Guidance

Partnerships for People and Place: guidance for local expressions of interest

Published 12 July 2021

Applies to England

Foreword

There are many incredible examples of local partnerships across the country coming together to deliver better outcomes for local places and communities. Local authorities and their partners have shown that, even in times of real challenge, people can come together in new ways to improve lives. It is important that government continues to play a role in strengthening these partnerships and looks internally to better understand how it can help empower local communities to develop and deliver innovative locally-led solutions, supported by coordinated policy at central government level.  

Opportunities to improve poor social and economic outcomes can be improved by join-up within and between government departments and local partners. ​This is particularly the case where ‘place-based’ policies – where funding or attention is targeted at a certain place – is deployed to tackle specific issues or create desired policy outcomes. The Partnerships for People and Place project aims to address this, facilitating greater coordination within and between central government and local places.

​The project, which is funded through thw HM Treasury (HMT) Shared Outcomes Fund, will analyse the interventions and impacts of central government departments and Arm’s Length Bodies involved (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; Home Office; Cabinet Office; Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs; Department for Education; Ministry of Justice; Department of Health and Social Care; Public Health England; Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Support; Department for Work and Pensions; Department for Transport and NHS England and Improvement) in up to 15 pilot places in England and work with partners in those pilot places and government departments to focus on a particular local challenge and to identify and evaluate interventions to address it. Working together with local areas and across government, it will test innovative, collaborative approaches and seek to drive long-term change across central and local government to provide better outcomes for people.

The project will support the “levelling up” agenda which aims to ensure that no community is left behind, particularly as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. The project will help people to be proud of their local community and support the government’s mission to unite and level up the country.

This document invites expressions of interest from long-listed local places which want to be part of this exciting pilot project. We know that the past eighteen months have been incredibly challenging and you are still responding daily to new pressures. In a time of unprecedented upheaval, we want to learn from the initiatives already taking place in local places, and build on this to create a better way of working within and between central government and local areas. The learning we capture will help to shape future policy and inform better, more joined-up ways of working. Most importantly, the project will ultimately help to improve outcomes for local communities and people.

We welcome your interest.

Luke Hall MP
Minister of State for Regional Growth and Local Government

On behalf of cross-government partners.

1. Introduction

This document sets out the aims and objectives of the Partnerships for People and Place project and provides guidance on how local authorities can apply to be part of the pilot. The long-term vision of the Partnerships for People and Place project is of local communities who are empowered to develop and deliver solutions to the problems that matter to them, whilst being supported in an efficient and joined-up way by both central and local government. The project aims to test the hypothesis that better co-ordination within and between central government and local places can improve efficiency and outcomes of place-based policy.

At Spending Round 2019, the government announced a new Shared Outcomes Fund to test innovative ways of working across the public sector. A £5 million fund has been committed for the Place Model, since renamed Partnerships for People and Place project, to pilot a new approach of policy design and delivery, focussing on place-based initiatives, which create better cross-government coordination. This is an exciting opportunity for local authority areas to be involved in a pilot project which will test a new way of working with central government to improve local outcomes.

Join-up within and between government departments and local partners remains a significant cross-cutting challenge. Collaboration within central government and between central government and local partners is required to better support improved outcomes. There is more to do to join up effectively at a national and local level and to test different approaches to drive change in the way central and local government work together and with individuals to improve outcomes. The Partnerships for People and Place project will bring together a selection of local areas that are committed to working with government and with each other over a two-year period (financial year 2021/22 to financial year 2022/23) to improve outcomes for people.

Together, the project partners will map the funding and delivery models used by central government and partners to those local places, and the outcomes they have sought to achieve, to identify the scope to improve efficiency and outcomes through more strategic joined-up working. It will test this in practice, by convening all the central government and local project partners to focus on addressing a very specific local challenge, with the aim of improving outcomes for people in that place. It will learn from what we observe at a central and local level about the barriers and enablers of a more joined-up way of working. It will use that learning to propose a new way of working between government and local partners that will shape future government policy.

This guidance document invites expressions of interest (EOIs) from long-listed areas that would like to be involved.

