Skip to main

Impact case study database

The impact case study database allows you to browse and search for impact case studies submitted to the REF 2021. Use the search and filters below to find the impact case studies you are looking for.
Waiting for server

Supporting Local Policy and Practice to Mitigate Intergenerational Inequalities for Disadvantaged Young People, Families and Communities.

1. Summary of the impact

Social Mobility is a noted national policy problem and Derby has been identified as a ‘Social Mobility Cold Spot’. Research at UoD by Nunn, Hargreaves, Dodsley, Bowers-Brown and Gray has impacted on local policy and practice for disadvantaged children, young people, families and communities. The research has shaped the implementation of national and local schemes designed to transform the lives of children, young people, their families and communities. The research used participatory and action research methods to impact on the interventions and, through this, on the lives of the participants, on an ongoing basis.

2. Underpinning research

In 2016, the Social Mobility Commission announced that Britain had a ‘deep social mobility problem’ and identified a series of ‘cold spots’. Derby was identified as one of these and ranked 303rd from 324 local areas. In the absence of effective national policy solutions, local initiatives have increased prominence. The city was chosen as one of six ‘Opportunity Areas’ (OAs). Our research has shaped many of the local interventions that have developed to mitigate and reduce intergenerational inequalities and to support disadvantaged children, families and communities. Much of the research is supported by small-scale external funding linked to local action research and evaluation projects [G3.1-7]. The relevant thematic findings are:

1. Aspiration, class and the contradictions involved in educational and social mobility focussed interventions. In 3.1 Bowers-Brown uses intersectionality and Bourdieu’s theory of social reproduction to explore the inculcation of aspiration in school-aged girls. The research finds that in their attempts to accumulate valued ‘capitals’, girls are encouraged to internalise self-images in ways that represent ‘symbolic violence’ and ‘misrecognition’. The resulting understanding of aspiration guides our applied work on local interventions.

2. The reproduction of intersectional inequalities within and between households over time. Building on research before joining UoD (e.g. Nunn, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2016), 3.2 draws interdisciplinary insights from varied literatures to chart how the reproduction of inequalities in the UK is changing, particularly how households respond to state retrenchment, labour, housing and credit market adjustments. It proposes the twin novel concepts of Household Social Reproduction Strategies and Compound Inequalities to understand how household behaviour responds to extant inequalities and the effects of this in exaggerating existing income inequalities, including between generations.

3. Research on local social policy implementation identifies how policy implementation can both amplify and mitigate the political content of national policy programmes. Hargreaves and Nunn [3.3] explore the implementation of the Troubled Families Programme in one local context, finding that the intentions of the national programme were frustrated by local managers and social workers. 3.3 reports findings from research with these professionals and families supported by the programme to show that local implementation adopted a strategy of ‘Contingent Coping’ at two levels: (a) institutional practice; and (b) family strategies. In 3.4, Nunn offers new insights into the ways that public management systems, and (fast) policy transfer between and across spatial scales, can create or mitigate specific formations of inequalities in particular places. It highlights the role of local innovation, experimentation and ‘variegation’ in management practice which helps to create path-dependent localised patterns in the mitigation and/or generation of inequalities. It also shows how practice often fails and ‘fails forward’ as it confronts local political and socio-economic conditions.

4. The potential of arts-based research methods for working with vulnerable young people. In 3.6, Dodsley and Gray outline the potential for arts-based methods, particularly performance, to explore young people’s emotional, age and gender specific, fear of crime and its effects.  In 3.5, Bowers-Brown, Dodsley and Nunn further find that arts-based methods can be used in a way that merges data collection, care and justice-oriented activism.

5. Research on local interventions with vulnerable young people. Building on the findings above, Nunn, Bowers-Brown and Dodsley [3.5] focus on an arts-based intervention with Looked After Children and Care Leavers in Derby, which forms part of local efforts to improve social mobility. The paper suggests the long-term negative outcomes experienced by this group can be understood as ‘social harm’ and that the intervention explicitly contests these. The research builds on 3.2 to show how the intervention helps participants cope with the reproduction of poverty and inequality and the wider harms that this generates, alongside attempts to challenge the reproduction of inequality itself. It finds that the intervention combined an internal ‘ethics of care’, in sustained mutually supportive relationships between young people and artists, and an external ‘ethic of justice’, contained in artistic outputs produced by the programme and targeted at changing practice in the care and arts sectors. It demonstrates the scope for, and mechanisms by which, arts and cultural interventions can address intergenerational inequalities in a particular place.

