DOCSLIB.ORG

New Deal for Communities Household Survey 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Deal for Communities Household Survey 2008 UK Data Archive Study Number 5299 - National Evaluation of the New Deal for Communities Programme: Household Survey Data, 2002-2008 New Deal for Communities Household Survey 2008 Research Study Conducted for the Regeneration and Economic Development Analysis Division & Sheffield Hallam University April - October 2008 Legal notice © 2010 Ipsos MORI – all rights reserved. The contents of this report constitute the sole and exclusive property of Ipsos MORI. Ipsos MORI retains all right, title and interest, including without limitation copyright, in or to any Ipsos MORI trademarks, technologies, methodologies, products, analyses, software and know-how included or arising out of this report or used in connection with the preparation of this report. No license under any copyright is hereby granted or implied. The contents of this report are of a commercially sensitive and confidential nature and intended solely for the review and consideration of the person or entity to which it is addressed. No other use is permitted and the addressee undertakes not to disclose all or part of this report to any third party (including but not limited, where applicable, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 2000) without the prior written consent of the Company Secretary of Ipsos MORI. Contents Technical Report .............................................................................1 1 Scope of the Survey................................................................................ 1 2 Sample Design........................................................................................ 2 3 Pilot ......................................................................................................... 7 4 Questionnaire Design.............................................................................. 8 5 Fieldwork............................................................................................... 13 6 Response Rates.................................................................................... 15 7 Foreign Language Interviews................................................................ 16 8 Data Analysis ........................................................................................ 17 Appendices....................................................................................29 Guide to SPSS Data Format of Variable Names Derived Variables Weighting Longitudinal Data Comparator Data Guide to Computer Tables Glossary of Terms Comparator Wards Overall Combined Response Rates (Longitudinal and Cross-sectional) Longitudinal Response Rates Cross-sectional Response Rates Panel Mailouts Pre-Survey Advanced Letters and Frequently Asked Questions Sheets Interviewer Instructions Longitudinal Contact Sheet Cross-sectional Contact Sheet 2008 NDC Questionnaires 2008 NDC Showcards 2008 NDC Language Sheet Questions Cut Since 2004 Technical Report 1 © 2010 Ipsos MORI. New Deal for Communities - Technical Report 2008 Technical Report This volume contains the research methodology used in the 2008 New Deal for Communities (NDC) Household Survey, conducted by Ipsos MORI and GfK NOP for the Regeneration and Economic Development Analysis Division (REDA) of Communities and Local Government (CLG). The survey was conducted as part of the national evaluation of the NDC programme, led by Sheffield Hallam University (SHU). 1 Scope of the Survey Ipsos MORI and GfK NOP interviewed a total of 15,838 resident’s aged 16+ in 39 NDC areas throughout England, between 16 May – 15 October 2008. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in-home, using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI). The overall aim of the survey is to provide information to supplement existing secondary administrative data sources on the key outcome areas of the NDC Programme. In particular, the questionnaire focuses on providing evidence on outcomes that could not be obtained from other sources. This is the fourth survey conducted among NDC residents; with previous waves in 2002, 2004 and 2006. The survey is designed to track change over time, including direct change by following-up residents who were interviewed previously. In addition, a comparator sample of 3,100 residents aged 16+ living in deprived areas was interviewed between 16 June – 4 November 2008. This national deprived area survey aims to help understand how NDC areas differ from other deprived areas. Then, following the design of the main survey, it aims to identify differences in how these areas change over time, via follow- up and longitudinal surveys. The design for this element of the survey is discussed separately below. Finally, in this wave, an additional questionnaire module was included in four NDC areas that are also in receipt of Mixed Communities Intiative (MCI) funding: Coventry, Leicester, Knowsley and Sheffield. 