2. About the project

2.1 Aims and objectives

The long-term vision of the Partnerships for People and Place project is of local communities who are empowered to develop and deliver solutions to the problems that matter to them, whilst being supported in an efficient and joined-up way by both central and local government. To deliver this, the project will test the hypothesis that better co-ordination within and between central government and local places can improve efficiency and outcomes of place-based policy. The project will test and promote a more joined-up approach to support the delivery of improved outcomes for individuals. The programme seeks to make an impact:

• At central government level: improving coordination between government departments and their arm’s length bodies.

• Between central government and local places: improving coordination between central and local government.

• At an individual level: improving outcomes for people as a result of better central and local government coordination.

Our overarching objectives, against which progress will be measured are:  

• Analyse: Baseline and analyse place-based funding received in pilot areas and the outcomes that funding seeks to achieve.  

• Test: To identify a small set of priority outcomes, or single outcome, in pilot areas. Collaboratively identify and evaluate interventions that address local challenges and improve outcomes through improved coordination between central and local government and partners.  

• Connect: To establish scalable systems to simplify and streamline central and local government coordination in pilot locations.  

• Learn: To capture in real-time best practice place-based policy design and develop resources to share learning.   

• Propose: To describe new ways of working, operating models or structures which could help to tackle the issues we uncover – based on what we observe at central and local levels.

We recognise that different people will have different views about what ‘place-based’ working means for them. For the Partnerships for People and Place project, ‘place-based’ working:  

• Can be applied to a geographically defined area.  

• Involves collaboration to develop inclusive and flexible local solutions rather than centrally dictated policies.  

• Is defined, informed and delivered locally.     

We recognise that the kind of change outlined above takes time, and this project is time limited. In order for us to succeed in our aim to test new, better ways of working between and within central government and local partners, we will need to focus on clearly defined challenges and outcomes where we can show some – even limited – progress during the lifetime of the project. We recognise that we must be realistic about the outcomes we focus on and the change we expect to see over a short period of time. We expect that each pilot place will select – in collaboration with local stakeholders and our partner government departments - very specific challenges, focussed on particular postcodes or tightly defined groups. This is to provide a strong evidence base on which to build new ways of working.

2.2 Our ask and offer

At the heart of this project is a collaborative joined-up approach. We want to learn from and enhance local areas’ existing work and encourage local flexibility and creativity in delivery. Selected places will regularly share learning with other pilot places and have the chance to help influence central government policy. Local partnerships will be asked to agree to the project’s ‘Ask and Offer’, as set out below:

What are we offering

In addition to funding to facilitate project delivery, the project offers local authorities and local partners a number of opportunities, including: the chance to connect with senior government officials to help problem solve and trouble-shoot barriers identified at a local level; dedicated support from the central MHCLG project team and; external expertise and resource for mapping local funding and outcomes. 

The project provides local authorities:

• The opportunity to be involved in an innovative pilot project to deliver work led and informed by learnings from your past initiatives about the systemic barriers to improving outcomes. 

• Funding to each pilot area to facilitate project delivery (including project management, delivery and evaluation support – see ‘Evaluation’ section 2.5). This can be deployed in the way which best meets local needs and helps to build longer-term local capacity. More detail on funding can be found in Section 2.7.

• Dedicated MHCLG contact to work in close partnership, helping to connect local areas and escalate issues to central government department partners and promoting regular dialogue at local level. 

• Dedicated MHCLG project team to lead central project management, governance and coordinate mapping exercise and evaluation. 

• Opportunities to link with cross-government partners and trouble-shoot barriers to local delivery. 

• Opportunities for peer connections with other pilot places. 

• Access to an expert place working group to test ideas and seek advice in an informal environment. 

• Opportunity to influence central government policy through visits from senior government department officials and opportunities to present work and ideas to Director-level Government Place Board. 

• External evaluation of the project and opportunity to influence design of evaluation framework

What we are asking for from local authority partners

Being part of the project will mean we will ask you to use the available funding to deliver the project, including project management and engaging local stakeholders, delivery of interventions and evaluation. This will mean you and local partners will:

• Participate in a ‘mapping’ process which will be facilitated by MHCLG and an external supplier, which will baseline and analyse funding received in your area and the outcomes that that funding seeks to achieve. (See the ‘Mapping’ process at section 2.3).

• Agree, collectively between central government and local partners and stakeholders, including the local communities, a very focussed challenge that you would like to focus on to improve outcomes for this project. MHCLG will facilitate the discussion with central government departments and, if appropriate, local partners. More information about agreeing outcomes and interventions is in section 2.4.

