Learning from the Neighbourhood Agreements Pathfinder Programme
Source: data.gov.uk (2014-05-10)

Underlying data for research paper which sets out several suggestions that will help those interested in developing a Neighbourhood Agreement approach in their local area. In particular it provides guidance to practitioners on planning an Agreement, how to monitoring its effectiveness, and how to sustain local resident engagement.

Learning from the Neighbourhood
Agreements Pathfinder Programme 
 
 
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors, not necessarily those of the
Home Office (nor do they represent Government policy). 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
July 2012
 Occasional Paper 107
 
ISBN 978 1 84987 931 6 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
1 
 
Contents 
 
Summary 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
Introduction  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
Designing your Neighbourhood Agreement  
 
 
 
 
 
3 
Choosing your Neighbourhood Agreement Area 
 
 
 
 
4 
Selecting a lead partner 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
Developing your Neighbourhood Agreement 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
Engaging service providers 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 5 
Engaging residents 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 
Identifying and agreeing local priorities: the scope of the Neighbourhood Agreement  7 
Drafting the Neighbourhood Agreement 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
Delivering the Neighbourhood Agreement  
 
 
 
 
 
10 
Maintaining resident involvement 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
Monitoring your Neighbourhood Agreement 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
Perceived benefits 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
Conclusion 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12 
Appendix 1: research methodology  
 
 
 
 
 
 
14 
Appendix 2: Summary of Street Survey data 
 
 
 
 
 
15 
Appendix 3: List of priorities by area 
 
 
 
 
 
 
18 
 
 
 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
2 
 
Summary  
 
Neighbourhood Agreements are voluntary agreements between local service providers and 
residents. They are designed to improve local neighbourhoods and increase public 
satisfaction with local services.  The Agreement identifies and sets out agreed priorities for 
a local area, assesses how services and residents can work to address these priorities, and 
sets out standards of service.      
 
In March 2010, under the previous Government, the Home Office and Department for 
Communities and Local Government (CLG) provided funding and support to trial 
Agreements in 12 areas, known as ‘Pathfinders’. 
 
Research was commissioned by the Home Office on the design, delivery and development 
of Agreements in five of these Pathfinder areas.   The Agreements focused on a range of 
crime and antisocial behaviour issues.   The research involved focus groups with local 
residents, interviews with service providers, and, in four of the five areas, a street survey.   
 
This document aims to support residents and service providers who wish to put in place an 
Agreement in their local area by summarising the key recommendations and learning from 
this research. 
 
In thinking about the design of a Neighbourhood Agreement partners need to consider 
carefully the area the Agreement will cover and how this fits in with the existing boundaries 
and capacity of service providers and prior links with local residents. It is also important to 
select a lead partner that is trusted by the local community. This will help facilitate strong 
and effective engagement with local residents. Partners should consider early on in the 
design phase how the effectiveness of the Agreement will be monitored. 
 
The development of the Agreement involves firstly engaging with local residents and 
service providers to establish local priorities and then preparing a written version of the 
Agreement. A range of opportunities should be provided for local residents to get involved 
in developing the Agreement. These should aim to reach out beyond those who already 
have a background in community engagement. A wide range of approaches for 
disseminating information to local residents should be considered in order to ensure that 
public awareness of the Agreement is maintained. 
 
It is vital to sustain the involvement of residents throughout the delivery of the Agreement.  
 
This requires partners to have developed well-thought-out and long-term strategies to 
maintain resident engagement. Establishing some ‘quick wins’ will also help maintain 
momentum and promote the Agreement. 
 
Across most areas, both residents and service providers reported what they perceived as 
emerging benefits. In particular, service providers felt that they had gained a much better 
understanding of each other and the needs of the local community; this has helped them 
adjust local services to better meet local needs.  
 
Introduction 
A Neighbourhood Agreement is a voluntary agreement between local service providers and 
residents which sets out the standards that local services will provide to the public (what they will 
do, who will do it, and by when) and, in return, what the public are responsible for doing.  The 
overall aim of the Agreement is to improve local neighbourhoods and increase public satisfaction 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
3 
 
