Local government and digital inclusion

The UK government has set ambitious national goals to promote economic growth and regional equality, with a strong focus on digital inclusion and connectivity in enabling these. The Plan for Change outlines milestones for government ambitions on 5 key areas: kickstart economic growth, build an NHS fit for the future, safer streets, break down the barriers to opportunity and make Britain a clean energy superpower. These must all be underpinned by a digitally connected and included society. Digital inclusion means ‘ensuring that everyone has the access, skills, support and confidence to participate in a modern digital society, whatever their circumstances’.

The LGA’s Digitalisation Framework, produced with Socitm and Solace, outlines Digitally Empowered Residents and Digitally Equipped Places as key missions for local authorities, underpinned by principles and enablers such as inclusion and connectivity. Local government plays a fundamental role in supporting residents to participate in a modern digital society. This is a key feature in the LGA’s response to the Blueprint for Modern Digital Government.

This paper explores the multifaceted role of local authorities in strategic digital inclusion delivery, examining the intersecting priorities that demand integrated approaches, the fragmented funding landscape, the vital partnerships that underpin successful initiatives, the strategic delivery models that drive impact, and the challenges of accurately measuring that impact.

Key messages

• Local authorities are key to successful engagement and delivery with communities and community assets supporting digitally excluded residents. Their convening power and strategic oversight are essential for coordinating diverse stakeholders and ensuring interventions are tailored to local needs.
• The prevailing funding mechanisms, which often favour established and experienced authorities, perpetuate a vicious cycle, exacerbating the digital divide between councils and hindering their ability to respond effectively to resident needs. The fractured and inconsistent funding landscape undermines strategic planning and long-term sustainability.
• Digital inclusion activity is foundational to economic growth within broader national ambitions, and local authorities play a central role as both standalone organisations and enablers in achieving this.
• Local authority led partnership working can improve success and efficiency in delivering the multi agency support necessary for the complex causes of digital exclusion within a challenging fiscal climate. This supports the development of a resilient digital inclusion ecosystem.

It is well documented that digital inclusion does not exist in a vacuum; it intersects with numerous other priorities. From health inequalities and poverty to homelessness, service digitalisation, and employability, the work of embedding digital inclusion depends on a range of critical issues. 

The primary goal of digital inclusion is not simply ensuring that individuals have access to technology, rather that they experience an improved quality of life as a result. By addressing digital exclusion, local authorities, across tiers and types, can reduce loneliness, poverty, and other socio-economic challenges while improving skills and civic engagement.

The multifaceted nature of digital inclusion means that it cannot be pursued as a standalone initiative. Instead, local authorities use their understanding of the unique needs of their residents, what capabilities exist, and where the challenges lie, to strategically integrate digital inclusion across the place. There can be difficulty in aligning funding streams with these diverse needs, which can create a significant barrier to the successful execution of digital inclusion strategies. However, intersecting priorities can present an opportunity for more integrated, holistic approaches that consider digital inclusion as a means to support multiple areas of need.

Intersecting priorities and supporting examples

• Health inequalities
• Poverty
• Homelessness
• Care leavers
• Disability
• English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL)
• Libraries
• Skills and employability
• Sustainability
• Older people
• Financial inclusion
• Connectivity
• Internal IT
• Asylum/refuge
• Social housing

Digital inclusion is foundational to the national mission to boost economic growth. Empowered and digitally connected residents are better positioned to participate in the modern economy, improving their earning potential and contributing to the local economy. The economic multiplier effect of digital inclusion, in addition to reduced service costs, can result in substantial long term economic benefits for the local community.

A defining element of digital inclusion is access, which hinges on good digital connectivity. The rollout of digital connectivity has the potential to drive inclusive growth, but this potential is undermined when regional disparities in access are left unaddressed. Underserved areas, such as rural regions or economically disadvantaged communities, face a cycle of exclusion. a new digital divide has emerged in gigabit and full fibre coverage. The top 10 per cent of district/unitary local authority areas enjoy full fibre coverage of over 60 per cent, while the bottom 10 per cent have less than 10 per cent of premises able to access these services. Poor connectivity limits access to opportunities such as remote work, online education, and digital services, further entrenching economic and social inequalities. Public intervention and strategic planning by councils, and correct reporting of coverage are essential to breaking this cycle and ensuring that need, not just market potential, drives connectivity investment, and drives access to the internet.

Digital inclusion teams within local authorities also play a role in advocating for connectivity needs for excluded communities. As illustrated in the Lloyds Consumer Digital Index, regions with lower levels of digital infrastructure tend to have higher levels of digital exclusion, compounding disadvantages for residents in these areas. Limited access to affordable, high speed internet restricts opportunities for skill development, job creation, and community cohesion, reinforcing cycles of deprivation. This presents a key role for local government to ensure that connectivity and digital advancements, such as with 5G rollout and AI adoption, do not perpetuate the digital divide (LGA paper on Digital Connectivity and Inclusion).