• Agree, again collectively between central government and local partners and stakeholders, Value for Money (VfM) interventions which partners will deliver to address the challenge and improve outcomes. This will include showing how the planned interventions will lead to the outcomes using a ‘theory of change’ exercise and developing clear evidence to show the potential costs and benefits of the intervention, proving VfM. The analytical team and evaluation supplier will help you develop these if needed. 

• Work with central government and local partners, to deliver the proposed interventions and monitor progress, supported by the MHCLG project team. MHCLG will help to facilitate the discussion and agreement of interventions and ensure project progression through the project’s governance structures. More information about governance is in section 2.6.

• Participate in the evaluation of the project. MHCLG will commission an independent evaluation which will be combined with the ‘mapping’ work. The evaluation supplier will work with you to develop a theory of change and agree the relevant data needed for monitoring and evaluation, and how that will be collected. We will tailor this as far as possible to your existing data and analytical resources.

• Participate in the governance of the project:

  • Provide a working level lead and a senior official sponsor for the project who will champion the project locally. 

  • Provide local governance in the form of a Local Place Board and Local Place Working Group (which can be pre-existing groups used for the purpose of this project). These groups will dock into the project’s central governance to escalate issues and update on progress. More information about governance is in section 2.6.

  • Where an applicant is part of a Combined Authority, the Combined Authority should be a key partner in the project.

As part of the EOI form you are asked to confirm you will deliver the ‘ask’, set out above. 

2.3 The ‘Mapping’ process

Once pilot places are selected, in line with project objectives, the MHCLG team will facilitate each area’s ‘mapping’ process. The mapping process will baseline and analyse funding received in an area and the outcomes that the funding seeks to achieve. The purpose of the mapping exercise is to help identify potential duplications and efficiency improvements in the current system. This will build an understanding of the costs and benefits of better join up between central government and local authorities and partners, recognising that funding comes from and goes to a range of local bodies.

The mapping exercise will baseline the current system of central government inputs, outputs and outcomes in pilot areas. This will:  

a. allow for the identification of duplication and potential efficiency improvements, helping inform which outcomes are chosen as the focus of the pilot;

b. assist each area to understand the funding streams and resource available to achieve the outcomes they decide to focus on, informing which interventions to implement; 

c. act as a galvanising visual demonstration to promote cross-government working and highlight where improvements could be made. 

The project team intend to commission an external supplier to lead the mapping exercise. The contractors will engage across the government departments, bodies and local authorities and other local partners to map funding to local places onto local outcomes. The mapping process will include two levels of analysis set out below:

• Cross-government, Discretionary^{[footnote 1]} Funding: Mapping all discretionary funding streams from central government to selected pilot places (income and expenditure vs outcomes) in order to identify inefficiencies and support places in identifying outcomes. 

• Place-based, Outcome-focused: Mapping all funding (including wider non-government funding) against a specific outcome with activities and delivery models as a tool to identify interventions.

The mapping process will run in parallel to discussions to identify the local challenge that the project will seek to address. We hope that the findings of the mapping will inform the decision about what is a suitable challenge for the project and what interventions are implemented. It will also form a key part of the evidence base for the project – highlighting the potential quantitative benefits of more joined up working.

2.4 Selecting a local challenge/outcome and agreeing interventions

The ‘mapping’ process will provide evidence about the opportunity for more joined-up working between central and local government and partners. We will test this approach, learning about the barriers and enablers to this way of working, by focussing our project partners on a very specific local challenge and agreeing actions and activities to address this.

We want to work on challenges that:

• Matter to you locally and are informed by the people who are living with the negative effects of that challenge every day.
• Are well-understood in terms of the barriers to addressing the challenge and delivering better outcomes.
• Will help us test our hypothesis that better coordination between central and local government and partners will deliver improved efficiency and outcomes – so we are looking for challenges that you consider would benefit from join-up at a central government level as well as a local level, to unlock more strategic working.
• Can show some – even limited – progress during the lifetime of the project. We recognise that the kind of change we want effect takes time, and this is a short pilot project. We hope that by focussing on a very specific local challenge (perhaps covering a particular postcode or tightly defined group), progress can be measured during the length of the project.