with local services.  Service providers and residents work together to identify local priorities and 
what can be done to address these. The agreed priorities and service standards should then be 
documented and available to the public as a reminder of what has been agreed. The approach aims 
to establish joint accountability between local services and residents as equal partners in the 
delivery of the Agreement and is underpinned by a commitment to empower the local community 
and strengthen local democracy.  
In March 2010, under the previous Government, the Home Office and the Department for 
Communities and Local Government (CLG) provided funding and support to trial Agreements in 12 
areas. This programme aimed to build on the practice and learning highlighted in a similar pilot 
called Community Contracts, which had been delivered by CLG in 2008–2009.1 The main difference 
between the Agreements and Community Contracts was that the Agreements were to focus 
predominantly on crime and community safety issues. 
The Home Office commissioned research to gather learning from the Pathfinder areas on the design, 
development and delivery of the Agreements and their perceived effectiveness in improving public 
confidence in a range of local services.2 The research adopted a mixed-methods approach which 
included focus groups with residents who had been involved in developing the Agreements and 
interviews with local service providers conducted both before and after the launch of the Agreement 
in five areas (see Appendix 1 for details on the research methodology).3 The research was also 
supported by surveys of the public in four areas (see Appendix 2 for further detail of the survey 
data). An overview of the five areas is provided in Table 1 below. 
Table 1: Overview of the five areas 
Area Lead partner 
Coverage 
Population Households 
A 
Local Authority  
2 wards 
38,151 
11,834 
B 
Police 
1 borough 
21,098 
8,871 
C 
Police 
3 wards 
28,560 
13,256 
D 
Registered Social Landlord 
1 estate 
628 
308 
E 
Local Authority 
1 borough 
18,064 
12,823 
 
This document summarises the key lessons and recommendations from the research and is intended 
to support residents and service providers who are considering establishing an Agreement in their 
local area. It is in three sections: designing your Agreement; developing your Agreement; and 
delivering your Agreement.  
Designing your Neighbourhood Agreement 
There were two main considerations in designing Neighbourhood Agreements:  
1) choosing the geographical area to be covered by the Agreement; and  
                                                            
1 Department for Communities and Local Government (2010) ‘An evaluation of the Community Contracts pilot 
programme’, Institute for Political and Economic Governance (IPEG), University of Manchester, January 2010. 
2 The research was carried out on behalf of the Home Office by ERS Ltd.  
3 The term ‘service provider’ is used here to refer to organisations that provide a service directly to members 
of the public living in a local area. In the context of Neighbourhood Agreements, service providers could 
include organisations such as: the police, fire service, local government, schools, and utilities providers.  
 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
4 
 
2) selecting a partner to lead the Agreement.  
Each of these is discussed in turn below. 
 
 
Choosing your Neighbourhood Agreement Area 
The Pathfinder locations varied considerably in size, ranging from a small estate of just over 300 
households to entire boroughs.  All five areas had benefited from some form of neighbourhood 
management prior to the development of the Agreement.  This provided some degree of existing 
infrastructure, capacity and history of dialogue between local service providers and residents.  
A number of factors were viewed as important in influencing the selection of the area to be covered 
by the Agreement. These included the identification of areas affected by high levels of crime and 
disorder, the presence of existing community engagement mechanisms and the commitment of local 
service providers to provide capacity to develop the Neighbourhood Agreement. The identification 
of local needs was generally supported by an analysis of local intelligence and data held by partners, 
usually conducted by the lead partner.  Undertaking a thorough needs analysis at the outset of the 
process was regarded as helpful, both in terms of selecting the Agreement area and identifying the 
key partners to be involved.   The definition of a neighbourhood is not always shared between 
residents and service providers and this needs to be considered when developing and subsequently 
communicating the Agreement. 
The size of the area governed the capacity required to develop the Agreement and the approaches 
taken to engage the local community. However, size was not the only influencing factor; it was 
possible to develop Agreements over larger geographies in areas where arrangements for engaging 
the community were already well established. Conversely, smaller areas not supported by effective 
community infrastructure could require more capacity and a longer development phase than much 
larger areas.  
In some areas, neighbourhood boundaries did not accurately fit with service delivery boundaries. As 
a result, the process of aligning the Agreement with service delivery systems was easier for some 
service providers than others. For example, in one area the council’s waste contractor had to 
restructure how they delivered their services to be consistent with other service providers. The 
location and size of the Agreement area was affected by what service providers wished to achieve, 
which included a combination of improving public confidence, empowering the local community, 
raising the performance of a specific service or tackling a persistent local issue such as antisocial 
behaviour.  
Selecting a lead partner 
Each area selected a lead partner which was responsible for the development of the Agreement.  
This role was undertaken by the police, the local council and, in one area, a housing provider. Whilst 
the selection of the area to be covered by the Agreement often highlighted a natural lead partner, 
this was not the only factor to consider.  Levels of community confidence, trust and satisfaction 
differ across service providers. It was generally felt important to select a lead partner that was 
trusted by the local community as this helped facilitate strong and effective engagement of 
residents. The process of agreeing the lead partner also took into account their partnership-working 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
5 
 
experience and their capacity and commitment to lead the process. The lead partner also had a key 
role in identifying available resources to support the development of the Agreement, including staff 
time, the use of local venues for meetings and budgets for printing and promotional activity.  The 
lead partner was agreed between local agencies prior to their submission of an application to the 
Home Office to become one of the Pathfinder areas.  
Each of the five Pathfinder areas nominated a dedicated member of staff to coordinate the 
development of the Agreement. In all cases the coordinator was located within the lead agency. This 
role was identified as a critical success factor: the coordinator provided a single point of contact for 
service providers and local residents and helped to ensure that momentum in delivering the 
Agreement was maintained. Both residents and partners indicated that the key characteristics of an 
effective coordinator included having hands-on experience of working in a community-based team 
or a public engagement role and an ability to work with, and where appropriate challenge, senior 
managers and politicians. The coordinator should also have experience of facilitating public 
meetings, strong negotiation skills and an ability to communicate effectively with a range of 
audiences.  
 Implications for practitioners: 
 