1 © 2010 Ipsos MORI. New Deal for Communities - Technical Report 2008 2 Sample Design The survey comprised a combined panel and cross-sectional “top-up” design. This model aims to complete as many interviews as possible at those addresses where an original interview was achieved in 2006 (i.e. either with the original respondent or someone else if they have moved/died), and then “top up” with new cross-sectional sample to a total of 400 interviews in each NDC area. For the longitudinal sample, interviews were attempted with the original respondent. If the original respondent was no longer living at the address, interviewers selected a new respondent i.e. they conducted a cross-sectional interview (see Respondent Selection Section 2.5). The sampling for the top-up cross-sectional element of the NDC household survey involved a number of steps: a random selection of addresses from within each of the NDC partnership areas, excluding the successful addresses from 2006; random selection of one property or dwelling unit at each sampled address; random selection of one household within each selected property; random selection of one adult aged 16+ within each selected household. Following this design, the 2008 sample breaks down as follows: 8,703 longitudinal interviews; 1,605 cross-sectional interviews at longitudinal addresses (i.e previous respondent had either moved or died); and 5,530 cross-sectional top-up interviews. It is worth noting that in 2006 the sample size was reduced from 500 interviews to 400, and this same sample size was used in 2008. In order to ensure that new addresses were included and to minimise the error associated with the overall sample, a random sample of 400 longitudinal respondents was taken from the achieved 2006 sample, i.e. issuing the same number of contacts as our target number of interviews (400). This optimised the number of longitudinal interviews (given the additional value of these to the evaluation), while taking account of changes in the area in order to provide representative cross-sectional data. It also ensured the balance of the sample remained the same, so that each element of the issued sample comprised the same proportion of the total as in 2004 and 2006, which is an important consideration for year-on-year comparisons. 2 © 2010 Ipsos MORI. New Deal for Communities - Technical Report 2008 2.1 Sample Frame In all four survey waves, the REDA provided digital boundary definitions for each of the NDC partnership areas. All addresses within these boundaries were selected using Ordinance Survey’s AddressPoint, which provides an accurate grid reference for each and is based on the Royal Mail’s Postcode Address File (PAF). Further checks were also run to remove addresses identified as businesses, e.g. those containing key words in specific address fields, such as ‘Business Centre’. Prior to each survey wave, these definitions have been checked with partnerships and against those provided previously. They were asked to confirm details of any major changes, for example, evidence of demolitions or new build properties. In particular, the digital boundary definitions for all NDCs were revised before the 2004 survey, and the original boundaries used in 2002 were compared against the new sets and checked for differences. This comparison revealed some discrepancies, although these were relatively minor. A total of 38 of the interviews conducted in 2002 fell outside the boundaries provided in 2004; and 24 of these individuals were re-interviewed in 2004. A flag is included in the relevant SPSS files to indicate who these respondents are. In 2004 the boundaries supplied by the REDA were also checked against boundaries supplied by the Social Disadvantage Research Centre (SDRC) at Oxford University. In 2006 this checking revealed some “holes”, where addresses appeared in the 2004 sample frame but not in that supplied in 2006. In particular, this revealed that the boundary provided for Doncaster NDC was incorrect; a residential area in the south-west quarter was excluded after the Partnership’s original submission for funding was made as they were asked to reduce the size of the area. However, no changes were made to the area definition files supplied, and as a result, just over 100 interviews were conducted outside the NDC area in 2002 and 2004 (as the area outside the boundary consisted of around 20% of the total addresses in the original definition). Doncaster NDC have been provided with revised data outputs on this basis. However, the aggregate data for 2002 and 2004 includes these interviews, given the very marginal impact on the data at this level. The 2006 and 2008 surveys use the revised area definitions for Doncaster. The digital boundary
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aston Pride New Deal for Communities
    ASTON PRIDE NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES Dale Guest Executive Director August 2012 Aston Pride NDC Round 2 New Deal for Communities 2001‐2011 £54 million Capital and Revenue budget Birmingham City Council as Accountable Body 17,500 residents 5,900 households Context What needed to change High levels of unemployment High levels of crime – 190 crimes per 1000 population – 18 times higher than the national average Poor Educational Achievement –Results in 2000 ‐only 56% of primary school children at the required level in English compared with 70% average for Birmingham and 75% for the nation Standardised mortality rates for men nearly 39% higher than the England average Population Profile ‐ Our Community (Extract from Household Survey 2006) Ethnicity % Age % White British 13 Under 16 31 Mixed White / Black Caribbean 3 16 –24 16 Heritage Indian 8 25 ‐ 34 19 Pakistani 27 35 ‐ 44 11 Bangladeshi 20 45 ‐ 54 8 55 ‐ 64 6 African‐Caribbean 12 65 ‐ 74 5 African 5 75+ 4 Aston Pride ‐ ‘Moving forward’ Community Cohesion in practice: Mutual awareness Common goals and outcomes Meeting the needs of the most disadvantaged Capacity building programmes with grassroots sector around leadership Broadening representation and engagement in decision making Aston Pride’s commitment to deliver programme Impacting on mainstreaming of services and delivery Delivery Partnership Board Independent Chair Agency Representatives –West Midlands Police, Jobcentre Plus, Primary Care Trust, Housing Pathfinder, Adult Education, Learning and Skills Council Community
