New Deal for Communities: a Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07

New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07... Page 1 of 6

LGIU Local Government Information Unit

Independent Intelligent Information New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07 (LGIUandSTEER)

26/2/2008 Author: Andrew Jones Reference No: PB 1740/08L This covers: England Overview

The New Deal for Communities (NDC) Programme was launched in 1998 with the aim of reducing the gap between 39 deprived neighbourhoods and the rest of the country. In these 39 areas, each on average accommodating about 9,800 people, local NDC partnerships are implementing approved 10 year delivery plans. Each delivery plan has attracted approximately £50m of government funding. The programme is meant to close the gap between the 39 areas and the rest of the country in relation to a range of outcome areas.

This is the first report of the evaluation of phase 2 of the programme. The most recent data collected is used to answer three questions:

z what changes have occurred in NDC areas? z how have NDC areas performed in comparison with change occurring nationally, locally, and in other deprived neighbourhoods? z what is the most effective way to deliver longer term renewal?

The report concludes that NDC partnerships are now working effectively and that NDC areas are improving across a range of indicators. Further, NDC interventions have generated benefits for surrounding areas - there has been a 'positive halo' effect in the areas surrounding NDCs.

The most important lesson is that persistence pays: it takes time to engage all agencies fully, and for spending to show impacts. The more intractable problems take longer to solve, and hence programme managers should be prepared for diminishing returns over time. Staff retention, particularly of senior staff, is crucial to stability and commitment over the longer term. Briefing in full

Background

http://www.lgiu.gov.uk/briefing-detail.jsp?&id=1740&md=0§ion=briefing 29/02/2008 New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07... Page 2 of 6

The programme is meant to close the gap between the 39 areas and the rest of the country in relation to a range of outcome areas including:

z crime z education z health z worklessness z housing z environment and liveability.

In 2001 a consortium led by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) at Sheffield Hallam University was commissioned to undertake the evaluation of the 2001-05 phase of the programme. Summaries of the 2005 interim evaluation report and other associated reports, together with links to the original documents, can be accessed via Related Briefings.

CRESR has been commissioned to undertake the evaluation of phase 2 of the programme. Key elements of the evaluation methodology include:

z a household survey conducted in 2002 and 2006 z analysis of administrative data including that for benefits, school pupil attainment, crime, house prices, and worklessness z case studies of selected NDC areas z a postal survey of NDC staff z costs-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of programme financial and performance data.

In this report, the most recent data collected is used to answer three questions:

How NDC Areas Have Changed

The early problems of some NDC partnerships – some characterised by instability and difficult relationships – have mostly disappeared. The Programme is mostly perceived as mature, focused and professionally delivered. This positive assessment is based on five premises:-

z they have become more focused on delivering local programmes to address local issues z they have become more strategic in their outlook z they have learnt to work more effectively with other agencies z they have become beacons of experience in relation to community engagement z they have enlarged the boundaries of neighbourhood-level renewal.

Perhaps because this is a 10-year programme, partnerships have had more time to influence what is happening locally and to consider how their activities might be sustained once NDC funding comes to an end. Some partnerships have created longer term rental streams from physical assets, new modes of governance for a ‘post NDC world’, or sustainable partnerships with mainstream agencies. There is evidence that some have developed much closer links with LSP and LAA funding steams.

http://www.lgiu.gov.uk/briefing-detail.jsp?&id=1740&md=0§ion=briefing 29/02/2008 New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07... Page 3 of 6

In addition to better partnership working, there is evidence that other improvements have occurred in NDC areas. Of the 36 core indicators drawn from the household surveys and administrative data, 32 showed positive improvement. Particularly large improvements were recorded in perceptions of recent improvement in the areas, fear of crime, Key Stage 4 attainment, and satisfaction with the area as a place to live. There have been slower improvements in relationship to worklessness and health. There has been little change in relation to qualifications and training, despite good progress in Key stages 2,3,and 4.

Of the indicators moving in a negative direction, only one - the number receiving means tested benefits - was by more than one percentage point. it is thought that this more likely to reflect benefit take-up campaigns that changes in local demographics.

There has been no reduction in the proportion of people wanting to move away from their place of residence, although within the numbers of those saying they want to move within two years,there has been a marked increase in those saying they want to move to within fifteen minutes walk of their current home.