Local authorities play a central role in delivering digital inclusion at the community level and are a key mechanism for delivering national ambitions. They hold the responsibilities, relationships and assets that make them well placed to support digitally excluded residents.

Since the Local Government Act 2000, councils have been responsible for their areas' economic, social, and environmental wellbeing. Where you find deprivation, you find digital deprivation, and digital exclusion exacerbates existing vulnerabilities. Local government holds data on and interacts with every resident, and with their responsibility for place-making, can support digitally excluded residents, in different communities and with different needs, in the way that is appropriate for them. 

Local authorities, at all tiers, are key delivery mechanisms for national priorities. Understanding the nuance of local government in achieving digital inclusion ambitions, within the context of devolution and local government reorganisation is crucial to ensure all communities can benefit from tailored support to ensure inclusive economic growth.

Where digital inclusion means ‘ensuring that everyone has the access, skills, motivation and confidence to participate in a modern digital society, whatever their circumstances’, councils play an important role in coordinating, convening and taking a local strategic leadership position with key stakeholders, partners and agencies both internally and externally, to ensure residents are able to use the internet for what they need.

However, the current landscape is characterised by systemic issues that impede their effectiveness and prevent comprehensive strategic coordination on digital inclusion across the country, demanding a re-evaluation of how digital inclusion is funded, implemented, and measured.

Successful digital inclusion initiatives are built on strong partnerships with a variety of stakeholders. Multiple, and likely simultaneous interventions are needed to address the complex causes of digital exclusion. Local authorities play a key convening role in fostering collaborations while leveraging the expertise and reach of various organisations to address the complex causes of digital exclusion. Partnerships enable LAs to coordinate these multiple interventions effectively, ensuring a holistic and joined up approach. The authority itself, as an organisation, can also be seen as a partner, working across departments to integrate DI into intersecting priorities and promote cross organisational ownership and responsibility. This also supports the development of a resilient digital inclusion ecosystem, which allows individuals to access the support they need, when they need, in a way that meets their needs.

Collaboration and co-production

Local authorities build relationships with their partners to address the complex, causes of digital exclusion, ensuring that interventions are grounded in the lived experiences of residents. Co-production with these partners is essential, as they often have direct insight into the needs and challenges faced by digitally excluded communities. Digital exclusion exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, making it crucial to work with organisations already embedded within communities and possessing a deep understanding of their service users’ specific needs. These existing community assets and infrastructure provide a valuable foundation for DI initiatives.

The landscape of key partners

These key partners include voluntary, community, faith, and social enterprise (VCFSE) organisations, health providers (GPs, ICBs), local and national businesses, neighbouring authorities, other LAs, national charities such as Good Things Foundation and Citizens Advice, libraries, communication providers, and hyperlocal charities. All authorities working on DI will work with a similar cohort of stakeholders, highlighting the common ground and shared purpose in addressing digital exclusion. 

Capacity building

Digital inclusion teams within local authorities may not have frequent direct contact with residents themselves. Whether there is a formal DI team or not, authorities will work with key VCFSE partners to build their capacity, and digital skills and inclusion may often be one strand of broader community development work, and LAs play a vital role in building the capacity of place based partners through advocacy, training, and support.

In the absence of clear national guidance and support, local authorities have been leading the way, developing bespoke approaches. While this local leadership has been foundational to successful digital inclusion delivery to date and being responsive to local need will always be an important element, it has created a postcode lottery of support available to people experiencing digital exclusion.

Despite examples of good practice, many LAs still lack a focused strategy for digital inclusion. Digital inclusion may be referenced within digital strategies, or there may be no formal approach to addressing digital exclusion. This lack of strategic focus can lead to fragmented efforts, duplication of resources, and ultimately, limit efforts to address the digital divide within their communities. 

Strategic ownership

Successful DI programmes are often characterised by strategies that extend beyond internal concerns and embrace a "strategy for the place" approach. This involves broader ownership and co-design, recognising that digital inclusion is a shared responsibility between key stakeholders. These strategies are not static documents, instead evolving in response to community needs. This iterative approach is crucial, as the digital landscape, the needs of digitally excluded residents and the context of funding are constantly changing.

Governance and coordination mechanisms

A key component of effective coordination is the establishment of clear governance mechanisms. Action plans, working groups, task forces, networks or similar structures can provide infrastructure to align shared objectives. This is particularly important given the intersecting priorities related to digital inclusion and the diverse range of stakeholders involved. These may include both internal and external stakeholders. 