3. References to the research

All underpinning research outputs are in recognised peer reviewed journals or peer reviewed edited books. UoD researchers are indicated by black, underlined text:

3.1 Bowers-Brown, T. (2018) ‘“It Was Noticeable So I Changed”: Supergirls, Aspirations and Bourdieu’. In Stahl, G., Wallace, D., Burke, C., Threadgold, S. (eds.) International Perspectives on Theorizing Aspirations: Applying Bourdieu’s Tools. London: Bloomsbury, pp.145-160. ISBN 978-1-3500-4033-5.

3.2 Nunn, A., and Tepe-Belfrage, D. (2019) ‘Social reproduction strategies: Understanding compound inequality in the intergenerational transfer of capital, assets and resources’. Capital & Class, 43(4), 617-635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0309816819880795.

3.3 Hargreaves, C., Hodgson, P., Mohamed, J. N. and Nunn, A. (2019) ‘Contingent coping? Renegotiating “fast” disciplinary social policy at street level: Implementing the UK Troubled Families Programme’, Critical Social Policy, 39(2), 289-308.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018318780094.

3.4 Nunn, A. (2019) ‘Neoliberalization, fast policy transfer and the management of labor market services’, Review of International Political Economy, 27(4), 1-21. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2019.1625424.

3.5 Benaton, T., Bowers-Brown, T., Dodsley, T., Manning-Jones, A., Murden, J., Nunn, A. and The Plus One Community. (2020) ‘Reconciling Care and Justice in contesting Social Harm Through Performance and Arts Practice with Looked After Children and Care Leavers’, Children and Society, 34(5), 337-353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12370.

3.6 Dodsley, T., and Gray, E. (2020). ‘Resistance and Reproduction: An Arts-Based Investigation into Young People’s Emotional Responses to Crime’. The British Journal of Criminology, 456-475. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa063.

Key grants

G3.1 Funding from UNITAS for Research on Arts Interventions and Crime Desistance (2015–2019).  PI: Hargreaves. Amount: GBP59,500.

G3.2 Funding from Derby and Nottingham Collaborative Outreach Programme for Participatory Action Research and Evaluation on the Derby Cultural Education Partnership Plus One scheme (2018–2019). PI: Nunn. Amount: GBP19,000.

G3.3 Funding from Derbyshire County Council and Careers and Enterprise Company (2018–2019). PI: Nunn. Amount: GBP8,344.

G3.4 Funding from Derby County Community Trust for Participatory Research and Evaluation of #ThisIsDerby (2019).  PI: Nunn. Amount: GBP20,950.

G3.5 Funding from the Arts Council, via Derby Theatre, to undertake Research and Evaluation on the impact of Arts and Performance on Young People’s Skills and Social Inclusion (2019–2021). PI: Nunn. Amount: GBP20,969.

G3.6 Funding from the Arts Council, via Derby Theatre, for Research and Evaluation on the impact of the Derby Creative Arts Programme as an example of the role of performance in ‘Place Making’ (2019–2021).  PI: Nunn. Amount: GBP42,000.

G3.7 Funding from D2N2 (Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire Local Enterprise Partnership) for Research on the Employment and Skills Impact of HS2 in the East Midlands (2017–2018). PI: Nunn, working with the East Midlands Chambers of Commerce. Amount: GBP25,250.

4. Details of the impact

Pathways to impact

Embedded image The impact is on local practitioners and policymakers working with vulnerable people and communities. Pathways include ongoing interaction with local policymakers and practitioners, invited presence in governance structures (Nunn is/was a member of the Derby Stronger Communities Board, the Derby Opportunity Area Broadening Horizon’s Group and Coventry City of Culture Evaluation Technical Group), reporting and presentation of research and evaluation findings [5.1.1-5]. Concepts, theoretical understanding [3.1-4] and methods [3.5, 3.6] developed in the underpinning research are applied through local evaluation and action research and translated to practice via formal policy and practice recommendations, informal dialogue and training for practitioners [5.2.4].