However, most of the positive changes occurred in the earlier stages of the programme. This may be because:

z the rapid positive effects effects arising from 'quick wins' implemented by NDCs in their earlier years have diminished through time z outcomes associated with long-term projects will take longer to become apparent z some indicators are close to national averages, and hence there may be little capacity for more rapid improvement.

A distinction is drawn between people-based and place-based outcomes. People based outcomes relate to individual or household circumstances, as measured by indicators for educational attainment, employment status, or personal health. Place-based outcomes refer to changes in the NDC area overall, such as those measured by changes in views on the attractiveness of the area captured in household surveys. There are more obvious signs of positive change in 'place-based' outcomes than in 'people based' outcomes. This could be because:-

z 'people-based' outcomes may improve the material circumstances of individuals, thus enabling them to move out of an area - hence such improvements will not show up in monitoring data z 'people-based' outcomes are harder to identify with certainty, because they affect fewer people than 'place-based' outcomes. z some 'people-based' initiatives may take several years to have an effect.

How NDC Areas Have Changed Relative to Other Areas

Comparisons with four other spatial scales were examined:

z the national level (for 22 indicators) z the host local authority district (12 indicators) z NDCs and similarly deprived comparator neighbourhoods (31 indicators) z clusters and NDCs against comparator neighbourhoods.

For six indicators change in NDC areas was at least 3 percentage points higher than nationally. The best improvements in comparison with national averages were those relating to 'place-based' outcomes, although the proportion of local schoolchildren achieving 5 or more GCSEs at A-C was 6 percentage points higher than the national

http://www.lgiu.gov.uk/briefing-detail.jsp?&id=1740&md=0§ion=briefing 29/02/2008 New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07... Page 4 of 6

average in NDC areas. For 13 indicators, change across NDC areas is similar or slightly higher than the national average. It is concluded that in most indicators the gap is not widening between NDC areas and the national average.

The evidence supplied by the 12 indicators used to compare changes in NDC areas with their host local authority areas suggests that gaps are neither widening nor closing. For these indicators, it is hard to attribute the reason for changes to either local authority or NDC interventions.

In broad terms, rates of change are similar in NDC areas and comparator areas, although there are no indicators in which comparator areas substantially outperform NDC areas. NDC areas do marginally better in some indicators and in a few substantially outperform comparator indicators, notably in 'place-based' indicators and in crime.

The reasons for NDC areas improving at only a slightly higher rate than comparator areas could include:

z comparator areas have benefited from other regeneration funding, including SRB, EU Structural Funds, Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders, and NRF z the comparator areas are less deprived than NDC areas.

The evaluation methodology included constructing five clusters (or 'types') of NDC areas grouped together according to their similarity across a range of indicators, including population stability, crime, education, health, and labour market participation.

The clusters were defined as follows:

z Cluster 1: low human capital, high fear of crime and relatively unstable population ((Liverpool, Knowsley, Nottingham, Doncaster, Coventry) z Cluster 2: relatively stable population with fewer entrenched problems (Leicester, Walsall, Bristol, Middlesbrough, Southampton, Derby, Oldham, Salford, Rochdale, Luton, Birmingham Kings Norton, Brighton, Norwich, Hartlepool) z Cluster 3: London NDCs - unstable population, least deprived (Brent, Southwark, Islington, Lewisham, Hackney, Haringey, Lambeth, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Fulham) z Cluster 4: relatively thriving, outside London, high BME populations (Bradford, Sandwell, Birmingham Aston, Wolverhampton) z Cluster 5: relatively stable, low human capital, low fear of crime (Sheffield, Newcastle, Hull, Plymouth, Manchester, Sunderland).

Cluster 1 had the most entrenched problems, with a greater share of the worst performing indicators at the start of the programme with more positive change than their comparator areas in only 15 of 36 indicators. Clusters 2, 4, and 5 are all 'middling' clusters, with the number of indicators showing improvements compared with comparator areas ranging from 18 to 22. Cluster 3 (the 'London' cluster) has been the best performing. More evidence from other sources, especially the case studies, is required to explain these variations.