Targeting and evidence based practice

The approach to targeting digital inclusion efforts also varies. Some LAs adopt a "furthest first" approach, prioritising those most marginalised and digitally excluded. Others may take a more universal approach, aiming to improve digital access and skills for all residents. Regardless of the chosen approach, evidence based practice is essential. Tools like the Digital Exclusion Risk Index (DERI), alongside local mapping, surveys, and research, provide valuable data to inform strategy and target interventions effectively. Crucially, robust impact assessment and evaluation frameworks are needed to measure the success of initiatives and demonstrate value.

Organisational structure and cross departmental collaboration

Cross organisational ownership is vital, ensuring that digital inclusion is not siloed within a single department but rather embedded across the authority. This principle also applies at the central government level, where joined up thinking is essential to create a supportive national approach. 

Community centric approaches

The community based model implemented in Leeds offers a valuable framework for digital inclusion delivery. This model emphasises: 

• identifying a clear focus and establishing partnerships
• assessing barriers, assets, and opportunities within the community
• developing and implementing a tailored plan
• measuring and demonstrating success. 

This approach underscores the importance of local context and community engagement in driving effective DI initiatives.

Branding

Some local authorities have opted to create separate brand identities for their digital inclusion activities, distinct from the “council” brand. This can foster a sense of shared ownership and signal a different approach, potentially increasing community buy in and engagement. However, this is often only seen in more advanced programmes where significant resources and commitment are dedicated to digital inclusion.

The funding landscape for digital inclusion programmes in the UK is fragmented and unpredictable, resulting in challenges for local authorities in delivering sustainable and impactful initiatives. Funding remains inconsistent and often tied to specific, short term objectives. Local authorities, often reliant on experienced individuals to maximise opportunity, face the challenge of coordinating diverse funding streams, with little long term flexibility to ensure programmes are sustainable. The current piecemeal approach to funding, paired with local authority budget constraints limits the ability to create cohesive strategies that address both present needs and future growth: 

• Strategic planning is hindered: Local authorities struggle to plan effectively when funding is uncertain or limited in scope. Without long term, flexible funding, it is difficult to plan for growth, scale, or future needs.
• Narrow focus of initiatives: Short term funding often leads to initiatives with a more narrow scope, such as providing digital devices or addressing health outcomes, rather than more comprehensive, community wide digital inclusion efforts.

Barriers to embedding DI within local authorities

Without a stable financial foundation, it is challenging for digital inclusion programmes to become embedded within local authority operations. Authorities may lack the capacity to establish robust, long term frameworks for digital inclusion, even when they recognise its importance

Budget constraints and perception of digital inclusion as a “nice to have”

Local government finances are under pressure due to broader fiscal constraints and service cuts. Digital inclusion may be regarded as secondary as it is not a statutory service. Within the context of a potential £8 bn funding gap for statutory services, this leads to a lack of core funding for digital inclusion, preventing authorities from establishing sustained programmes. Without guaranteed, flexible funding, many local authorities may only invest in digital inclusion on an ad hoc basis, leading to fragmented outcomes.

UKSPF funding

Lead authorities are able to use the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) for digital inclusion activity across the Communities and Places, Business Support and People and Skills priorities and many have taken the opportunity to introduce digital inclusion programmes. The single year allocation nature of the fund makes it difficult to allocate resources effectively to deliver longer term digital inclusion goals. The government should provide the local government sector with longer term, fully flexible funding that removes funding fragmentation. The LGA’s Future of Growth Funding research puts forward a 10-point plan for the future of growth funding, which the LGA hopes will be adopted at the next Spending Review. 

Context of pandemic funding

The COVID-19 pandemic catalysed the importance of digital inclusion and led to the funding of local authority coordinated digital inclusion activity, some for the first time. Covid related funding largely focused on providing devices and data to communities. While necessary, this focus was often short term and did not facilitate the development of long term solutions. However, this highlighted a deeper digital divide that requires sustained investment, rather than temporary fixes. This depth also outlined the cross-cutting nature of effective digital inclusion interventions.

Occasional NHS/ICB funding

Some local authorities receive occasional funding from NHS or Integrated Care Board (ICB) streams, but these are typically narrow in scope, focused on health outcomes or with specific outcomes i.e. related to the NHS app. Research between the LGA and Good Things Foundation outlined a model of successful partnership working between local authorities and primary care. Some local authorities work with NHS partners in wider, strategic place-based approaches to digital inclusion, which allows improved coordination. However without this, while funding can contribute to digital inclusion in the health context, it is limited in scope. It can be difficult to identify shared success measures due to differing priorities and reporting requirements. 

Library led or local authority run programmes

In many cases, libraries are hubs for digital inclusion activities, even where there is no formal digital inclusion team within an authority. As public spaces with broadband access, libraries are well positioned to provide access to technology and digital literacy support. However, this often depends on short term or project specific funding, in an already stretched and underfunded service, where two thirds of councils are warning of cuts to neighbourhood services, these programmes cannot scale to meet growing demands. 

