University of Birmingham
University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-papers RepositoryNot a member yet
3085 research outputs found
Sort by
Advancing justice and inclusion for children born of Conflict-related sexual violence: a rapid evidence assessment
Full text linkThis Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA)
evaluates the immediate and long-term risks,
harms, and challenges faced by Children Born
of Conflict-Related Sexual Violence
(CBoCRSV) in Low- and Middle-Income
Countries (LMICs). Conducted under the UK’s
Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict
Initiative (PSVI), the assessment addresses
three key research questions:
What are the primary risks, harms, and
challenges faced by CBoCRSV?
What interventions may effectively promote
their well-being?
How has research in this field evolved?
Through the analysis of 289 documents, the
findings of this REA reveal that CBoCRSV
commonly face severe social stigma and
exclusion, affecting their integration within
families and communities. Their family
dynamics are frequently strained, with limited
stable support. They are at higher risk of
somatic symptoms, depression, and identity�related challenges, that can lead to long-term
psycho-social and developmental harm.
Additionally, barriers such as lack of legal
documentation, financial constraints, and
societal discrimination often restrict their
access to education, healthcare, and basic
services. Cultural and religious beliefs were
also found to exacerbate their marginalisation.
Promising interventions include psychological
support programmes, legal advocacy,
community-based support, and educational
and economic inclusion initiatives. However,
these remain largely under-evaluated due to a
lack of empirical research. Significant gaps in
the literature include limited representation of
certain regions, a dearth of comparative
studies across conflict settings, and
insufficient data to capture the intersectional
and long-term challenges CBoCRSV face.
To address these gaps, the literature calls for
targeted action to strengthen participatory
approaches that engage survivors and
affected communities in policymaking, foster
international collaboration to standardise and
scale effective interventions, and invest in
systematic, ethical research to identify what
works. Recommended measures include
strengthened legal frameworks, enhanced
social support systems, economic inclusion,
and improved access to education and
healthcare. Together, these efforts aim to
create protective environments that reduce
risks, foster integration, and promote the
rights and well-being of CBoCRS
Central-local relations under Labour (2024-): emerging themes and issues in English devolution
Full text linkThe Labour Government elected in July 2024 has now had six months in office. With publication of the Devolution White Paper on 16 December 2024, this is a good moment to assess the direction of travel in the government’s approach to central-local relations (MCHLG, 2024). To summarise, devolutionary elements are welcome but cautious and incremental, while the (potentially) radical elements around reorganisation are not devolutionary. In this respect, the White Paper marks continuity in the British state tradition. The wide-ranging devolution community of interest recognises progress, whilst expressing disappointment at the lack of ambition (https://citizen-network.org/work/local-england).
That which is to be welcomed in the White Paper reinforces the change of tone towards local government. The further devolution of functions to city-regions, simplified funding arrangements, multi-year settlements and rollout of new central-local partnership bodies (and the localisation of power to amend byelaws) are all devolutionary measures to empower metro-mayors. Moreover, the White Paper is represented by ministers and sympathetic commentators as a floor, not a ceiling, and the most optimistic commentaries witness the beginning of a more radical shift (Studdert, 9.12.2024).
If the White Paper is a floor, the ceiling is neither clear nor near. Endemic features of the centralised British state tradition remain unchallenged and if anything augmented. There is to be no fiscal devolution, though the government is open to the idea of devolving further functions and resources to single settlement authorities. The vision of English local government that emerges is based around the evolution of a bifurcated system of very large Mayoral “strategic” authorities, intended to be growth machines (Molotch, 1976), and enlarged principal authorities charged with public service (mostly social service) delivery. Taken to its conclusion, this new wave of reorganisation will see the abolition of district councils, posing major questions about political and democratic identities and accountabilities. These preoccupations with growth and efficiency seek to amplify and ultimately conclude a pre-existing local state restructuring project, an agenda with arguably centralising overtones expressed in the language of devolutionary ambition.
This paper delves into central government messaging in greater depth, focusing on the period since the General Election of July 2024 and concluding with the Devolution White Paper of
December 2024. It finds familiar ambiguities and dilemmas in the top-line commitment to devolution redolent in some ways of the New Labour approach, reflecting the endemic centralism in English governance (Rae, 2011). These ambiguities point, above all, to the need to make legible rules, traditions and governmentalities that have long defined central-local relations, and have quickly remerged under the current government.
