New Deal for Communities: The National Evaluation:

Interim Assessment 2005 and Phase 2

Adapted from NDC National Evaluation (NRU Research Report 17)

Paul Lawlessp.l.lawless@shu.ac.uk

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 (c.beatty@shu.ac.uk)