Manchester  Beacon  for  Public   Report  Title   –  Interim  Evaluation   Engagement      

Final  Report  for  Steering  Board     August  2010  
    Registered  Name:  EKOS  Ltd   Registered  Office:  St.  George’s  Studios,  93-­‐97  St.  George’s  Road,  Glasgow,  G3  6JA   Telephone:  0141  353  1994   Web:  www.ekos-­‐

                                        EKOS  Quality  Assurance  Record       Name  and  email   Madeline  Smith   Nicola  Graham   Regina  Trenkler-­‐Fraser   Suzanne  Munro   Lorna  Bryson     Madeline  Smith    

  Prepared  by:  

Date   16  August  2010     16  August  2010     16  August  2010    

Proofed  by:   Quality  Controlled  by:  

If  required,  copies  of  this  document  are  available  in  large  print  by  contacting   the  author  direct.  

  As  part  of  our  green  office  policy  all  EKOS  reports  are  printed  double  sided.  


Executive  Summary   1.  
1.1   1.2   1.3   1.4  

1   9  
9   9   10   11  

Background   Evaluation  Aims  and  Objectives   Approach  and  Method   Structure  of  the  Report  

2.1   2.2   2.3   2.4  

The  Manchester  Beacon  
Governance  and  Management  Arrangements   NWDA  Beacon  Objectives   Manchester  Beacon  Objectives   Alignment  of  Objectives  

12   14   15   16  

3.1   3.2  

Supported  Activity  
Funding   The  Projects  

19   20  

4.1   4.2   4.3   4.4   4.5  

Feedback  from  Stakeholders  
Role   Rationale   Performance  against  Expectations   Objective  1  –  PE  is  Encouraged  and  Supported   Objective  5:  Deeper  Partnership  Working  

24   24   24   26   27  

4.6   4.7   4.8   4.9  

Other  Manchester  Beacon  Objectives   Additionality   Value  for  Money   Future  Development  Issues  and  Opportunities  

30   31   32   33  

5.1   5.2   5.3   5.4   5.5  

Feedback  from  Participants  
Background   Feedback  from  University  Staff   Feedback  from  Non-­‐University  Staff   Important  values  in  public  engagement   National  Survey  Responses  

35   36   43   49   50  

6.1   6.2   6.3  

Performance  Against  Objectives  
NWDA  Objectives   Manchester  Beacon  Objectives   Strategic  Added  Value  

57   60   62  

7.1   7.2   7.3   7.4   7.5  

Learning  Points  and  Recommendations  
Conclusions   Issues  and  Learning  points   Learning  for  NWDA   Learning  for  Beacon  and  Other  Funders   Recommendations   Appendices  

66   67   71   72   74   78  



Executive  Summary  
Introduction   This  report  sets  out  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  of  the  Manchester  Beacon   for  Public  Engagement,  focusing  on  the  North  West  Development  Agency’s   (NWDA)  funding  contribution.   The  Manchester  Beacon  is  one  of  six  centres  involved  in  a  UK-­‐wide  initiative,   funded  by  the  Higher  Education  Funding  Council  for  England  (HEFCE),   Research  Councils  UK  (RCUK),  and  the  Wellcome  Trust.    The  four  year  UK-­‐ wide  Beacons  for  Public  Engagement  initiative  (2008/12)  seeks  to  bring   about  culture  change  in  the  way  HEIs,  their  staff,  and  their  students  reach   out,  listen,  and  engage  with  the  public.     Manchester  Beacon  is  a  partnership  between  University  of  Manchester   (UoM),  Manchester  Metropolitan  University  (MMU),  University  of  Salford   (UoS),  Museum  of  Science  and  Industry  (MOSI),  and  Manchester:  Knowledge   Capital  (M:KC).   The  Manchester  Beacon  secured  additional  funding  from  April  2008  to   March  2010  from  the  NWDA.  Although  the  focus  of  this  evaluation  is  the   NWDA  funding  which  concluded  in  March  2010,  it  is  in  effect  an  interim   evaluation  of  the  whole  programme,  which  should  inform  the  remaining   delivery  time  (to  December  2011)  and  input  to  discussion  of  the  future   direction  of  such  initiatives.   NWDA  Beacon  Objectives     In  April  2008  NWDA  allocated  £240,000  for  Beacon  related  activity.  The   specific  objectives  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  for  the  NWDA  funding  were:   • to  achieve  significantly  improved  understanding  and  appreciation  of   the  universities  and  institutions  in  the  local  area  by  residents  of  the   local  communities  by  March  2010;   to  achieve  much  improved  understanding  and  appreciation  of   neighbouring  communities  by  the  universities  and  institutions;   to  put  in  place  a  number  of  (in  the  region  of  five)  sustainable   engagements/projects  that  involve  academics  working  with  local   communities;   to  develop  a  cadre  of  up  to  40  academics  with  an  enthusiasm  for,  and   experience  of,  working  with  deprived  communities;  and  

• •

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   1  

  • to  help  catalyse  an  uplift  in  the  number  of  local  residents  (in   particular  those  from  deprived  communities  with  no  prior  contact   with  the  Higher  Education  Institutions)  with  a  positive  attitude   towards  working  in  the  universities  and  other  major  employers,  or   studying  at  (or  with  help  from)  those  HEIs.  

Manchester  Beacon  Objectives     Five  themes  and  objectives  were  articulated  and  adopted  by  stakeholders  in   the  Manchester  Beacon.  These  are  described  in  more  detail  below:                Priority:  Behaviour  change   • Objective  1:  Public  engagement  is  encouraged,  valued  and  supported     • Objective  2:  Change  perceptions  and  improve  accessibility     Priority:  Increasing  Engagement  level   • Objective  3:  Increasing  the  relevance  of  institution  activity  and   connectivity  with  communities     • Objective  4:  Improve  the  opportunities  for  sustainable  two-­‐way   learning     Priority:  Deeper  partnership  working   • Objective  5:  Develop  deeper  partnership  working  across  the  Beacon   partners  and  with  the  community     The  overall  objectives  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  are  strongly  aligned  with,   and  contribute  to,  NWDA’s  funding  objectives  for  the  Manchester  Beacon.   Supported  Activity   A  total  of  seven  sustainable  engagement  projects  were  delivered.  The   projects  were:   ArcSpace  Manchester     UoM  Development  Awards     Community  Leadership  Programme   Cultural  Awards     Community  Science  Awards     MMU  Public  Engagement  Fellowships  (funding  levered  by   MMU)   o Networking  and  Events  (e.g.  Comixed,  Mapping  Creativity,   Beacon  Summit  match-­‐funded  by  HEFCE,  RCUK,  Wellcome   Trust  funding).     o o o o o o Many  of  these  projects  involved  several  individual  research  and   collaboration  projects,  involving  academics,  cultural  organisations  and   community  partners.  A  total  of  29  individual  collaborative  projects  have   been  supported,  many  more  than  the  five  sustainable  projects  originally   anticipated.    
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   2  

  Feedback  from  Stakeholders   In  depth  consultation  took  place  with  20  different  partners  and   stakeholders.   Management  and  Structure   The  management  and  delivery  of  the  programme  is  viewed  to  be  effective   and  the  project  is  felt  to  be  well  managed.  The  management  and  governance   structures  (with  the  various  committees  and  working  groups)  took  a  while  to   be  organised,  but  are  now  viewed  to  be  working  well.     The  team  is  credited  with  driving  forward  the  project  successfully.  The   approach  is  viewed  to  have  been  creative  and  energetic,  if  challenging.  The   support  from  senior  champions  across  the  partners  is  seen  as  crucial  and  has   been  very  strongly  endorsed  across  the  Manchester  Beacon.   PE  Priorities   The  work  of  the  Beacon  was  felt  to  have  strongly  influenced  the  PE  priorities   of  the  organisation,  especially  at  a  strategic  level.  PE  is  now  evident  in   strategic  documents,  faculty  plans,  grant  applications,  specific  appointments   and  is  being  built  into  promotions  and  performance  criteria.  More   profoundly  the  approach  used  by  the  Beacon  has  been  adopted  in  other   Public  and  community  engagement  endeavours.   Partnership  Working  and  collaboration   Although  there  is  a  long  history  of  partnership  working  between  the   partners,  new  relationships,  and  further  collaborations  were  built  because  of   the  Beacon.  It  was  highlighted  that  each  partner  brings  different  strengths,   but  they  all  had  slightly  differing  agendas  (i.e.  Research  focussed  or   Community  engagement  focussed),  which  can  be  a  challenge.  MOSI’s   inclusion  as  a  cultural  partner  was  viewed  to  have  added  a  great  deal  to  the   programme,  bringing  a  non-­‐HEI  perspective,  PE  professionalism  and   expertise.  Furthermore,  M:KC’s  supporting  role,  civic  links  and   understanding  of  the  Beacon’s  innovative  approaches  has  been  pivotal.   It  was  felt  that  the  approach  to  engagement  with  the  community  has   changed  from  “doing  this  to”  people  to  co-­‐creation  and  an  improving  sense   of  treating  all  as  equals.  In  addition  there  was  viewed  to  be  a  better   understanding  about  the  diversity  and  richness  of  the  community.   Other  Beacon  Objectives  and  wider  benefits   The  vast  majority  of  those  who  responded  felt  that  the  image  of  the   organisations  had  improved  with  the  community,  with  93%  feeling  that  the   institutions  were  more  important  and  relevant  to  the  local  communities.     Access  to  facilities  was  seen  as  a  more  difficult  issue,  although  improvement   had  been  made  in  certain  areas.    

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon  

  All  of  the  respondents  felt  that  without  the  Beacon,  although  some  PE   projects  would  still  have  happened,  they  would  have  been  slower,  of  lower   quality,  and  lesser  impact.  The  investment  in  the  Beacon  was  viewed  as   having  had  a  large  impact,  through  influencing  and  catalysing  further   benefits,  and  reaching  a  high  number  of  people.  The  Beacon  was  also  felt  to   be  contributing  to  wider  benefits,  including  leading  learning,  developing   capability  and  establishing  Manchester  as  a  centre  of  good  practice.   Future  focus   The  main  focus  for  the  Beacon  until  the  end  of  the  current  funding  was  felt   to  be  to  build  on  the  good  work,  to  embed  the  change  of  culture  and   reinforce  the  behaviours  across  the  institutions,  to  sustain  impact.   Mainstreaming  PE  and  broadening  engagement  beyond  the  initial   enthusiasts  was  important,  as  well  as  exploring  more  joint  projects.   Participant  benefits   A  total  of  31  participants  contributed  to  the  evaluation  through  in  depth   telephone  interview  and  online  surveys.  Both  Staff  and  Community  group   members  identified  positive  learning  and  personal  benefits   A  large  majority  of  community  members  reported  an  improved  relationship   between  the  university  and  the  local  community  and  felt  the  university  was   better  connected  with  the  local  community  than  before.  For  university  staff,   92%  of  respondents  felt  that  the  university  has  a  better  understanding  of  the   local  community  and  was  better  connected  as  a  result  of  the  Beacon  project.   Participants  reported  gaining  new  skills  and  knowledge,  increased   confidence,  interest  in  new  ideas  through  their  involvement  as  well  as   enjoyment.    Significantly,  a  very  high  proportion  either  had  already  taken,  or   planned  to  take,  further  action  as  a  result  of  their  participation.   A  parallel  analysis  was  undertaken  from  a  wider  survey  of  staff  as  part  of  the   UK-­‐wide  study  of  the  Beacons.  Whilst  70%  of  respondents  to  this  survey   reported  that  they  felt  the  work  culture  of  their  institution  was  supportive   towards  PE  activities,  only  19%  reported  that  they  believed  that  the   institution  rewards  those  who  take  part  in  PE  activities.  Of  those  surveyed  in   the  Manchester,  65%  agreed  that  engagement  with  communities  had   increased.   Performance  against  objectives   This  evaluation  evidences  that  the  programme  has  delivered  well  against  the   NWDA  objectives  set  at  the  start  of  the  funding.  In  many  cases  the  more   quantitative  elements  have  been  exceeded,  and  evidence  gathered  shows   improvements  in  the  more  qualitative  objectives.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   4  

  An  assessment  has  also  been  made  against  Manchester  Beacon  Objectives,   and  good  progress  is  evidenced  here  as  well.    In  particular  Objective  1  (PE  is   valued  and  rewarded)  and  Objective  5  (deeper  partnership  working),  which   in  some  ways  are  the  underpinning  objectives  of  the  Manchester  Beacon,   both  showed  good  evidence  of  improvement.   Issues  and  Learning  points   Partnership   The  partners  involved  are  very  diverse,  with  different  strengths  and  different   expectations.  This  diversity  means  they  can  learn  from  each  other.  The   cultural  partner  of  MOSI  has  brought  different  strengths  to  the  programme   and  M:KC  has  helped  bring  support  and  an  understanding  of  innovation.   There  is  a  long  history  of  partnership  working  across  the  partners.  However   the  Beacon  has  allowed  new  partnerships  to  be  built,  new  relationships  to   be  formed,  and  a  deepening  of  trust.  A  key  factor  for  the  Manchester   Beacon  is  the  real  commitment  from  the  top  across  all  institutions.   Approach   The  approach  taken  by  the  Manchester  Beacon,  of  listening  in  the  first  year,   although  always  part  of  the  original  proposal  in  the  Beacon  bid,  has  been   challenging  for  some.  However  the  consensus  seems  to  be  that  this  has   improved  the  quality  of  delivery,  and  they  are  now  doing  better  PE  and  not   just  more  of  it.   Manchester  Beacon  is  seen  as  one  of  the  leading  Beacons  UK-­‐wide.  The   approach  taken  by  the  Manchester  Beacon,  the  diversity  of  the  partnership,   and  the  emphasis  on  local  communities  and  two-­‐way  engagement  differs   from  other  Beacons.  The  importance  of  senior  champions,  the  relatively  well   resourced  team  and  the  diversity  they  have  managed  to  engender  are  all  key   elements  in  this  success.   Structure   The  matrix  structure,  where  the  team  is  part  of  the  Beacon  but  hosted  in   their  home  institution,  has  brought  both  positives  and  negatives.  Whilst   positive  in  that,  the  team  members  are  all  embedded  within  their   organisation,  it  is  challenging  to  effectively  try  to  align  two  agendas.   The  working  groups  structure  and  their  purpose  took  time  to  be  established,   but  are  now  more  structured.  As  the  programme  goes  into  its  final  stages,   they  need  to  make  sure  they  put  forward  concrete  recommendations  to  the   leadership  group.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   5  

  Overcoming  barriers   Language  is  identified  as  a  big  barrier  in  initial  stages  of  engagement.   Building  confidence  and  capacity  is  a  strong  enabler  towards  two-­‐way   engagement.  Many  of  the  projects  initiated  by  the  Beacon  tackle  this  issue.   Building  trust  is  a  key  challenge.  It  is  based  on  personal  relations  and  takes   time  to  develop.  The  role  of  the  Beacon  in  using  engagement  through   networks,  events  and  projects  to  facilitate,  channel  and  build  connections   has  helped  overcome  this.   Learning  from  experience   There  are  good  examples  of  learning  from  earlier  projects  feeding  into  new   project  development,  showing  the  value  of  a  partnership  programme,  where   learning  can  be  shared.  Both  success  and  failure  can  feed  into  this  learning.   Following  sharing  and  dissemination,  it  is  also  important  to  address  what  is   going  to  happen  next  as  a  result  of  the  project/intervention  to  ensure  they   are  not  just  projects  in  isolation  that  then  have  no  longer  term  impact.  This   is  a  key  element  in  building  sustainability  and  long  term  change.   Broker  /  Catalyst  role   The  importance  of  the  beacon  team  as  a  broker  and  channel  for  linkages   should  not  be  underestimated.  This  works  both  between  the  partners  and   with  the  community.   Early  adopters   As  is  inevitable  in  a  change  management  programme,  those  most  engaged  at   the  early  stages  will  be  those  who  were  already  enthusiastic  and  early   adopters.  This  is  also  true  for  community  participants  where  the  most   interested  are  the  ones  most  likely  to  become  involved.    This  does  allow  a   small  minority  to  accuse  the  Beacon  of  not  going  far  enough  and  playing   safe.  There  is  evidence,  however,  that  new  people  are  becoming  engaged  as   the  programme  progresses.   Raising  Expectations   One  risk  in  the  Beacon  approach  is  that  having  successfully  raised  demand   and  built  capacity  within  the  community,  this  raises  expectations.  If  this  is   not  sustained  this  may  disappoint  the  community  partners  and  the  trust   reinforcing  these  relationships  will  be  damaged.  This  is  a  key  issue  for   sustainability.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   6  

  Embedding  long  term  change    At  present  the  beacon  team  have  built  networks  and  relationships,  but  this   is  linked  to  the  individuals,  and  is  still  disconnected  from  the  institution.   With  senior  support  and  on  the  ground  projects  there  is  a  top  down  and   bottom  up  approach.  However,  there  are  still  many  staff  for  whom  PE  is  still   seen  as  an  optional  activity.  Recognition  and  incentives,  and  systems  and   processes,  such  as  performance  objectives,  can  help  in  this  agenda  become   embedded.   Whereas  the  impact  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  (especially  given  the  size  and   scope  of  the  project)  should  not  be  overstated,  it  nevertheless  has   influenced  and  catalysed  a  whole  range  of  changes,  improvements  and   connections,  and  built  a  momentum  behind  its  activities.   Learning  for  NWDA   • innovative  approach  -­‐  the  approach  taken  by  the  Beacon  is   innovative,  involving  engaging,  listening,  and  identifying  needs  and   mutual  benefits.  There  is  potential  learning  here  for  other  initiatives   where  engaging  diverse  partners  with  differing  agendas  is  at  the  core   of  the  programme;   build  across  strengths  -­‐  as  part  of  the  Beacon  programme  the   Universities  have  worked  closely  in  partnership,  together  with  MOSI   and  M:KC.  This  is  a  city  wide  approach,  which  respondents   considered  to  enhance  civic  pride  and  build  Manchester’s  reputation   as  a  centre  of  good  practice;   high  Strategic  Added  Value  -­‐  this  project  has  delivered  high  SAV   returns.  Through  leverage,  influence  and  particularly  the  catalytic   role  of  the  Manchester  Beacon,  this  has  been  evidenced  through  the   evaluation;  and   maximising  assets  -­‐  for  NWDA  a  key  purpose  of  investment  was   maximising  the  assets  of  the  Manchester  corridor  and  building   coherent  and  attractive  place.  By  promoting  and  adopting  genuine   two-­‐way  engagement  practices  and  building  capacity  and   connectivity  with  the  local  community  the  Beacon  has  helped   engender  a  more  connected  environment.    