This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC.
The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics
Shaping Birmingham’s Future Together: Towards Embedded and Inclusive Participatory Governance
No full text(Executive Summary) Birmingham City Council's "Shaping Birmingham's Future Together" (SBFT) initiative represents an opportunity to transform how the city tackles inequality and maximises inclusive growth opportunities through participatory governance. This report examines how SBFT can support institutional culture change towards participatory policymaking, drawing lessons from UK and international experiences but situating recommendations within Birmingham's specific context and challenges.
The report argues that participatory policymaking must be deeply embedded within governance structures to enable meaningful engagement, mobilise diverse communities, and support mutual learning and transformative change. Achieving this requires facilitative leadership and the cultivation of boundary-spanning roles that bridge divides between government, civil society, and local communities. Advancing inclusive participation also demands an intersectional approach that centres marginalised voices to address systemic inequalities. Key recommendations include:
Key recommendations include:
- invest in boundary spanner roles that can support collaboration across different sectors and stakeholders;
- rebuild trust through transparent participatory processes, ensuring follow up on citizen input;
- rethink participation not as disjointed events vulnerable to the political cycle, but as coherent processes embedded into day-to-day policymaking;
- build on existing community assets and resources, recognising and supporting their diverse roles and activities;
- incentivise alliances across diverse community, voluntary and grassroots groups to strengthen synergies and collaboration, rather than engendering competition over limited resources;
- adopt an intersectional approach to encourage inclusive participation that centres marginalised voices and experiences
The Green Book
Full text linkThe Green Book is a key guidance document used by the UK Government for over half a century to inform the appraisal and evaluation of public investments. This contribution assesses the use of the Green Book in appraising sub-national applications for UK central government funding. It discusses the role of the Green Book in the assessment of sub-national applications for central government funding. It then moves on to examine its strengths and weaknesses, followed by an examination of what may be learnt from international practices of central government appraisals of place-based funding applications.
This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC.
The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics
Public participation in policymaking
Full text linkInvolving the public in local government decisions fosters democratic participation and ensures that citizens have an influence over policies that affect their lives. This document sets out how public participation can take place, its strengths and challenges, and its application to policy issues relating to fiscal devolution.
This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC.
The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics
First steps in canopy cover assessments: for all working in the built environment at a development site level
Full text linkTrees provide a range of benefits for urban society, and generally, the larger a tree canopy, the greater the benefits. Urban Tree Canopy Cover (UTCC)1 assessment is a method of quantifying how much of a given area is covered by
the leaves, branches, and stems of trees. It is usually expressed as a percentage. UTCC assessments can be completed using methodologies that look down from above which are particularly useful when taking a strategic approach to urban forest planning2. Assessment can also be performed at local scale. This First Steps guide focusses on Canopy Cover
Assessments (CCA) that are completed using data directly collected on site, for example a proposed development site, for use primarily within the UK planning system to inform decision making
The UK Creative Industries Public Funding Allocations and Investment Review
Full text linkThe creative industries in the UK are not only the country’s most powerful engines of growth, but also an important source of innovation and welfare development. British creative industries have also been identified as a critical asset to help build and deepen the country’s soft power abroad effectively. On this basis — including other factors that this review explores, the Government has selected the creative industries as one of the eight growth-driving industries in its forthcoming Industrial Strategy scheduled for publication in June 2025. This is significant and informs the three-fold rationale for this review. First, to contextualise and systematically explore public funding allocations to, and investment in, the creative industries between 2015 and 2025. Second, to make five key recommendations to the current Government on future-proofing the economic power and welfare development role of the creative industries in the UK. Third, to contribute to robust policy evidence to inform Government efforts to develop simplified, sustainable, and more efficacious models of public funding allocations and investment to reduce geographical inequalities across the UK in the context of greater and fast-changing devolution arrangements.
This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC.
The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics
A review of funding allocations in England to address geographical inequalities
Full text linkThis report analyses 48 funding streams in operation in England from 2014 to 2024, for local and regional areas that are either explicitly aimed at addressing geographical inequalities or are likely to have a direct or indirect impact on such inequalities. We explore mechanisms for allocation and delivery. We aim to provide actionable lessons for policy reform to improve funding allocation mechanisms, positively impacting policy, people, and places. Our analysis emphasises the complex nature of the funding landscape.
