Geographical inequalities and sub-national funding in Australia

This case study is the result of a review of intergovernmental transfers and other sub-national funding in Australia and to what extent these funding streams are designed and able to reduce geographical inequalities. The aim of this review is to draw out lessons for England, and the UK more broadly, in terms of how funding mechanisms can be used to better address spatial inequalities. The review is mostly based on desk research of academic and policy publications, complemented by interviews with several key informants in Australia, including academic experts and policymakers at the federal and state level. The review highlights several key issues relevant for the UK and English context, including the key role of horizontal fiscal equalisation in mitigating geographical inequalities, the importance of robust institutions protecting sub-national government autonomy, and bi-directional coordination and engagement between national and sub-national governments. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

Utilisation of funding

There is considerable interest in how funding is allocated to local stakeholders to address spatial inequalities and in the amount of funding that is available where. However, funding comes with rules on how, when, where and on what it can be spent. The focus of this review is on the factors influencing how funding is/ can be used to address local priorities that will address spatial inequalities and associated challenges and opportunities. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

First steps in canopy cover assessments: for all working in the built environment at a development site level

Trees provide a range of benefits for urban society, and generally, the larger a tree canopy, the greater the benefits. Urban Tree Canopy Cover (UTCC)1 assessment is a method of quantifying how much of a given area is covered by the leaves, branches, and stems of trees. It is usually expressed as a percentage. UTCC assessments can be completed using methodologies that look down from above which are particularly useful when taking a strategic approach to urban forest planning2. Assessment can also be performed at local scale. This First Steps guide focusses on Canopy Cover Assessments (CCA) that are completed using data directly collected on site, for example a proposed development site, for use primarily within the UK planning system to inform decision making

Devolution and subsidiarity

There has been a global trend towards devolution over recent years, with data showing that subnational authority has deepened in most countries around the world (Hooghe et al, 2023). The United Kingdom, however, remains a stark exception with an exceptionally centralised system of governance. This review examines some key issues relating to the prospect for greater fiscal devolution in the UK, including 1) the rationale for the devolution of funding, 2) the challenges devolution of funding pose for institutional capacity and capability in terms of both strategy and delivery, and 3) how English devolution has evolved and the implications for central-local relations. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

The Immediate and Long-Term Risks, Harms and Challenges Faced by Children Born of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (CBoCRSV) in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs): A Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA)

The objective of this Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) is to evaluate the immediate and long-term risks, harms, and challenges faced by Children Born of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence (CBoCRSV) in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). Conducted under the UK’s Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative (PSVI), the assessment focuses on the following research questions: What are the primary risks and challenges faced by CBoCRSV? What interventions are effective in promoting their well-being? How has the research landscape evolved in this field? Key findings from the analysis of 289 documents indicate that CBoCRSV often experience social stigma and exclusion, which can severely impact their ability to integrate into their families and communities. They face a higher risk of somatic symptoms, depression, and identity-related issues, increasing the prevalence of long-term psycho-social challenges and trauma. Many lack legal documentation, hindering their access to essential services such as education and healthcare. Financial constraints and social stigma often create additional barriers to education, while economic deprivation limits their access to basic needs and development opportunities. Family dynamics frequently involve tension and a lack of stable support, while prevailing cultural and religious beliefs can further contribute to their marginalisation in post-conflict communities. Effective interventions identified include psychological support programs, legal advocacy, community-based support, and educational and economic empowerment initiatives. However, their effectiveness remains largely unvalidated due to limited empirical research. The review also highlights significant gaps in the literature, particularly in underrepresented regions. The report concludes with policy implications and recommendations, advocating for strengthened legal frameworks, enhanced social support systems, economic inclusion, and improved access to education and healthcare. These measures aim to create a protective environment that reduces the risks, harms, and challenges faced by CBoCRSV, promoting their integration, development, and well-being

Ukrainian refugee children in UK schools: recommendations and resources for educators

Responding to the Russian full-scale aggression against Ukraine, the UK created special safe routes for Ukrainians fleeing the war, named the Ukrainian Schemes. These comprised three programmes – the Ukraine Family Scheme, the Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme, and the Ukraine Extension Scheme. As of 16 December 2024, a total of 218,600 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK via these routes since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, with 28% of them being under 18 years old.1 According to government statistics, over 20,000 school places had been offered to displaced Ukrainian children before the start of the academic year in 2022 when the largest number of refugees arrived.2 Approximately two-thirds of Ukrainians would like to stay in the UK even when it feels safe to return to Ukraine, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey conducted in April 2024,3 and our research confirms this desire to remain.4 Overall, British schools and local communities provided considerable support to displaced children, many of whom were able to successfully complete their education in British schools and start further study or work. This guidance highlights various challenges and experiences faced by Ukrainian children in UK schools, including cultural sensitivity, bullying, and the importance of talking with children about the war. The recommendations are designed to address these concerns and continue making schools welcoming and safe spaces

Text & Data Mining, & Copyright

Presentation delivered for "Text and Data Mining - Copyright Community of practice" University College London and Imperial College London, 12th November, 202

Geographically concentrating or spreading public funding

This report explores the advantages and disadvantages of concentrating versus spreading public funding across different geographical areas. It highlights the importance of considering both approaches systematically in relation to specific policy areas and their intended outcomes. The report emphasises the need for accountable and transparent governance processes, robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and increased investment in local institutions to enhance policymaking and delivery capacity. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

ESRC practitioner engagement: summary findings report

The final findings from Work Package 3, qualitative research based on the experience of policy practitioners, as part of the wider ESRC-MHCLG research project “Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities”. The report centres on a series of policy recommendations for change based around three key barriers; 1) Quantum and Prioritisation, 2) Centralisation, and 3) Capacity and Local Leadership The report found an over-reliance on competitive bidding, fragmentation of funding streams, short-term funding windows, unclear eligibility criteria, a politically-driven reliance on visible grant funding, a loss of good practice in private-public expertise, and an over-reliance on capital over revenue spending. We have heard that this [“Levelling Up” funding policy design] collectively represented a lot of unlearning of the best practice from the preceding forty-year period, from governments of all colours. “Levelling Up” took place in a context of unevenly declining local resources and public service pressures, making it hard to identify the possible impact with the allocated quantum of spending. We found consensus that the widespread diminution of local government’s capacity to deliver over the prior decade resulted in the loss of local initiative, proactive capacity and well-developed project pipelines …. One senior local authority figure detailed how their economic development team had contracted from 67 to just six core team members The resulting system was characterised by bottlenecks where local initiatives must await central approval … At its core lies what one senior civil servant characterised as a "painful" process of seeking approval for even modest project adjustments, reflecting the fundamental tension between central accountability and local delivery needs This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics

Geographical inequalities and sub-national funding in France

The aim of this review is to draw out lessons for England, and the UK more broadly, in terms of how funding mechanisms can be used to better address spatial inequalities. The review is based on desk research of academic and policy publications, as well as 11 interviews conducted with French academics and policy experts in summer-winter 2024. The review highlights several key issues relevant to the UK and English context, including how fiscal equalisation mechanisms and local fiscal autonomy and flexibility can support national government in addressing geographical inequalities. The report also provides insights into how the state can help local authorities with less capacity / expertise by providing support with developing funding bids. Accessing support from civil servants based regionally who have a strong understanding of regional needs can help facilitate relationship building and enable the development of stronger, more regionally responsive bids. This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC. The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics