Priority ARIs

What we currently know 

The West Midlands Growth Plan identifies raising productivity and living standards across all parts of the economy as central to delivering inclusive growth. The everyday economy – retail, hospitality, care, logistics, construction and related services – is fundamental to this ambition, employing a large proportion of residents, particularly in lower-income communities.

Current WMCA insight suggests that productivity challenges in these sectors are driven by structural and behavioural factors rather than frontier innovation gaps. Evidence from regional programmes indicates that:

• Leadership and management capability is a key constraint on firm performance, but engagement with support remains uneven and often shallow.
• Workforce practices, including skills utilisation, progression pathways, and job design, are critical to productivity but insufficiently integrated into business support offers.
• Adoption of existing technologies and business processes has high potential but is constrained by firms’ capacity to absorb and implement change.
• The system of support is fragmented across business, skills, and employment services, limiting cumulative impact.

While these insights align with the Growth Plan’s emphasis on firm-level productivity as a driver of regional outcomes, there is limited robust evidence on which interventions – or combinations of interventions – consistently deliver sustained improvements in everyday economy firms at scale.

Why this question is important

This question goes to the heart of the Growth Plan’s commitment to inclusive productivity growth. Raising performance in the everyday economy is critical to:

• Tackling low pay and insecure work, particularly in more deprived communities
• Closing the region’s productivity gap with higher-performing areas
• Ensuring growth is broad-based and place-sensitive, not concentrated only in frontier sectors

Without a clearer understanding of what works, there is a risk that public investment in business support will not deliver the scale of impact required to shift regional outcomes.

Potential impact of answering this question

Policy and programme implications

• Strengthening the design of the Business Growth West Midlands ecosystem and local delivery models
• Better alignment of business support with skills, employment, and inclusion interventions, as set out in the Growth Plan
• More effective targeting of devolved and national funding toward high-impact, evidence-based interventions
• Development of integrated, sector-specific approaches for foundational industries

Impact on businesses

• Improved operational performance and resilience
• Greater adoption of effective management practices and technologies
• Enhanced workforce capability and retention

Impact on communities and the economy

• Higher wages, better job quality, and clearer progression pathways
• Reduced spatial and socioeconomic inequalities
• A stronger, more balanced regional economy with productivity gains shared across sectors and places

Key Team(s) Involved

• Economic Policy and Partnerships
• Inclusive Growth
• Business Growth West Midlands

What we currently know

The Growth Plan highlights the importance of high-growth, innovation-led SMEs in driving regional productivity, competitiveness, and sectoral strength – particularly in areas such as advanced manufacturing, clean growth, digital, and the creative industries.

The West Midlands has a strong pipeline of innovative firms, but relatively few achieve sustained scaling. Existing WMCA insight suggests:

• Access to appropriate scale-up finance remains a key constraint, particularly beyond early-stage growth
• Leadership, strategic capability, and commercialisation skills are often limiting factors as firms transition from start-up to scale-up
• Strong innovation support (e.g. R&D, university collaboration) does not always translate into successful scaling outcomes
• Cluster ecosystems and networks provide benefits but are not consistently effective across firms or places
• Firms often experience a “scaling plateau”, where initial growth is not sustained over time

While current programmes support elements of this journey, there is limited evidence on which interventions most effectively deliver faster and more durable scaling, aligned with the Growth Plan’s ambition to build globally competitive clusters.

Why this question is important

This question directly supports the Growth Plan’s focus on driving productivity through innovation, sectoral strengths, and business dynamism. Enabling SMEs to scale successfully is critical to:

• Creating high-value, well-paid jobs
• Strengthening the region’s globally competitive sectors and clusters
• Increasing private investment and innovation intensity

Without effective scaling support, the region risks underperforming in converting innovation into economic value and losing high-potential firms to other ecosystems.