Think carefully about the geographic area the Agreement will cover, considering the 
boundaries and capacity of service providers and existing links with local residents. Undertaking 
a community profiling exercise at the outset can help to select the area and identify key 
partners. 
 
Identify a dedicated member of staff to coordinate the development of the Agreement and 
provide a single point of contact for service providers and residents. 
 
Developing your Neighbourhood Agreement 
Having decided on the geographic area to be covered by the Agreement, and identified a lead 
agency and coordinator, the next stage was engaging with service providers and residents to identify 
and agree local priorities. Examples of the approaches adopted by the Pathfinder areas are provided 
below. 
Engaging service providers 
All of the Neighbourhood Agreements were delivered in partnership with partner organisations 
which shared responsibility for the development and subsequent implementation of the Agreement. 
All five areas involved the police and the local authority and two of the areas involved the local fire 
and rescue service. Partners which were less commonly involved included Local Criminal Justice 
Boards and housing providers.  
The level of engagement of service providers and partners in developing the Agreement varied 
across the sites.  Lead partners used a range of approaches to obtain buy-in from other service 
providers such as the establishment of a dedicated steering group, disseminating a briefing paper, 
hosting workshop sessions and undertaking one-to-one meetings with key officers at different 
stages of the process. Lead partners perceived that it was important to get the right agencies on 
board at a decision-making level and with a strong commitment to the Agreement process rather 
than expending too much time on those unable to commit. 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
6 
 
Where appropriate, lead partners used existing partnership meetings to engage service providers 
and encourage their participation in the process. This approach was usually supported by follow-up 
meetings with individual service providers in order to achieve buy-in by those with decision-making 
powers (rather than simply relying on individual supporters within a service). Successful engagement 
of service providers was dependent on achieving a shared understanding of the concept of a 
Neighbourhood Agreement from the outset. Central to this was the ability to clearly identify the 
potential benefits for service providers of developing an Agreement in terms of improving service 
quality.  
Commonly, service providers reported that the main reason why they were motivated to be involved 
was to raise awareness of their particular service and to engage with the local community. A number 
of service providers also recognised the potential of the Agreement to generate cost-savings by 
reshaping existing service delivery and improving efficiency (e.g. by focusing on prevention and early 
intervention).  
As other studies have found, ensuring senior management buy-in across all partners was seen to be 
especially important for effective partnership working on the Agreement, for example in ‘un-
blocking’ barriers such as a lack of frontline officer commitment to the development process.4 Senior 
level endorsement was also important in securing buy-in from frontline staff and providing greater 
reassurance to residents that the commitments included in the Agreement would be honoured.  
Engaging residents  
Resident engagement is a core component in the process of developing a Neighbourhood 
Agreement. Close engagement involves a continuous dialogue between residents and service 
providers, with opportunities for residents to get involved and a two-way flow of information and 
views. Residents’ ability to take part in such a process was not well established across all sites and 
provision for building their capacity to become involved was not always factored in to planned 
timescales.  
Each Pathfinder area undertook an initial public consultation event which was used to publicise the 
steps to developing the Agreement and begin to consult on local issues and priorities. Service 
providers found that inviting key community groups and representatives was helpful in promoting 
the event more widely across the area. In each case the event was led by the lead partner with 
support from other service providers.  
Whilst some service providers had a history of engaging local residents, for others the approach was 
new. Several providers did not differentiate between different levels of engagement and used the 
terms ‘community consultation’, ‘community engagement’ and ‘community empowerment’, 
interchangeably.  In addition to public meetings, methods employed to promote engagement with 
local residents and identify local priorities included the use of surveys, leaflets and targeted 
presentations to local community groups.  The most effective approach was to offer a range of 
different   opportunities for residents to get involved throughout the development of the Agreement 
according to their level of interest, capacity and confidence. This ‘tailored’ approach was consistent 
                                                            