Learning  for  Beacon  and  Other  Funders   • partnership  -­‐  a  major  strength  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  has  been   the  partnership.  This  deeper  level  of  partnership  should  continue  to   be  built  upon  and  other  opportunities  explored,  including  the  future  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   7  

  plans  for  public  and  community  engagement  and  knowledge   exchange  activity;   • role  of  broker  -­‐  the  Beacon  team  has  established  itself  as  an   important  broker  in  making  connections  and  helping  develop   linkages.  The  next  step  is  to  widen  this  element  of  connectivity.     commitment  from  the  top  -­‐  one  of  the  successes  of  the  Manchester   Beacon  is  the  level  of  senior  commitment,  with  strong  champions   across  all  partners.  This  needs  to  be  reinforced  and  embedded  within   systems  and  processes  that  demonstrate  the  value,  incentivise  and   recognise  PE;   continual  learning  -­‐  the  learning  from  pilots  and  practice  tested   through  the  Beacon  needs  to  be  continually  reviewed  and  absorbed   into  new  approaches.  Understanding  of  barriers  and  how  to   overcome  them  has  helped  inform  new  activity.  Ensuring  this   environment  for  learning  is  not  lost  once  the  current  Beacon  funding   has  concluded  is  an  issue  to  be  considered  for  the  future;   capturing  impact  and  benefit  -­‐  the  learning  from  this  evaluation   process  will  be  embedded  into  internal  evaluation  processes,   including  a  review  of  the  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Framework   (M&EF),  language  and  processes  used  and  for  the  final  evaluation  to   maximise  capturing  of  impact.  In  particular  capturing  the  benefits   and  impacts  of  interventions  should  be  a  high  priority.  In  addition   consideration  of  how  to  coherently  gather  community  perception  of   improved  image  and  relevance  should  be  explored.  It  is  also   important  as  part  of  the  culture  change  to  capture  the  change  in   behaviours;   Sustainability  -­‐  ambitions  for  the  future  must  include  how  to  keep   people  driving  at  the  same  pace  so  as  not  to  lose  momentum  once   the  initial  funding  finishes.  In  addition  having  built  expectations  and   demand  within  community  partners,  thought  must  be  given  as  to   how  to  continue  to  nurture  those  relationships,  and  ensure  that   interaction  is  a  continual  process;  and     embedding  good  practice  -­‐  a  major  focus  for  the  remainder  of  the   Beacon  funding  is  to  embed  good  practice  into  the  institutions.  This   could  also  be  powerfully  reinforced  if  the  other  funders  of  this   programme  (HEFCE,  RCUK,  Wellcome  Trust)  ensured  that  recognition   of  PE  is  built  into  their  funding  criteria  rather  than  being  seen  as   separate.  This  could  be  a  powerful  incentive  if  reinforced  from  those   funding  HEIs.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   8  



This  report  sets  out  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  of  the  Manchester  Beacon   for  Public  Engagement  undertaken  between  April  and  July  2010.  The  focus  of   the  evaluation  is  on  the  North  West  Development  Agency’s  (NWDA)  funding   contribution.   This  Section  sets  out  the  background  to  this  evaluation,  its  objectives,  and   the  work  carried  out.  

1.1 Background  
The  Manchester  Beacon  is  one  of  six  collaborative  centres  involved  in  a  UK-­‐ wide  initiative  to  support  public  engagement  between  HEI’s  and  the  general   public.  The  national  Beacon  initiative  is  funded  by  the  Higher  Education   Funding  Council  for  England  (HEFCE),  Research  Councils  UK  (RCUK),  and  the   Wellcome  Trust.   The  four  year  national  Beacons  for  Public  Engagement  initiative  (2008/12)   seeks  to  bring  about  culture  change  in  the  way  HEI’s,  their  staff,  and  their   students  reach  out,  listen,  and  engage  with  the  public.     In  Manchester,  the  initiative  is  a  partnership  between  the  University  of   Manchester  (UoM),  Manchester  Metropolitan  University  (MMU),  the   University  of  Salford  (UoS),  the  Museum  of  Science  and  Industry  (MOSI),  and   Manchester:  Knowledge  Capital  (M:KC).   The  Manchester  Beacon  secured  additional  funding  from  April  2008  to   March  2010  from  the  NWDA.    Although  the  focus  of  this  evaluation  is  the   NWDA  funding  which  concluded  in  March  2010,  it  is  in  effect  an  interim   evaluation  of  the  whole  programme,  which  should  inform  the  remaining   delivery  time  (to  December  2011)  and  input  to  discussion  of  the  future   direction  of  such  initiatives.  

1.2 Evaluation  Aims  and  Objectives  
The  NWDA  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  Plan  specified  the  detailed  evaluation   objectives  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  funding.     The  objectives  were  to:   • establish  the  impact  of  the  project  against  its  original  objectives;  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   9  

  • • • • • • assess  progress  and  achievements,  including  any  differences  from   those  foreseen  at  the  outset;   assess  how  effective  the  project  has  been  in  delivering  against  its   objectives  and  targets;   examine  cost  effectiveness,  including  consideration  of  qualitative   issues;   comment  on  the  sustainability  of  the  project  benefits;   provide  an  assessment  of  Strategic  Added  Value  (SAV);  and   set  out  the  implications  for  future  projects.  

1.3 Approach  and  Method  
The  evaluation  was  structured  and  delivered  in  line  with  good  practice   guidance  set  out  in  the  RDA  Impact  Evaluation  Framework  (IEF)  1.   The  evaluation  comprised  three  main  elements:   • • a  desk  review  of  documentation  and  data  relating  to  the  NWDA   funded  Beacon  project;   semi-­‐structured  face-­‐to-­‐face  and  telephone  interviews  with  20   stakeholders  including:   project  team;   funders;   Manchester  Beacon  Steering  Board  members;  and   working  group  members;       a  telephone  and  online  survey  of  academic  staff  and  community   groups  staff/members  involved  in  NWDA  funded  Beacon  projects.  A   total  of  31  responses  were  received.  (N.B.  this  is  in  addition  to  the  20   stakeholder  interviews  above).  In  addition  data  from  a  UK-­‐wide   survey  collected  across  all  HEIs  involved  in  the  Beacons  initiative   (with  356  responses  from  the  Manchester  Beacon  HEIs)  was  also   analysed.     o o o o



 Evaluating  the  Impact  of  England’s  Regional  Development  Agencies:  Developing  a  Methodology   and  Evaluation  Framework,  DTI  Occasional  Paper  No.  2,  February  2006.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   10  


1.4 Structure  of  the  Report  
The  remainder  of  this  report  is  structured  as  follows:   • Section  2  provides  an  overview  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  initiative,   including  governance  and  management  arrangements  and   objectives;   Section  3  describes  the  Beacon  projects  funded  by  the  NWDA;   Section  4  sets  out  the  feedback  from  stakeholders;   Section  5  sets  out  the  findings  from  the  telephone  and  online  survey   of  project  beneficiaries,  and  the  analysis  of  the  wider  survey;     Section  6  reviews  the  performance  against  NWDA  and  Manchester   Beacon  objectives;  and   Section  7  presents  the  key  learning  points  and  recommendations.      

• • • • •

A  series  of  case  studies  on  NWDA  funded  Beacon  projects  are  included   throughout  the  report.   Appendix  A  contains  details  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  objectives  and   evidence  of  success.

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   11  



The  Manchester  Beacon  
This  Section  sets  out  some  background  on  the  Manchester  Beacon  for  Public   Engagement.  It  describes:   • • • • governance  and  management  arrangements;   NWDA  Beacon  objectives  and  funding;   Manchester  Beacon  clear  Objectives;  and   areas  of  alignment  between  Manchester  Beacon  objectives  and   NWDA’s  objectives  for  supporting  Beacon  activity.  

2.1 Governance  and  Management  Arrangements  
A  Steering  Board  oversees  and  guides  the  direction  of  the  Manchester   Beacon.     Its  membership  consists  of  the  University  of  Manchester,  the  University  of   Salford,  Manchester  Metropolitan  University,  the  Museum  of  Science  and   Industry,  and  Manchester:  Knowledge  Capital.   Each  of  the  partners  has  a  principal  investigator  on  the  Steering  Board  who  is   the  main  champion  (at  Vice  Chancellor,  Deputy  Vice  Chancellor  and  Pro  Vice   Chancellor  level)  in  their  organisation  for  the  Beacon  initiative.  It  also   comprises  other  senior  representatives  from  across  the  partners.  A  number   of  working  groups  have  also  been  established  to  help  progress  areas  of   importance  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  programme.  The  governance   structure  is  set  out  in  Figure  2.1.     Figure  2.1:  Governance  structure                
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   12  

  The  Steering  Board  meets  four  times  per  year  and  provides  strategic   direction  for  the  Beacon,  approves  the  annual  Beacon  programme  of   activity,  monitors  performance,  and  reviews  input  from  its  Working  Groups.   Partners  are  actively  engaged  in  four  Working  Groups,  including:     • • • • operations;     recognition;   evaluation  and  impact;  and   communications.    

The  Working  Groups  meet  at  least  quarterly  per  year,  involve  senior  staff   and  are  responsible  for  progressing  activity  and  sharing  learning  in-­‐between   Steering  Board  meetings.  The  Groups  initiate,  plan,  deliver,  and  monitor   Beacon  programme  strands  and  monitor  progress  against  the  work  plan   (including  budgeting  and  staffing).  Working  Groups  also  ensure  efficiency   and  effectiveness  of  all  operations,  optimise  liaison  between  partners  and   between  key  individual  activities  (e.g.  website,  communications,  external   affairs,  etc.),  and  share  learning  across  the  partnership.   A  Manchester  Beacon  project  team  has  been  established  that  are   responsible  for  the  day-­‐to-­‐day  management  and  operation  of  the   Manchester  Beacon  initiative.   The  staff  team  includes  a  Creative  Director,  a  Project  Manager  from  each  of   universities  and  MOSI  (with  2  days  per  week  allocated  to  the  Beacon),  and   an  Administrator  working  full-­‐time  for  the  Beacon.   A  matrix-­‐management  system  is  used.  Line  management  responsibility  for   the  Project  Managers  rests  with  their  own  institution/organisation.  They  also   meet  weekly  with  the  Creative  Director  in  relation  to  Beacon  activity.     The  overall  management  and  governance  arrangements  are  shown  in  Figure   2.2,  over.            
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   13  

  Figure  2.2:  Overall  governance  and  management  arrangements  


2.2 NWDA  Beacon  Objectives    
In  April  2008  NWDA  allocated  £240,000  for  Beacon  related  activity.  More   detail  on  this  funding  is  set  out  in  Section  3.     The  specific  objectives  set  by  NWDA  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  were:   • to  achieve  significantly  improved  understanding  and  appreciation  of   the  universities  and  institutions  in  the  local  area  by  residents  of  the   local  communities  by  March  2010;   to  achieve  much  improved  understanding  and  appreciation  of   neighbouring  communities  by  the  universities  and  institutions;   to  put  in  place  a  number  (in  the  region  of  five)  of  sustainable   engagements/projects  that  involve  academics  working  with  local   communities;  

• •

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   14  

  • • to  develop  a  cadre  of  up  to  40  academics  with  an  enthusiasm  for,  and   experience  of  working  with  deprived  communities;  and   to  help  catalyse  an  uplift  in  the  number  of  local  residents  (in   particular  those  from  deprived  communities  with  no  prior  contact   with  the  Higher  Education  Institutions)  with  a  positive  attitude   towards  working  in  the  universities  and  other  major  employers,  or   studying  at  (or  with  help  from)  those  HEIs:  

2.3 Manchester  Beacon  Objectives    
An  early  step  in  planning  for  the  evaluation  process  of  the  Manchester   Beacon  was  to  set  clear  objectives  that  reflected  the  needs  and  aspirations   of  all  partners.     The  articulation  of  objectives  was  informed  by:   • a  survey  completed  by  the  Steering  Board,  Project  Team,  Working   Group  members,  and  community  participants  -­‐  this  explored  key   priorities,  evidence  of  success,  issues,  and  challenges;  and     a  Clear  Objectives  Workshop  with  stakeholders  -­‐  to  discuss,  refine,   and  agree  shared  objectives  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  for  Public   Engagement,  including  themed  areas  of  focus  to  guide  programme   and  project  development.  

The  identification  of  clear  objectives  has  helped  those  involved  better   understand  how  supported  projects/activities  can  contribute  to  the  wider   Manchester  Beacon  initiative.   Five  themes  and  objectives  were  articulated  for  the  Manchester  Beacon.   These  are  described  in  more  detail  below:   • Objective  1:  Public  engagement  is  encouraged,  valued  and   supported  -­‐  to  establish  internal  systems  and  processes  to  help   embed  public  engagement  as  a  routine  part  of  staff  roles  and   responsibilities;   Objective  2:  Change  perceptions  and  improve  accessibility  -­‐  to   improve  the  depth  of  understanding  within  local  communities  of   what  universities/cultural  organisations  have  to  offer  and  how  it  can   be  accessed,  including  the  development  of  a  positive  attitude/image;   Objective  3:  Increasing  the  relevance  of  institution  activity  and   connectivity  with  communities  -­‐  to  improve  the  connectivity  and  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   15  

  engagement  between  academia  and  the  general  public  so  that   activity  is  increasingly  seen  as  important  and  relevant;   • Objective  4:  Improve  the  opportunities  for  sustainable  two-­‐way   learning  -­‐  to  foster  more  intensive  and  sustainable  ways  of  joint  work   between  research  and  communities,  including  the  co-­‐creation  of   research  and  knowledge  exchange  in  both  directions  and  increasing   community  involvement  in  institution  activity;  and   Objective  5:  Develop  deeper  partnership  working  across  the  Beacon   partners  and  with  the  community  -­‐  a  cross-­‐cutting  objective  where   the  focus  is  on  the  collaborative  approach  and  added  value  through   collective  working  between  the  partner  organisations.    

The  process  further  explored  what  evidence  of  success  would  be  apparent   (i.e.  how  would  we  know  the  objective  had  been  achieved)  and  is  shown  in   Appendix  A.  This  informed  a  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  that  was   subsequently  developed  around  the  five  objectives  to  enable  the  ongoing   assessment  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  for  Public  Engagement.  This   continues  to  be  refined  and  informed  by  delivery  experience.  

2.4 Alignment  of  Objectives  
The  overall  objectives  and  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  the   Manchester  Beacon  is  strongly  aligned  with,  and  contributes  to,  NWDA’s   funding  objectives  for  the  Manchester  Beacon.   Table  2.1  sets  out  the  five  objectives  of  the  NWDA  funded  Beacon  activity   (NWDA  Development  and  Appraisal  form),  and  details  the  relationship   between  these  objectives  and  the  clear  objectives  developed  as  part  of  the   overall  Manchester  Beacon  initiative.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   16  

  Table  2.1:  Alignment  between  objectives   NWDA    Manchester  BPE   Objective      
To  achieve  significantly  improved   understanding  and  appreciation   of  the  universities  and  institutions   in  the  local  area  by  residents  of   the  local  communities  by  March   2010.   To  achieve  much  improved   understanding  and  appreciation   of  neighbouring  communities  by   the  universities  and  institutions.  

 Clear  Objective  Contribution  
Objective  2:  Change  perceptions  and  improve   accessibility:  Awareness  raising  activities,  provision  of   information,  communications  and  the  promotion  of   facilities  and  services  will  help  to  improve  local   communities’  awareness  and  understanding  of  the   universities/cultural  organisations.     Objective  5:  Develop  deeper  partnership  working   across  the  Beacon  partners  and  with  the  community:   there  is  a  focus  on  activities  that  demonstrate  to   Beacon  partners  the  value  of  working  with  the   community  and  the  social  capital  generated  as  a   result.       Objective  1:  PE  is  encouraged,  valued  and   supported:  there  is  a  commitment  to  the   establishment  of  systems  and  processes,  etc.  that  will   help  embed  public  engagement  as  a  routine  part  of   staff  roles  and  responsibility.  This  supportive  context   will  encourage  university/cultural  organisation  staff   to  engage  with  communities.       Objective  3:  Increasing  the  relevance  of  institution   activity  and  connectivity  with  communities:   increased  involvement  between  university  staff  and   community  representatives  in  each  other’s  events   and  activities.         Objective  4:  Improve  the  opportunities  for   sustainable  two-­‐way  learning:  this  will  lead  to  more   intensive  and  sustainable  joint  working  between   research  and  communities.  Project  activity  will   increase  the  co-­‐creation  of  research  and  knowledge   exchange  in  both  directions,  and  the  increased   community  involvement  in  all  institution  activity   including  new  buildings,  new  curriculum  etc.          

