new deal for communities: the national evaluation: interim assessment 2005 and phase 2 adapted from...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
213 views
TRANSCRIPT
New Deal for Communities: The National Evaluation:
Interim Assessment 2005 and Phase 2
Adapted from NDC National Evaluation (NRU Research Report 17)
Paul [email protected]
Structure
• brief background to the Programme
• NDC strategies and activities
• An assessment of achievements
• Some challenges and some lessons
• Phase 2: an introduction
Programme to overcome perceived weaknesses of previous regeneration schemes
Short – term (e.g. SRB typically 3 year schemes) 10 year horizon
Distrusted by local residents Communities at the centre
Overly focused on physical regeneration ‘Holistic’ approach
Divorced from long-term public service providers
Close working with LA and key agencies
Designed
to
produce
Sustainable
renewal
for both
people
and
places
Substantial funding to deliver.. sometimes with other ABIs
• Roughly, £50 million per NDC over ten years
• Funding not designed to cover re-development of large estates. Housing Action Trusts given £200-300 million each.
• Compared with about £600 million from mainstream service providers
• funding and activity through other ABIs
Number of other ABIs existing in NDC areasABIDrug Action Team 27European regional development fund areas 26Youth Inclusion Programme 24Sure Start 22Action team 20SRB 15Education Action Zone 12Building safer communities 11HMR pathfinders 10Community cohesion pathfinders 8Early excellence centres 7Employment zones 7Sports action zones 7Home zones 6Urban regeneration companies 4Liveability pathfinder 2
NDCs are amongst the most deprived areas in England
NDC areas vary considerably: minority ethnic groups.
BME population, 2001
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Hull N
DC
Know
sley ND
C
Norw
ich ND
C
Rochdale N
DC
Plym
outh ND
C
Hartlepool N
DC
Southam
pton ND
C
Walsall N
DC
Middlesbrough N
DC
Derby N
DC
Brighton N
DC
Salford N
DC
Sunderland N
DC
Leicester ND
C
Birm
ingham K
N N
DC
Coventry N
DC
Oldham
ND
C
Manchester N
DC
Doncaster N
DC
Liverpool ND
C
Bristol N
DC
Islington ND
C
New
castle ND
C
Nottingham
ND
C
Ham
mersm
ith & F
ulham N
DC
Luton ND
C
Sandw
ell ND
C
Hackney N
DC
Lambeth N
DC
Sheffield N
DC
Haringey N
DC
Lewisham
ND
C
New
ham N
DC
Wolverham
pton ND
C
Brent N
DC
Bradford N
DC
Southw
ark ND
C
Tow
er Ham
lets ND
C
Birm
ingham A
ND
C
pe
rce
nta
ge
NDC
England and Wales
NDC average
There is a 'London effect': nine of the ten areas with highest rates of residential overcrowding
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
Bristol N
DC
Hartlepool N
DC
Manchester N
DC
Rochdale N
DC
Sunderland N
DC
Salford N
DC
Doncaster N
DC
Plym
outh ND
C
Southam
pton ND
C
Walsall N
DC
Know
sley ND
C
Middlesbrough N
DC
Liverpool ND
C
Oldham
ND
C
Nottingham
ND
C
Derby N
DC
Norw
ich ND
C
Brighton N
DC
Leicester ND
C
Wolverham
pton ND
C
Birm
ingham K
N N
DC
Hull N
DC
Coventry N
DC
Sandw
ell ND
C
New
castle ND
C
Sheffield N
DC
Luton ND
C
Islington ND
C
Bradford N
DC
Lewisham
ND
C
Ham
mersm
ith & F
ulham N
DC
Lambeth N
DC
Haringey N
DC
Hackney N
DC
Brent N
DC
Birm
ingham A
ND
C
New
ham N
DC
Southw
ark ND
C
Tow
er Ham
lets ND
C
per
cen
tag
e
Over 1.0 persons per room
NDC average
NDC activities and strategies
NDC’s finance a wide variety of projects and development work
• By end 2004/5 about £830m spent (40% of the total £2 billion)
• Well over 5,000 funded ‘projects’ – both capital and revenue.