Dedicated funding for specific communities

There is funding allocated for specific groups, such as asylum seekers, refugees, and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) learners. While this targeted funding can be beneficial, it is often narrowly focused, addressing only a portion of the overall digital inclusion needs within a local area. Furthermore, these funds are often restricted to a set time frame or specific outcomes, limiting their ability to create sustainable change.

Social value clauses and local developments

Social value clauses in procurement contracts may encourage digital inclusion initiatives as part of local development projects, but these tend to be transactional and narrowly defined. They are also more likely to be used in areas where the local authority has already developed a mature DI programme. Successes have been seen in places such as Greater Manchester, which developed a social value framework, creating routes to leverage social value from large scale contracts, such as the Local Full Fibre Network. Expanding this to a national level, with broader access and clearer guidelines, could offer a more consistent approach to funding digital inclusion. The expertise required to leverage social value funding further compounds the challenges that less mature council digital inclusion programmes face in their ability to leverage investment elsewhere.

Leveraging adult education and multiply funding

Authorities can leverage Adult Education Budget (AEB)/Adult Skills Funding (ASF) for digital inclusion activities, particularly where there is overlap with adult education objectives, such as digital literacy. While largely devolved, there is limited flexibility in how this is allocated. Similarly, Multiply funding, which is aimed at improving numeracy skills, can also support digital inclusion where numeracy is integrated with digital skills development[12]. However, this requires local authorities to actively link digital inclusion with these broader initiatives, navigating restrictions, which can be challenging without clear guidance or consistent funding.

Ad hoc and research programme funding

Some authorities can access ad hoc funding through research programmes or other special grants. While this can supplement digital inclusion efforts, these funds are often not recurring and do not support long-term strategic planning. Research grants may also come with specific reporting and evaluation requirements that further limit flexibility.

Business rates retention and enhanced devolution deals

More devolved areas, such as Greater Manchester, benefit from enhanced devolution deals, which include 100 per cent business rates retention. This allows for greater control over local budgets, including funds that could be directed towards digital inclusion efforts. However, such approaches are still limited and not widespread, making it difficult for all areas to take advantage of this opportunity.

Digital inclusion is not an end in itself, but rather a means to achieving broader outcomes such as improved quality of life, increased access to services and enhanced social participation. However, measuring the impact of digital inclusion activity is challenging and contested. Nonetheless, impact monitoring is a key requirement for funders.

The challenge of defining and measuring digital inclusion:

The definition of digital exclusion is multifaceted, making it difficult to fully capture and measure. As noted in research by the British Academy with Leeds and Coventry, while it is challenging to fully measure due to its complex nature, consistent and standardised approaches are nonetheless important to understand the impact of different interventions. Appendix A shows a table outlining these challenges. Digital exclusion is not a static state; individuals can move in and out of it depending on their life circumstances, further complicating measurement efforts.

Attributing impact

One of the key challenges in evaluating DI initiatives is attributing impact directly to specific organisations and interventions. The "improved quality of life" intention of digital inclusion delivery is often influenced by a complex web of factors, including multiple interactions with various support providers. This makes it difficult to isolate the specific contribution of any single intervention. For example, an individual's increased access to online services might be the result of a combination of receiving a device from one organisation, digital skills training from another, and ongoing support from a community hub.

The need for holistic metrics

While it is relatively easy to measure tangible outputs like the number of devices distributed or data packages provided, these metrics only reflect a small part of the digital inclusion picture. Focusing solely on these quantifiable elements can distort the narrative of activity being delivered and fail to capture the broader impact of DI initiatives. A higher number of "digitally excluded" residents engaging with support, for instance, could actually suggest increased engagement with services or a greater number of interventions taking place, rather than a worsening of the digital divide. This highlights the limitations of relying solely on quantitative data.

Mixed methods evaluation

Effective evaluation requires a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to understand how successful interventions and initiatives have been. Qualitative data, gathered through interviews, focus groups, and case studies, can provide valuable insights into the lived experiences of digitally included individuals and the impact of DI interventions on their lives. This qualitative understanding is essential for complementing quantitative data and providing a more nuanced picture of impact.

Building a resilient ecosystem

Rather than focusing solely on measuring individual outcomes, a more effective approach may instead measure the resilience of the digital inclusion ecosystem. This involves assessing the availability, accessibility, and quality of support services within a community, as well as the capacity of local organisations to respond to the changing needs of residents. By focusing on building a robust and responsive ecosystem, LAs can ensure that individuals have access to the support they need, when they need it, contributing to long term digital inclusion and empowerment.