Action research and evaluation studies are also often the testing ground or sources of data for new underpinning research (e.g. [text removed for publication] 3.5 used data from 5.1.3). Applied projects involve co-production with practitioners and scheme beneficiaries [5.1.3], resulting in co-authored underpinning research [3.5, and others forthcoming]. This means underpinning research may appear alongside or after the impact rather than in a linear fashion, and there are blurred boundaries between practitioners, researchers and beneficiaries [see 5.4]. Pathway research projects were supported by external funding [G3.1-G3.7] and resulted in reports [5.1.1-5] detailing findings, recommendations and links to the underpinning research. They often focus on specific local data or service implementation, but clearly draw on ideas and analysis developed in the underpinning research. Recognition of impact is in testimonies from practitioners [5.2, 5.3] and through success in competitive external processes [5.5].

Impact on methods of research, engagement and co-production

3.5 and 3.6 document methods of research and engagement with young people that are used and developed in 5.1.3 and 5.1.4. The role of practitioners in making policy work locally [see 3.3, 3.4] shapes the focus on practice. Methods, values and ethical commitments arising from 3.1-3.3 shape the overall approach to co-production which now goes beyond individual outputs to underpin a shared research agenda between researchers, practitioners and beneficiaries [5.4].

Impact on organisational capacity

Evaluation, action research and training projects have been used to develop the understanding of complex social problems among local policymakers and practitioners, drawing on the underpinning research to do so. This has helped to develop local organisational capacity to address those social problems. For example, Roma Community Care (RCC) reported that an evaluation project, “boosted staff confidence and organisational capacity in what and why they do the work that they do” [5.2.1]. Derby County Community Trust (DCCT) reported that the research, “gave us a valuable insight into social mobility…allowed us to make sense of the scope and size of the problem and understand the wider determinants of social mobility” [5.2.2]. Derby Theatre (DT) said the research, “helped us understand the nature of social mobility” and how young people develop, “essential life skills and confidence” [5.2.3]. Derby Cultural Education Partnership (DCEP) said that the research had allowed them, “to shape a tool for facilitators to use with young people to identify…key Essential Life Skills and how we could measure the impact…” [5.2.4] Voluntary and community sector organisations involved in training suggested that they had developed increased confidence in applying for funding and that they had strengthened their evaluation and data collection capacity [5.2.4].

Impact on practice and policy

Improved capacity helped to shape policy and practice in these organisations and others. For RCC and DT, the research helped them introduce and sustain new monitoring and evaluation techniques. DCEP changed the staffing involved in their Plus One scheme [5.2.4]; engaging a Therapist to deal with risks identified by the research [3.5 and 5.1.3]. DCCT have developed new partnerships and both they and the now extended #ThisIsDerby partnership have used the research to support training to artists and coaches on how concerns with social mobility [as in 3.1, 3.2, 3.3] might shape their professional roles, interaction with young people and how best to develop wider essential life skills alongside sports and artistic skills [5.2.2-4]. Care workers who participated in a major national conference as part of G3.2 reported that they would change their practice [see 5.3]. For example, “…challenge my team – ensure what’s written about [young people] they have signed off” [3.5, 5.1.3]. An arts funding organisation said they would develop a scheme similar to Plus One and other arts practitioners suggested the same: “We will be using the info/connections/research from today to inform arts/theatre projects in Essex and East London”. Responding to the research, one local authority Virtual Head (responsible for the education of Looked After Children) in a different part of the Midlands said that the research had increased their understanding and they would change their practice because of the findings and that the research, “…is really valuable for ensuring that a good quality Arts offer remains available to our young people”. In addition, the research is feeding into national policy; data from G3.4 is being used to support DfE policy on Essential Life Skills and cultural capital [5.5].