MHCLG will facilitate a conversation between local authorities and partners and representatives from our partner government departments to agree which challenge each pilot area wants to focus on, and then facilitate further conversations about the interventions that different partners will deliver to improve outcomes. MHCLG will also work with pilot areas to develop an economic appraisal of potential interventions to ensure interventions offer VfM. We expect to run visits in September and October to pilot areas to help government department partners to better understand local challenges and enable those conversations to happen.

When the challenges/outcomes and interventions have been agreed, we would like pilot places, supported by the MHCLG project team, to track progress and escalate issues or non-delivery to the project’s central governance structures, which consist of a working-level steering group with representatives from all departments and a Director-level Government Place Board. More information about the project governance is in section 2.6.

2.5 Evaluation

The project will have a strong focus on monitoring and evaluation to inform future cross-government policy making and delivery approaches. The project will seek to maximise learning, working with a range of different places across the country, to build the evidence to inform future policy and ways of working within government.

Evaluation will be critical in order to capture learning about best practice in cross-government co-ordination and collaborative place-based policy design. MHCLG plans to commission an evaluation which will be carried out alongside the mapping exercise. The central evaluation team will work with selected places to support them to develop the evaluation framework for the project. As far as possible, these will draw on existing data rather than requiring new data to be collected.

2.6 Governance

As the aim of this project is focused on driving better coordination at multiple levels, the governance structures of this project will be very important to help facilitate collaborative and constructive decision making. Selected places will be required to participate in the groups set out below.

Governance at a central government level will be provided by the Director-level Government Place Board and the Government Place Working Group. These will provide decision-making and working level oversight for the project respectively and will include members from each of the partner government departments/bodies. These groups will also act as escalation points to help troubleshoot local issues. 

Local-level governance will be provided by a Local Place Board and Local Place Working Group. These can be pre-existing groups used for the purpose of this project, and we envisage these being coordinated by resource obtained by using the funding provided. The Local Place Board will consist of senior public, private, community and third sector leaders, and we expect it will meet quarterly to oversee the local projects and escalate issues to the central Government Place Working Group. The Local Place Working Group will consist of working-level public, private, community and third sector partners and we expect it will meet monthly to drive the delivery and design of the local project and will work closely with the Government Place Working Group to escalate issues where necessary.

We plan to bring together an expert forum; an independent group of academics and other experts to input into the project as a trusted group and discussion forum. This layer of governance will allow both the MHCLG project team and Local Place Boards to garner expert views at an early stage to ensure best-practice. ​

2.7 Funding

It is envisioned that funding will be in the range of £150,000 and £350,000 per area across the two years. When places have been selected we will provide a small amount of the project funding to support local authorities and partners to develop more detailed resourcing plans. The amount can be used flexibly, for core project and local partnership costs. Further details will be provided once bids have been assessed and the places selected.

As well as direct funding from government, local authorities will be supported by the MHCLG project team and also be able to draw on support from the mapping and evaluation provider, who will work closely with selected places to deliver the mapping work and evaluate the project. 

2.8 Timeline

The delivery period will be for two years across the 2021/22 and 2022/23 financial years. Below is a high-level projected timeline for the project:

• Q2 2021/22: EOI launched
• Q2 2021/22: Areas confirmed
• Q2 2021/22: Local set-up and engagement (including local governance and appointment of the project manager). External contractors for mapping and evaluation selected.
• Q3 2021/22: Outcome and intervention selection
• Q4 2021/22 - Q4 2022/23: Local delivery of interventions
• Q4 2022/23: Wrap-up and final evaluation
• Q4 2022/23: Project closure

3. Expressions of interest

3.1 Overview

This expression of interest (EOI) is open to local authorities who have been invited to complete an EOI. Local authorities invited to submit an EOI were chosen through a cross-government long-listing process which identified places where central government has a high number of ‘place-based’ initiatives taking place. A list of the longlisted local authorities can be found in Annex A.

This long-listing stage ensured the project works with places where multiple central government departments are delivering ‘place-based’ initiatives, to align with and to ensure it delivers on our overarching project aim: “To test the hypothesis that better co-ordination within and between central government and local places can improve efficiency and outcomes of place-based policy”.