• Each NDC managing 80+ projects, services, or initiatives
• Management and Administration– Average staff team is 14– Role of Chief Executive is critical
Most expenditure on housing-related projects, least on health and crime
Community development, £95 , 17%
Crime, £64 , 12%
Education, £94 , 17%
Health, £65 , 12%
Housing/physical environment, £147 , 26%
Worklessness, £86 , 16%
Note: About 80% of projects are estimated has having cross-theme impacts
Total spend by theme 2000-2004 (£m: at 2003/4 prices)
NDC’s typically implement a core set of actions
• Additional local police, PCSOs, and neighbourhood wardens
• Environment and public space improvements• New health centres often accommodating other
social/community care services• Additional educational facilities and teaching resources• New / improved community facilities, often housing a
range of outreach services • Selective demolition, refurbishment and redevelopment of
housing stock• Local training, job brokerage and enterprise projects.• Initiatives to engage local residents and agencies
NDCs have successfully worked with other service providers
• Every £ of NDC expenditure attracts 50p from public sector.
• In most NDCs, agencies have
– Increased resources in NDC area
– Changed patterns of service delivery
– Included NDCs in their own forward strategies
• Some agencies are less visible e.g. LSA, RDA, Fire Service
0 20 40
PCT
Councillors
Police
LEA/FE
LA officers
JC+
RSL/Housing
Agencies on NDC Boards
NDC expenditure and outputs mostly additional to what would have otherwise happened in these areas
Housing and Environment (£333) 8,000 Homes
improved or built
Education (£244) 9,500 adults obtaining
qualifications
Crime and disorder (£164) 70,000 young people involved in diversion
activities
17,000 received job training
104 new or improvedhealth facilities
Worklessness (£154)
Health (£149)
Per capita NDC spend 2000/01 to 2003/4
.52
.64
.82
.82
.85
Additionality RatioExample output
Project additionality: Indication of proportion of projects that would not have gone ahead without NDC funding / beneficiaries that would not have been able to access similar provision in the absence of the project.
An assessment of achievements
Most narrowed unemployment rate gap relative to parent authority; from a more disadvantaged position
(99-03)
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Hul
lN
ottin
gham
Don
cast
erH
artle
pool
Live
rpoo
lN
ewca
stle
Cov
entry
Kno
wsl
eyB
irmin
gham
KN
Ply
mou
thM
iddl
esbr
ough
Bris
tol
Sun
derla
ndS
heffi
eld
Wol
verh
ampt
onS
outh
ampt
onLe
ices
ter
Man
ches
ter
Roc
hdal
eW
alsa
llLu
ton
Bra
dfor
dH
'sm
ith&
Ful
ham
Bre
ntD
erby
New
ham
Brig
hton
Lew
isha
mS
andw
ell
Old
ham
Har
inge
yH
ackn
eyN
orw
ich
Sou
thw
ark
Sal
ford
Lam
beth
Tow
er H
amle
tsIs
lingt
onB
irmin
gham
A
Per
cent
age
poin
t cha
ng to
gap
Closing the gap
Gap widening
Detailed analysis suggests an ‘NDC effect’ on worklessness
• After removing the effects of age/region etc NDCs residents are 1.6 times more likely to leave sickness benefits than would be expected.
• Longitudinal modelling shows that unemployed NDC residents in 2002 are significantly less likely to be unemployed in 2004 than comparator residents
• Variation at NDC level but across the Programme more outcome change for worklessness than other outcomes..
Why?....
• Not possible definitively to say but possibilities:– Engagement of JC+– Neighbourhood works for some employment
initiatives– Faster off the mark than some outcomes– Outcomes easier to achieve??– possibly as a result of early signs of greater
residential stability?
Worklessness: some key lessons..
• Understand local economy
• Need for balance: supply and demand side; residents v experts
• Linking neighbourhoods to city/regions
• Adding value to mainstream: JC+
• Work with employers
• Decentralised services: community outreach
And if one type of project was seen to ‘succeed’..
