Gloucestershire Active Together Evaluation Final Report

Book English OPEN
Baker, Colin ; Courtney, Paul ; Kubinakova, Katarina ; Ellis, Liz ; Loughren, Elizabeth A ; Crone, Diane (2017)
  • Publisher: University of Gloucestershire
  • Subject: RA0421

Background and methodology\ud \ud Gloucestershire County Council’s (GCC) Active Together (AT) programme aimed to help encourage more participation in sport and physical activity across the county and was open to a range of community groups, from sports clubs to scout groups and parish and town councils, and schools.\ud \ud In September 2014 the University of Gloucestershire was commissioned Public Health Gloucestershire to evaluate the AT programme as a means of establishing evidence of whether the programme is a good way of using funds to encourage greater participation in health enhancing activities. \ud \ud Using a mixed methods approach incorporating a Social Return on Investment framework at its core, the evaluation sought to understand and value the changes that occurred as a consequence of projects implemented with AT funding, and to develop delivery and evaluation blueprint as a resource for other organisations and similar programmes.\ud \ud Findings of the SROI exercise suggest that every £1 invested in Active Together has returned £7.25 to society in the form of social and economic outcomes across the three outcome domains of community connections and resources, education and skills, and health and wellbeing. \ud \ud A number of process factors and participant experiences are discussed, with recommendations made for future commissioning and research.
  • References (12)
    12 references, page 1 of 2

    Aeron-Thomas, D., Nicholls, J., Forster, S., & Westall, A. (2004). Social Return on Investment: Valuing what matters. London: New Economics Foundation.

    Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2010). The ambitions and challenges of SROI. Birmingham: Birmingham University Third Sector Research Centre.

    Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

    Department of Health (2006). Our Health, Our Care. London: The Stationary Office.

    Department of Health (2010). Measuring Social Value. London: The Stationary Office.

    Harlock, J. (2013). Impact measurement practice in the UK third sector: a review of emerging evidence. Birmingham: Birmingham University Third Sector Research Centre.

    Kemper, E. A., Stringfield, S., & Teddle, C. (2003). Mixed methods Sampling Strategies in Social Science Research. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (Eds). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 273-296). London: Sage.

    Leck, C., Upton, D., & Evans, N. (2014). Social Return on Investment: Valuing health outcomes or promoting economic values? Journal of Health Psychology. Published online before print November 28, 2014. doi: 10.1177/1359105314557502.

    Lyon, F., & Arvidson, M. (2011). Social impact measurement as an entrepreneurial process. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Third Sector Research Centre.

    Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., & Neitzert, E. (2012). A Guide to Social Return on Investment (2nd ed). London: Office of the Third Sector, The Cabinet Office.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    University of Gloucestershire, Research Repository - IRUS-UK 0 51
Share - Bookmark