Potential impact of answering this question

Policy and programme implications

• Refinement of WMCA’s innovation, cluster, and scale-up support offers
• Stronger integration between finance, innovation, skills, and business support systems, in line with Growth Plan priorities
• More targeted, stage-specific interventions to support early, mid, and late scaling phases
• Enhanced partnerships with universities, investors, and industry ecosystems

Impact on businesses

• Increased success and survival rates among high-growth SMEs
• Improved access to finance, talent, and international markets
• Stronger leadership and strategic capability to sustain growth over time

Impact on communities and the economy

• Creation of high-quality employment opportunities across the region
• Stronger sectoral specialisation and global competitiveness
• Greater economic spillovers into supply chains and the wider everyday economy

Key Team(s) Involved

• Economic Policy and Partnerships
• Business Growth West Midlands

Definitions:

Vertical Inequality relates to the disparities in income between individuals and households, focusing on overall wealth distribution.

Horizontal inequality relates to disparity between cultural and social groups, such as disparity for certain protected characteristics, such as gender or race.  This also includes regional disparity.

Why this matters to us

In 2018, WMCA committed to delivering a more socially purposeful model of growth for its residents, focusing on how economic growth can be created and shared equitably.   The Inclusive Growth Framework supports officers to translate this vision into a reality for people and places across the region. For WMCA, addressing deep rooted inequalities is central to its purpose and strategic priorities: we cannot raise living standards for all residents when there is persistent horizontal and vertical income inequality.

What we know

It harms social mobility and social cohesion for residents and in time increases the demand for public service provision. Areas with entrenched disparities may experience higher levels of economic inactivity, lower business dynamism, and weaker civic participation.  Horizontal income inequality can reinforce deprivation, particularly in areas of multiple disadvantage.  Vertical inequality contributes to poorer social outcomes, such as decreases in healthy life expectancy or educational attainment.

Inequality constrains labour supply and market demand for businesses, reducing productivity. Health disparities and workforce instability can increase the cost for all businesses. Poor health, a consequence of deprivation, also leads to productivity losses for businesses and the economy through absenteeism and presenteeism. There is a notable impact for those businesses dependent on local / regional demand as well as highly educated or skilled talent.

What this means for the West Midlands

Unless we tackle the core drivers of inequality, we cannot raise living standards for everyone in the region. Answering this question will help us to understand the urgency with which we must directly tackle inequality in the region if we are to meet our Inclusive Growth missions. An answer will help set priorities in the next three-year strategy (2028-2031) that forms part of the region’s ten-year Growth Plan.

Key Team(s) Involved

• Inclusive Growth
• Economic Policy and Partnerships
• Employment and Skills
• Systems Change and Inclusion

Why this matters to us

Homelessness in England has reached record levels. Over 132,000 households are in temporary accommodation, costing councils a record £2.84 billion in 2024/25, a 118% rise in five years. The human cost of homelessness is also significant, it’s more than losing a home, it’s the impact on physical and mental health, family relationships, education, employment and, for children, on their future. The WMCA has committed to a Designing Out Homelessness approach, focussing on prevention. However, across the West Midlands, our local authority partners are under severe financial pressure, with prevention funding increasingly diverted to cover emergency costs.  If we are to reduce that pressure and move towards our ambition of Designing Out Homelessness, we need to identify and  provide the right support and interventions to households well before they reach crisis.

What we know

Risk factors are well established. Research consistently shows that poverty, private or social renting, unemployment, lone parenthood, poor health, and adverse childhood experiences all significantly increase the likelihood of homelessness. Problem debt is a particularly strong early warning signal for low-income renters. 

Earlier identification can work. The Homelessness Prevention Trailblazers showed that training frontline workers, such as Jobcentre Plus coaches, to spot at-risk households and refer them on can reach hundreds of people who would otherwise never have contacted housing services. 

Proactive outreach matters. Flexible, non-judgemental outreach, going to people rather than waiting for them to come to us, is more effective at reaching households with the highest needs. 

What we don't know

We can't yet reliably predict who will become homeless. Even the best statistical models correctly identify only around a third of those who go on to experience homelessness.  We know the risk groups, but we lack validated tools to identify specific households in time to act.

We lack the joined-up data. Housing, health, welfare, and social care systems don't routinely share data. Without this, proactive identification at scale is very difficult. 

The evidence on primary prevention is thin. Most research focuses on people already in crisis. We have very little rigorous evidence on what works before crisis hits, or what it costs. 