• Job brokerage schemes: intensive, personalised, continuous..
• Survey (700+) of 6 JB schemes:– 40%+ found jobs through contacts– Almost all found service useful– 50% + thought it helped towards job they
wanted
Slightly larger improvement in education than key benchmarks
Proportion of pupils achieving five or more Key Stage 4 (GCSE) A*-C passes, 2002-2003 and 2002-2004 percentage improvement
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
All England All NDC All comparators IMD Decile 1 (most deprived)
Per
ce
nta
ge
im
pro
ve
men
t
2002-2003
2002-2004
Crime: NDCs doing better than comparator areas
36
40
21
29
38
44
24
33
0 10 20 30 40 50
2004
2002
2004
2002
Vic
tim o
f cri
me
Hig
h fe
ar
of c
rim
e
Percentage
NDC
Comparator
Recorded crime data: slight majority of NDCs closing gaps with their parent local authority
Change in burglary rates in NDCs relative to parent authority: 2000-01 to 2002-03
Where relative improvement compared with other wards in LAs, not leading to a displacement of crime
Violence Burglary Theft
Criminal Damage
250m 500m 250m 500m 250m 500m 250m 500m Improved (%) 58 50 67 61 84 74 73 87 No change (%) 33 25 11 17 16 11 0 7 Worsened (%) 8 25 22 22 0 16 27 7
Levels of crime in NDC ‘buffer’ zones (250m or 500m radius around the NDC area)
NDCs closing gaps on most indicators of liveability
-15
-6
-3
0
-1
-11
-2
-3
3
3
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
Abandoned cars aproblem
Vandalism aproblem
Litter a problem
Teenagers aproblem
Drugs a problem
NDC Comparator
Source: Household Survey. Based on composite indicators of a number of different crime types
Little change in relation to health
32
32
21
19
38
33
33
30
22
19
40
33
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Long standing illness (NDC)
Long standing illness (Comparator)
Health worse than 12 months ago (NDC)
Health worse than 12 months ago(Comparator)
Smoking (NDC)
Smoking (Comparator)
2002
2004
Indicators of self-reported health:
Hence in relation to outcome change…
• NDC areas have closed the gaps in outcomes with a range of national and local benchmarks.
• Improvements modest rather than dramatic
• most NDCs can demonstrate absolute or relative improvement in at least one thematic area
• Although some evidence of NDC-specific changes, it is too early to see a marked global ‘NDC effect’, especially given time lags in data provision.
Better local facilities, services and environments
• An impressive array of new facilities and improved services (e.g. facilities – including leisure centres, health centres, youth clubs and community halls)
• Impact of these is hard to measure– Do not feed directly into outcomes– Only affects a limited section of the population
• But community role in these investment decisions and ongoing management maximises their long term potential
Perceptions of the area are improving (2002-2004)
1
-9
6
-14
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10
Satisfied with area
Area worse than 2 years ago(a)
Percentage point change
NDC
Comparator
Stimulated a high degree of engagement with local residents, building local capacity
• 19% of local residents involved in NDC activities.
• 9,000 VCS groups supported
0 50 100
Heard ofNDC
Involvedin NDC
activities
20022004
NDCs and the local community…
• Most NDCs have resident majority on boards
• 34 of 39 NDCs have used elections to select community reps.
• Regular communication through open meetings, surveys, newsletters etc.