Partner government departments told us what initiatives they were delivering which they defined as ‘place-based’ and where those initiatives were being delivered. We used that information to create a long-list of places by ranking local authorities according to: a) the number of place-based projects taking place in each area and; b) the number of government departments working in each place. We also ensured we had a spread of local authorities across the following characteristics: region, local authority type, rural-urban classification and deprivation (the Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to classify the ‘deprivation’ characteristic).

Local authorities long-listed through this process were invited to attend a series of webinars to understand more about the project. This EOI is the next stage of the site selection process. Whilst the EOI is only open to long-listed local authorities, it is being published on gov.uk to ensure openness and transparency about our methodology for site selection. This EOI will help central government partners to ensure we select areas which want to participate and where this project can build on existing work. Inviting EOIs will ensure the process is fair - applications will be judged by a cross-government panel using a consistent scoring system.

Find the EOI form on GOV.UK.

Each section of the EOI will be scored using a simple 1-5 framework. More detail on the scoring framework can be found below. All EOIs will be reviewed by a cross-government panel. Only one bid will be accepted per local authority. Director level sign off on the EOI is required. Recognising the short period for EOI submissions, sign off at this stage is an agreement in principle, subject to formal ratification by MHCLG and the local authority, which will be requested following EOI assessment.

3.2 Scoring framework

The purpose of this EOI is to identify which of our long-listed local authorities are willing to participate in this project; which have existing initiatives, strategies and networks on which this project can build (so we can hit the ground running in the time we have) and which have a sense of the challenges that they would like to address through this project. Strong responses will demonstrate previous experience of collaborative working between local partners, working with multiple government departments to deliver outcomes at a local level, and a clear sense of how this project will integrate with existing initiatives to work in new, innovative and collaborative ways, to address a suitable challenge/local issue.

The guidance below sets out further information on what we want to see in response to each question. Assessment of EOIs will be undertaken by the Partnerships for People and Place team, alongside cross-government partners. Recommendations for the final list of areas will be agreed by a cross-government panel, and subject to ministerial approval. The assessment panel will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government as to the allocation of funding. The final decision as to which applications receive what level of funding will rest with the Secretary of State.

EOIs will be scored to help inform the assessment process in line with the scoring framework set out below. However, the scoring of bids will not be the only factor in deciding which areas are selected. The project aims to generate learning and test a new way of working between central government and local areas. Therefore, we are seeking a balance of different regions of the country, mix of areas (urban/rural/coastal) and levels of deprivation. Information in applications may be shared with other government colleagues for the purpose of developing our understanding and informing wider policy development and best practice.

Each question will be scored 1-5 using the following framework:

1. Very poor demonstration/no evidence given: Response fails to meet project aim and objectives and minimum requirements for the question, as set out in guidance. Response is not deemed appropriate for the project.

2. Poor demonstration: Response provides weak evidence of meeting project aim and objectives and requirements for the question, and/or raises concerns about ability to deliver. This may be due to a vague description or lack of clarity on experience and clarity on outcomes, or inclusion of aspects that do not fit with project aims and objectives.

3. Acceptable demonstration: Meets most of the criteria. Response appropriate for the project and shows reasonable evidence of meeting most of the minimum requirements for the question and ability to deliver. Responses are clearly articulated for most aspects of the requirements, although some aspects may be vaguer or less well articulated.

4. Good demonstration: Response meets all the criteria and shows good evidence of meeting the project aims and objectives and requirements of the question. Activity is clearly articulated at all levels, realistic and appropriate to the project, and provides confidence in ability to deliver.

5. Excellent demonstration: Response strongly meets all the criteria and provides strong evidence of meeting the core aims of the project and requirements of the question. Clear and specific information is provided, providing a high level of confidence in ability and preparedness to deliver. Response demonstrates ability to work collaboratively with central government to deliver innovative solutions and improve local outcomes.

The table below sets out further information on how this scoring criteria will be applied to each question. As set out above, this scoring is a tool to help understand and assess your appetite and capability to inform our decision process – as well as inform any subsequent feedback and support to areas. It is not the only factor by which areas will be selected to join the project. All questions (Q1A, 1B & 2A) are weighted evenly.