Screening tools have limitations. Tools used to assess and triage risk have weak validity, concerns about bias, and don't reliably predict outcomes.

Why this question is important

Our local authorities are firefighting. Without better evidence, they cannot confidently shift resources upstream, even where prevention is clearly the right approach. As a Combined Authority, we are well placed to:

• Connect the data across health, housing, and welfare to build a shared picture of risk across the region
• Test and evaluate early identification approaches with local partners, generating the local evidence base we currently lack
• Make the case for upstream investment, supported by robust evidence on cost and impact

The evidence on who is at risk is strong. The evidence on how to find them in time, and reach them effectively, is not. Closing that gap is one of the most important things we can do to reduce homelessness across the region.

Resources that could help

We have access to H-CLIC data, which provides information on homelessness applications at the prevention stage, including prevention rates and the interventions used during the 56 days prior to an application. Additional data relevant to this research is likely to be held by local authorities and other partner organisations, including benefits and employment data, health records, and housing association data. A key element of this research will likely be identifying and accessing these wider datasets, and we can support researchers in establishing access to relevant sources.

Key Team(s) Involved

• Homelessness and the Homelessness Taskforce

Why this matters to us

Delivering sustainable growth is central to WMCA’s long-term prosperity. However, climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource pressures mean that traditional growth models may increase risks to infrastructure, businesses, and communities – particularly in deprived areas.

Strengthening urban and peri-urban ecosystems alongside climate adaptation can reduce risk and unlock co-benefits such as improving health and wellbeing, supporting biodiversity recovery, and enhancing long-term economic growth, investment attractiveness, and reducing long-term costs.

What we know

Growth, climate adaptation and nature recovery are not yet fully aligned. The economy is resource-intensive and exposed to climate risks. Nature-based solutions offer multiple benefits but are underused in investment decisions. Natural capital is not consistently valued in appraisals, and benefits are unevenly distributed across communities. Natural capital assets in the WMCA core area provide ecosystem services valued at £67 million per year. These assets, however, remain underinvested and undervalued.

Key Evidence Needs

• How to integrate natural capital accounting and ecosystem service valuation into economic strategy, place-making, and decision-making.
• Robust evidence on trade-offs and synergies between growth, climate adaptation, and environmental outcomes.
• The economic value of investing in nature-based solutions compared to traditional infrastructure.
• How growth pathways can be used to reinvest in our natural environment.
• Spatial and sectoral analysis to identify where interventions will deliver the greatest, and most equitable, combined benefits.
• How infrastructure interdependencies create cascading risks during extreme weather events.
• Nature-related impacts and dependencies (full value chain – upstream/downstream) of key sectors in the WMCA area.
• The social value (health, wellbeing, etc.) of urban and peri-urban greenspace for communities and businesses.

Why this question is important

WMCA needs stronger place-based evidence to align economic growth with climate and ecological resilience in practice. As a Combined Authority, WMCA can integrate natural capital and resilience into strategy, test interventions, and build robust business cases for investment.

Answering this question will inform the delivery of strategies and delivery plan that contribute to economic growth – including but not limited to the West Midlands Growth Plan and Spatial Development Strategy. Insights will also improve investment and regeneration decisions; support resilient businesses; and deliver healthier, more equitable and climate-ready communities.

Resources that could help

• Climate Risk and Adaptation Data and Intelligence
• Climate Adaptation Guidance and Support
• Local Investment in Natural Capital (LINC) Project 

Key Team(s) Involved

• Environment Team
• Energy Capital Team
• Economic Policy and Partnerships

Why this matters to us

Transport is central to enabling inclusive growth by connecting communities to jobs and services and businesses to customers, with the region aiming to deliver a “45 minute region” and support more sustainable travel choices so people can access opportunities without needing a car. The West Midland’s Local Transport Plan sets an ambitious target of 50% of all trips in the region to be made by sustainable modes by 2035. ^[1,2,3]

The West Midlands faces two linked challenges, declining bus use and persistent and increasing car dependency, which act to reinforce each other through a self-sustaining cycle. The Mayor, Richard Parker, has pledged to deliver a bus service that is “reliable, affordable and run in the interests of the people who use it”.