To  put  in  place  a  number  (in  the   region  of  five)  of  sustainable   engagements/projects  that   involves  academics  working  with   local  communities.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   17  

Objective  5:  Develop  deeper  partnership  working   across  the  Beacon  partners  and  with  the  community   there  is  a  focus  on  increased  partnership  working,   sharing  of  expertise  (internal  and  external  PE)  and   projects  which  involve  joint  working  at   project/community  level.       To  develop  a  cadre  of  up  to  40   academics  with  an  enthusiasm   for,  and  experience  of  working   with  deprived  communities:   Objective  1:  PE  is  encouraged,  valued  and  supported   there  is  a  commitment  to  the  establishment  of   systems  and  processes,  etc.  that  will  help  embed   public  engagement  as  a  routine  part  of  staff  roles  and   responsibility.     Objective  3:  Increasing  the  relevance  of  institution   activity  and  connectivity  with  communities:   increased  involvement  between  university  staff  and   community  representatives  in  each  other’s  events   and  activities.         Objective  4:  Improve  the  opportunities  for   sustainable  two-­‐way  learning:  this  will  lead  to  more   intensive  and  sustainable  joint  working  between   research  and  communities.  Project  activity  will   increase  the  co-­‐creation  of  research  and  knowledge   exchange  in  both  directions,  and  the  increased   community  involvement  in  all  institution  activity   including  new  buildings,  new  curriculum  etc.       Objective  5:  Develop  deeper  partnership  working   across  the  Beacon  partners  and  with  the  community   there  is  a  focus  on  increased  partnership  working,   sharing  of  expertise  (internal  and  external  PE)  and   projects  which  involve  joint  working  at   project/community  level.   Objective  2:  Change  perceptions  and  improve   accessibility:  projects  seek  to  develop  a  positive   attitude  towards,  and  improve  the  image  of,  the   participating  organisations  by  the  community,   thereby,  increasing  community  access  and   understanding;     Objective  3:  increasing  the  relevance  of  institution   activity  and  connectivity  with  communities:  activities   will  seek  to  increase  the  involvement  between   university  staff  and  community  representatives  in   each  other’s  events  and  activities.    

To  help  catalyse  an  uplift  in  the   number  of  local  residents  (in   particular  those  from  deprived   communities  with  no  prior   contact  with  the  HEIs)  with  a   positive  attitude  towards  working   in  the  universities  and  other   major  employers,  or  studying  at   (or  with  help  from)  those  HEIs:  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   18  



Supported  Activity  
This  Section  provides  an  overview  of  the  projects  funded  through  the  NWDA   and  other  activities  that  support  the  overall  Manchester  Beacon  initiative.   The  focus  has  been  on  encouraging  culture  change  in  the  way  HEI’s,  their   staff,  and  their  students  reach  out,  listen,  and  engage  with  the  public  

3.1 Funding  
The  NWDA  contributed  £240,000  towards  the  seven  projects  described   below.  Funding  has  been  used  to  cover  staff  costs  and  associated  project   activity.  Table  3.1  provides  a  breakdown.   Table  3.1:  NWDA  total  funding   Activity   Staff  costs     Pilot  projects,   events,   evaluation   Total   2007/08   -­‐     £10,000   £10,000   2008/2009   2009/10   £40,000     £70,000   £40,000     £80,000   Total   £80,000     £160,000  

£110,000   £120,000   £240,000  

Source:  NWDA  Grant  Offer  Letter,  dated  19  December  2008.  

Table  3.2  shows  the  budget  contribution  from  all  funders.     Table  3.2:  Partner  and  funders’  contributions     Source:   NWDA   HEFCE   Other  partners’   contributions   Total             Budget  (£000)       £240   £1,200   £720   £2,160  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   19  

  Table  3.3  reviews  the  budget  allocation  and  expenditure  for  NWDA  funding.   Actual  expenditure  for  this  project  has  been  audited  by  Deloitte  LLP.     Table  3.3:  Capital,  revenue  and  expenditure  details  
  Source:   NWDA   Budget   Cap     Rev   £240,000   Expenditure   Cap     Rev   £240,000   Variance   Cap     Rev   £0  

Source:  NWDA  Exit  report,  June  2010.  

3.2 The  Projects    
Five  projects  were  directly  funded  through  NWDA.  It  is  worth  noting  that   several  of  the  projects  involved  a  number  of  discrete  projects  /  engagements   involving  academics  and  the  community.  A  brief  description  is  set  out  below   and  more  detailed  case  studies  are  included  throughout  the  report:   • Cultural  Seed  Awards  (September  2009  -­‐  April  2010)  -­‐  this  project   consisted  of  five  knowledge  exchange  pilot  projects  which  were   designed  to  promote  partnership  working  between  cultural  assets,   community  groups,  and  arts  and  humanities  researchers/staff;   Community  Science  Awards  (October  to  November  2009)  -­‐  four   engagement  awards  were  made  to  university  staff  and  community   groups  to  work  in  partnership  to  develop  activity  to  engage  diverse   audiences  at  the  Manchester  Science  Festival.  Topic  areas  included   chemistry,  atmospheric  and  environmental  science,  and  astronomy   with  events  and  activities  delivered  in  community  settings;     Development  Awards  (May  to  November  2009)  -­‐  to  address  key   institutional  culture  change  priorities  identified  by  a  strategic  staff   engagement  event,  nine  small  development  awards  or  ‘quick  win’   projects  were  supported  to  demonstrate  how  the  long  term  goal  of   valuing  public  engagement  of  everyday  university  life  could  be   achieved;    Manchester  (July  to  November  2008)  -­‐  ArcSpace  was  the  winning   project  chosen  from  four  under  the  Mapping  Creativity  initial   engagement  activity.  A  Hulme-­‐based  creative  cluster  was  set  up  by   community  artists  in  St  Wilfred's  enterprise  centre  to  foster  and   support  creative  and  ethical  exchange  between  academics,  creatives   and  community  groups;  and  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   20  

  • Community  Leadership  (March  2009  to  August  2010)  -­‐  a  University-­‐ community  partnership  programme  to  develop  the  leadership  skills   of  30  Manchester  residents  and  organisational  development  within   the  third  sector.  The  project  aimed  to  increase  relevance  for  civic,   community,  business  and  cultural  partners  through  organisational   development  and  personal  development.  Two  projects  were   delivered:  Step  Up  and  Inspiring  Leaders.  

NWDA  funding  also  supported  a  number  of  other  projects  and  activities.   These  projects  have  levered  in  funding  from  elsewhere  (i.e.  MMU  for  the   Public  Engagement  Fellowships)  for  delivery,  with  the  Manchester  Beacon   facilitating  networking,  group  meetings,  support  etc.  These  have  contributed   strongly  to  the  objectives  of  the  Manchester  Beacon:       • MMU  PE  Fellowships  (September  2008  to  November  2009)  -­‐  this  was   established  to  fund  genuine  “two  way”  engagement  projects  to   address  real  needs  identified  by  local  communities.  Six  public   engagement  projects  were  established  opening  up  two-­‐way   knowledge  exchange  and  expertise  with  Manchester  residents  and   community  groups.  These  intergenerational  and  intercultural   projects  spanned  a  range  of  disciplines  including  Art  and  Design,   Computing,  Microbiology,  and  Social  Research.  The  six  projects  were:   Hulme  Sweet  Hulme   Moving  Memories   Manchester  Methods   Moss  Side  Stories   The  Manchester  Conference  for  Black  Parents,  Children  &   Young  People     o Web  Angels     o o o o o • Networking  Programme  -­‐  This  supported  a  range  of  activity,   especially  in  the  early  “listening  phase”  of  the  programme,  which   helped  identify  needs  and  inform  the  design  of  future  projects,  as   well  as  building  an  initial  level  of  engagement  and  connectivity.   Examples  included  two  key  projects:     o Comixed  -­‐  designed  as  a  way  of  bringing  different  people   together  to  explore  ideas  collaboratively  using  social  media.   The  first  Comixed  research  was  themed  around  science  and   was  planned  to  tie  into  the  Manchester  Science  Festival.  The   project  was  delivered  in  association  with  the  Research   Councils  UK  because  it  took  some  of  the  RCUK’s  cross-­‐cutting   scientific  challenges  as  a  starting  point  for  discussions.  Issues  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   21  

  such  as  the  digital  economy,  climate  change,  food  security   and  ageing  were  all  discussed   o Mapping  Creativity  –  this  was  a  series  of  listening  and   engagement  processes,  including  a  listening  event  (a  meeting   of  the  external  advisory  board)  which  identified  problems  and   needs,  networking  events  to  meet  potential  collaborators,   running  workshops,  providing  coaching  and  mentoring  and   developing  full  blown  proposals.  The  process  included   collaboration  with  technologists  and  new  media  professionals   to  help  wider  engagement.  A  public  vote  identified  four   different  projects  for  further  development,  one  of  which  was   finally  selected:  ArcSpace  Manchester.   In  addition  to  the  activity  set  out  above,  a  range  of  other  general  networking   and  dissemination  events  were  held  in  order  to  build  the  understanding,   make  relationships  and  raise  the  profile  of  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the   Manchester  Beacon  (see  Appendix  B).       In  summary  NWDA  funding  supported  a  total  of  29  different  collaborative   projects,  as  well  as  facilitating  the  engagement  process,  and  widening  and   sharing  learning  across  the  programme.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   22  

Connectivity  -­‐  Cultural  Seed  Award   Cultural  Seed  Awards  included  five  knowledge  exchange  pilot  projects  designed  to   promote  partnership  working  and  learning  between  cultural  assets,  community  groups,  and   arts  and  humanities  researchers/staff.  This  was  informed  by  an  initial  workshop  session   looking  at  the  perceptions  of  barriers  to  engagement  and  partnership  working.  Funding  for   Cultural  Seed  Awards  was  £7,380.  “The  Manchester  Beacon  is  doing  truly  innovative  work.   These  pilot  projects  could  feed  into  how  research  councils  kick  start  these  partnerships.”   BAAGS  (Barriers,  Access,  Aspirations,  Gaps)  was  led  by  The  Louise  Da-­‐Cocodia  Education   Trust,  MMU  and  Zion  Arts  Centre.  Funding  of  £1,500  was  used  to  run  participatory  and   engagement  workshops  with  young  people  (13-­‐25  years)  from  South  Manchester  to   identify  gaps,  barriers,  and  access  to  education,  training  and  employment  opportunities  -­‐   “this  project  was  the  first  time  I  have  talked  about  my  future,  it  made  me  think  what  I  want   to  do  more  seriously”.     The  Exploring  Yemeni  Community  History  in  Salford  project  was  led  by  the  Yemeni   Community  Association,  the  Arts  Unit  (UoS),  and  the  Ahmed  Iqbal  Ullah  Education  Trust.   Funding  of  £1,380  was  used  to  progress  a  survey  of  the  Yemeni  Community  using   participatory  workshops,  and  a  series  of  meetings  to  encourage  the  local  community  to  put   forward  ideas  and  shape  future  activity.     Disused  Buildings  activity  was  led  by  Manchester  Creative  Collectives,  Institute  of  Social  &   Spatial  Transformation  (MMU),  and  Manchester  Architecture  and  Design  Festival  .  Funding   of  £1,500  was  used  to  engage  with  the  community  to  explore  how  disused  buildings  in   Hulme  might  be  used  by  the  community.   Collecting  Thoughts  was  led  by  Zion  Arts  Centre,  Manchester  School  of  Art  (MMU)  and   MMU  Special  Collections.  Funding  of  £1,500  was  used  to  develop  an  informal  space  and  a   methodology  for  sustainable  conversations  between  people  in  universities,  communities   and  cultural  venues.  It  sought  to  build  trust  and  deepen  relationships  by  establishing  a  joint   forum  to  exchange  ideas  and  dialogue  and  increase  the  number  of  residents  involved  in   universities  and  cultural  activities.  “One  of  the  great  achievements  has  been  the  creation  of   a  network  of  potential  collaborators.”     Migration  Research  Panel  was  led  by  the  Greater  Manchester  Forum  for  European   Migrants,  Salford  Housing  &  Urban  Studies  Unit  (UoS)  and  SEVA  Manchester.  It  focussed  on   sharing  the  findings  of  recent  studies  in  migration  to  get  the  communities  view  on  key   issues  and  gaps  where  further  research  is  required.  Funding  of  £1,500  was  provided  by   HEFCE  and  project  leads  were  supported  through  support  networking  meetings     NWDA  funding  was  used  to  fund  support  network  meetings  across  the  projects  including  a   final  dissemination  event  and  3  support  meetings  with  a  Beacon  project  manager.  A  wide   range  of  impacts  were  reported  by  project  participants  including:  a  clearer  understanding   of  the  opportunities  to  collaborate  in  partnership  with  other  sectors;  new  links  with  local   community  groups,  universities  and  cultural  organisations;  increased  accessibility;  and   increased  confidence.     NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   23  


Feedback  from  Stakeholders  
This  Section  draws  together  the  responses  from  a  range  of  one-­‐to-­‐one   consultations  with  stakeholders,  delivery  partners  and  funders  including  the   Manchester  Beacon  team,  members  of  the  Leadership  Group,  the   Operations  Group,  the  Communications  Group,  the  Beacon  team  and  wider   partners  and  stakeholders.    


4.1 Role        
In  depth  consultation  took  place  with  20  different  partners  and  stakeholders   who  had  various  lengths  of  engagement  with  the  Beacon.  Some  had  been   involved  from  the  very  early  stages  of  bid  development,  whilst  others  had   become  involved  more  recently  because  of  the  specifics  of  their  role  or   through  involvement  with  projects  and  disseminations  events.  Note  that,   because  of  this  variety  it  was  not  relevant  for  all  respondents  to  answer   every  question.  

4.2 Rationale  
There  was  variety  of  understanding  of  the  strategic  rationale  and  need  for   the  Beacon  in  Manchester.  The  main  focus  was  felt  to  be:   • bringing  a  higher  priority,  and  coordinated  focus  to  PE  activity  within   the  universities,  including  explicitly  recognising  the  value  of  PE  and   sharing  learning  in  this  area;   the  opportunity  to  work  more  effectively  in  partnership,  including   building  new  partnerships;   improving  the  perception  of  the  institutions  with  the  local   community;  and   engaging  actively  with  the  local  community  in  co-­‐creation.  

• • •

4.3 Performance  against  Expectations  
In  general  the  Beacon  was  felt  to  have  performed  well  against  expectations.   There  was  some  frustration  at  the  initial  stages  with  the  emphasis  on  setting   up,  listening  and  raising  awareness  rather  than  delivery.  However  this  is   viewed  in  retrospect  to  have  been  a  positive  with  the  quality  of  resultant   activity  improved  for  having  taken  that  initial  time  for  preparation  and   consultation.    
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   24  

4.3.1 Challenges  
Working  in  partnership  with  a  number  of  partners  and  building  those   partnerships  was  highlighted  as  a  challenge.  This  is  explored  throughout   section  4.5  below.     The  Manchester  Beacon  is  a  culture  change  programme,  and  it  was   highlighted  that  changing  behaviour  is  both  long  term  and  challenging.  Also   the  sheer  size  of  the  institutions  involved,  and  the  fact  that  this  agenda   permeates  all  aspects  of  the  institution,  especially  when  compared  with  the   size  of  the  team,  means  that  a  further  challenge  is  the  huge  amount  of  work   to  be  done.  


Engaging  with  the  community  was  also  highlighted  as  an  issue.  It  was   reported  that  the  community  in  general  views  the  universities  in  their   locality  with  some  apprehension.  Relationships  therefore  have  to  be  built  for   trust  to  develop  and  engagement  activity  to  be  initiated  to  overcome  that   apprehension.   Whilst  PE  is  becoming  a  higher  agenda  item  for  universities,  respondents   highlighted  that  it  is  still  viewed  as  not  as  important  as  research,  and   teaching.  There  were  some  fears  expressed  that  whilst  much  progress  has   been  made,  there  were  still  those  who  viewed  PE  as  a  “box  ticking”  element   rather  than  giving  it  the  priority  that  it  should  be  within  the  universities.  

4.3.2 Management  and  delivery  
The  management  and  delivery  of  the  programme  is  viewed  to  be  effective   and  the  project  is  felt  to  be  well  managed.  The  management  and  governance   structures  (with  the  various  committees  and  working  groups)  took  a  while  to   be  organised,  exacerbated  by  changes  in  personnel,  but  are  now  viewed  to   be  working  well.     The  team  in  general  is  credited  with  driving  forward  the  project  successfully.   The  approach  is  viewed  to  have  been  creative,  energetic,  if  challenging.   The  matrix  management  structure  has  caused  some  issues.  Whilst  positive  in   that,  the  team  members  are  all  embedded  within  their  organisation,  and  as   such  understand  each  separate  culture,  it  is  challenging  to  also  be  trying  to   work  as  a  team  and  effectively  try  to  align  two  agendas.   The  support  from  senior  champions  across  the  partners  is  seen  as  crucial  and   has  been  very  strongly  endorsed  within  the  Manchester  Beacon.    

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   25  

Other  challenges  raised  were  the  time  taken  for  set  up,  including  recruiting   of  staff,  and  the  need  for  earlier  defining  the  purpose  and  objectives  of  the   programme  as  well  as  roles  (especially  between  national  and  Manchester   teams).   Most  comments  also  focused  on  capturing  the  learning  at  an  early  stage  to   maximise  impact.  


4.4 Objective  1  –  PE  is  Encouraged  and  Supported  
4.4.1 Impact  on  work  priorities  
The  work  of  the  Beacon  was  felt  to  have  strongly  influenced  on  the  PE   priorities  of  the  organisation,  especially  at  a  strategic  level.  PE  was  evident  in   strategic  documents,  faculty  plans,  grant  applications,  specific  appointments   and  is  also  being  built  into  promotions  and  performance  criteria  across  the   institutions.   More  profoundly  the  approach  and  methodology  used  by  the  Beacon  has   been  adopted  by  the  organisations  in  other  Public  and  community   engagement  endeavours.  A  major  example  of  this  is  the  approach  taken  in   the  MMU  Birley  Fields  investment  to  engage  with  the  local  community,   where  PE  is  built  into  the  action  plan.  

4.4.2 Change  in  understanding  of  PE  amongst  staff      
As  shown  in  Figure  4.1,  94%  of  those  who  responded  felt  that  there  had   been  a  positive  change  in  the  understanding  and  appreciation  of  PE  among   staff  in  their  institution  (31%  very  much),  with  a  larger  proportion  reporting   a  positive  change  for  their  own  personal  understanding  and  appreciation.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   26  

  Figure  4.1:  To  what  extent  has  there  been  a  change  in  the  understanding  &   appreciation  of  PE  

Note:  N=14  and  15  


Respondents  described  increased  focus  and  energy  for  PE  and  talked  of  a   culture  shift  within  their  institutions.   However  due  to  the  size  of  the  organisations,  it  was  highlighted  that  not  all   staff  had  undergone  that  shift.  “For  many  people  PE  is  still  an  optional   activity”.  