Key findings include that:
•A very limited number of funds studied are specifically geographically targeted, with a high proportion of funds allocated to administrative geographic areas. However, where funding has been available to particular kinds of administrative areas, there might still be an implicit/’de facto’ targeting of geographic inequality in the spread of funding to certain administrative areas across urban and rural areas in England.
•Whilst the majority of the funds analysed focus on reducing geographical inequalities, only a quarter of the funding provided is targeted at addressing spatial inequalities. Rather, almost three-quarters of the total funding considered is focused on achieving aims that are not geographically specific.
•The majority of funds analysed involved competitive processes for allocation, although formula funding made up the greatest proportion of total funding awarded.
•Recent years have seen the introduction of multiple, often short-term funding streams.
•More than half of the funding programmes analysed had as one of their aims to reduce geographic inequalities or support disadvantaged regions. This would appear to be positive in terms of the potential to address geographical inequalities. However, this only represents 25% of the total funding analysed.
This report is for the Improving Public Funding Allocations to Reduce Geographical Inequalities project funded by the ESRC.
The project brings together a highly experienced interdisciplinary team from the Universities of Birmingham, Bristol, De Montfort, Newcastle, Nottingham, Plymouth and Sheffield, together with the National Centre for Social Research and Metro Dynamics
Ukrainian refugee children in UK schools: recommendations and resources for educators
Full text linkResponding to the Russian full-scale aggression against Ukraine, the UK created special safe routes for Ukrainians fleeing the war, named the Ukrainian Schemes. These comprised three programmes – the Ukraine Family Scheme, the Ukraine Sponsorship Scheme, and the Ukraine Extension Scheme. As of 16 December 2024, a total of 218,600 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK via these routes since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, with 28% of them being under 18 years old.1 According to government statistics, over 20,000 school places had been offered to displaced Ukrainian children before the start of the academic year in 2022 when the largest number of refugees arrived.2
Approximately two-thirds of Ukrainians would like to stay in the UK even when it feels safe to return to Ukraine, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) survey conducted in April 2024,3 and our research confirms this desire to remain.4 Overall, British schools and local communities provided considerable support to displaced children, many of whom were able to successfully complete their education in British schools and start further study or work. This guidance highlights various challenges and experiences faced by Ukrainian children in UK schools, including cultural sensitivity, bullying, and the importance of talking with children about the war. The recommendations are designed to address these concerns and continue making schools welcoming and safe spaces
Intercultural guidance for displaced Ukrainians and those supporting them
Full text linkUkrainians arriving in the UK through “Homes for Ukraine” have been through the traumatic experience of war and displacement. The current war in Ukraine began in February 2022; however, there is a much longer history of Russian interference and aggression in Ukraine. This includes the war in Eastern Ukraine, which started in 2014, and the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. Some of those displaced in 2022 will have experienced displacement previously: this may not be the first time they have been forced to flee their home. Almost all Ukrainians will know someone who has been killed in the war, and/or have loved ones still living in Ukraine and in the armed forces. According to statistics provided by the United Nations, there have been 12,605 civilian deaths since the full-scale invasion, but there are likely far more unreported casualties. Russia’s full-scale invasion has reportedly destroyed or damaged 13% of Ukraine’s housing stock, affecting more than 2.5 million households. Multiple displacements, loss of family and friends, and the destruction of property necessarily have a significant impact on mental health.
Ukrainians often feel that the British public has forgotten about the war in Ukraine: those we spoke to described meeting individuals who thought the war was over, or even “fake”. On the other hand, British people are sometimes surprised when Ukrainians return to Ukraine for short periods. They often do so to visit loved ones who are not able to travel; for example, husbands, sons, and fathers who have not been allowed to leave the country and who may have been conscripted. This does not mean any part of Ukraine is “safe”. The impact of the war has been greatest in the Eastern and Central parts of the country; however, Western Ukraine is still subject to missile attacks and has suffered casualties. Ukrainians report that the constant sirens do not allow for any feeling of safety or security
Data sources:
Access Repository Dashboard
Do you manage Open Research Online? Become a CORE Member to access insider analytics, issue reports and manage access to outputs from your repository in the CORE Repository Dashboard! 👇