    [Show full text]
  • New Deal for Communities in Newcastle Upon Tyne
    Conceptualising Regeneration: New Deal for Communities in Newcastle upon Tyne Dr. Lorna Dargan, School of Architecture Planning and Landscape, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU. Email: [email protected]. This paper forms the basis for a presentation at the “Planning Research 2003” conference, Oxford Brookes University, 8-10th April 2003. This paper is a work in progress, and is not to be quoted without the author’s permission. 1.0 Abstract The New Deal for Communities (NDC), is New Labour’s flagship area-based regeneration initiative. It has been hailed by the Government as a distinctively ‘new’ approach to tackling deprivation, which allows local actors the freedom to set their own agenda for regeneration. The paper examines the ways in which local actors involved in an NDC partnership formulate their understandings of regeneration. It finds that ‘regeneration’ is a term that has been taken up and used by local actors who have not considered its meaning in any substantive depth, which calls into question the extent to which New Labour’s approach to regeneration can be genuinely community-led. 1.1 Introduction When the Government came to power in 1997, it did so with the intention of radically reworking the state’s approach to regeneration. The Government’s approach to regeneration has three components. First, it is informed by the broad political priorities of the party, including devolution, joined-up government, welfare reform and ‘community’. Second, the policy discourse surrounding regeneration defines deprivation as structural in origin, but portrays the consequences as affecting only very localised areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Territorial Stigmatisation and Poor Housing at a London `Sink Estate'
    Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2020, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 20–33 DOI: 10.17645/si.v8i1.2395 Article Territorial Stigmatisation and Poor Housing at a London ‘Sink Estate’ Paul Watt Department of Geography, Birkbeck, University of London, London, WC1E 7HX, UK; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 4 August 2019 | Accepted: 9 December 2019 | Published: 27 February 2020 Abstract This article offers a critical assessment of Loic Wacquant’s influential advanced marginality framework with reference to research undertaken on a London public/social housing estate. Following Wacquant, it has become the orthodoxy that one of the major vectors of advanced marginality is territorial stigmatisation and that this particularly affects social housing es- tates, for example via mass media deployment of the ‘sink estate’ label in the UK. This article is based upon a multi-method case study of the Aylesbury estate in south London—an archetypal stigmatised ‘sink estate.’ The article brings together three aspects of residents’ experiences of the Aylesbury estate: territorial stigmatisation and dissolution of place, both of which Wacquant focuses on, and housing conditions which he neglects. The article acknowledges the deprivation and various social problems the Aylesbury residents have faced. It argues, however, that rather than internalising the extensive and intensive media-fuelled territorial stigmatisation of their ‘notorious’ estate, as Wacquant’s analysis implies, residents have largely disregarded, rejected, or actively resisted the notion that they are living in an ‘estate from hell,’ while their sense of place belonging has not dissolved. By contrast, poor housing—in the form of heating breakdowns, leaks, infes- tation, inadequate repairs and maintenance—caused major distress and frustration and was a more important facet of their everyday lives than territorial stigmatisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Aylesbury NDC Community Health Profile
    Aylesbury NDC Community Health Profile July 2004 Prepared by Christian Castle and Philip Atkinson On behalf of the Public Health Department, Southwark Primary Care Trust Southwark Primary Care Trust: Aylesbury NDC Community Health Profile Executive Summary: Key Facts This report presents the findings of the Community Health Profile for the Aylesbury New Deal for Communities (NDC) Partnership. The partnership is aiming to regenerate the Aylesbury Estate situated in Southwark, south London, with some of the £56.2 million of NDC funds awarded to the partnership in 1999. Key findings for the following subjects were: Demography • There were approximately 8,345 people living on the Aylesbury Estate in 2001. • The population of Faraday Ward (which contains the Aylesbury Estate) has risen by 17% between 1991 (10,559) and 2001 (12,697). • Faraday Ward contains the fifth largest population in Southwark, yet occupies the fourth smallest area (87 hectares). • The Aylesbury Estate contains a younger population than the UK - 75% of Aylesbury Estate is under the age of 45 compared to 60% of the UK population. • Faraday Ward contains a larger proportion of ethnic minorities than both Southwark and the UK. In particular there are a large proportion of people of black (35%, especially African), and Chinese/other origins (5%). • The age distribution of all ethnic groups, including people of black and Chinese origin are similar to both Southwark and the UK. • Faraday Ward contains large numbers of both black and Chinese people, who tend to be young compared to the general population. This leads to a younger population overall compared to Southwark and the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • New Deal for Communities National Evaluation Phase 2