What we know

Car ownership and use have continued to increase across the region while bus patronage has declined. Rising operating costs, changing travel patterns and lower demand have increased pressure on the bus network, contributing to service reductions and greater reliance on public funding. Over the same period, the cost of motoring has risen more slowly than the cost of bus travel in real terms. Despite these trends, more than a quarter of West Midlands households do not have access to a car, and buses remain vital to the transport system, accounting for around 7% of all trips and 80% of public transport journeys in the region. ^[14,15,16]

Evidence shows bus use is highly sensitive to reliability, journey time and cost. When services deteriorate, users may reduce travel, switch modes or disengage, while congestion further undermines bus reliability. ^[4,5,6,7]

Declining patronage reduces fare revenue, increasing reliance on subsidy and contributing to long-term service instability and reduced connectivity. ^[8,9,10]

Franchising and bus reform provide a structural opportunity to stabilise and plan networks more strategically, with a stronger focus on reliability, integration and socially necessary services. They also enable closer alignment between transport, economic geography and spatial growth. ^[11,12,13]

What we don't know

Whilst the factors associated with declining bus patronage and increasing car dependency are well understood, it is unclear which interventions are most effective at encouraging modal shift and which groups are most likely to change travel behaviour. Recent evidence suggests that the relationship between passenger satisfaction and patronage may be more complex than previously assumed. Passenger satisfaction has generally improved across a range of measures, including reliability, journey quality and information provision, yet these improvements have not been accompanied by equivalent growth in bus use.  At the same time, satisfaction with value for money has declined, while some groups continue to report poorer experiences than others.

In particular, passengers with physical impairments consistently report lower levels of overall satisfaction, suggesting that improvements may not be being experienced equally across all user groups. This raises the possibility that patronage is increasingly influenced by factors beyond the immediate customer experience, including affordability, transport dependency, access to alternative modes, changing travel patterns and wider perceptions of convenience. Understanding whether patronage losses are concentrated amongst particular groups, such as occasional users, those with access to a car or those with unmet mobility needs, could provide important insights into who is leaving the bus network, who remains loyal and why.

Why this question is important

Resources that could help

We expect that answering this question will require new primary research; however, the Data Insight team has data that can help with quotas and existing behaviours for identified groups.

Key Team(s) Involved

• Transport Data Insight
• TfWM Policy and Strategy

References

1. Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) (n.d.) Journeys for Everyone: The West Midlands Local Transport Plan. Available at: https://www.tfwm.org.uk/who-we-are/our-strategy/local-transport-plan/ (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
2. West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) (2023) Local Transport Plan Update – Presentation. Available at: https://wmca.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s29529/Local%20Transport%20Plan%20Update%20-%20Presentation.pdf (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
3. Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) (n.d.) Public Transport and Shared Mobility. In: Journeys for Everyone: The West Midlands Local Transport Plan. Available at: https://www.tfwm.org.uk/who-we-are/our-strategy/local-transport-plan/6-big-moves/public-transport-and-shared-mobility/ (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
4. Department for Transport (DfT) (2018) Bus Fare and Journey Time Elasticities and Diversion Factors for All Modes. London: Department for Transport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-elasticities-and-diversion-factors (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
5. Greener Journeys (2016) URB0029: Evidence on Urban Congestion. Written evidence submitted to the House of Commons Transport Committee. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/75824/html/ (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
6. Mishra, R. (2022) Does Transit Service Reliability Influence Ridership? San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute. Available at: https://www.academia.edu/111829632/Does_Transit_Service_Reliability_Influence_Ridership (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
7. House of Commons Transport Committee (2019) Bus Services in England Outside London. London: House of Commons. Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmtrans/1425/1425.pdf (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
8. Zhao, D., Mihaita, A.-S., Yan, X. and others (2022) Traffic Disruption Modelling with Mode Shift in Multi-Modal Networks. arXiv preprint. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09454 (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
9. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) (2025) Crisis Management in Urban Transport Systems. Berlin: Transformative Urban Mobility Initiative (TUMI). Available at: https://changing-transport.org/wp-content/uploads/2025_Crisis_Management_in_Urban_Transport_Systems-1.pdf (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
10. Zhang, N., Zhang, C., Levinson, D. and Zhu, S. (2023) Causal Resilience Curves: A Data-Driven Framework for Quantifying Transport Disruption Impacts. arXiv:2310.07514. Available at: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.07514 (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
11. Department for Transport (DfT) (2024) Proposed Changes to Bus Franchising Guidance: Consultation Outcome. London: Department for Transport. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/proposed-changes-to-bus-franchising-guidance/outcome/proposed-changes-to-bus-franchising-guidance-consultation-outcome (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
12. Centre for Cities (2024) Everything You Need to Know About Bus Franchising. London: Centre for Cities. Available at: https://www.centreforcities.org/publication/everything-you-need-to-know-about-bus-franchising/ (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
13. House of Commons Transport Committee (2025) Buses Connecting Communities: First Report of Session 2024–25. London: House of Commons. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/work/8705/buses-connecting-communities/ (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
14. Transport for West Midlands (TfWM) (2025) Written Evidence Submitted by Transport for West Midlands (BCC0073): Buses Connecting Communities Inquiry. London: House of Commons Transport Committee. Available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/134742/html/ (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
15. Department for Transport (DfT) (2024) Transport Statistics Great Britain: Table TSGB1308 – Changes in the Cost of Transport. London: Department for Transport. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6762dfaf4e2d5e9c0bde9b04/tsgb1308.ods (Accessed: 14 July 2026).
16. Department for Transport (DfT) (2025) National Travel Survey: Table NTS0303 – Car Availability by Household. London: Department for Transport. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68a42ef550939bdf2c2b5e71/nts0303_ca.ods (Accessed: 14 July 2026).