4.5 Objective  5:  Deeper  Partnership  Working  
4.5.1 Partnership  added  value  
Although  there  is  a  long  history  of  partnership  working  between  some  of  the   partners,  new  relationships  had  been  built  because  of  the  Beacon.  It  was   highlighted  that  each  of  the  partners  brings  different  strengths,  which  is  a   positive,  but  equally  they  all  had  slightly  differing  agendas,  which  can  be  a   challenge.  However  in  general  the  partnership  working  and  sharing  of   different  experiences  and  approaches  was  seen  to  have  added  value  to  the   outcomes  of  the  programme,  and  increased  learning.   MOSI  inclusion  as  a  cultural  partner  was  viewed  to  have  added  a  great  deal   to  the  programme,  bringing  a  different  perspective,  huge  amount  of  PE   professionalism  and  expertise.  Furthermore,  M:KC’s  supporting  role,  civic   links  and  understanding  of  the  Beacon’s  innovative  approaches  has  been  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   27  

pivotal  in  helping  to  engage  more  broadly  and  link  strategically  with  other   actors  in  the  region  (not  least  NWDA).   At  a  project  level  there  was  sporadic  evidence  of  partnership  working,  with   the  majority  of  projects  still  being  delivered  at  individual  institutions.  


4.5.2 Further  partnership  activity    
As  shown  in  Figure  4.2,  86%  of  those  who  responded  agreed  that  as  a  result   of  the  Beacon,  new  partnerships  beyond  the  Beacon  partners  had  been   established,  with  93%  also  evidencing  further  collaboration  between  the   Beacon  partners.   Figure  4.2:  Has  the  Beacon  Initiative  led  to  further  partnership  activity   which  did  not  exist  before?  

Note:  N=14  and  15  



Examples  given  included  the  response  to  the  Wellings  Statement  across  the   universities,  other  joint  funding  bids,  ArcSpace  and  renewable  energies  work   as  well  as  the  success  of  the  Science  Festival  input.  

4.5.3 Catalysed  other  activity    
The  majority  (93%)  of  respondents  agreed  that  the  Beacon  had  catalysed   other/further  activity  as  shown  in  Figure  4.3.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   28  

  Figure  4.3:  To  what  extent  has  the  Beacon  catalysed  other/further  activity?  

Note:  N=14  


Although  it  was  identified  that  there  was  a  lot  of  activity  previously  in  place,   and  therefore  was  difficult  to  quantify,  the  respondents  felt  that  the  Beacon   was  having  a  key  influence.   The  brokerage  role  of  the  Beacon  in  “networking  with  networks”  and  making   those  linkages  that  could  then  lead  to  further  activity  was  viewed  to  be  an   important  element  to  the  successful  approach.    

4.5.4 Changed  relationships  between  partners    
Although  there  had  already  been  existing  partnership  relationships,  85%  of   those  who  responded  felt  that  as  a  result  of  the  Beacon  the  relationship   between  the  partners  had  seen  a  positive  change.  Although  not   fundamentally  changed  it  was  described  as  being  “deeper  and  broader”  with   more  sharing  and  trust  and  involving  a  wider  group  of  people.  

4.5.5 Changed  relationship  with  community    
Regarding  relationships  with  the  community,  88%  felt  that  the  Beacon  had   helped  change  the  relationship  in  a  positive  way,  although  it  was   acknowledged  to  be  still  early  days  in  this  respect.    It  was  felt  by  some  to  be   variable  across  the  universities,  and  still  focused  on  community  leaders  and   representatives  rather  than  the  wider  community.  Several  respondents   highlighted  that  much  more  could  be  done  in  this  area.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   29  

However,  positively  it  was  felt  that  the  approach  has  changed  from  “doing   this  to”  people  to  co-­‐creation  and  an  improving  sense  of  treating  all  as   equals.  This  was  to  be  encouraged.   In  addition  there  was  viewed  to  be  a  better  understanding  about  the   diversity  and  richness  of  the  community,  which  informed  engagement   practices.     It  was  felt  that  the  Beacon  team  had  built  good  relationships  with  the   community,  but  that  was  not  necessarily  seen  as  connected  to  their  host   institution,  i.e.  the  team  had  made  those  relationships  rather  than  the   institutions.    


4.6 Other  Manchester  Beacon  Objectives  
4.6.1 Evidence  of  change    
The  respondents  were  asked  about  progress  towards  other  Beacon   objectives  including  image,  access,  joint  activities  and  relevance.  Table  4.1   shows  the  responses.   Table  4.1:  Please  describe  what  changes  you  have  observed  and  to  what   extent  the  Beacon  influenced  this  change  
Improved   access  to  the   facilities   which  have   not  been   accessible  to   the  public   before   The  learning   organisation  is   undertaking   more  activities   together  with   the  local   community   The  learning   organisation   has  become   more   important   and  relevant   to  the  local   community  


Image  of  the   learning   organisation  

Number  of   people   accessing   facilities  

Improved  very   much   Improved  to  some   extent   Not  changed  at  all   Changed  to  the   negative   Don’t  know  

0%   87%   7%   0%   7%  

0%   87%   7%   0%   7%  

7%   87%   0%   0%   7%  

33%   67%   0%   0%   0%  

13%   80%   0%   0%   7%  

Note:  N=15  

In  general  all  of  these  aspects  were  felt  to  have  improved  to  some  extent   due  to  the  influence  of  the  Beacon.  There  was  unanimity  in  the  fact  that   there  are  more  activities  taking  place  together  with  the  local  community.   Access  to  facilities  was  seen  as  a  more  difficult  issue,  but  that  improvement   had  been  made  in  certain  areas  although  there  was  seen  to  be  more  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   30  

progress  to  be  made  here.  87%  of  those  who  responded  felt  that  the  image   of  the  organisations  had  improved  with  the  community,  with  93%  feeling   that  the  institutions  were  more  important  and  relevant  to  the  local   communities.   It  was  commented  that  audiences  and  participation  of  university   engagement  activity  was  more  diverse  than  previously  and  that  this   observation  was  an  indication  of  improvements  across  these  elements.  


4.6.2 Unexpected  impacts    
A  number  of  unexpected  benefits  from  the  Beacon  programme  were   highlighted,  including  the  influence  in  approach  to  other  community   engagement  elements  (e.g.  MMU’s  approach  to  engagement  around  the   Birley  fields  campus  development),  and  how  PE  is  an  issue  not  just  for   academic  staff,  but  permeates  across  the  organisations.     The  diversity  of  approaches  was  viewed  as  being  refreshing,  and  the  Beacon   was  also  highlighted  as  being  an  excellent  vehicle  for  promoting   communication  and  collaboration  across  the  institutions.     In  addition  it  was  commented  that  the  level  of  interest  and  participation   from  the  community  was  above  expectations,  although  it  was  also   acknowledged  that  there  are  many  different  activities  and  influences   underway  over  and  above  the  Beacon  programme,  so  the  attribution  of  the   Beacon  in  this  was  difficult  to  quantify.  

4.7 Additionality  
All  of  the  respondents  felt  that  if  the  Beacon  had  not  existed,  although  some   of  the  projects  would  still  have  happened,  they  would  have  been  of  lower   quality,  of  lesser  impact  and  slower  to  be  delivered.  

4.7.1 Wider  benefits    
The  Beacon  was  also  felt  to  be  contributing  to  wider  benefits,  including   leading  learning  on  PE,  developing  the  capability  of  key  players  and   establishing  Manchester  as  a  centre  of  good  practice  as  shown  in  Figure  4.4.    

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   31  

Figure  4.4:  To  what  extent  is  the  Beacon  delivering/contributing  to  wider   benefits?  


Note:  N=14,  15  and  15,  respectively  


Although  the  Beacon  is  a  small  initiative,  and  it  was  highlighted  that  the   outcomes  need  to  be  viewed  in  proportion  to  this,  the  Manchester  Beacon   was  felt  to  be  contributing  innovative  and  diverse  learning  to  the  approach   of  PE  across  the  national  Beacon  programme  and  within  the  institutions   involved.    

4.8 Value  for  Money  
The  investment  in  the  Beacon  is  relatively  small,  and  yet  it  was  viewed  by   respondents  as  having  had  a  large  impact,  especially  through  influencing  and   catalysing  further  benefits,  and  reaching  a  high  number  of  people.   At  a  project  level,  only  small  amounts  of  money  were  invested  in  individual   projects,  and  this  helped  legitimise  and  recognise  PE  activity.  From  the   programme  level  the  investment  had  leveraged  in  further  funding  and  a   large  amount  of  other  resource  (including  staff  time  etc.).   It  was  commented  that  the  programme  itself  doesn’t  generate  income,  but   that  it  contributed  to  wider  strategic  agendas  and  helped  stimulate   movement  in  the  culture  of  the  organisations.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   32  

4.9 Future  Development  Issues  and  Opportunities  
4.9.1 In  next  two  years  
The  main  focus  for  the  Beacon  until  the  end  of  the  current  funding  was  felt   to  be  to  build  on  the  good  work  that  had  been  done  and  to  embed  the   change  of  culture  and  reinforce  the  behaviours  across  the  institutions,  so   that  the  impact  can  be  sustained.   Mainstreaming  PE  and  broadening  engagement  beyond  the  initial   enthusiasts  was  also  viewed  to  be  important,  as  well  as  exploring  more  joint   projects.  


4.9.2 Beyond  the  completion  of  the  Beacon  
Sustainability  questions  are  already  being  addressed  in  discussions  within   the  working  groups.  It  was  acknowledged  that  there  is  a  demand  and  energy   built  through  the  existing  activity  that  will  be  to  an  extent  self-­‐sustaining,  but   that  having  raised  expectations  there  is  a  challenge  in  meeting  those  and   keeping  progress  moving  forward  if  the  core  team  focus  is  no  longer  there.   However,  in  a  time  of  funding  restrictions  the  maintenance  of  the  team  in  its   current  form  was  felt  to  be  unlikely  and  not  in  keeping  with  the  agenda  to   mainstream  PE.   A  well  as  action  across  the  partners,  ensuring  that  the  research  funders   make  PE  an  integral  part  of  funding  awards  will  help  incentivise  and  reward   PE  activity,  and  should  be  embedded  and  monitored  as  part  of  grant  award   criteria.                  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   33  

  Community  -­‐  Community  Science  Awards  
Following  an  application  and  selection  process,  the  Manchester  Beacon  awarded  four  small   grants  (£500  each)  to  academics,  researchers,  museum  staff,  and  community  groups  to   work  together  to  deliver  community  engagement  activities  during  the  Manchester  Science   Festival  which  took  place  between  24  October  and  1  November  2009.  This  was  with  a  view   to  generating  a  greater  interest  in  science  events  among  members  of  the  community.   “The  Manchester  Beacon  Community  Science  Awards  were  a  great  contribution  to  the   Manchester  Science  Festival  and  helped  us  open  up  the  Festival  to  more  people  within  hard   to  reach  audiences”     The  School  of  Environment  and  Life  Sciences  at  the  University  of  Salford  delivered  a   chemistry  demonstration  for  members  of  the  community  at  the  St  Sebastian’s  Community   Centre  in  Salford.  This  interactive  session  sought  to  inspire  and  invigorate  those  that   attended  about  chemical  sciences  as  well  as  educate  them  on  concepts  such  as  the  atom,   elements,  compounds,  and  the  chemical  physical  properties  -­‐  “many  thanks  for  such  an   entertaining,  engaging  and  educative  show,  it  was  very  inspirational,  especially  for  kids.”   The  Centre  for  Atmospheric  Science  at  the  University  of  Manchester  involved  members  of   the  community  in  research  into  weekly  cycles  of  rainfall,  and  in  particular  whether  it  rains   more  at  weekends.  It  was  considered  to  be  a  fun  topic  that  the  community  would  engage  in   whilst  still  having  legitimate  science  behind  it.  Members  of  the  community  collected  data   using  rain  gauges  and  were  invited  to  take  part  in  a  workshop  during  the  Manchester   Science  Festival  to  analyse  the  data  and  perform  an  experiment  to  guide  their  findings.     The  Roby  Community  Centre  in  Longsight  organised  a  visit  for  members  of  the  community   to  visit  the  Jodrell  Bank  Observatory  for  Astrophysics  which  forms  part  of  the  University  of   Manchester.  A  member  of  staff  from  Jodrell  Bank  was  also  invited  to  give  a  talk  about  their   work  during  which  local  people  had  the  opportunity  to  ask  questions  about  their  role  and   work  at  the  Observatory  -­‐  “it  was  great  to  receive  the  support  from  the  Manchester  Beacon   to  organise  the  trip  to  Jodrell  Bank  for  our  South  Asian  Men’s  Group.”   OMEGA  (Manchester  Metropolitan  University)  is  a  publicly  funded  partnership  that  offers   impartial,   innovative   and   insights   into   the   environmental   effects   of   the   air   transport   industry   and   sustainability   solutions.   OMEGA   used   the   funding   to   provide   an   information   and   activity   stand   at   the   Manchester   Science   Festival   where   people   could   learn   about   aviation  and  carbon  offsetting.  The  overall  aim  was  to  directly  make  use  of  output  from  an   OMEGA   study   to   help   people   understand   carbon   offsetting   and   how   investment   in   such   schemes  can  bring  climate  change  benefits  when  they  choose  to  fly. In  total  600  people  attended  the  events.  72%  of  attendees  that  completed  an  evaluation   form  rated  the  events  as  “excellent”.  The  main  reported  impacts  on  participants  were  that   academics  and  community  groups  received  support  to  deliver  community  engagement   activities  and  it  provided  networking  opportunities.  Plans  are  underway  in  relation  to   further  engagement  activities  for  the  Manchester  Science  Festival  2010.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   34  


Feedback  from  Participants  
This  Section  sets  out  feedback  from  the  telephone  and  online  surveys  of   individuals  that  engaged  in  the  NWDA  funded  Beacon  projects.     We  also  reviewed  survey  responses,  provided  by  participating  Manchester   universities  staff,  to  the  annual  survey  undertaken  by  Oakleigh  (as  part  of   the  national  evaluation  of  Beacons).  This  was  a  larger  survey  of  staff  beyond   those  who  had  been  involved  in  Manchester  Beacon  projects  and  activity.  


5.1 Background  
A  total  of  12  in  depth  telephone  interviews  were  undertaken  with  those   directly  involved  in  the  delivery  of  projects.    The  majority  of  these  project   leads  were  university  staff.   The  telephone  survey  was  supplemented  with  an  online  survey  of  wider   beneficiaries,  including  other  staff,  local  residents  and  community  groups.     Those  consulted  through  the  telephone  survey  were  asked  if  they  would  be   willing  to  pass  the  online  survey  to  those  that  had  engaged  in  the  projects.   Not  all  of  the  project  leads  had  contact  details  for  those  that  participated,  an   issue  which  requires  to  be  addressed  in  future,  to  ensure  that  the  impacts  on   participants  are  captured  in  a  timely  fashion.  A  total  of  19  online  responses   were  received.   A  total  of  31  responses  were  received  overall  from  the  survey  work  which   sought  to  establish  the:     • • • • • impacts  from  their  personal  experience;   learning  and  personal  benefits  derived  from  involvement;   changes  that  the  projects  have  resulted  in;   future  engagement  activity;  and   suggestions  for  how  best  to  further  support  public  engagement   activity.  

Feedback  from  university  staff  and  local  residents/community  groups  are   reported  on  separately  in  the  following  sections.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   35  

5.2 Feedback  from  University  Staff  
5.2.1 Profile  of  respondents  
A  total  of  13  responses  were  received  from  university  staff.  A  spread  of   responses  were  received  from  senior  academics,  senior   lecturers/researchers,  management,  and  support  staff.  This  is  positive  as  it   highlights  the  breadth  of  engagement  in  Beacon  activity  across  different   levels  of  staff  within  universities.     Those  consulted  had  been  involved  in  one  of  the  seven  projects  described  in   Section  3  that  received  NWDA  funding.  


5.2.2 Impacts  from  personal  experience  
University  staff  were  asked  to  consider  the  extent  to  which  they  agree  or   disagree  with  a  series  of  statements  regarding  their  personal  experience  in   the  projects.  Figure  5.1  sets  out  responses.   Figure  5.1:  Impacts  from  personal  experience  in  the  projects  

N=13  (P.E.  -­‐  Public  Engagement)  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   36  

Overall,  university  staff  were  highly  positive  about  the  impact  of  their   involvement.     All  staff  agreed  that  they  had  a  better  understanding  of  the  local  community   and  groups  following  involvement  in  the  projects.  Almost  all  staff  reported   increased  public  engagements  skills  and  an  improvement  in  the  quality  of   their  work  (92%  each).  


A  small  number  of  staff  disagreed  with  the  statements  -­‐  the  highest  reported   level  of  disagreement  was  15%  (two  responses)  in  relation  to  allocating   more  time  and  feeling  more  supported  to  undertake  public  engagement   activity.  

5.2.3 Benefits  from  participation  
Staff  were  asked  to  specify  the  nature  of  any  learning  benefits  gained  from   participating  in  the  projects.  Figure  5.2  sets  out  responses.   Figure  5.2:  Learning  benefits    


Staff  were  overwhelmingly  positive  about  the  learning  benefits  they  derived   from  participating  in  the  projects.     All  staff  (or  almost  all  staff)  reported  that  they  gained  new  knowledge,  new   skills,  better  awareness  of  relevant  issues,  and  improved  quality  of  work  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   37  

from  engagement  in  Beacon  projects.  Other  benefits  reported  included   developing  new  partnerships  and  making  friends.     Staff  went  on  to  report  a  wide  range  of  benefits  from  their  involvement  in   projects.  The  main  benefits  cited  include  the  development  of  new   relationships  and  contacts  (100%),  that  the  experience  was  fun  and  brought   enjoyment  (85%),  and  increased  confidence  (69%).  Figure  5.3  sets  out   responses.   Figure  5.3:  Personal  benefits  gained  from  participation  


Note:  N=13  (Percentages  total  more  than  100%  due  to  multiple  responses)  


University  staff  reported  a  variety  of  unanticipated  benefits  arising  from   their  involvement.  This  included:   • • • • • a  better  appreciation  of  the  scope  and  value  of  public  engagement   and  of  two-­‐way  engagement  in  particular;   a  better  understanding  of  different  approaches  and  methods  of   public  engagement;   recognition  of  their  contribution  from  colleagues  and  other  people;   increased  engagement  with  other  university  staff  that  they  had  no   previous  contact  with;   establishment  of  long-­‐lasting  partnerships;  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   38  

• • •

the  value  of  securing  different  perspectives  from  the  involvement  of   other  people;   media  coverage;  and   the  development  of  new  ideas.  