Question	Assessment
Q1 A: Relevant experience	This question asks you to set out what experience you have bringing together partners to improve local outcomes in innovative ways and experience collaborating with multiple central government departments. 1. Very poor demonstration/no evidence given: Very limited demonstration of bringing together local partners and/or interaction with central government, and little or no evidence of working with multiple central departments on a project. 2. Poor demonstration: Weak evidence of working with local partners and/or central government. Some evidence of working using joined-up approaches, but activity may be vague or unclear or only refer to limited partners. 3. Acceptable demonstration: Evidence of working with multiple partners and government departments, although room for further clarity on some aspects of the response. 4. Good demonstration: Good evidence of working with range of partners and government departments, with a clear and specific example set out. Demonstrates new innovative ways of working to deliver better outcomes. 5. Excellent demonstration: Very good evidence of working with wide range of partners and departments in central government. Also provides strong evidence of taking collaborative innovative approaches to deliver improved local outcomes.
Q1 B: Integration with other initiatives	This question asks you to explain what existing initiatives, strategies and/ or networks this project could build on. This will help us understand how much we will be able to hit the ground running by plugging into strong existing structures which bring in a wide range of local partners, and sustain momentum beyond the life of the project. You may use the example you used in question 1 A if that is an existing initiative on which this project could build. 1. Very poor demonstration/no evidence given: Very little evidence of existing initiatives. 2. Poor demonstration: Lack of clarity on how this project will build on existing initiatives. 3. Acceptable demonstration: Evidence that this project will complement existing initiatives although room for greater clarity on some aspects of response, including how the place will build on existing work. 4. Good demonstration: Good evidence of commitment to build on and integrate with existing initiatives. Shows good intention to integrate with existing approaches/initiatives through this project. Good sense of local strategies in place which could support the project. 5. Excellent demonstration: Clear evidence of how this will complement existing programmes and align with other projects/programmes. Strong evidence of how will build on existing initiatives as part of this project. Clear evidence of local strategies in place which could support the project.
Q2 A: Local Outcomes & Challenges	This question asks you to set out more detail about the challenges that are a priority in your area, previous approaches taken to address them, and why you think they are suitable for this project. It will allow us to assess whether the challenges might be suitable for the project. Section 2.4 explains more about what sort of challenges may be suitable. 1. Very poor demonstration/no evidence given: Response does not identify priority outcomes/challenges. No reference to geographic area and/or population cohort. 2. Poor demonstration: Little evidence of local challenges and/or initiatives taken to address these. 3. Acceptable demonstration: Understanding of local challenges and outcomes and measures taken to address. Room for greater clarity in aspects of response. 4. Good demonstration: Response sets out clear challenges to address outcomes and appropriate approaches to address these, including what’s worked. Provides evidence of next steps to address identified local outcomes. 5. Excellent demonstration: Clear evidence of local challenges & outcomes (with reference to specific area and population) and why they are a priority. Strong demonstration of initiatives to address these. Provides confidence in ability to deliver improvements to local outcomes, working with local stakeholders. Sets out clearly why these outcomes are of interest for this project and what they would like to do next to address challenges and improve outcomes.

3.3 How to apply

Please complete the Expression of Interest (EOI) form found on GOV.UK and submit to [email protected] by midnight Sunday 1 August 2021. Please note only one bid will be accepted per local authority. If you have any further queries about the criteria and EOI process, please contact the team on the email address above.

Annex A: List of 34 longlisted local authorities

Local Authority	Region
Birmingham	West Midlands
Bradford	Yorkshire & Humber
Bristol	South West
Buckinghamshire Council	South East
Central Bedfordshire	East of England
Cornwall	South West
Derby	East Midlands
Doncaster	Yorkshire & Humber
Dudley	West Midlands
Durham	North East
East Sussex	South East
Gateshead	North East
Hackney	London
Hartlepool	North East
Kingston upon Hull	Yorkshire & Humber
Liverpool	North West
Luton	East of England
Medway	South East
Middlesbrough	North East
Newcastle upon Tyne	North East
North East Lincolnshire	Yorkshire & Humber
North Northamptonshire	East Midlands
Northumberland	North East
Nottingham	East Midlands
Rochdale	North West
Rotherham	Yorkshire & Humber
Sefton	North West
Sheffield	Yorkshire & Humber
South Tyneside	North East
Southwark	London
Stoke-on-Trent	West Midlands
Sunderland	North East
Wakefield	Yorkshire & Humber
West Northamptonshire	East Midlands

1. We are most interested in funding that is ring-fenced (both formally and informally) ↩