arrangements

2.2 NWDA Beacon Objectives

• to achieve significantly improved understanding and appreciation of

2.3 Manchester Beacon Objectives

The articulation of objectives was informed by:

• a survey completed by the Steering Board, Project Team, Working

• Objective 1: Public engagement is encouraged, valued and

engagement between academia and the general public so that

2.4 Alignment of Objectives

Table 2.1: Alignment between objectives

NWDA Manchester BPE Clear Objective Contribution

Objective 5: Develop deeper partnership working

Table 3.1: NWDA total funding

Activity 2007/08 2008/2009 2009/10 Total

Staff costs -­‐ £40,000 £40,000 £80,000

Table 3.2 shows the budget contribution from all funders.

Table 3.2: Partner and funders’ contributions

Table 3.3: Capital, revenue and expenditure details

Budget Expenditure Variance

NWDA £240,000 £240,000 £0

Source: NWDA Exit report, June 2010.

3.2 The Projects

• Community Leadership (March 2009 to August 2010) -­‐ a University-­‐

A matrix-‐management system is used. Line management responsibility for

Staff costs -‐ £40,000 £40,000 £80,000

• Community Leadership (March 2009 to August 2010) -‐ a University-‐

Community -‐ Community Science Awards

• establishment of long-‐lasting partnerships;

5.3 Feedback from Non-‐University Staff