Looking back at the evaluation of the Rural Futures programme: what we learned, and why it still matters

In July 2024 we published the final evaluation of the Rural Futures programme, a seven‑year, £2 million investment by The National Lottery Community Fund to support communities facing rural poverty across Wales. Now, around a year and a half on, it feels like a good moment to reflect on what that evaluation told us – and why its findings continue to resonate. 

At its heart, Rural Futures was about capacity, not quick fixes. Delivered between 2017 and 2024 by Severn Wye and the BRO Partnership, the programme worked intensively with 14 communities that had received little or no previous Lottery funding.

Place Coordinators spent time building trust, supporting local people to identify priorities, and helping communities move from discussion to action. The evaluation found that this approach worked: communities developed skills, confidence and momentum, and most went on to secure funding for locally led projects.

Key takeaways from the evaluation

• Skilled ‘place coordinators’ are necessary to unlock community action. External support works best when it complements local leadership and widens engagement out to a greater section of the community.

• Community buy‑in is a critical condition for success. Progress depended on committed local individuals, shared ownership and a willingness within communities to engage with the process.

• There is no one‑size‑fits‑all model. Communities progressed at different speeds and required different types of support, underlining the importance of flexibility in programme design and delivery.

• Community development is resource‑intensive and takes time. Thousands of engagements were recorded, mostly through sustained, small‑scale interactions.

• Place‑based work can mitigate the impacts of rural poverty. Strengthening social networks, improving access to shared spaces and building confidence helped communities become more resilient.

• Longer‑term thinking matters. The evaluation highlights the value of realistic timescales, clearer selection criteria and some form of light‑touch follow‑on support to sustain progress.

The evaluation highlighted just how resource‑intensive effective community development is. Thousands of engagements took place over the lifetime of the programme, most of them one‑to‑one or in small groups. Progress looked different in different places and often took longer than expected – something compounded by the COVID‑19 pandemic and the cost‑of‑living crisis. There was no single “model” that could be applied everywhere. Flexibility, patience and skilled facilitation were essential.

The central role of Place Coordinators came through strongly. Their ability to listen, mediate, connect people and organisations, and adapt approaches to local contexts emerged as one of the key reasons Rural Futures was successful. But the evaluation is careful to stress that this role worked best when it complemented, rather than substituted for, local leadership and motivation. This has important implications for future programmes: investing in skilled people must go hand in hand with thinking carefully about community selection, readiness and the conditions needed for support to take root.

One of the clearest lessons from the evaluation was that providing a Place Coordinator alone is not sufficient. Progress depended just as much on the presence of local buy‑in and committed individuals within communities. Where people were willing to engage, take ownership and work collaboratively, the support provided could be translated into action. Where this foundation was weaker, progress was slower. Outcomes such as increased capacity and effective partnerships rely on key enabling conditions, including community readiness, trust and shared ownership of the process.

Importantly, the findings also perhaps challenged some assumptions about rural poverty. Communities most often prioritised issues around access to services, assets and shared spaces, rather than income alone. While tackling the structural causes of poverty requires action at policy level, the programme helped communities mitigate its impacts – reducing isolation, strengthening social networks, and creating places and partnerships that can support future action.

Looking back, the evaluation was honest about limitations and risks. Supporting fewer communities than originally planned turned out to be the right decision. Questions remain about long‑term sustainability and what happens once intensive support ends. As a result, the report made clear recommendations about longer timescales, clearer selection criteria, and the value of light‑touch follow‑on support.

Eighteen months on, those lessons feel as relevant as ever. As funders, policymakers and delivery organisations continue to grapple with how best to support rural communities, Rural Futures offers a strong evidence base for what works – and a reminder that lasting change depends on both skilled external support and genuine local ownership.

You can find further information about the Rural Futures programme and a copy of the evaluation report here: Rural Futures – Severn Wye

For more information about this evaluation, contact Endaf Griffiths – endaf.griffiths@wavehill.com