4 Berry, G., Briggs, P., Erol, R. and van Staden, L. (2011) ‘The Effectiveness of Partnership Working in a Crime 
and Disorder Context’, Home Office Research Report 52. London: Home Office. 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
7 
 
with the street survey responses which highlighted that there was no single resident preference for 
how or the extent to which they wanted to  get involved in local decision making.5  
At the time the research was conducted, none of the sites reported using social media to engage 
local residents but instead relied on more traditional methods for making contact and raising 
awareness. The use of local newspapers and radio provided a cost-effective method of promoting 
the benefits of an Agreement and how residents could get involved in its development.  In one area 
resident buy-in was sought using a problem-solving exercise based on a real life community safety 
issue. This approach was seen as effective by participating residents in improving their 
understanding of the roles and responsibilities of service providers.  
Despite the active role which some residents took, both service providers and residents expressed a 
belief that, in general, most residents were not interested in being actively involved with the 
Agreement. Typically, work on developing each area’s Agreement was supported by a core of 
residents (around ten) who attended planning and partnership meetings. The process of developing 
the Agreement was successful to varying degrees in encouraging previously unengaged residents to 
become active in their community by providing opportunities for them to channel their skills, 
knowledge and energy to work in partnership with service providers. Although this related to a small 
number of residents, the involvement of a small group of committed residents nevertheless 
provided valuable community input to support local problem solving.  
Identifying and agreeing local priorities: the scope of the Neighbourhood Agreement  
In most cases, the priority-setting process began with the service providers formulating a list of 
themes following an analysis of intelligence and data relating to the selected location. These were 
presented to residents at public meetings, which provided an opportunity for service providers to 
listen to the concerns of the local community and discuss ideas for improving local conditions.  
Residents across the five sites highlighted the importance of conducting priority-setting meetings in 
a transparent manner with reasonable opportunities for the community and service providers to get 
involved and sufficient time for residents to provide feedback on draft priorities. Generally, the 
issues identified through the public meetings were consistent with those identified through the 
analysis of local intelligence and relevant data (i.e. community safety and environmental data).  
The process of agreeing which priorities were included in the Agreement usually involved 
negotiation and compromise to establish a degree of consensus about the aspirations, concerns and 
constraints of both service providers and residents. It was important for partners to manage 
community expectations and initially prioritise improvements that were achievable in the context of 
the Agreement, i.e. that there was a realistic chance they could increase public satisfaction and raise 
the quality of life in the local area. Consequently, priorities included ‘crime and grime’ issues such as 
dog fouling, environmental crime and antisocial behaviour as well as drugs and alcohol. Identified 
priorities were generally consistent across the five areas although there were examples of priorities 
that were unique to a specific Agreement such as road safety, support for local businesses, 
homelessness, safeguarding children and victim support (see Appendix 3 for a full list of priorities for 
each area). In some areas residents wanted to expand priorities to also include those outside the 
                                                            
5 The street survey identified that the most popular methods for taking part in local decision making were by 
letter (33%), through open meetings (33%), via email (30%), at drop-in sessions (25%) and by resident 
groups/forums (23%). See Appendix 2 for further details. 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
8 
 
community safety remit such as education and health (but this was generally not adopted because 
partners felt that this was not the original intention of the Agreement).  
Service providers and residents reported that the Agreements accurately reflected local community 
safety priorities and provided a public benchmark against which future performance could be 
assessed.  
 
 
Drafting the Neighbourhood Agreement 
Having reviewed local data and intelligence and consulted with residents to agree local priorities, the 
next stage was to prepare a written version of the Agreement.  This involved setting out what the 
priorities were and the respective roles of service providers and residents in addressing them. 
The process of involving residents in the drafting process differed across the five areas: some areas 
submitted the draft Agreement to a small residents’ group for approval; others opted for wider 
consultation at a public meeting. In the focus groups, some residents felt their role in drafting the 
Agreement was too limited and they would have preferred a fuller role and more regular updates.  A 
lack of communication served to lessen resident interest in some areas or to raise concerns that the 
voice of the community was being lost in the process.  
In terms of the actual drafting of the Agreement, both residents and providers emphasised the need 
to use clear, succinct language and avoid jargon. The process of developing and sharing drafts with 
residents led to some agencies amending existing service documents to clarify the wording as they 
became aware that the community did not clearly understand the services they were providing. 
Even so, according to the street survey, nearly one-third of residents that had heard of the 
Agreement did not understand it.   
The structure and content of the final Agreements were not consistent across areas, though most 
stuck closely to a template from the Oldham Community Contract site that had been circulated as an 
example of successful practice by the Home Office.6  The inclusion of contact telephone numbers for 
services and emergencies was seen as critical to the success of the Agreement by both service 
providers and residents. The use of maps and photographs of the local area helped to engender a 
sense of community ownership.  However, not all of the Agreements listed their priorities in the final 
output, which served to diminish their value as a tool to hold local service providers to account and 
influence the proportion of residents who felt that their views were not listened to or acted upon.   
There was no standard format for the publication of an Agreement.  Some service providers opted to 
produce the Agreement as part of a calendar rather than as a stand-alone booklet, on the grounds 
that they were more likely to be used by residents, and therefore maintain the profile of the 
Agreement. Lead partners recommended that the output itself was of a high quality and 
professionally produced as this helped to reassure residents that service providers were committed 
to the Agreement. Feedback from residents consulted in the research focus groups was generally 
positive about the format of their respective Agreement.  
                                                            
6 The Neighbourhood Agreement developed in Oldham as part of the CLG Community Contracts pilot 
programme was considered as a successful model and was shared with the Pathfinder sites.  