5.2.4 Negative  effects  
While  involvement  was  rated  positively  overall,  a  few  comments  were   provided  around  negative  effects  resulting  from  participating  in  the  project,   including:   • • • • • can  be  time  consuming  (e.g.  working  weekends/longer  hours);   contribution  not  acknowledged  (e.g.  no  time  in  lieu);   disconnect  between  approaches  to  public  engagement  would  like  to   have  used  compared  to  what  the  university  was  comfortable  with;   sometimes  viewed  as  of  secondary  importance;  and   administration  details  and  procedures  (e.g.  slow  payment  processes).  

5.2.5 Future  action  
It  is  envisaged  that  involvement  in  public  engagement  activity  will  lead  on  to   further  related  action.     It  is  therefore  positive  that  the  majority  of  staff  have  already  used  the  skills   and  experiences  gained  from  the  projects  in  further  activity  (62%),  with  the   remainder  reporting  that  they  plan  to  do  so  in  the  future  (38%).  Figure  5.4   sets  out  responses.                
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   39  

    Figure  5.4:  Future  action  taken  or  planned  


  N=  13,  13,  13,  11  

The  majority  of  staff  reported  that  they  had  already  or  planned  to  involve   more  community  members  in  academic  work  for  co-­‐creation  and  knowledge   exchange  and  get  further  involved  in  projects  with  the  community  (85%  and   76%  respectively).   Views  were  more  mixed,  however  on  whether  staff  would  become  a   representative  on  a  local  community  forum  or  groups  -­‐  45%  were  not  sure   and  a  further  18%  said  that  this  was  unlikely  to  happen.  

5.2.6 Improving  perceptions,  accessibility  and  wider  changes  
Staff  were  asked  for  views  on  whether  the  projects  had  an  impact  on   improving  the  perception  and  accessibility  of  the  university/cultural   organisation  -­‐  from  their  perspective  as  well  that  of  the  local  community.   Figure  5.5  sets  out  responses.    
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   40  

      Figure  5.5:  Improving  perceptions    


N  =  13,  13,  13,  9,  9,  12,  7  

In  the  main,  staff  were  positive  about  the  changes  in  perceptions,  etc.   resulting  from  the  supported  projects.     Most  staff  were  of  the  view  that  the  university/cultural  organisation  had  a   better  understanding  of  the  local  community  (93%  reported  some   extent/very  much),  that  the  policy  of  the  university/cultural  organisation   towards  public  engagement  had  improved  (77%  some  extent/very  much),   and  that  the  local  community  had  an  improved  perception  of  the   university/cultural  organisation  (61%  some  extent/very  much).    
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   41  

Staff  were  then  asked  to  specify  wider  changes  resulting  from  the  projects.   Figure  5.6  sets  out  responses.     Figure  5.6:  Resulting  changes  arising  from  projects    


N  =  8,  12,  12,  12,  11,  11    

From  the  Figure  above,  of  those  that  responded  it  can  be  seen  that  all  have   participated  in  further  research  and  knowledge  exchange  activities.   Staff  were  also  positive  about  the  extent  to  which  connections  and  the   relationship  between  the  university/cultural  organisation  and  the  local   community  had  improved  -­‐  92%  and  83%  reporting  that  there  had  been  a   positive  shift  respectively  (some  extent/very  much).   Staff  were  more  likely  to  report  that  they  were  not  participating  in  a  joint   forum  to  improve  the  dialogue  between  the  learning  organisations  and  the   local  community  (55%).      

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   42  

5.2.7 Supporting  future  engagement  activity  


Staff  provided  a  range  of  recommendations  for  decision-­‐makers  within   universities/cultural  organisations  to  foster  further  engagement  activity  with   local  communities.     Some  suggestions  included:   • • time  is  the  biggest  barrier  -­‐  some  staff  undertake  engagement  work   in  their  own  time;   focus  of  universities  is  on  research  and  getting  papers  published  -­‐   needs  to  be  greater  explicit  support  to  enable  staff  to  feel  that  they   can  get  involved;   it  is  not  fully  recognised  or  valued  yet  within  universities  -­‐  while  some   staff  mentioned  that  it  has  become  higher  profile  and  more  explicit  in   plans,  etc,  it  needs  to  be  embedded  in  HR  policies  (job   roles/descriptions,  reward  and  recognition,  research  funding  etc)  and   supported  by  staff  at  all  levels;   funding  is  important  for  projects  -­‐  given  cuts  in  education  sector   budgets  and  competing  priorities  there  needs  to  be  a  real   commitment  and  priority  given  to  engagement  activity;   grant  size  -­‐  small  scale  funding  made  it  difficult  to  cover  actual  costs   of  the  project,  need  to  be  realistic  about  what  can  be  delivered;   there  requires  to  be  a  greater  number  of  senior  academics  involved   and  leading  on  activities;     development  of  an  e-­‐forum  or  mailing  list  that  makes  it  easier  for   those  involved  to  link  with  others;   relevant  training  for  staff;  and   supported  activity  should  not  be  one-­‐off  -­‐  there  is  a  risk  that  it  could   be  viewed  as  tokenistic.  

• • • • •

5.3 Feedback  from  Non-­‐University  Staff  
5.3.1 Profile  of  respondents  
A  total  of  18  responses  were  received  from  non-­‐university  staff.  Responses   were  typically  from  members  or  staff  of  a  range  of  community  groups  and   organisations.  Responses  were  received  from  those  involved  in  a  number  of   the  projects,  including  Inspiring  Leaders,  Cultural  Seed  Awards,  Manchester   Science  Festival  Community  Awards,  and  Public  Engagement  Fellowships.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   43  

5.3.2 Benefits  from  participation  
Community  group  staff/members  were  asked  specify  the  nature  of  any   learning  benefits  gained  from  participating  in  the  projects.  Figure  5.7  sets   out  responses.   Figure  5.7:  Learning  benefits    


N  =  18,  17,  17,  18    

Overall,  community  group  staff/members  were  highly  positive  about  the   impact  of  their  involvement.     The  majority  of  respondents  agreed  with  each  statement  and  reported   increased  knowledge,  skills,  awareness  of  relevant  issues,  and  improved   quality  of  work.  Other  benefits  reported  include  having  learned  more  about   partnership  working  and  developing  new  contacts.   A  small  number  reported  disagreement  -­‐  the  highest  reported  level  of   disagreement  was  in  relation  to  quality  of  work  had  improved  (17%).   Community  group  staff/members  also  reported  a  wide  range  of  other   benefits  from  their  involvement  in  projects.  The  main  benefits  cited  include   the  development  of  new  relationships  and  contacts  (94%)  and  that  the   experience  was  fun  and  brought  enjoyment  (83%).  The  same  benefits  were   reported  earlier  by  staff.  Figure  5.8  sets  out  responses.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   44  

It  is  also  positive  that  community  group  staff/members  reported  a  growing   interest  in  new  activities  following  involvement  in  the  projects  (61%).   Figure  5.8:  Personal  benefits  gained  from  participation  



Community  group  staff/members  reported  a  variety  of  unanticipated   benefits  arising  from  their  involvement,  including:   • • • • • it  fostered  partnership  working  between  organisations  that  have  not   collaborated  together  prior  to  the  Beacon;   it  opened  channels  for  communication  between  different  partners;   positive  links  were  created  with  universities  (good  support  and   feedback);   made  new  contacts  within  the  voluntary  sector;  and   it  helped  to  generate  new  ideas  to  be  taken  forward.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   45  

5.3.3 Negative  effects  
As  with  university  staff,  community  group  staff/members  rated  involvement   positively  overall.  Very  few  comments  were  provided  around  negative   effects  resulting  from  participating  in  projects,  these  included:   • • challenges  in  reaching  particular  target  groups  within  the  community   (1);  and   delays  from  university  staff  responding  to  email/telephone   correspondence  (1).  


5.3.4 Future  action  
All  respondents  had  already  or  planned  to  get  involved  in  other  projects,  and   the  majority  had  or  planned  to  access  services/facilities  of  the   university/cultural  organisation  and  use  skills  gained  from  initial  involvement   (93%  and  86%  respectively).  Figure  5.9  sets  out  responses.   Engaging  as  a  representative  on  a  forum  or  committee  of  the   university/cultural  organisation  was  typically  viewed  as  a  longer-­‐term   outcome  of  participation.  Almost  half  were  not  sure  whether  they  would   engage  in  this  way  (47%).   Figure  5.9:  Future  action  taken  or  planned  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   46  

N  =  15,  14,  14,  15  


5.3.5 Improving  perceptions,  accessibility  and  wider  changes  
As  above,  community  group  staff/members  were  in  the  main  positive  about   changes  in  perceptions,  etc.  resulting  from  the  supported  projects.  Figure   5.10  sets  out  responses.   Figure  5.10:  Improving  perceptions    

N  =  18,  17,  16,  15,  16,  14,  15  

Community  group  staff/members  were  positive  that  the  universities/cultural   organisations  had  a  better  understanding  of  the  local  community  (and  vice   versa)  -­‐  76%  and  83%  respectively.  Respondents  also  reported  an  increased   awareness  of  services/facilities  as  well  as  an  interest  in  finding  out  more   about  the  universities/cultural  organisations.   Community  group  staff/members  were  more  likely  to  disagree  with  or  were   not  sure  about  accessing  facilities/services  for  the  first  time  as  a  result  of   their  involvement  (60%),  whether  policies  of  universities/cultural  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   47  

  organisations  towards  public  engagement  had  changed  (57%),  or  whether   accessibility  had  improved  (31%).  It  might  be  that  that  there  is  a  need  for   further  communication  activity  to  inform  communities  about  recent  changes   and  developments  in  this  area.   Community  group  staff/members  were  also  asked  to  specify  wider  changes   resulting  from  the  projects.  Figure  5.11  sets  out  responses.   Figure  5.11:  Resulting  changes  arising  from  projects    

N  =  16,  14,  16,  16,  14,  15  

Similar  to  university  staff,  respondents  were  positive  about  the  extent  to   which  connections  and  the  relationship  between  universities/cultural   organisations  and  the  local  community  had  improved  -­‐  69%  and  63%  of   community  group  staff/members  reported  that  there  had  been  a  positive   shift  respectively  (to  some  extent/very  much).  A  high  proportion  had  also   participated  in  research  activities  and  knowledge  exchange  with  the   university/cultural  organisation  (64%).   While  showing  signs  of  progress,  community  group  staff/members  were   more  likely  to  disagree  or  not  know  whether  more  community  members  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   48  

were  represented  on  decision  making  bodies  or  committees  of  the   university/cultural  organisation  as  a  result  of  the  projects  (73%)  or  whether   there  was  an  increased  participation  in  joint  forums  to  improve  dialogue   (64%).    


5.3.6 Supporting  future  engagement  activity  
Community  group  staff/members  provided  a  range  of  recommendations  for   decision-­‐makers  within  universities/cultural  organisations  to  foster  further   engagement  activity  with  local  communities.     Some  suggestions  included:   • supported  activity  should  not  be  one-­‐off  -­‐  there  is  a  risk  that  it  could   be  viewed  as  tokenistic  or  forced.  There  is  a  need  to  maintain  and   enhance  dialogue  with  local  communities;   stronger  flow  of  communication,  information,  sharing  research   findings,  etc.  -­‐  in  particular  in  relation  to  follow-­‐up,  next  steps,   reporting  back  to  communities  to  ensure  that  awareness  is  raised;   increased  promotion  -­‐  e.g.  joint  meetings,  website,  forum,  etc.  to   ensure  that  dialogue  is  maintained  and  developed;   university  spaces  need  to  be  made  more  accessible  and  welcoming   (can  be  a  daunting  environment);  and   greater  sharing  of  university  knowledge  and  expertise  with   communities.  

• • •

5.4 Important  values  in  public  engagement  
Those  that  responded  to  the  online  survey  were  asked  for  views  on  the  five   most  important  values  in  engaging  with  local  communities.  Figure  5.12  sets   out  responses.   The  most  commonly  reported  values  centred  on  consultation,  openness,   accessibility,  and  a  shared  vision.   There  were  some  differences  in  responses  between  university  and  non-­‐ university  staff.  The  former  were  more  likely  to  report  values  such  as  respect   and  openness.  This  was  followed  by  having  a  shared  vision  and  consultation.   Non-­‐university  staff  were  more  likely  to  express  values  such  as  accessibility   (none  of  the  university  staff  surveyed  identified  this  as  an  important  value),   sensitivity  and  consultation.    
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   49  

Figure  5.12:  Important  values  in  undertaking  public  engagement  


N  =  19  

5.5 National  Survey  Responses  
This  section  is  based  on  a  review  of  survey  responses  provided  by  staff  of  the   three  universities  involved  in  the  Manchester  Beacon  in  January  2010  as  part   of  the  UK-­‐wide  evaluation  process  of  the  Beacon  initiatives.   Involvement  in  public  engagement     Respondents  were  asked  about  the  extent  of  their  involvement  in  public   engagement  activity  (Table  5.1).  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   50  

Table  5.1:  Involvement  in  public  engagement  
Management   Included  in  job   description   An  appraisal  target   A  criterion  for  promotion   62   29   8   39%   18%   5%   Teaching/   Research     33   39   40   17%   20%   20%   95   68   48   Total     27%   19%   13%  


Overall,  only  27%  of  staff  reported  that  public  engagement  is  included  in   their  job  description  -­‐  this  is  higher  for  management  than  teaching/research   staff.   Public  engagement  is  an  appraisal  target  for  less  than  a  fifth  of  staff  (19%)   and  even  less  reported  it  as  a  criterion  for  promotion  (13%).  A  greater   proportion  of  teaching/research  staff  reported  this  was  the  case  even   though  fewer  teaching/research  staff  reported  that  public  engagement  was   included  in  their  job  description.   Feel  supported  to  undertake  public  engagement  activities   Table  5.2  shows  that  less  than  half  of  staff  feel  supported  to  undertake   public  engagement  activities  by  their  institutional  systems  and  procedures   (41%).  Management  feel  more  supported  than  teaching/research  staff.     Table  5.2:  Supported  to  undertake  public  engagement  
  Management     Teaching/Research     Total     Number   75   69   144   %   47%   36%   41%  

Respondents  were  then  asked  to  consider  a  series  of  statements  around   feeling  supported  to  undertake  public  engagement  activities.  Table  5.3  sets   out  the  proportion  that  agreed  a  great  deal  or  to  some  extent.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   51  

Table  5.3:  Extent  staff  feel  supported  to  undertake  public  engagement  
  Peers/colleagues  in  my   department  are  supportive   towards  those  who  take  part  in   P.E.  activities     The  work  culture  of  my   institution  is  supportive  towards   those  taking  part  in  P.E.  activities     My  line  manager  is  generally   supportive  towards  those  who   take  part  in  P.E.  activities     Senior  Management,  including   Deans  and  Vice  Chancellors  are   generally  supportive     The  institution  I  work  for  rewards   those  who  take  part  in  PE   activities   Management   124   78%   Teaching/   Research     129   66%   Total     253   71%  


























In  the  main,  staff  feel  supported  by  their  peers/colleagues  and  line  managers   to  take  part  in  public  engagement  activities  (both  71%)  and  feel  that  the   culture  of  their  institution  is  supportive  (70%).     However,  staff  feel  that  senior  management  is  supportive  to  a  lesser  extent   (59%)  and  significantly  fewer  report  that  they  are  rewarded  for  taking  part  in   PE  (19%).     Across  all  of  the  statements,  management  feel  more  supported  than   teaching/research  staff.     Barriers  to  public  engagement   Over  two-­‐thirds  of  academics  reported  that  there  are  barriers  to  becoming   more  involved  in  public  engagement  activities  (70%)  (Table  5.4).  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   52  

Table  5.4:  Any  barriers  to  becoming  involved  in  public  engagement  
Number   Yes   No     Don’t  know   Total     131   37   18   186   %   70%   20%   10%   100%  


The  main  barrier  to  participating  in  public  engagement  activity  was  a  need   for  more  time  to  spend  on  teaching/research  (58%).  This  was  followed  by  a   need  to  spend  more  time  on  administration  or  that  they  would  have  to  do  it   in  their  own  time  (both  30%).  Table  5.5  sets  out  responses.   Table  5.5:  Barriers  to  public  engagement  
Number   I  need  to  spend  more  time  on  my  research/teaching   I  need  to  spend  more  time  on  administration   I  would  have  to  do  it  in  my  own  time   There  is  not  enough  funding   Lack  of  opportunity   I  am  already  involved  enough   There  is  little  senior  level  support   I  would  get  no  recognition   I  don’t  know  how  to   There  would  be  little  benefit  for  me   I  am  too  junior   I  do  not  have  the  training   I  don’t  have  the  confidence   Contentious  nature  of  my  research   English  is  not  my  first  language   I  feel  I  am  encroaching  on  the  work  of  the  Press   Office  or  External  Relations  staff   I  just  don’t  want  to   I  would  be  bad  at  it   I  am  only  in  the  UK  for  a  limited  period   Peer  pressure   107   56   56   42   39   38   30   26   18   17   11   10   7   4   4   4   2   1   0   0   %   58%   30%   30%   23%   21%   20%   16%   14%   10%   9%   6%   5%   4%   2%   2%   2%   1%   1%   0%   0%  

The  following  questions  were  added  to  the  Oakleigh  survey  by  the   Manchester  Beacon.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   53  

Impact  of  the  Beacons  for  Public  Engagement  Initiative     Staff  were  asked  to  consider  the  extent  to  which  the  Beacons  for  Public   Engagement  initiative  had  an  impact  on  their  own  work  priorities  and  those   of  their  peers.  Table  5.6  sets  out  the  proportion  of  staff  that  reported  an   impact  (a  great  deal  or  to  some  extent).     Table  5.6:  Perceived  impact  of  the  Beacons  initiative  on  priorities  
  Increased  public  engagement  as   a  priority  for  me     Increased  public  engagement  as   a  priority  for  my  peers     Management   44   51   28%   32%   Teaching/   Research     48   51   24%   26%   92   102   Total     26%   29%  


Just  over  a  quarter  of  staff  feel  that  the  Beacons  initiative  has  increased   public  engagement  as  a  priority  for  themselves  (26%)  and  slightly  more  feel   that  it  has  for  their  peers  (29%).  Management  were  slightly  more  likely  than   teaching/research  staff  to  report  that  public  engagement  had  increased  as  a   priority.   Has  the  institution’s  engagement  with  the  community  increased     Staff  considered  the  extent  to  which  their  institution  had  increased  the  level   of  engagement  with  local  communities  over  the  last  two  years  i.e.  since  the   start  of  the  Beacons  initiative.  Table  5.7  sets  out  the  proportion  that   reported  that  engagement  had  increased  (a  great  deal  or  to  some  extent).   Table  5.7:  Level  of  engagement  by  institution  has  increased  
Management   For  the  institution   For  your  department/faculty   108   78   68%   49%   Teaching/   Research   123   99   62%   50%   231   177   Total   65%   50%  

Overall,  almost  two-­‐thirds  agreed  that  their  institution’s  level  of  engagement   with  communities  had  increased,  whilst  less  reported  that  their  own   department/faculty  had  increased  engagement  over  the  same  period  (50%).     Has  partnership  working  with  other  institutions  in  Manchester  increased     Less  than  a  third  of  staff  feel  that  partnership  working  with  other  Higher   Education  Institutions  (HEIs)  has  increased  (a  great  deal/to  some  extent)   over  the  last  two  years:    
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   54  

• • •

management  -­‐  55  responses,  35%;     teaching/research  -­‐  54  responses,  27%;  and   total  -­‐  109  responses,  31%  .  