    New Deal for Communities national evaluation phase 2 Technical report This research was commissioned by the previous government and is not necessarily a reflection of the current government’s policies and priorities. DCLG is publishing this report in the interests of transparency. March 2015 Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Department for Communities and Local Government © Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2015 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visitis http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. This document/publication is also available on our website at www.gov.uk/dclg Any enquiries regarding this document/publication should be sent to us at: Department for Communities and Local Government Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF Telephone: 030 3444 0000 For all our latest news and updates follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CommunitiesUK March 2015 ISBN: 978-1-4098-3161-7 Acknowledgements We would like to thank all of members of the evaluation team involved in the 2005- 2010 second phase of the national evaluation. Thanks are especially due to the following: Peter Tyler and Angela Brennan at Cambridge Economic Associates; Richard
    [Show full text]
  • An Early Progress Report on the New Deal for Communities Programme
    House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts An early progress report on the New Deal for Communities programme Thirty–eighth Report of Session 2003–04 HC 492 House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts An early progress report on the New Deal for Communities programme Thirty–eighth Report of Session 2003–04 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 28 June 2004 HC 492 Published on 14 September 2004 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Committee of Public Accounts The Committee of Public Accounts is appointed by the House of Commons to examine “the accounts showing the appropriation of the sums granted by Parliament to meet the public expenditure, and of such other accounts laid before Parliament as the committee may think fit” (Standing Order No 148). Current membership Mr Edward Leigh MP (Conservative, Gainsborough) (Chairman) Mr Richard Allan MP (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield Hallam) Mr Richard Bacon MP (Conservative, South Norfolk) Mrs Angela Browning MP (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton) Jon Cruddas MP (Labour, Dagenham) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton and Ripon) Mr Ian Davidson MP (Labour, Glasgow Pollock) Rt Hon Frank Field MP (Labour, Birkenhead) Mr Brian Jenkins MP (Labour, Tamworth) Mr Nigel Jones MP (Liberal Democrat, Cheltenham) Ms Ruth Kelly MP (Labour, Bolton West) Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, West Renfrewshire) Mr Siôn Simon MP (Labour, Birmingham Erdington) Mr Gerry Steinberg MP (Labour, City of Durham) Jon Trickett MP (Labour, Hemsworth) Rt Hon Alan Williams MP (Labour, Swansea West) The following were also members of the Committee during the period of this inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • New Deal for Communities: National Evaluation Main Phase Annual Evaluation Report 2003
    NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES: NATIONAL EVALUATION MAIN PHASE ANNUAL EVALUATION REPORT 2003 NEW CROSS GATE NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP, LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM FINAL REPORT Paul Convery, Lisa McCrindle SQW LTD February 2004 EVALUATION OF THE NEW DEAL FOR COMMUNITIES PROGRAMME The evaluation of the New Deal for Communities programme is being undertaken by a consortium of organisations led by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research (CRESR) at Sheffield Hallam University. The evaluation has three sets of objectives: • To provide evidence relating to 'what works and why' in neighbourhood regeneration; • To undertake value for money and cost effectiveness assessments of the NDC programme; • To support the 39 Partnerships and the programme as a whole in achieving high standards of performance. Key research task include: • household surveys in all 39 areas in 2002 and 2004; • identifying, collecting and assessing a range of secondary data, including results of the 2001 Census; • analysing outcome indicators against expenditure to estimate net impacts within and across the programme and on specific groups of beneficiaries; • carrying out local context analyses; • an annual programme of interviews with partnership staff, board members and representatives of key stakeholders; • five teams of specialists undertaking case study work focussing on progress in the five key policy areas: health, housing and the physical environment, education, worklessness, crime; • longitudinal case study work in a small number of NDC areas; • a programme of dissemination activities, designed to provide support and information for those involved in policy development and implementation. The initial phase of the evaluation will run until 2005. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The evaluation team would like to thank all of those who gave their time to contribute to, facilitate and inform the evaluation process.