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
9 
 
To launch the Agreements, some areas held events to which local residents and service providers 
were invited. Both residents and service providers regarded these as effective in engendering a 
shared sense of ownership of the Agreement and highlighting the partnership approach adopted.   
 The Agreements were distributed to local residents through a variety of dissemination methods 
including posting through letter boxes, arranging hand-outs at local schools and shops, and setting 
up stands in local amenities such as libraries and supermarkets.  While face-to-face methods 
provided opportunities for service providers to discuss the Agreement in more detail with members 
of the community, this was more resource intensive and not always feasible.  
Levels of public awareness of the Agreement varied across the areas with the percentage of 
residents polled reporting that they had heard of their local Agreement ranging from 13 per cent to 
38 per cent (see Table 2).  
Table 2: Awareness of the Agreement by area 
 
Format of output 
% of residents surveyed 
who had heard about the 
Agreement 
A 
Calendar 
13 
B 
Calendar 
24 
C 
Leaflet 
38 
D*  Booklet 
N/A 
E 
2 Booklets 
26 
* This area was excluded from the street survey as it was too small to produce reliable data. 
Given that in some Pathfinder areas the Agreement was posted to every residence, these figures 
highlight the need to explore alternative approaches to disseminating information to residents (i.e. 
social media and websites) and to support Agreements through on-going promotional activities.   
Implications for practitioners: 
 
Allow sufficient time for resident consultation to prevent having to rush the process.  
 
Provide a range of opportunities for residents to get involved in developing the Agreement 
dependent on their level of interest, capacity and confidence. 
 
Consider using a wide variety of mechanisms to gain resident buy-in to help develop the 
Agreement.  Try to avoid only engaging those with a background in community engagement 
and seek to establish a representative view of local residents. Explore innovative engagement 
methods including the use of social media and websites.  
 
Secure buy-in from senior managers across service providers with decision-making powers to 
contribute to the development of the Agreement. 
 
Encourage partners to embed both the Agreement and the time needed to develop and deliver 
it into their own work plans. 
 
Conduct priority-setting meetings in a transparent manner with opportunities for the 
community and service providers to get fully involved, alongside a clear timescale for providing 
feedback on draft priorities. 
 
Try and create a situation where all partners, including residents, can be actively involved in the 
drafting process and allow time for all parties to comment on the outputs as they develop to 
maintain interest and buy-in. 
 
Develop an appropriate communication strategy for how residents will be kept regularly 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
10 
 
informed of the progress made in developing the Agreement in order to maintain interest. 
 
Test-drive contact numbers to experience the service that residents will be receiving when they 
call. 
 
Develop a dissemination strategy with input from publicity or communications teams within 
partner organisations. Review the dissemination strategies used to find out how residents are 
finding out about the Agreement and their understanding of it. 
 
Delivering the Neighbourhood Agreement 
Following the development of the Neighbourhood Agreement, the partnership of service providers 
and residents becomes responsible for its subsequent delivery. The experiences of individuals in the 
pilot areas are outlined below. 
Governance structures to oversee the delivery of the Neighbourhood Agreement were put in place 
following its launch. One approach was to use existing groups which assumed responsibility for the 
Agreement by including updates as a standing agenda item. Alternatively, newly constituted 
resident-led groups were established. Partners and residents highlighted the importance of 
embedding the Agreement within existing ways of working and maintaining its profile with senior 
managers and the community. The main challenges following launch were around (a) maintaining 
both partners’ and public involvement in the Agreement and (b) monitoring the Agreement.   
Maintaining resident involvement 
The Agreement represents a partnership between local service providers and residents with a focus 
on working together to address local priorities. Each of the Agreements outlined the role of the 
residents in addressing specific priorities and as such reinforced the importance of their continued 
involvement.  
At the time the research was conducted, most sites had only just launched their Agreement and 
therefore there was limited evidence on the extent to which residents who had been closely 
involved in the drafting continued to be involved after the launch. A number of areas established a 
programme of training in order to build the capacity of local residents so that they felt able and 
confident to take on specific tasks.  One example of this was the use of Street Reps (also called Block 
Contacts or Street Champions) to support delivery of the Agreement. Street Reps were trained on 
how to undertake visual audits7 within their local area, how to approach problem-solving for local 
issues and how to report issues to service providers.  Once they had completed the training, it was 
envisaged that these residents would take on a number of roles to support the delivery of the 
Neighbourhood Agreement including monitoring against agreed service standards to assess 
compliance, discussing approaches to tackling issues with service providers and promoting the 
initiative within the community.  
Another approach taken by partners to maintain residents’ interest was to deliver some visible 
‘quick win’ projects which aimed to provide tangible evidence of the success of the Neighbourhood 
Agreement in improving local conditions (e.g. removal of fly-tipping or improvements to street 
                                                            