  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   55  

  Catalyst  -­‐  Development  Awards  


The  University  of  Manchester  Development  Awards  ran  from  May  to  November  2009  and   involved  various  schools/faculties  within  UoM,  other  Beacon  partners,  community   organisations  and  primary  schools.  It  sought  to  address  identified  institutional  culture   change  priorities.  Nine  development  awards  that  totalled  £7,500  were  made  to  support  the   long-­‐term  goal  of  valuing  public  engagement  as  part  of  everyday  university  life.     The  projects  included:     Building  dialogue  with  local  communities  to  develop  collaborative  health  histories;   Development  of  a  Dermatological  Sciences/School  of  Translational  Medicine  public   engagement  policy  through  engagement  of  South  Asian  communities  to  better  understand   information  requirements;  Primary  Science  Collaboration  explored  the  development  of  a   cross-­‐Beacon  HEI  partnership  based  on  a  chemistry  show  for  primary  school  children  and   parents/carers.   Think  About  it  comprised  listening  activity  with  young  women  from  three  local  youth   centres  and  youth  workers  to  better  understand  attitudes  and  aspirations  to  third  level   education;  Sustainable  Consumption  Institute  comprised  a  feasibility  study  on  the   development  of  a  community-­‐university  partnership  in  Ardwick  to  facilitate  a  transition  to  a   low  carbon  lifestyle  focusing  on  food  and  energy;  An  Ideas  Workshop  for  Scientists   involved  informal  public  engagement  activities  to  support  researchers  devise  creative  and   interactive  ways  to  explain  their  research  to  children  and  adults.   Supporting  staff  to  engage  with  service  users  involved  the  development  of  interactive   training  tools  for  staff  in  the  Arthritis  Research  Centre  to  engage  with  a  recently  formed   users  group  and  embed  public  engagement  into  induction  of  all  new  staff;  Mentoring  for   Public  Engagement  explored  the  Engineering  and  Physical  Sciences  Research  Council   (EPSRC)  PPE  Award  mentoring  scheme  to  inform  the  development  of  an  internal  mentoring   scheme  to  support  researchers;  and  Manchester  Museum  Community  Network  assessed   how  the  Museum  consults  and  involves  communities  in  its  policies  and  developments.   “There  is  now  a  greater  willingness  amongst  some  members  of  my  centre  to  explore  new   approaches  to  public  engagement  -­‐  not  simply  as  a  box  to  be  ticked”.   A  total  of  43  university  or  equivalent  staff  were  involved,  316  community  members   (including  school  children),  and  8  community  organisations.  Those  involved  presented  the   findings  and  key  lessons  from  their  projects  at  the  Beacon  summit  on  9  November  2009.     Feedback  was  positive  with  all  those  who  responded  to  the  evaluation  reporting  that  they   acquired  new  knowledge  and  understanding  of  public  engagement  and  over  half  agreed   that  their  understanding  of  the  value  and  importance  of  public  engagement  has  changed.   “I  have  always  thought  that  some  kind  of  ‘public  engagement’  was  important  ...  –  what  is   different  is  that  now  I  have  more  experience  of  this  –  which  includes  how  demanding  and   time  consuming  it  has  been,  as  well  as  how  rewarding  it  can  be.”    

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   56  


Performance  Against  Objectives  
This  Section  reviews  the  performance  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  to  date   against  its  NWDA  and  Manchester  Beacon  objectives,  and  provides  an   assessment  of  Strategic  Added  Value  (SAV).  


6.1 NWDA  Objectives  
The  single  programme  Development  and  Appraisal  form  for  the  programme   identifies  that  the  local  communities  in  the  wards  of  Hulme,  Ardwick,  Moss   Side  and  Rusholme  experience  disproportionately  high  incidences  of   economic  and  social  exclusion  and  see  local  educational  establishments  as   having  little  relevance  to  their  lives.  The  programme  therefore  aims  to   reduce  the  “perceived  walls”  between  local  communities  and  the   universities,  increase  understanding  and  connection,  raise  levels  of  interest   and  through  this  support  the  planned  growth  of  the  corridor  area.   The  overarching  aim  of  the  project  was  “to  use  social  impact  as  a  driver  for   culture  change  within  universities  to  support  and  value  cultural,  public  and   community  engagement  with  local  communities.2”   The  five  main  objectives  of  the  project  and  the  achievements  reported   against  these  are  described  below:   • to  achieve  significantly  improved  understanding  and  appreciation  of   the  universities  and  institutions  in  the  local  area  by  residents  of  the   local  communities  by  March  2010,  as  measured  by  ongoing   qualitative  evaluation:  

Community  participants  have  been  engaged  in  multiple  projects  from  the   Manchester  Beacon  as  detailed  in  previous  sections,  as  well  as  broader   engagement  activities.       In  survey  and  interviews  with  community  group  staff  /  members  involved  in   Beacon  projects  carried  out  for  this  evaluation,  83%  reported  that  the  local   community  has  an  improved  perception  of  the  university,  with  79%   reporting  they  were  more  aware  of  the  facilities  and  services  offered  by  the   university.     In  addition  63%  reported  an  improved  relationship  between  the  university   and  the  local  community  and  73%  felt  the  university  was  better  connected   with  the  local  community  than  before,                                                                                                              

 NWDA  Project  Exit  Report  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   57  

to  achieve  much  improved  understanding  and  appreciation  of   neighbouring  communities  by  the  universities  and  institutions,  such   that  relevant  aspects  of  HEI  strategy  and  planning  is  informed  by  the   priorities  of  local  communities  by  March  2010:  


In  a  parallel  survey  for  university  staff  engaged  in  Beacon  projects  92%  of   respondents  felt  that  the  university  has  a  better  understanding  of  the  local   community  as  a  result  of  the  Beacon  project,  with  a  similar  proportion   reporting  that  the  university  was  now  better  connected  to  the  local   communities.   In  addition  77%  of  respondents  reported  that  the  policy  of  the  university   towards  public  engagement  has  changed.   This  is  reflected  in  some  concrete  actions  by  the  universities.  UoM  have  set   up  a  Public  Engagement  Advisory  group  facilitated  by  the  Beacon  project   manager  so  that  engagement  becomes  embedded  within  their  new  strategic   goal  3,  social  responsibility.  MMU  Executive  has  embedded  two-­‐way   engagement  into  the  Action  Plan  for  the  Birley  Fields  campus  development.   • to  put  in  place  a  number  (in  the  region  of  five)  of  sustainable   engagements/projects  that  involve  academics  working  with  local   communities,  and  activities  requested  by  and  appreciated  by  those   communities,  by  March  2010:  

A  total  of  seven  sustainable  engagement  projects  were  delivered.  Five  of   these  directly  received  funding  from  NWDA  support  for  delivery,  and  others   levered  in  alternative  funding,  but  were  supported  in  delivery  through   NWDA  funding.  The  projects  were:   ArcSpace  Manchester     UoM  Development  Awards     Community  Leadership  Programme   Cultural  Awards     Community  Science  Awards     MMU  Public  Engagement  Fellowships  (funding  levered  by   MMU)   o Networking  and  Events  (e.g.  Comixed,  Mapping  Creativity,   Beacon  Summit).     o o o o o o Many  of  these  projects  actually  involve  several  individual  research  and   collaboration  projects,  involving  academics,  cultural  organisations  and   community  groups  /  members.  As  such  a  total  of  29  individual  collaborative   projects  have  been  supported,  many  more  than  the  five  sustainable  projects   originally  anticipated  have  been  initiated  through  the  Beacon.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   58  

In  addition  wider  networking  and  awareness  from  the  Manchester  Beacon   has  also  been  supported.     It  should  be  noted  that  learning  has  been  shared  across  the  programme  (for   example  the  MMU  fellowship  projects  adapted  and  adopted  Beacon   methodology  in  including  a  public  vote  to  choose  projects)  resulting  in  a   wider  impact  across  the  whole  programme.   •


to  develop  a  cadre  of  up  to  40  academics  with  an  enthusiasm  for,  and   experience  of  working  with  deprived  communities:  

This  target  has  been  exceeded  as  the  Manchester  Beacon  has  supported   projects  and  created  networks.  89  academics  have  been  involved  directly  in   delivering  projects  funded  through  NWDA  support.  In  addition  a  much  wider   cohort  of  academics  were  involved  and  supported  by  the  funding  through   networking  events,  wider  dissemination  and  sharing  elements  of  the   programme.    By  March  2010  the  Manchester  Beacon  reported  344  staff   involved  in  the  network.   • to  help  catalyse  an  uplift  in  the  number  of  local  residents  (in   particular  those  from  deprived  communities  with  no  prior  contact   with  the  HEIs)  with  a  positive  attitude  towards  working  in  the   universities  and  other  major  employers,  or  studying  at  (or  with  help   from)  those  HEIs:  

In  the  surveys  and  interviews  for  this  evaluation,  the  vast  majority  of   community  members  reported  that  they  either  already  had  or  planned  to   get  involved  in  further  projects  with  the  university  as  a  result  of  their   participation  with  the  Beacon  programme,  and  would  use  the  skills  and   experience  they  had  gained.   As  detailed  in  earlier  sections,  some  of  the  projects  were  specifically   targeted  at  building  the  capacity  of  community  members.  For  example  The   Community  Leadership  programme  (Inspiring  Leaders  and  Step  Up)  provided   personal  and  professional  development  to  30  individuals  (50%  from  BAME   background)  living  and  working  in  target  areas  adjacent  to  the  Corridor.   Participants  learned  new  skills  and  have  increased  confidence  as  a  result.     Overall  the  project  has  delivered  well  against  NWDA  objectives,  exceeding   targets  set  in  many  aspects.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   59  

6.2 Manchester  Beacon  Objectives  


The  five  shared  objectives  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  are  reviewed  briefly  in   turn  to  provide  an  assessment  of  progress  to  date  of  the  impact  of  the   project.    

6.2.1 Public  engagement  is  encouraged,  valued  and  supported    
This  objective  aligns  closely  with  the  core  objectives  of  the  main  funders   (HEFC,  RCUK,  Wellcome  Trust).     Evidence  gathered  in  this  evaluation  shows  good  progress  against  this   objective.  Feedback  from  participants  in  Beacon  projects  report  an  increase   in  PE  skills  and  a  perception  that  PE  is  more  valued  in  their  organisation.     This  is  reflected  in  changes  made  at  strategic  and  operational  levels  within   the  partner  organisations,  such  as  the  inclusion  of  PE  in  strategic  documents   and  mission  and  building  PE  into  appraisal,  promotions,  recruitment  and   other  HR  processes.   However  analysis  of  the  wider  staff  survey  (carried  out  as  part  of  the   national  evaluation)  reports  that  less  than  20%  report  that  it  is  included  as   an  appraisal  target,  or  feel  that  the  institution  rewards  those  who  take  part   in  PE.  By  contrast  the  same  survey  indicates  that  70%  feel  that  the  work   culture  is  generally  supportive  towards  those  undertaking  PE.   This  suggests  that  although  good  progress  had  been  made  here,  there  is  still   work  to  be  done  to  embed  this  activity.  

6.2.2 Change  perceptions  and  improve  accessibility  
The  perception,  image  and  accessibility  of  the  institutions  is  viewed  to  have   improved.  Data  gathered  for  this  evaluation  from  those  involved  in  Beacon   projects  indicates  that  83%  report  that  the  local  community  has  an  improved   perception  of  the  institutions.   Although  there  had  been  some  improvement  in  accessibility,  this  was   acknowledged  to  be  a  more  difficult  issue.  However  there  had  been  some   progress  in  this  aspect  as  well,  with  good  examples  of  using  university   facilities  and  equipment  (e.g.  ArcSpace  computer  re-­‐usage).   “Sometimes  just  a  room  with  a  projector  is  extremely  useful”  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   60  

6.2.3 Increasing  the  relevance  of  institution  activity  and   connectivity  with  communities  
The  wider  survey  of  staff  indicates  that  65%  agree  that  the  level  of   engagement  with  the  community  had  increased  over  the  lifetime  of  the   project.   This  was  reflected  in  the  survey  of  Beacon  project  participants  and   stakeholders,  who  identified  an  increased  level  of  activity  with  the   community,  with  73%  reporting  an  increased  level  of  connectivity  with  the   community.    


However,  even  within  the  Beacon  participants  the  work  of  the  institutions   was  not  necessarily  seen  as  relevant,  with  only  50%  identifying  this  as  having   improved.    

6.2.4 Improve  the  opportunities  for  sustainable  two-­‐way   learning  
The  focus  of  different  projects  funded  through  the  Beacon  has  been  to   encourage  and  initiate  collaborative  co-­‐creation  with  the  community.   Examples  of  successful  pilots  such  as  the  UoM  development  awards  and  the   Cultural  seed  awards  have  brought  researchers,  cultural  organisations  and   community  groups  /  members  together  in  research  activities.     Participants  have  reported  positive  learning  benefits  (new  skills,  knowledge   and  improved  work  outputs)  and  also  personal  benefits  (new  relationships,   increased  confidence,  interest  in  new  activities  and  enjoyment)  as  a  result  of   their  involvement.    

6.2.5 Develop  deeper  partnership  working  across  the  Beacon   partners  and  with  the  community  
Although  there  was  already  a  history  of  partnership  working  across  the   institutions  involved,  this  evaluation  has  identified  evidence  of  an  increase  in   that  partnership,  including  new  relationships  being  built  and  a  deeper,   broader  element  of  partnership.   This  is  certainly  true  at  a  strategic  level,  although  project  delivery  is  largely   still  within  an  individual  institution.     Partnership  with  the  community  has  also  improved,  notably  through  a   change  in  approach  influenced  by  learning  from  the  Beacon.  Importantly,  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   61  

  participants  surveyed  as  part  of  this  evaluation  report  a  high  level  of  interest   in  taking  further  action  and  implementing  their  skills  and  experience.  This   suggests  that  this  activity  has  the  potential  to  be  ongoing.   The  Beacon  team  itself  has  helped  act  as  a  channel  and  broker  for   communication,  and  linkages  between  partners  and  with  the  community.   Overall  good  progress  has  been  made  against  the  objectives,  in  particular   Objectives  1  and  5.  There  is  a  need  to  ensure  that  the  benefits  of  projects   are  captured  effectively  on  an  ongoing  basis.  

6.3 Strategic  Added  Value  
This  section  considers  the  Strategic  Added  Value  (SAV)  of  the  Manchester   Beacon.     In  general  due  to  the  nature  of  the  programme  it  is  unlikely  that  many  direct   economic  impact  will  arise  from  the  activity  of  the  Beacon,  although  there   have  been  some  direct  benefits  already  evidenced  (e.g.  ArcSpace  community   organisation  is  established  and  employing  local  people).  However  the  main   contribution  will  be  in  the  programme’s  SAV.   SAV  is  the  added  value  over  and  above  what  is  realised  by  co-­‐ordinating   strategy  and  influencing  others  to  help  achieve  its  objectives/desired   outcomes.  A  summary  description  of  the  key  elements  and  the  contribution   towards  generating  SAV  is  set  out  below.   Strategic  catalyst  role/leadership  -­‐    this  is  where  the  initiative  can  be  said  to   have  encouraged  partners  and  stakeholders  to  undertake  desirable  patterns   of  behaviour  or  investment  that  will  contribute  to  shared  objectives/  support   strategic  delivery.   A  key  element  of  the  Beacon  is  its  brokerage  role.  Its  approach  is  to   undertake  small  pilots  and  publicise  success,  as  well  as  influencing  partner   organisations  to  adopt  and  embed  good  practice.   Partners  have  signed  up  to  the  five  shared  objectives  that  aim  to  foster  a   supportive  environment  to  support  public  engagement  between  partners   and  local  communities,  and  through  the  Beacon  are  undertaking   coordinated  actions  and  sharing  learning  across  the  institutions.     Given  the  size  of  the  project  this  catalyst  approach  is  essential.  As  a  result   the  Beacon  has  also  become  the  “door  of  entry”  for  PE  involving  the   community.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   62  

Contribution  to  broader  policy  development/intelligence  -­‐  where  the   initiative  has  undertaken  or  stimulated  activity  which  serves  to  inform  and   define  what  needs  to  be  done  by  different  actors  including  individuals  and   groups,  public  and  private  sector  in  order  to  promote  strategic  delivery.   Contribution  to  this  element  is  evidenced  by  changes  in  policy  and  practice   seen  in  the  organisations.  PE  is  now  incorporated  into  strategic  aims  and   goals,  and  built  into  HR,  promotions  and  appraisal  policies.   In  addition  it  could  be  argued  that  Manchester  Beacon  is  leading  learning  in   Public  engagement  nationally.  This  has  raised  the  profile  of  its  performance   in  this  area  as  experiences  and  learning  is  shared.   Strategic  influence  -­‐  the  extent  to  which  the  initiative  contributes  towards   setting  the  policy  agenda  and  generates  stakeholder  interest  and  co-­‐ operation,  leading  to  greater  alignment  of  strategic  intent  across  partners.     Further,  achieving  alignment  and  inter-­‐locking  of  the  priorities  and   investment  plans  of  partners.  