What we currently know and don’t know

Research consistently shows that achieving a Level 3 qualification has a greater impact on an individual’s future income, employment prospects and overall life satisfaction than any other qualification level. It represents a critical threshold – a gateway to greater choice in the labour market and a key enabler of progression into further education in a way that lower-level qualifications do not.

However, while the individual benefits of reaching Level 3 are well evidenced, the relative impact of upskilling different segments of the population on the wider regional economy is less clearly understood. Basic skills provision, such as digital, English and maths, play a vital role in enabling residents to access the labour market for the first time. Similarly, English language acquisition supports those for whom English is not a first language to participate more fully in the economy. By contrast, higher-level qualifications (Level 4 and above, particularly Level 6) equip individuals with the skills needed to access high-paying roles in high-value sectors, driving productivity, innovation and economic growth across the West Midlands. While Level 3 qualifications may deliver the greatest marginal benefit to the individual, it is not established that this holds true at a macroeconomic level.

Why this question is important

This question has significant implications for strategic and business case funding decisions. Investment in Adult Skills across levels and sectors is shaped by a range of factors, including resident demand, provider capacity and labour market need. Commissioning decisions must balance these considerations while ensuring cost-effectiveness and maximising long-term economic impact, particularly where they align with the ambitions set out in the West Midlands Growth Plan.

A clearer understanding of how different funding decisions translate into economic growth is therefore essential to maximising the effectiveness of Adult Skills investment. Building a robust evidence base is challenging, especially given that many outcomes may only materialise over years or even decades. Nonetheless, improving our understanding of the differential economic impact associated with different qualification levels would address a critical evidence gap, strengthening both strategic planning and delivery decisions.

Moreover, such evidence could support the case for increased investment and further devolution of powers, particularly where it highlights gaps in provision or misalignment between national policy and regional economic priorities.

Key Team(s) Involved

• Skills and Employment

What we currently know

Health outcomes, inequalities and economic participation are strongly shaped by factors beyond healthcare, including housing, employment, skills, transport, income, the environment and access to community support. Many of these factors interact at a neighbourhood and place level, meaning that isolated interventions are unlikely to address the complexity of people’s lives.

There is growing evidence that preventative approaches are more effective when they:

• act early, before needs escalate or people reach crisis;
• address several interconnected determinants of health rather than a single presenting issue;
• are designed around the needs and assets of particular communities;
• join up services, funding and data across organisational boundaries;
• involve residents and people with lived experience in their design and delivery;
• provide trusted, accessible and often community-based routes into support; and
• connect improvements in health with employment, education, skills and wider economic opportunities.