7 A visual audit is used to monitoring local conditions which may include the incidence of antisocial behaviour 
or the levels of street cleanliness. 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
11 
 
lighting). In another area the lead partner provided an incentive to residents to maintain their 
involvement in delivering the Agreement by establishing a ring-fenced community fund which could 
be spent on locally agreed priorities. The amount of funding available was to be determined by the 
success of the community in cutting the cost of managing the estate through a reduction in criminal 
damage, fly-tipping and antisocial behaviour.  
One difficulty reported by residents which influenced their motivation to stay involved was a lack of 
consistency in the service provider representatives attending partnership meetings throughout the 
development and delivery of the Agreement. They felt this in turn led to a lack of accountability 
within these agencies when it came to delivering the Agreement and meeting the agreed service 
standards. There was also a perception from some residents that the enthusiasm, dedication and 
commitment of senior level staff within local service providers waned once the Agreements were in 
place. This served to reduce the incentive and motivation of residents to volunteer their time to 
support delivery of the Agreement. 
Monitoring your Neighbourhood Agreement 
Whilst the process of developing the Neighbourhood Agreements was generally well managed 
across the five areas, the mechanisms for delivering and monitoring them were often not considered 
until after the launch. With hindsight, greater attention could have been directed to confirming how 
the Agreement would be monitored earlier in the development process.   
At the time the research fieldwork was completed, none of the areas had agreed their approach to 
monitoring delivery of the Agreement or mechanisms for assessing its impact. Partners reported 
that, in retrospect, the approach to monitoring should have been established as part of the process 
of designing and developing the Agreement.   
One of the main challenges reported by partners across all areas was that they struggled to obtain 
data which corresponded precisely to the area that the Agreement covered. This hindered efforts to 
establish a robust system of monitoring the standards included within the Agreement. With 
hindsight, some partners indicated that they would consider data availability before defining the 
area the Agreement was to cover.  Failing to do this made it difficult to evidence any improvements 
in service performance to the local community. 
Whilst some partners did report an intention to review and refresh their Neighbourhood Agreement 
on a regular basis to ensure that emerging issues or wider priorities were addressed, at the time of 
the research no additional resources had been secured for this. Maintenance of the Agreement was 
largely dependent on integrating it into mainstream service delivery (e.g. the Agreement becoming a 
standing agenda item at local partnership meetings and the continued input and support of local 
residents).  
Perceived benefits 
At the time that the research was conducted it was too soon to assess whether there had been any 
substantial changes following the introduction of the Agreement.  Despite this, both residents and 
service providers across most areas reported what they perceived as emerging benefits.   
Service providers felt that they gained a much better understanding of each other and the needs of 
the local community; this helped them to adjust local services to better meet local needs.  Some 
service providers also felt that the process of developing the Neighbourhood Agreement had led to 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
12 
 
the establishment of ways of working which had the potential to lead to a more efficient way of 
delivering services (e.g. replacing ineffective consultation structures and supporting early 
intervention to avoid more expensive demands on services in the future).  
Some of the residents who took part in focus groups reported that the Neighbourhood Agreement 
process had provided opportunities for them to get involved in local decision making. This served to 
increase the capacity and motivation of the community to work in partnership with local service 
providers.  
Residents in one area reported improvements to the local environment which they had attributed to 
the Agreement.  These improvements had instilled a greater sense of pride in their community for 
residents.  In another area, an increase in the number of residents reporting issues to service 
providers was believed to be linked to the Agreement. This had provided valuable intelligence to 
ensure resources could be directed to better meet local needs.   
Participants in several areas reported evidence of existing community groups being strengthened 
through their involvement in the development of the Agreement (e.g.  increased membership and 
closer, more meaningful relationships developing with service providers).   In this context, service 
providers hoped that residents would feel more confident to challenge service providers and, by 
having a better understanding of how they operate, identify opportunities for the community to get 
involved.  
Implications for practitioners: 
 
Plan long-term resident engagement strategies, not just for the development of the Agreement 
but throughout its delivery. The production of a community engagement plan will help to 
clarify the approach for both service providers and residents. 
 
Establish baselines and achievable targets against which to measure the Agreement. Think 
about data availability and how the progress of the Agreement can be monitored (this could 
influence the geographic area that the Agreement covers). 
 
Formalise the role of service providers, emphasising the need for consistent representation and 
a contingency strategy should personnel change. 
 