There  is  evidence  from  this  evaluation  of  deeper  partnership  working  as  a   result  of  the  Beacon.  Examples  have  been  gathered  of  new  partnerships,  and   also  greater  sharing  between  existing  partners,  including  the  success  of  the   Science  Festival,  and  the  joint  response  to  the  Wellings  statement.   As  mentioned,  Partners  have  also  signed  up  to  five  shared  objectives  that   aim  to  foster  a  supportive  environment  to  support  public  engagement   between  partners  and  local  communities.   Currently  the  majority  of  activity  is  still  delivered  separately,  even  though   learning  is  shared.  However  discussions  on  the  future  approach  to  PE  are   being  undertaken  together  which  is  encouraging  for  a  future  joint  approach.   Leverage  -­‐  reflects  the  scale  and  nature  of  the  resources  contributed  to  the   promotion  of  public  engagement  as  a  result  of  the  project  and  the  influence   and  activities  of  levered  funding  and  other  resources  from  partners  and   stakeholders  in  support  of  objectives.   The  project  has  been  successful  in  leveraging  additional  funding  to  the   project.  The  NWDA  funding  was  part  of  a  package  of  funds.   In  addition  the  project  has  subsequently  levered  in  additional  funding  from   the  individual  institutions  Examples  of  additional  leverage  include:   • MMU  committed  £60k  of  institutional  resources  for  the  PE   Fellowship  scheme;  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   63  

• £5k  from  DCMS-­‐National  Museums  Liverpool  to  develop   programmes  working  with  Refugees  and  Asylum  seekers   • £4k  Roberts  Innovation  Fund  for  cross-­‐faculty  PE  resources  for   postgraduates  and  young  researchers.   • £10k  funding  from  AGMA  for  the  Manchester  Science  Festival  to   develop  its  community  programme  around  Greater  Manchester.   • £30k  funding  from  the  Wellcome  Trust  for  the  Manchester  Science   Festival  to  work  with  Nowgen  and  Contact  Theatre  engaging  young   audiences  in  Science.  


A  huge  amount  of  individual’s  time  has  also  been  invested,  far  exceeding  the   original  expectations  and  commitments  at  both  a  project  and  senior   strategic  level.   As  a  result  the  view  is  that  the  Manchester  Beacon  is  delivering  Value  for   Money  for  its  investment.   Engagement  -­‐  this  is  the  extent  to  which  the  initiative  has  brought  together   stakeholders  working  across  in  the  region  to  improve  the  design  and  delivery   of  projects  and  programmes.     The  whole  purpose  of  the  programme  was  to  tackle  this  issue  in  a   partnership  approach.  One  of  the  main  objectives  of  the  programme  has   been  agreed  to  be  greater  partnership  working.  Good  progress  has  been   made  in  this  element.   Prior  to  the  Manchester  Beacon,  partners  undertook  public  engagement   activity.  However  Beacon  activity  has  brought  a  greater  focus  and  co-­‐ ordination  to  engagement  work  among  those  involved.  The  Manchester   Beacon  has  resulted  in  a  more  joined-­‐up,  connected,  and  coherent  approach   to  public  engagement  activity,  with  partners  encouraged  to  work  together,   to  develop  joint  projects,  and  share  information  and  experiences,  etc.     In  addition  the  focus  was  to  build  partnerships  and  work  together  with  the   local  community.   Through  learning  from  the  Beacon  programme,  a  change  in  approach  has   been  more  evident,  with  a  strong  listening  agenda  built  into  the  engagement   process.   Overall  this  shows  there  has  been  a  strong  SAV  contribution  for  the   programme.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   64  



Capacity  -­‐  Community  Leadership  

The  Community  Leadership  programme  consisted  of  two  complementary  projects  -­‐  Step   Up  and  Inspiring  Leaders.     Step  Up  seeks  to  support  and  mentor  leaders  representing  marginalised   community/voluntary  organisations  from  BAME  communities.  This  was  informed  from  an   initial  “listening”  activity  which  identifies  leadership  skills  and  capacity  as  a  key  need   vocalised  by  the  local  communities  in  order  to  build  effective  two-­‐way  PE.   Participants  took  part  in  a  half-­‐day  training  session  in  Mentoring  and  Coaching.  Nine   training  sessions  have  been  delivered  to  date.  Subject  areas  include  performance   management,  negotiation  skills,  decision  making,  change  management,  and  creative   thinking.  Feedback  has  been  extremely  positive,  and  several  course  participants  have  now   taken  up  the  opportunity  for  further  mentoring  from  senior  university  staff  including   mentoring  on  the  UoM  Ethics  Committee  and  with  UoM  Corridor  Manchester  staff   member.  
"With this training I will become a valuable resource in my local community" Step Up Participant  

The  Manchester  Beacon  Partnership  also  commissioned  MISPA  (Manchester  Institute  of   Sport  and  Physical  Activity)  at  Manchester  Metropolitan  University  (MMU)  to  deliver  a  free   leadership  training  programme  (Inspiring  Leaders).  This  project  was  delivered  between   November  2009  and  April  2010.   Inspiring  Leaders  was  open  to  local  leaders  in  the  voluntary  and  community  sector  in   neighbourhoods  adjacent  to  Manchester  based  universities:  Ardwick,  Moss  Side,  Rusholme,   Longsight  and  Hulme.  It  was  expected  that  half  the  learners  would  come  from  BAME   backgrounds.   Inspiring  Leaders  consisted  of  a  seven-­‐day  training  programme  to  support  the  development   of  leadership  in  the  third  sector.  Training  was  delivered  in  weekly  sessions  (six  in  total).  This   was  followed  by  a  final  session  three  weeks  later.  The  training  sought  to  equip  individuals   with  the  appropriate  leadership  skills  to  sustain  and  develop  their  organisations  for  the   benefit  of  their  communities;  and  identify,  train  and  support  programme  graduates  with   cascading  their  leadership  knowledge  and  skills  to  their  peers  and  communities.  The   sessions  were  on  a  number  of  topics  including  leadership  and  learning,  managing  your   organisation,  sustaining  your  organisation,  managing  relationships  and  reflection  and  action   planning.   “The  course  has  been  inspiring  and  I  have  found  more  confidence  to  speak  up  and  put  my   ideas  and  myself  forward  in  a  way  I  never  did  before”   “The  course  has  been  enlightening,  inspiring,  challenged  my  thinking  and  most  important,   helped  me  question  my  set  goals”   All  participants  reported  that  they  would  recommend  Inspiring  Leaders  to  other  people  and   that  their  confidence  had  increased.  Participants’  self-­‐perception  of  their  leadership   abilities  increased  by  15%  over  the  course  of  their  involvement.     “I  gathered  so  much  information,  knowledge,  advice  and  inspiration  in  such  a  short  time”.     NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   65  


Learning  Points  and  Recommendations  


7.1 Conclusions  
The  four  year  national  Beacons  for  Public  Engagement  initiative  (2008/12)   seeks  to  bring  about  culture  change  in  the  way  academic  institutions,  their   staff,  and  their  students  reach  out,  listen,  and  engage  with  the  public.     The  Manchester  Beacon  in  particular  also  wished  to  focus  on  improving   engagement  with  local  communities,  and  build  an  environment  conducive  to   the  opportunity  for  co-­‐creation  and  two-­‐way  learning,  as  well  as  building   partnership  working.   It  is  by  nature  a  culture  change  programme,  and  as  such  is  long  term.   Although  the  focus  of  this  evaluation  is  the  NWDA  funding  which  concluded   in  March  2010,  it  is  in  effect  an  interim  evaluation  of  the  whole  programme,   which  should  inform  the  remaining  delivery  time  (to  December  2011)  and   input  to  discussion  of  the  future  direction  of  such  initiatives.  

7.1.1 Performance  against  objectives  
This  evaluation  evidences  that  the  programme  has  delivered  well  against  the   NWDA  objectives  set  at  the  start  of  the  funding.  In  many  cases  the  more   quantitative  elements  have  been  exceeded,  and  evidence  gathered  shows   improvements  in  the  more  qualitative  objectives.   An  assessment  has  also  been  made  against  Manchester  Beacon  Objectives,   and  good  progress  is  evidenced  here  as  well.     In  particular  Objective  1  (PE  is  valued  and  rewarded)  and  Objective  5  (deeper   partnership  working),  which  in  some  ways  are  the  underpinning  objectives   of  the  Manchester  Beacon  both  showed  good  evidence  of  improvement.   In  addition  the  programme  was  shown  to  have  high  Strategic  Added  Value   contribution,  and  was  viewed  to  be  delivering  Value  for  Money.   Due  to  the  long  term  nature  of  the  programme,  the  NWDA  funding  will   contribute  to  future  impacts  and  benefits  beyond  this  element  of  funding.  

7.1.2 Participants  benefits  
Both  Staff  and  Community  group  members  identified  positive  learning  and   personal  benefits  from  their  involvement  in  the  programme.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   66  

They  reported  gaining  new  skills  and  knowledge,  increased  confidence,   interest  in  new  ideas  as  well  as  enjoyment.   Significantly,  a  very  high  proportion  either  already  had,  or  planned  to  take   further  action  as  a  result  of  their  participation,  which  suggests  an  ongoing   interest  and  enthusiasm  for  further  engagement.  


7.2 Issues  and  Learning  points  
A  number  of  elements  were  raised  in  the  process  of  the  evaluation.  

7.2.1 Partnership  
The  partners  involved  are  very  diverse,  with  different  strengths  and  different   expectations.  This  means  they  can  learn  from  each  other.  In  addition  a   certain  amount  of  competition  between  the  university  partners  has  driven   improvement.     “The  partnership  has  driven  a  positive  spiral  of  competitiveness”   In  particular  the  cultural  partner  of  MOSI  has  brought  different  strengths  to   the  programme.  As  a  museum  they  are  already  used  to  operating  in  a  public   engagement  environment.  Diversity  has  proved  a  good  thing,  despite   sometimes  different  commitments  and  agendas.  There  has  been  evidence  of   mutual  benefits  e.g.  science  festival,  where  MOSI  provides  a  platform,  and   universities  the  content,  with  the  beacon  facilitating  the  brokerage.   There  is  a  long  history  of  partnership  working  across  the  partners.  However   the  Manchester  Beacon  has  allowed  new  partnerships  to  be  built,  new   relationships  to  be  formed,  and  a  deepening  of  trust  and  sharing.   A  key  factor  for  the  Manchester  Beacon  is  the  real  commitment  from  the  top   across  all  institutions.  This  is  extremely  important,  as  PE  is  therefore  placed   as  part  of  the  core  strategy,  not  just  a  side  element.  There  are  still  challenges   in  getting  this  implemented  and  embedded,  but  having  very  senior   committed  champions  across  the  institutions  is  a  major  benefit  that  will  help   deliver  this  agenda.  

7.2.2 Approach  
The  approach  taken  by  the  Manchester  Beacon,  of  listening  in  the  first  year,   has  been  challenging  for  some  partners,  who  were  keen  to  be  engaged  in   delivery.  However  the  consensus  seems  to  be  that  this  has  improved  the  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   67  

quality  of  delivery  in  the  subsequent  time,  and  they  are  now  doing  better  PE   and  not  just  more  of  it.   One  learning  of  the  process,  especially  in  the  early  stages  of  the  project,  is   that  a  certain  amount  of  chaos  helps  generate  energy,  ideas  and   engagement.  If  a  project  is  too  corralled  it  may  not  be  as  innovative.   However,  it  can  be  challenging  to  manage  the  outcomes.   A  key  success  of  the  Beacon  has  seen  not  only  more  activity,  but  also  a   change  in  approach  from  the  partner  organisations,  who  are  increasingly   looking  to  work  with  the  community  to  see  what  can  be  done  together,   rather  than  just  delivered,  and  treating  all  participants  as  equals.     “I  thought  the  Beacon  would  be  a  project,  but  in  fact  it’s  more  of  a   movement!”  


There  is  more  activity  taking  place  with  the  community  and  as  a  result  the   channels  of  communication  are  therefore  open.  However  it  is  also  worth   noting  that  the  use  of  language  has  changed,  becoming  more  open,  and   understanding  of  the  diversity  of  the  community  i.e.  that  it  is  not  one  entity.     Manchester  Beacon  is  seen  as  one  of  the  leading  Beacons  nationally.  The   approach  taken  by  the  Manchester  Beacon,  the  diversity  of  the  partnership,   and  the  emphasis  on  local  communities  and  two  way  engagements  differs   from  other  Beacons.  The  importance  of  senior  champions,  the  relatively  well   resourced  team  and  the  diversity  they  have  managed  to  engender  are  all  key   elements  in  this  success.  Sharing  the  learning  with,  and  learning  from,  the   national  programme  and  other  Beacons  is  important  to  maximise  the  value   of  the  overall  programme,  and  opportunities  for  this  should  be  maximised.    

7.2.3 Structure  
The  matrix  structure  where,  the  team  is  part  of  a  Beacon  but  hosted  in  their   home  institution  can  be  both  good  and  bad.  On  the  positive  side,  this  helps   embed  the  PE  ethos  in  each  organisation.  The  downside  is  that  the  culture  of   each  institution  is  very  different,  and  this  makes  it  harder  for  the  beacon   team  to  coalesce  as  a  team.  This  has  taken  a  while  to  become  established,   and  now  appears  to  be  working  better.     In  addition  the  working  groups  structure  took  some  time  to  be  properly   established  and  their  roles  clarified.    The  working  groups  are  now  more   structured,  and  as  the  programme  goes  into  its  final  stages,  need  to  make   sure  they  are  putting  forward  concrete  recommendations  to  the  leadership   group.  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   68  

7.2.4 Overcoming  barriers  
Language  is  identified  as  a  big  barrier  in  the  initial  stages  of  engagement.   People  feel  unwilling  to  challenge  academics  on  communication.  Giving   academics  the  skills  to  be  more  approachable  is  important.  In  addition,   building  confidence  and  capacity  is  a  strong  enabler  towards  two-­‐way   engagement  and  co-­‐creation.  Many  of  the  projects  initiated  by  the  Beacon   tackle  this  building  capability  issue  directly.  In  addition,  the  feedback  from   participants  about  building  confidence  and  new  skills  is  an  important  benefit   to  capture  at  the  time  of  project  implementation.   Building  trust  is  a  key  challenge.  It  is  based  on  personal  relations  and  takes   time  to  develop.  


Unexplored  perceptions  are  also  a  barrier.  Interestingly  some  projects   reported  that  they  assumed  a  lack  of  interest  and  demand  in  their  area  of   research/activity  from  the  community.  However,  once  they  started  exploring   they  found  this  was  not  the  case.  The  role  of  the  Beacon  in  channelling   connections  and  facilitating  conversations  has  helped  overcome  this.   “Sometimes  it  is  our  own  perceptions  that  hold  us  back”   There  were  also  practical  barriers  highlighted  as  part  of  delivering  the   projects,  including  being  able  to  commission  and  purchase  from  small   community  groups,  administration  procedures  and  slow  payment  processes,   which  were  found  to  be  difficult  in  some  circumstances,  given  the  financial   systems  in  place  within  the  institutions  and  funders.  

7.2.5 Learning  from  experience  
There  are  good  examples  of  learning  from  earlier  projects  being  fed  into  new   project  development,  e.g.  MMU  adopting  the  Mapping  Creativity  public   voting  methodology  as  a  way  to  generate  interest  and  buy  in.  This  shows  the   value  of  approaching  the  issue  as  a  partnership  programme,  where  learning   can  be  shared.  Both  success  and  failure  can  feed  into  this  learning.   “There  is  no  downside  from  learning.  We  can  learn  from  success  and  failure”   Dissemination  and  sharing  is  essential.  Team  members  report  having  to  do   things  three  times,  once  to  participate,  once  to  capture  and  share  and  a   third  time  to  tell  others  (especially  senior  staff)  about  it.  Case  studies  and   videos  also  help  capture  valuable  elements.   Following  sharing  and  dissemination,  it  is  also  important  to  address  what  is   going  to  happen  next  as  a  result  of  the  project  /  intervention  to  ensure  that  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   69  

  they  are  not  just  projects  in  isolation  that  have  no  longer  term  impact.  This  is   a  key  element  in  building  sustainability  and  long-­‐term  change.  

7.2.6 Broker  /  catalyst  role  
The  importance  of  the  beacon  team  as  a  broker  and  channel  for  linkages   should  not  be  underestimated.  This  works  both  between  the  partners  and   with  the  community.   Beacon  has  a  major  role  in  joining  different  networks  together.  People  will   listen  to  peers  so  their  trusted  networks  are  important  for  sharing  and   convincing  messages.  This  approach  is  also  important  because  of  the  size  of   the  Beacon  programme.  There  is  a  need  to  seed  some  initial  activity  and   linkages  and  encourage  the  spread  from  there  through  networks.     “We’re  building  an  ecosystem”.  