Across the West Midlands, a range of relevant activity is already underway. This includes neighbourhood health approaches, social prescribing, employment and health programmes, housing and energy interventions, transport initiatives, mental health prevention and the Place-Based Budgets pilot.

These programmes provide important learning, but the evidence is often fragmented. Different approaches use different outcome measures, operate at different geographic levels and are funded over different timescales. This makes it difficult to establish which models have the greatest impact, for whom, in which places and at what cost.

What we do not yet know

We would like to understand:

• which approaches are most effective in reducing inequalities between communities and population groups;
• which approaches are most effective in reducing inequalities between communities and population groups;
• which population groups benefit most from different preventative approaches, and whether some interventions risk widening inequalities despite improving overall outcomes;
• how improvements in health translate into economic outcomes, including employment, skills participation, productivity and reduced economic inactivity;
• which combinations of interventions are most effective, rather than assessing individual programmes in isolation;
• which elements of successful models are essential, such as community leadership, integrated funding, data sharing, trusted relationships or personalised support;
• how outcomes vary according to local context, including deprivation, labour market conditions, service availability and community infrastructure;
• whether benefits and financial savings are realised by the organisations investing in prevention or elsewhere in the system;
• how systems-based approaches influence the effectiveness of place-based prevention, including how relationships, governance, funding, data and accountability can be aligned to support whole-system change
• how long place-based prevention approaches need to operate before meaningful outcomes can be demonstrated;
• how preventative investment can be evaluated where impacts are dispersed across health, local government, employment and community systems; and
• how effective approaches can be scaled or adapted without losing the local relationships and flexibility that made them successful.

The research should consider both quantitative outcomes and qualitative evidence about residents’ experiences, including whether support feels accessible, coordinated and responsive to their circumstances.

What would be the impact of answering this question?

Answering this question would provide a stronger evidence base for decisions about where and how the West Midlands invests in prevention.

It could directly support:

• the implementation of the strategic authority’s health duty and a stronger Health in All Policies approach;
• the design of future place-based and neighbourhood programmes;
• decisions about the use of devolved and integrated funding;
• the development of business cases for preventative investment;
• the commissioning and scaling of interventions that demonstrate impact;
• the design of common outcomes and evaluation frameworks across programmes;
• supporting systems thinking by identifying how organisations, funding, governance and accountability can be better aligned around shared outcomes rather than individual services;
• stronger alignment between health, employment, skills, housing, transport and community policy;
• more effective targeting of investment to maximise both improvements in population health and reductions in avoidable inequalities; and
• national discussions about devolution, public service reform and place-based budgets.

For residents, the longer-term impact would be more joined-up and preventative support, earlier access to help and services that respond to the realities of people’s lives rather than organisational boundaries.

For the wider region, it could contribute to improved health, reduced demand on crisis services, increased participation in education and employment, greater productivity and more inclusive economic growth.

Ultimately, the research would help the West Midlands move from a collection of promising preventative initiatives towards a clearer, evidence-led model of what effective place-based prevention looks like and how it can be embedded at scale.

Available resources

• Health of the Region 2024

Key Team(s) Involved

• Health and Communities
• Skills and Employment
• Systems Change and Inclusion

One that defines the shared responsibilities, contributions and expectations of public services, communities, business and philanthropy in improving life outcomes. This includes understanding how small-scale innovation can reshape mainstream services, and how shared responsibility can be operationalised at scale.

Why this matters

The West Midlands is at a critical juncture. Public services are operating in an increasingly constrained context, following a prolonged period of funding reductions and rising demand. At the same time, public trust in institutions is at a low ebb, creating real challenges for legitimacy, engagement and delivery.

Despite this, the region benefits from a rich ecosystem of partners who all contribute to residents’ lives – including local authorities, health services, businesses, voluntary, community, faith and social enterprise (VCFSE) organisations, and philanthropic actors. However, these contributions are not consistently aligned, sustainable or clearly understood as part of a shared system. Without this, innovation risks remaining at the margins rather than reshaping core services and system behaviour.