Effective Longer-Term Renewal

The final section in the report draws on new evidence from the national evaluation to support the development of effective policies for renewal and regeneration. Some initial conclusions were drawn from the earlier stages of the evaluation programme (see related briefings).

http://www.lgiu.gov.uk/briefing-detail.jsp?&id=1740&md=0§ion=briefing 29/02/2008 New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07... Page 5 of 6

The first important lesson is that persistence pays: it takes time to engage all agencies fully, and for spending to show impacts. The more intractable problems take longer to solve, and hence programme managers should be prepared for diminishing returns over time. Staff retention, particularly of senior staff, is crucial to stability and commitment over the longer term.

The analysis engages with a wider debate about the effectiveness of area-based renewal initiatives. The rationale for area-based approaches is that area effects accentuate deprivation - contributing to a multiplicity of disadvantages in which the whole is the greater than the sum of the parts. A contrary argument is that housing markets concentrate people with various disadvantages into areas of poorer housing whose needs are best met through mainstream services in housing, health, education, and job training operating across city or city-regional areas.

In this report, it is argued that the evidence supports the case for addressing the different components of deprivation through holistic neighbourhood-level interventions. Examples from the NDC evaluation include significant positive correlations between improvements in housing and physical environments with reductions in crime, between reductions in worklessness and improvements in health, and between better educational attainment and measures of improved community involvement. Overall, it is argued that the evidence from the NDC evaluation supports the case that in the longer term, interventions in one outcome area are likely to reap benefits across a range of other outcome areas. There is thus a sound rationale for area-based regeneration schemes that adopt multi-outcome interventions and targets.

The issue of population movement leads to a discussion of whether intervention is best focused on people-based or place-based outcomes. This is because people-focused interventions, such as skills training, may succeed in improving life chances and hence opportunities to move to a better area. Those moving in, moreover, may be among the more disadvantaged. The issue has become more complex because of the large influx of migrants in recent years, especially from Eastern Europe. However, it is concluded that people-based and place-based interventions should be delivered simultaneously in order to retain the less disadvantaged who might otherwise move out. The issues of population churn was discussed in some detail in a 2006 evaluation report (see related briefings).

There is some discussion about the most appropriate spatial scale for area-based initiatives. Some interventions, such as those in primary schooling, may best be delivered at neighbourhood level, although for others, such as job training may be better delivered over larger spatial scales. Larger areas may be able to yield economies of scale. On the other hand, a report by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit (NRU) suggests that economies of scale peter out once the population exceeds 15,000 people (see links).

It is noted that impacts have been greater where NDC areas have overlapped with other area-based initiatives. An example given is of greater impacts in housing improvements because of an overlap between the NDC area and a Housing Market Renewal Pathfinder area.

There is an analysis of the extent to which NDCs have generated positive or negative displacement effects on surrounding localities - for example, success in reducing crime in an NDC area might only have been the result of 'pushing out' crime from the NDC area into surrounding areas. The conclusion is that NDC interventions have generated benefits for surrounding areas - there has been a 'positive halo' effect in the areas surrounding NDCs.

http://www.lgiu.gov.uk/briefing-detail.jsp?&id=1740&md=0§ion=briefing 29/02/2008 New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme-Wide Evidence 2006-07... Page 6 of 6

Commentary

The findings of the evaluation programme paint a generally positive picture for NDC outcomes. Particularly encouraging are the 'spillover' effects into surrounding areas, which suggests that NDC impacts positively on property prices (although more evidence on property prices in the report would be welcome), which in turn suggests that NDC interventions are economically sustainable.

The most important lesson, however, is that area-based interventions take time to take effect, and thus that regeneration strategies should always plan for the longer term. This is not such an easy trick to pull off in practice, given the requirement of the prevailing political culture for 'quick wins'. Neighbourhood renewal policy overall has recently undergone an overehaul with the transition from the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund to the Working Neighbourhoods Fund, and regeneration is always subject to political uncertainties. However, it is to be hoped that the important lessons regarding persitence, stability, and commitment arising from this evaluation study will not be lost. Additional Information Covers

z Skills, Training, Economy, Environment, Regeneration (STEER) z Housing z Equalities, Social inclusion, Community cohesion z Planning, Transport, Environmental sustainability z Democracy, Governance, Councillor issues, Standards board, Neighbourhood governance, Regional governance, Local government information z Crime and Community Safety z Community involvement, Partnerships and LSPs, Voluntary sector Question

Send Feedback for this briefing