Impact on funding and sustained services

Beneficiary stakeholders involved in the pathway projects have used the research to help them secure financial support. RCC attribute the research to a GBP25,000 grant enabling them to sustain youth club services for 12 months [5.1.1]. The research helped DT and DCEP gain GBP180,000 to support the Plus One Scheme for three years and GBP2,300,000 of Arts Council funding [see 5.2.2-5.2.4] to extend arts participation in the three year Reimagine and Creative Arts Network projects, resulting in further research [G3.5, G3.6]. Both these projects are underpinned by further Cultural Needs Analysis research which draws on the underpinning research [5.1.5]. This utilises the understandings of the reproduction of inequality [3.1, 3.2], the role that local interventions might play in this [3.4] from the underpinning research and contributes to the targeting and design of local initiatives [3.3]. DCCT [5.2.2] suggest the research helped them secure GBP300,000 to extend the sports elements of #ThisIsDerby for a further 12 months. One of the organisations trained in methods from the underpinning research used their enhanced capacity to secure additional funding [5.2.5].

Impact on beneficiaries

The ultimate beneficiaries are service users who benefit from improved and/or sustained services. It is difficult to quantify this comprehensively but, in indicative terms, c.60 young people regularly attended the RCC Youth Club which was improved and sustained for 12 months; c.20 families regularly benefit from the Plus One scheme which has been improved and extended for three years; c.3000 young people had c.25,000 sessions as part of #ThisIsDerby and the sustained sports programme will impact on a similar number for a further 12 months. The Reimagine/CAN projects will benefit c.2,000 young people, c.190 artists, c.700 participants and c.23,000 audience members over three years. The ongoing research [5.1.4-5] finds that young people benefit from enhanced skills, confidence and social inclusion; families and communities benefit from enhanced social cohesion; and community facilities have been rejuvenated by these schemes [5.4]. This was acknowledged in the # ThisIsDerby project winning The Guardian University of the Year Award for Social and Community Impact [5.5].

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

5.1 Evidence group of reports which document ongoing evaluation and action research projects:

5.1.1 [text removed for publication].

5.1.2 Nunn, A., Cayli, B., Hargreaves, C., Dodsley, T. (2018) Effectiveness of RCC Services to Reduce School Exclusion among Young People from the Roma Community in Derby. Derby: University of Derby.

5.1.3 Report to Derby Cultural Education Partnership: Nunn, A., Bowers-Brown, T., Dodsley, T., Murden, J., Benaton, T., Manning-Jones, A. and The Plus One Community. (2019) Contested Cultures of Care: Research with and for the Plus One Community on the Plus One Experience - Evaluation Report. Derby: Derby Theatre.

5.1.4 Dodsley, T., Hargreaves, C., Nunn, A. and Price, S. (2019) This is Derby Evaluation Report. Derby: Derby County Community Trust.

5.1.5 Nunn, A. and Turner, R. (2020) Derby City Joint Cultural Needs Analysis for the Derby Creative Arts Network and Reimagine Projects. Derby: Derby Theatre.

5.2 Evidence group of letters of support from partners documenting impacts:

5.2.1 Letter of support from the Director, Roma Community Care, Derby (09-12-2019).

5.2.2 Letter of support from the Head of Community Activities, Derby County Community Trust (20-12-2019).

5.2.3 Letter of support from the Head of Learning at Derby Theatre.

5.2.4 Letter of support from the Cultural Education Producer for Derby Cultural Education Partnership.

5.2.5 Letter of support from the Skills Coordinator, Community Chesterfield (02-12-2020).

5.3 Examples of quotes from attendees at the Culture Cares Conference (30-10-2018).

5.4 Film documenting the relationship between researchers, practitioners and beneficiaries in a shared research programme. Available at:  https://youtu.be/jO9xiHwhetY (Accessed: 07-12-2020).

5.5 The Guardian University of the Year Awards 2020**: G3.4 was part of the project awarded the prize for Social and Community Impact. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/25/social-and-community-impact-award-winner-and-runners-up (Accessed: 07-12-2020).

Additional contextual information

Grant funding

Grant number Value of grant
G3.1) No number £59,500
G3.2) 91519 £19,000
G3.3) 92040 £8,334
G3.4) 92220 £20,950
G3.5) 92307 £20,969
G3.6) 922770 £42,000
G3.7) 91467 £25,250