The VCFSE sector in particular plays a vital role in supporting communities and is often highly trusted by residents. Yet it remains underfunded and financially insecure, limiting its ability to operate as an equal partner. Meanwhile, there is untapped potential to mobilise new forms of investment and philanthropy to complement public funding.

There is therefore a growing recognition that improving life outcomes cannot be achieved by the public sector alone. Instead, it requires a new, explicit “social contract” for the region – one that sets out shared purpose, mutual responsibilities, and how different actors collectively contribute to inclusive growth and wellbeing.

What we currently know

• System-wide contribution is essential: Outcomes are shaped collectively by public services, communities, business and civil society – but currently without a shared framework of responsibility, accountability or decision making.
• Trust and legitimacy are fragile: Low levels of trust in public institutions risk undermining participation, compliance and long-term change.
• Funding constraints are structural: There is a shared understanding across partners that public funding alone is insufficient to meet current and future need.

• Innovation is present but not yet system-shaping: The region is testing new approaches through pilots and place-based initiatives. However, these represent a small proportion of activity, and there is not yet a clear mechanism for how this “10%” of test-and-learn translates into the “90%” of mainstream delivery.

• The VCFSE sector is critical but fragile: Trusted and impactful, but constrained by short-term and insecure funding models.
• Philanthropy and alternative finance remain underdeveloped: There is potential to explore new models of place-based giving and investment.
• Identity and belonging matter: A shared sense of place and collective identity may be key to building ownership of a new social contract.
• Devolution creates opportunity: Regional leadership and governance arrangements may enable new approaches to partnership and accountability.

We are therefore exploring a model of a regional social contract as a shared vision and framework for action – rooted in trust, mutual accountability, and clear expectations of all partners.

What we don’t know

We are particularly interested in evidence and insights that address:

Precedents and models

• Where have similar “social contracts” or place-based agreements been developed successfully?
• What can be learned from UK and international examples?

Conditions for success

• What political, institutional and cultural conditions enable a new social contract to emerge?
• What role do leadership and governance structures (including devolution) play?

Actors and roles

• Who needs to be involved, and how should responsibilities be defined across public services, communities, business and philanthropy?
• How can residents meaningfully shape and own the contract?

Trust and legitimacy

• How can trust between institutions and communities be rebuilt and sustained?
• What mechanisms support transparency, accountability and reciprocity?

Finance and sustainability

• What models exist for mobilising philanthropic and private investment at a regional level?
• How can funding be aligned to support shared outcomes?

Identity and engagement

• How does regional identity influence appetite for collective action?
• What drives public and partner buy-in for systemic change?

Risks and pitfalls

• What are the common barriers or unintended consequences?
• Where have similar approaches failed or stalled, and why?

Implementation

• What practical steps can regions take to move from concept to delivery?
• What are the critical success factors for sustaining momentum over time?
• How can regions ensure that learning from pilot activity (the 10%) is adopted, funded and embedded at scale across mainstream services (the 90%)?

Potential impact of this research

Answering this question could have significant implications for the West Midlands:

Policy and system design

• Inform future regional strategies on inclusive growth, public service reform and community empowerment
• Shape approaches to commissioning, funding and cross-sector collaboration
• Support the evolution of devolved governance and leadership models

Programmes and investment

• Enable the design of new place-based programmes that align contributions from public, private and VCFSE partners
• Unlock innovative funding approaches, including philanthropic and blended finance models
• Strengthen the role and sustainability of the VCFSE sector

Communities and residents

• Improve life outcomes through more coordinated and responsive services
• Increase trust, participation and shared ownership of local change
• Strengthen community resilience and social cohesion

Economy and businesses

• Create clearer expectations and opportunities for business contribution to social outcomes
• Support inclusive economic growth by aligning economic and social priorities
• Enhance the attractiveness of the region as a place to invest, live and work

Get involved

We welcome contributions from researchers across disciplines, including public policy, economics, sociology, political science, behavioural insights and systems change.

Insights from this research will directly inform how the West Midlands Combined Authority and partners design future policy, programmes and partnerships to improve outcomes for residents.

Key Team(s) Involved

• Systems Change and Inclusion
• Office for Public Sector Innovation