Establish some ‘quick wins’ that are both practical and visible to ensure momentum is 
sustained and opportunities to promote the Agreement realised. 
 
Consider using incentives to sustain resident involvement in delivering the Agreement. 
 
Set aside enough time both for delivering the Agreement and resources for tasks such as 
publicity.  Think about how services can contribute ‘in-kind’ rather than just relying on 
monetary input. 
 
Conclusion 
This paper has sought to summarise the key findings from research into the Neighbourhood 
Agreement Pathfinder Programme. It makes several suggestions to help those interested in 
developing a Neighbourhood Agreement type of approach in their local area.  
When selecting the area that the Agreement will cover it is important to think carefully about the 
boundaries and capacity of service providers and existing links with local residents.  The monitoring 
of the Agreement is more likely to be effective if this is considered in the development stage.   
Baselines and targets against which the success of the Agreement can be measured should be 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
13 
 
established at the beginning of the process.  A range of opportunities should be created for residents 
to become involved in developing the Agreement and building the capacity for residents to get 
actively involved is also essential.  Furthermore, maintaining momentum and commitment to deliver 
on the Agreement is important to its success.  Well-thought-out long-term engagement strategies 
will help with this and will keep residents engaged through the delivery of the agreement, not just 
during its development.   
For many service providers, the final Agreement was an extension or formalisation of how they 
already engaged communities in setting local priorities. However, for some, involving residents in 
shaping their service delivery was a new approach. Consequently, for these service providers the 
process has provided valuable learning about the needs of the local community and informed service 
reshaping to a greater extent.  
 
 
 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
14 
 
Appendix 1: Research methodology 
The research focused on five of the 12 Neighbourhood Agreement Pathfinder sites, covering a range 
of geographical areas and population sizes (from 300 to over 12,000 households). All five sites 
published their Neighbourhood Agreements between October 2010 and February 2011. 
The study team conducted interviews with representatives from service providers and focus groups 
with local residents involved in developing the Agreements. The first phase of interviews took place 
in the Summer/Autumn of 2010, (during the development phase of the Agreements).  The second 
phase of interviews took place in Winter/Spring 2011 (once Agreements had been launched).  In the 
majority of cases the same individual was interviewed twice, but this was not always possible, such 
as where a post had ceased to exist or where people had moved on. A total of 39 service providers 
were interviewed during the first phase and 33 in the second phase. A total of 31 residents 
participated in focus group sessions across the five sites in each phase. All interviews and most of 
the resident focus groups were recorded and transcribed and then analysed using a coding 
framework to identify key themes as well as similarities and differences across the five sites.  
The street survey took the form of a ten-minute survey which was carried out in four of the five 
Pathfinder areas, with one site excluded as it was too small to produce reliable data. The survey 
included a range of questions relating to involvement in local decision making, awareness of the 
Neighbourhood Agreement, satisfaction with local services and mechanisms for reporting issues to 
service providers.  
The number of people surveyed in total was 1,277. The survey team was deployed to specific 
locations where they were likely to have the opportunity to interview significant numbers of people 
and who would represent a good cross section of the local community.   
Data were subsequently weighted to provide overall results that reflected the profile of each local 
area, with a quota sampling methodology used to ensure that there were a minimum number of 
responses in each category of respondent. The quota sampling methodology has the benefit of 
preventing the likelihood of extreme weights that can often be a problem in survey weighting. 
Three sets of weights were calculated for the survey data. These were a Local Weight, a weight 
specific to particular questions and an additional England and Wales weight, not used for reporting 
purposes. In each of the three weightings, the weight has been calculated using a raking 
methodology (considered a better alternative to cell weighting, especially in the context of relatively 
small sample sizes). 
Local Weights were calculated to match the demographic profiles of Age, Gender, Ethnicity and 
ACORN Category8. For the Local Weights, weighting was carried out for each of the neighbourhoods 
surveyed independently. Question Weights were applied where the answer to one question 
determined whether or not subsequent questions could be answered.  This meant the sample 
became self-selecting and had the potential to be unreliable.  As a result, responses across the four 
areas were aggregated and weighted. 
 
 
                                                            
8 ACORN is a geodemographic segmentation of the UK’s population which segments small neighbourhoods, 
postcodes, or consumer households into five categories, 17 groups and 56 types (www.caci.co.uk). 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
15 
 