    [Show full text]
  • Liveability in NDC Areas: Findings from Six Case Studies
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Northumbria Research Link Liveability in NDC Areas: Findings from Six Case Studies Research Report 22 Liveability in NDC Areas: Findings from Six Case Studies Research Report 22 Author: Keith Shaw ~ Sustainable Cities Research Institute, Northumbria University With Shawn Frazer ~ Geoff Fordham Associates Celia Robbins & Ian Smith ~ Cities Research Centre, University of West of England Crispian Fuller & Mike Geddes ~ Local Government Institute/ Institute for Employment Research, Warwick University Craig Johnstone ~ European Institute of Urban Affairs, Liverpool John Moores University Alex Nunn ~ Centre for Public Services June 2004 ISBN: 1 84387 070 3 CONTENTS Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... i Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Liveability: The Policy Context...................................................................................... 2 2. NDC Partnerships and the Liveability Agenda ............................................................ 5 3. NDC Partnerships and the Liveability Challenge ........................................................ 8 4. NDC Partnerships and Liveability: The Strategic Response ................................... 12 5. Liveability Projects in the NDC Partnerships............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The New Deal for Communities Experience: a Final Assessment the New Deal for Communities Evaluation: Final Report – Volume 7
    The New Deal for Communities Experience: A final assessment The New Deal for Communities Evaluation: Final report – Volume 7 www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperity The New Deal for Communities Experience: A final assessment The New Deal for Communities Evaluation: Final report – Volume 7 Elaine Batty, Christina Beatty, Mike Foden, Paul Lawless, Sarah Pearson and Ian Wilson Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Sheffield Hallam University March 2010 Department for Communities and Local Government The findings and recommendations in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 0303 444 0000 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2010 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • A Synthesis of New Programme Wide Evidence: 2006-07 NDC National Evaluation Phase 2 Research Report 39
    New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme Wide Evidence: 2006-07 NDC National Evaluation Phase 2 Research Report 39 www.communities.gov.uk community, opportunity, prosperity New Deal for Communities: A Synthesis of New Programme Wide Evidence: 2006-07 NDC National Evaluation Phase 2 Research Report 39 Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Sheffield Hallam University Christina Beatty Mike Foden Paul Lawless Ian Wilson January 2008 Department for Communities and Local Government: London Acknowledgements: This report draws on contributions made by all members of the NDC National Evaluation Team. The member organisations of the consortium are Cambridge Economic Associates, European Institute for Urban Affairs at Liverpool John Moores University, Geoff Fordham Associates, Ipsos MORI, Local Government Centre at the University of Warwick, School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield, Social Disadvantage Research Centre at the University of Oxford, Shared Intelligence, and SQW. Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Sheffield Hallam University Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Sheffield Hallam University copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ.
    [Show full text]
  • Sustainable Communities in the West Midlands Building for the Future
    Sustainable communities in the West Midlands Building for the future Foreword We are transforming our communities and reversing the legacy of decades of under-investment. We have achieved a great deal, but we need to do more. In some parts of the country there are still areas of acute deprivation where demand for housing has collapsed. In others, demand for housing continues to outstrip supply, leading to rising house prices and shortages of affordable housing. We need a step change in our approach to tackle these problems. We need to work together to build sustainable communities in which people want to live. Central government must play its part, which is why we are changing our approach to housing, regeneration and planning: investing some £22bn England-wide over the next three years. But delivery depends on a change of approach at the local, regional and national levels. That is why we want to move away from the old, top-down policies of the past where decisions were taken for local communities rather than by them. Our focus is on building partnerships for change, providing the regions with the tools and resources to make a difference, and making sure we link what we build and how we build with plans for public services, transport, and jobs. We have already strengthened regional policy and devolved decision- making for economic development and planning. Now, for the first time, we will decentralise housing policy and give the regions a real say in how we invest in our communities. This Regional Action Plan – together with our national document – sets out the policies, resources and partnerships we will put in place John Prescott, MP Deputy Prime Minister for successful, thriving communities in every part of the country.
    [Show full text]