NDC population
BME25%
White75%
NDC Board composition
BME20%
White80%
Which is leading to a greater connection between people and services
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Trust localNDC
Trust localcouncil
Trust localpolice
Think NDC hasimproved area
20022004
Three challenges and some lessons
1. Do local strategies always reflect local problems?
£2,659,263
£2,651,955
£1,918,695
£1,717,919
£1,593,600
£1,122,221
£961,981
£951,946
£729,382
£710,973
£2,726,623
£2,105,392
£1,790,955
£1,629,778
£1,026,754
£842,139
£670,678
£619,603
£486,795
£3,448,834
£0 £1,000,000 £2,000,000 £3,000,000 £4,000,000 £5,000,000
Tower Hamlets
Newham
Haringey
Hackney
Brent
Lewisham
Southwark
H'smith & Fulham
Islington
Lambeth
Sunderland
Middlesbrough
Newcastle
Manchester
Hartlepool
Liverpool
Rochdale
Salford
Oldham
Knowsley
Lo
nd
on
No
rth
We
st/E
ast
Expenditure
Educational Expenditure the North and London: 2002/03 - 2003/04
In worst 10 NDCs
In best 10 NDCs
The ‘best’ and ‘worst ‘ NDCs refer to the relative performance of those NDCs in terms of educational attainment.
2. Creating an effective interface with local institutions is not always easy!
• Local Authority is both accountable body and the key service provider.
• There have been clashes of perspectives about how NDCs and Authorities should work together.
• important to embed their targets within the wider institutional context in order to maximise synergies with other ABIs and delivery agencies
• but – other institutions change– have their own agendas– and may not priorities NDCs
3. Progressing action on poor housing - given limited resources
• NDCs were not given the resources or assets to deal with major redevelopment proposals ..
• ....but many communities want action in relation to 'housing'
• Where action is taking place, NDCs can be on the front line in engaging concerns about demolition and re-build
• where major redevelopment proposals, NDC resources minor overall element
Tenure patterns largely stable..
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Owner-occupier Social renters Private renters
NDC 2002
NDC 2004
National
Note: National figures based on Survey of English Housing 2003/4
..unless tenure changes, inmovers likely to be relatively more disadvantaged than outmovers
78
31
18
48
61
29
41
16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Economically Active
NVQ4+
16-24
Owner Occupiers
Percentage
Inmovers
Outmovers
MORI traced 330 outmovers (in NDCs in 2002, not by 2004); 38% in owner-occupation in 2002, 48% in 2004;
leaving NDC areas to enter owner-occupation?
31
48
41
38
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Social sector renter
Owner occupier
Percentage
2002
2004
Some key lessons for delivering neighbourhood renewal
• Ch 14 Research Report 17 lists more than 50..five key ones:– appoint and keep good people– critical need for boards which can take a
genuinely strategic view– local solutions to local problems– it is easy to be over-ambitious– senior agency reps on boards vital
If we were starting off again...!
• use 'geographies' understood by delivery agencies
• need a year zero
• 5+ outcomes too many?
• monitoring and evaluation from the outset
• clarity re 'community engagement'
Conclusions to Phase 1 of NDC evaluation
• evaluation evidence supports rationale for dedicated renewal agencies taking a holistic approach.
• NDCs broadly where expected, despite a range barriers to delivery.
• Achieving transformational outcome change difficult: too early to expect change? poor strategic choices? or always unrealistic given scope of Programme?
• The second half of the Programme best source of evidence about how to deliver renewal at the neighbourhood level
Phase 2: An Introduction
Phase 2 will be different in approach...
• Elements of continuity:– 2006 and 2008 MORI household surveys– NDC specific admin data
• But more emphasis on– understanding change in six case study NDCs– picking up good practice across all 39: policy
studies– hence how to deliver effective neighbourhood
renewal
Ultimately to answer three key questions...
• Has the NDC Programme been successful?
• What is added value of community based approach to renewal?
• What is the most effective way to plan renewal over 10 years?
So for Partnerships
• customised admin and survey data
• involvement in case studies/policy studies
• regular learning/ dissemination programme.. early signs that understanding implications of data a priority
• Reference Group
• newsletter
And also...
• there is a limited 'Partnership specific resource'-to be used in various ways
• one of which may well be support for local evaluation activities
• but probably more regional/supra-regional events
please contact/use us as much as possible
• Newsletter and data packages will have contact names on..
• ..but if in doubt use me or my colleagues Sarah Pearson (s.pearson@shu,ac,uk) or Tina Beatty ([email protected])