Appendix 2: Summary of Street Survey data 
 
Table 3: Demographics of respondents across all sites 
Demographic details of respondents 
Gender  
Count 
% 
Male 
595 
47 
Female 
682 
53 
Age 
16–24 
214 
17 
25–34 
216 
17 
35-44 
194 
15 
45–54 
155 
12 
55–64 
209 
16 
65–74 
156 
12 
75 or over 
98 
8 
Refused/Prefer not to say 
35 
3 
Ethnic Group 
White British 
1,094 
86 
White Irish 
14 
1  
Any other White background 
29 
2  
Mixed White & Black Caribbean 
4 
0  
Mixed White & Asian 
2 
0  
Asian or Asian British Indian 
2 
0  
Asian or Asian British Pakistani 
85 
7 
Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi 
6 
1 
Any other Asian background 
7 
1 
Black or Black British Caribbean 
10 
1 
Black or Black British African 
4 
0 
Welsh 
20 
2 
n=1,277 (question asked to all respondents) 
 
 
 
 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
16 
 
Table 4: -Have you heard about your local Neighbourhood Agreement? 
Q : Have you heard about your local Neighbourhood Agreement?  
Response 
Count 
% 
Yes 
261 
20 
No 
1,005 
79 
Don’t know 
11 
1 
n = 1,277 (question asked to all respondents) 
Table 5: How did you become aware of the Agreement? 
Q: How did you become aware of the Agreement?  
 
Response 
Count 
% 
Something coming through the letterbox 
79 30  
Newsletters/leaflets 
53 20  
Article in local newspaper  
51 19  
Word of mouth 
50 19 
Attended local meeting 
16 6 
Visit by Police/Housing/Council 
12 5 
School 
6 2 
Work meeting 
5 2  
Posters 
5 2  
Door-to-door/one-to-one meetings 
5 2 
TV 
2 1 
Residents’ Association 
2 1 
Neighbourhood Watch 
2 1 
Local drop-in centre 
2 1 
Calendar in office 
1 0 
Survey 
1 0 
Facebook 
1 0 
Local radio 
1 0 
Trailer on local industrial estate  
1 0 
Email 
1 0 
Library 
1 0 
Website 
0 0 
n = 261 (question asked only to respondents who had heard about their local 
Neighbourhood Agreement) 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
17 
 
 
Table 6: Do you understand the Agreement?  
Q : Do you understand the Agreement?  
Response 
Count 
% 
Yes 
148 
56 
No 
76 
29 
Don’t know 
39 
15 
n = 263 (question asked only to respondents who had heard about their local 
Neighbourhood Agreement) 
 
Table 7: When taking part in local decision making which methods do you prefer? 
Q: When taking part in local decision making which methods do you prefer?  
Response 
Count 
% 
Open meetings 
212 
33         
Residents’ meetings/groups/forums 
148 
23 
Via  a local resident representative 
47 
7 
Drop-in centre 
165 
25 
Online forums 
98 
15 
By letter 
217 
33 
Personal visit to my home  
39 
6 
Telephone calls 
59 
9 
Email 
195 
30 
Magazine/newsletter 
138 
21 
Events at Community Centre 
49 
8 
Meeting in the pub 
41 
6 
Youth forum 
22 
3 
Local radio 
75 
12 
Text messages 
68 
11 
1-1 meetings 
17 
3 
Local street meeting 
56 
9 
Other (Please specify) 
24 
4 
n = 649 (question asked to those who responded ‘yes’ or ‘depends’ when asked ‘Generally 
speaking would you like to be more involved in decision making with the police and the local 
council that affects your local area?’) 
 
 

LEARNING FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD AGREEMENTS PATHFINDER PROGRAMME 
 
18 
 
Appendix 3: List of priorities by area 
 
Lead partner 
Agreement priorities 
A 
Local Authority  Improving our local environment 
Fighting crime and protecting people 
Tackling antisocial behaviour, drugs and alcohol consumption 
Working with young people 
Supporting local businesses and improving our shopping centres 
Prevent, protect and respond to fire and road traffic collisions 
B 
Police Crime 
Antisocial behaviour 
Positive activities for young people 
Responding to fire 
Environmental quality 
Trading standards 
Resident involvement 
C 
Police Antisocial behaviour 
Reporting crime 
Dog fouling 
Recycling/bins 
Thoughtful driving/speeding 
Respect/noise nuisance 
Getting involved 
Everyone is equal 
D 
Registered  
Social  
Landlord 
Community safety- – Crime reporting, antisocial behaviour, graffiti,  block security 
Environment – Rubbish and fly tipping, dog fouling, green spaces and communal yards 
Community –Getting involved/influencing decisions, children and young people 
Housing Management – Repairs, letting properties 
E 
Local Authority Environment 
Refuse and recycling domestic waste 
Looking after the streets 
Litter 
Dog fouling and animal welfare 
Graffiti, illegal distribution of flyers and fly posting 
Illegal tipping and abandoned vehicles 
Parking on the highway 
Looking after public open spaces 
Derelict sites 
Responsible tourists 
Safety 
Safeguarding children and vulnerable adults 
Antisocial behaviour 
Criminal damage and theft 
Under-age drinking and drug misuse 
Victim support 
Homelessness 
Fire safety 
Road safety 
Parking on the highway 
Responsible tourists