7.2.7 Early  adopters  
As  is  inevitable  in  a  change  management  programme  such  as  this,  those   most  engaged  at  the  early  stages  will  be  those  who  were  already   enthusiastic  and  early  adopters,  i.e.  the  programme  will  encourage  those   who  were  already  keen  to  engage.  This  is  also  true  for  community   engagement  where  the  most  interested  are  the  ones  most  likely  to  become   involved.     This  does  allow  a  small  minority  to  accuse  the  Beacon  of  not  going  far   enough  and  playing  safe.  However  the  programme  is  giving  visibility  and   “permission”  to  those  engaged  with  PE,  and  opening  channels  of   communication  and  connectivity  with  the  community.  There  is  also  evidence   that  new  people  are  becoming  engaged  as  the  programme  progresses.   These  successes  can  be  built  on.  

7.2.8 Raising  Expectations  
One  risk  in  the  current  Beacon  approach  is  that  having  successfully  raised   demand  and  built  capacity  within  the  community,  this  raises  expectations.  If   this  is  not  sustained  this  may  disappoint  the  community  partners  and  the   trust  reinforcing  these  relationships  will  be  damaged.  This  is  a  key  issue  for   sustainability,  especially  for  the  future.  Even  currently  if  funding  is  project   specific,  how  to  maintain  those  contacts  once  the  funding  has  ended  is   important  to  address.  In  addition  making  sure  that  project  results  are  fed   back  into  the  community  who  helped  generate  them  is  essential.  There  is  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   70  

evidence  that  this  is  not  always  happening,  which  damages  the  potential  or   future  relationships.  


7.2.9 Embedding  long-­‐term  change  
Maintaining  trust  is  an  issue  for  sustainability  beyond  the  life  of  beacon   funding.  At  present  the  Beacon  team  have  built  networks  and  relationships,   but  this  is  linked  to  the  participants  and  the  team  and  is  still  somewhat   disconnected  across  the  institutions  and  within  their  systems  and  process.   Passing  responsibility  for  those  relationships  to  others  in  the  organisations  is   important  in  the  last  years  of  the  Beacon  funding.  It  needs  to  move  beyond   the  team.  (The  operations  group  are  already  beginning  to  address  this   question).   The  change  agenda  is  huge.  So  far,  with  senior  support  and  on  the  ground   projects  there  is  a  top  down  and  bottom  up  approach.  However,  there  is  still   a  large  number  of  staff  for  whom  PE  is  still  seen  as  an  optional  activity.  This   is  unlikely  to  change  in  two  years,  but  incentives,  strategic  goals,  and   systems  and  processes  to  embed  these  agendas  are  starting  to  be  developed   and  adopted.  There  is  a  need  to  continue  to  reinforce  the  approach.   Progress  has  been  good  in  strategy  and  policy,  but  there  is  a  need  to  make   sure  this  becomes  a  practical  reality  and  not  just  a  tick  box  exercise.   PE  is  higher  up  the  agenda  within  the  universities,  but  was  identified  by   respondents  as  still  a  poor  fourth  behind  funding,  research  rating,  and   teaching.  Although  part  of  promotions,  there  is  a  potential  that  it  could  be   seen  as  either  /  or  (research  or  PE)  rather  than  strengthening  both.  If  not   embedded  there  is  a  risk  it  will  be  seen  as  second  class.   In  addition  it  was  emphasised  that  PE  is  not  just  an  academic  issue,  but   permeates  throughout  the  whole  institution.   Whereas  the  impact  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  (especially  given  the  size  and   scope  of  the  project)  should  not  be  overstated,  it  nevertheless  has   influenced  and  catalysed  a  whole  range  of  changes,  improvements  and   connections,  and  built  a  momentum  behind  its  activities.  The  Manchester   Beacon  is  a  four  year  programme,  and  this  needs  to  be  embedded  in  the   remaining  time  of  the  programme.  

7.3 Learning  for  NWDA  
There  are  a  number  of  learning  points  that  can  be  usefully  drawn  from  the   Manchester  Beacon  programme:  
  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   71  

innovative  approach  -­‐  the  approach  taken  by  the  Beacon  is   innovative,  involving  engaging,  listening,  and  identifying  needs  and   mutual  benefits.  This  has  fostered  an  environment  of  co-­‐creation   rather  than  just  delivery  and  as  such  will  hopefully  bring  long  term   gains  beyond  the  life  of  the  project.  There  is  potential  learning  here   for  other  initiatives  where  engaging  diverse  partners  with  differing   agendas  is  at  the  core  of  the  programme.  However  removing   practical  barriers  (e.g.  purchasing  and  payment  process  limitations)     for  such  innovative  approaches,  especially  when  engaging  with  small   community  organisations,  needs  to  be  explored;   build  across  strengths  -­‐  as  part  of  the  Beacon  programme  the   Universities  have  worked  closely  in  partnership,  together  with  MOSI.   Each  have  brought  different  strengths  to  the  programme,  and  have   shared  learning  throughout  the  partnership.  This  has  meant  that  the   programme  has  built  on  the  combined  strengths,  rather  than  each   institution  developing  in  isolation.  This  is  a  city  wide  approach,  which   respondents  considered  to  enhance  civic  pride  and  build   Manchester’s  reputation  as  a  centre  of  good  practice;   high  Strategic  Added  Value  -­‐  this  project  was  in  many  ways  an   unusual  investment  for  NWDA  as  it  was  not  anticipated  to  deliver   direct  economic  benefit.  It  was  however  anticipated  to  bring  high   SAV  returns.  Through  leverage,  influence  and  particularly  the   catalytic  role  of  the  Manchester  Beacon,  this  has  been  evidenced   through  the  evaluation;  and   maximising  assets  -­‐  for  NWDA  a  key  purpose  of  investment  was   maximising  the  assets  of  the  Manchester  corridor  and  building   coherent  and  attractive  place.  By  promoting  and  adopting  genuine   two-­‐way  engagement  practices  and  building  capacity  and   connectivity  with  the  local  community  the  Beacon  has  helped   engender  a  more  connected  environment.  Learning  from  this   approach  has  already  been  embedded  in  other  investments  in  the   area.  


7.4 Learning  for  Beacon  and  Other  Funders  
There  are  a  number  of  learning  points  that  can  be  usefully  drawn  from  the   Manchester  Beacon  programme  for  the  Beacon  and  other  funders:   • partnership  -­‐  a  major  strength  of  the  Manchester  Beacon  has  been   the  partnership.  Although  it  can  be  challenging  to  work  across  so   many  partners,  each  has  brought  different  skills.  Partnership  working   has  improved  and  learning  and  sharing  of  experience  (as  well  as  a  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   72  

  certain  amount  of  competition)  has  helped  improve  learning  and   drive  implementation.  This  deeper  level  of  partnership  should   continue  to  be  built  upon  and  other  opportunities  explored,  including   the  future  plans  for  public  and  community  engagement  and   knowledge  exchange  activity;   • role  of  broker  -­‐  the  Beacon  team  has  established  itself  as  an   important  broker  in  making  connections  and  helping  develop   linkages.  Whereas  this  has  been  successful  in  catalysing  additional   activity,  the  next  step  is  to  widen  this  element  of  connectivity.  There   is  a  danger  that  those  links  are  made  only  with  the  Beacon  team  and   not  with  the  wider  institutions.  As  such  embedding  and  broadening   the  points  of  contact  is  an  important  focus.   commitment  from  the  top  -­‐  one  of  the  identified  successes  of  the   Manchester  Beacon  is  the  level  of  senior  commitment,  with  strong   champions  across  all  partners.  This  ensures  that  an  emphasis  is  being   put  on  changing  behaviours  both  from  a  top  down  and  a  bottom  up   approach.  The  importance  of  senior  commitment  cannot  be   underestimated,  but  needs  to  be  reinforced  with  systems  and   processes  that  reward  and  recognise  PE;   continual  learning  -­‐  the  learning  from  pilots  and  practice  tested   through  the  Beacon  needs  to  be  continually  reviewed  and  absorbed   into  new  approaches.  Understanding  of  barriers  and  how  to   overcome  them  has  helped  inform  new  activity.  This  has  been   successfully  done  as  part  of  the  programme  so  far  (e.g.  approaches   adopted  in  other  engagement  activity).  However  ensuring  this   environment  for  learning  is  not  lost  once  the  current  Beacon  funding   has  concluded  is  an  issue  to  be  considered  for  the  future.  i.e.  how  to   continue  to  drive  forward  progress  and  instil  improvements;   capturing  impact  and  benefit  -­‐  capturing  the  progress  and  impact  of   culture  change  is  complex.  There  is  a  need  for  learning  at  the  time  of   the  project,  not  only  what  was  done,  but  what  has  been  the  impact   and  changes  in  behaviour.  The  learning  from  this  evaluation  process   will  be  embedded  into  internal  evaluation  processes,  including  a   review  of  the  M&EF,  language  and  processes  used  and  for  the  final   evaluation  to  maximise  capturing  of  impact.  In  particular  capturing   the  benefits  and  impacts  of  interventions  should  be  a  high  priority,  as   well  as  the  changes  in  behaviour,  for  example  where  some   participants  have  gone  on  to  champion  further  activity.  In  addition   consideration  of  how  to  coherently  gather  community  perception  of   improved  image,  relevance  should  be  explored.  This  potentially  could   be  tested  with  a  community  survey,  but  this  needs  to  be  managed   alongside  other  parallel  activity.  Alternatively  it  may  be  more  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   73  

appropriate  to  evaluate  this  for  the  project  rather  than  the  overall   institutions;   •


long  term  perspective  -­‐  change  on  this  scale  takes  longer  than  four   years.  Ambitions  for  the  future  must  include  how  to  keep  people   driving  at  the  same  pace  so  as  not  to  lose  momentum  once  the  initial   funding  finishes.  In  addition  having  built  expectations  and  demand   within  community  partners,  thought  must  be  given  as  to  how  to   continue  to  nurture  those  relationships  and  service  that  demand,  and   ensure  that  interaction  is  not  seen  as  a  “one  off”,  but  a  continual   process.  In  an  environment  where  any  future  funding  is  under   question,  how  to  build  that  incentive  without  specific  funding  models   must  be  considered  as  part  of  the  sustainability  discussion;  and   embedding  good  practice  -­‐  a  major  focus  for  the  remainder  of  the   Beacon  funding  is  to  embed  good  practice  into  the  institutions.  As   mentioned  above,  part  of  this  is  to  build  robust  systems  and   processes  that  reinforce  the  practice  in  the  institutions,  and  ensure   they  are  valued  and  adhered  to.    This  could  also  be  powerfully   reinforced  if  the  other  funders  of  this  programme  (HEFCE,  RCUK)   ensured  that  recognition  of  PE  is  built  into  their  funding  criteria   rather  than  being  seen  as  separate.  This  could  be  a  powerful   incentive  if  reinforced  from  the  centre.  

7.5 Recommendations  
The  learning  points  from  the  evaluation  are  applicable  in  many  aspects  of   the  programme.  However,  for  ease  of  management  and  to  ensure  the   learning  from  the  evaluation  is  used  to  improve  the  overall  impact,  they   have  been  distilled  into  a  number  of  recommendations  for  the  different   working  groups  within  the  Manchester  Beacon  to  lead  and  to  action  in  the   remaining  time  of  the  project.   Steering  Board   • • • The  Steering  board  is  requested  to  endorse  the  recommendations  from  the   evaluation;   The  steering  board  is  requested  to  strongly  lobby  national  funders  on  the   importance  of  building  recognition  of  PE  into  funding  processes;   The  role  of  senior  champions  was  shown  to  be  very  important.  The  steering   board  are  requested  to  continue  to  support  the  Beacon  objectives  at  the   highest  level;  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   74  

The  steering  board  are  requested  to  ensure  that  the  working  groups  put   forward  concrete  recommendations  for  action.   Operations  Group  


• • •

The  Operations  group  is  requested  to  lead  actions  on  sustainability;   In  particular  this  should  focus  on  broadening  points  of  contact  beyond  the   Beacon  team,  and  maintaining  momentum  once  the  initial  funding  finishes;   Identifying  solutions  to  some  practical  barriers  to  engagement   (administration  and  procurement  processes)  should  also  be  addressed.   Recognition  group  

• • • •

The  Recognition  group  is  requested  to  lead  actions  on  reinforcing  progress   through  systems  and  processes;   Identifying  actions  to  ensure  this  is  truly  embedded  and  implemented  is  a   priority;   This  should  apply  to  all  staff  not  just  academics;   There  is  a  perception  that  the  importance  of  PE  (and  other  third  stream   activity)  is  still  viewed  as  of  lesser  importance  than  research,  and  teaching.   Establishing  mechanisms  where  PE  can  be  seen  as  enhancing  research  as   opposed  to  separate  should  be  explored;   To  ensure  raised  expectations  through  engagement  with  the  community  are   not  disappointed,  and  to  ensure  engagement  is  not  “one-­‐off”,  building   incentives  for  engagement  without  specific  funding  mechanisms  must  be   explored.   Communications  group  

• • •

The  Communications  Group  are  requested  to  lead  actions  on  sharing  and   dissemination  and  assisting  learning  through  the  programme;   As  well  as  the  experience  of  the  projects,  sharing  approaches  which  can  then   be  reapplied  should  be  a  valuable  addition;   Sharing  learning  with  and  from  other  Beacons  will  help  maximise  the  value   to  the  whole  programme.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   75  

Evaluation  and  Impact  group   • The  Evaluation  and  Impact  group  are  requested  to  lead  actions  related  to   capturing  the  widest  benefits  of  the  programme,  and  most  importantly   progress  on  culture  change;   The  evaluation  processes,  and  the  learning  from  this,  must  include  not  only   what  has  been  done,  but  also  impact  and  changes  in  behaviour,  and   catalysing  further  activity;   To  reflect  the  learning  from  this  evaluation,  the  M&EF  should  be  reviewed   and  internal  evaluation  processes  updated  appropriately.    


  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   76  


Creativity:  -­‐  ArcSpace   ArcSpace  Manchester  was  the  successful  project  selected  under  the  Mapping  Creativity   engagement  activity  progressed  by  the  Manchester  Beacon.     It  is  a  virtual  and  physical  launch  pad  for  creative  and  ethical  exchange,  run  by  local   community  artists  and  academics.  The  creative  cluster  was  set-­‐up  in  Hulme  by  community   artists  in  St  Wilfred's  Enterprise  Centre  to  foster  and  support  creative  and  ethical  exchange   between  academics,  creative  industries,  and  community  groups.  ArcSpace  provides  a  free   computer  hub  with  internet  access,  workshop  space,  and  training  in  recycling  for  creative   and  ethical  skills  exchange  for  sustainable  living.     A  holistic  approach  has  been  taken  with  a  view  to:   • • • • • • building  pathways  for  local  people  as  local  employees,  creative’s,  thinkers  and  do-­‐ ers;   building  capacity  and  network  development;   encouraging  local  people  to  use  free  software  and  recycled  computers  and  to  learn   skills  effectively  enough  to  pass  them  to  others  through  Peer  to  Peer  learning;   helping  people  understand  concepts  of  Open  Source  Technology  and  Education  and   to  promote  third  sector  development  for  predominantly  creative  organisations;   transfer  ethical  and  environmental  skills  e.g.  recycling  computers  and  other   materials  which  ties  into  findings  by  recent  UNESCO  reports;  and   promote  local  businesses  and  the  integration  of  local  people  into  ethical  trading   principles  as  social  and  cultural  regeneration  tools.    

University  staff  have  delivered  workshops  and  provided  computers  for  recycling.  A  notable   success  is  that  an  MMU  academic  now  sits  on  the  ArcSpace  Board  -­‐  ensuring  that  two-­‐way   engagement  and  dialogue  continues  and  develops.   ArcSpace  has  a  very  diverse  membership  with  over  50  members  and  is  very  diverse   including  researchers,  strategists,  MCs,  writers,  musicians,  filmmakers,  students,  lecturers,   editors,  community  elders,  young  people,  etc.   The  project  has  also  begun  to  generate  its  own  income  from  Learning  Skills  and   Transformation  Fund,  Arts  Council  England,  and  the  Carbon  Innovation  Fund.  

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   77  



Appendix  A:  Objectives  and  Evidence  of  Success   Appendix  B:  Examples  of  additional  Beacon  activity    


  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   78  

Appendix  A:  Objectives  and  Evidence  of  Success  
  Objective   Objective  1:  PE  is     Encouraged  and   Supported  


Evidence  of  Success   • PE   embedded   into   Learning   Institutions’   plans   and   strategies;   • PE  written  into  job  profiles;     • PE   incorporated   into   performance   appraisals/   rewards;     • evidence   of   PE     training/CPD/student   studies/   teaching/research  design;  and     • staff  time  allocated  to  PE.   Objective  2:  Change   • improved  communication  and  signposting  of  services   Perceptions  and   and  activities;   Improve  Accessibility   • facilities  are  open  and  accessible  to  community;   • improved   awareness   raising   of   support   mechanisms   e.g.  bursaries  for  local  residents,  adult  learning  etc;  and   • increased   accessibility   of   staff,   academics,   research   and  knowledge.   Objective  3:   • increased  academic  activities  involving  communities;   Increasing  the   • increased   university   involvement   with   community   Relevance  of   activities  (research  or  not);   Institution  Activity   • increased   visibility   of   university   staff   in   the   and  Connectivity  with   community;   Communities   • evidence   of   communities   actively   participating   in   project/research  implementation;   • increased  community  participation  in  influencing  and   decision  making  processes  in  the  Universities;  and   • evidence   of   improved   communication/translation   of   research  to  and  in  a  community  environment.   Objective  4:  Improve   • increased   involvement   with   and   co-­‐creation   of   the  Opportunities  for   institutional  activity;   Sustainable  Two-­‐Way   • evidence  of  exchange  of  knowledge  and  skills;  and   Learning   • evidence  of  active  forums  for  the  exchange  of  ideas,   dialogue  and  concerns.   Objective  5:  Develop   • evidence   of   added   value   of   partnership   through   Deeper  Partnership   collective  working;   Working  Across  the   • collective  working  is  valued  and  embedded;   Beacon  Partners  and   • evidence  of  more  joint  working  at  project  level;   with  the  Community   • evidence  of  sharing  of  expertise;  and   • evidence  of  pooling  of  resources.    

  NWDA:  Evaluation  of  Manchester  Beacon   79  

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful