New Deal for Communities: The National Evaluation: Interim Assessment 2005 and Phase 2

1. New Deal for Communities: The National Evaluation: Interim Assessment 2005 and Phase 2 Adapted from NDC National Evaluation (NRU Research Report 17) Paul Lawless p.l.lawless@shu.ac.uk

2. Structure • brief background to the Programme • NDC strategies and activities • An assessment of achievements • Some challenges and some lessons • Phase 2: an introduction

3. Programme to overcome perceived weaknesses of previous regeneration schemes Short – term (e.g. SRB typically 3 year schemes) 10 year horizon Designed to produce Communities at the centre Distrusted by local residents Sustainable renewal Overly focused on physical regeneration for both ‘Holistic’ approach people and Close working with LA and key agencies Divorced from long-term public service providers places

4. Substantial funding to deliver.. sometimes with other ABIs Roughly, £50 million per NDC over ten years • Number of other ABIs existing in NDC areas ABI Drug Action Team European regional development fund areas Youth Inclusion Programme Sure Start Action team SRB Education Action Zone Building safer communities HMR pathfinders Community cohesion pathfinders Early excellence centres Employment zones Sports action zones Home zones Urban regeneration companies Liveability pathfinder 27 26 24 22 20 15 12 11 10 8 7 7 7 6 4 2 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 •

5. NDCs are amongst the most deprived areas in England

6. NDC areas vary considerably: minority ethnic groups. BME population, 2001 80 70 NDC England and Wales NDC average 60 50 percentage 40 30 20 10 0 Hull NDC Knowsley NDC Norwich NDC Rochdale NDC Plymouth NDC Hartlepool NDC Southampton NDC Walsall NDC Middlesbrough NDC Derby NDC Brighton NDC Salford NDC Sunderland NDC Leicester NDC Birmingham KN NDC Coventry NDC Oldham NDC Manchester NDC Doncaster NDC Liverpool NDC Bristol NDC Islington NDC Newcastle NDC Nottingham NDC Hammersmith & Fulham NDC Luton NDC Sandwell NDC Hackney NDC Lambeth NDC Sheffield NDC Haringey NDC Lewisham NDC Newham NDC Wolverhampton NDC Brent NDC Bradford NDC Southwark NDC Tower Hamlets NDC Birmingham A NDC

7. There is a 'London effect': nine of the ten areas with highest rates of residential overcrowding 25.0 Over 1.0 persons per room NDC average 20.0 percentage 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0 Bristol NDC Hartlepool NDC Manchester NDC Rochdale NDC Sunderland NDC Salford NDC Doncaster NDC Plymouth NDC Southampton NDC Walsall NDC Knowsley NDC Middlesbrough NDC Liverpool NDC Oldham NDC Nottingham NDC Derby NDC Norwich NDC Brighton NDC Leicester NDC Wolverhampton NDC Birmingham KN NDC Hull NDC Coventry NDC Sandwell NDC Newcastle NDC Sheffield NDC Luton NDC Islington NDC Bradford NDC Lewisham NDC Hammersmith & Fulham NDC Lambeth NDC Haringey NDC Hackney NDC Brent NDC Birmingham A NDC Newham NDC Southwark NDC Tower Hamlets NDC

8. NDC activities and strategies

9. 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

10. Most expenditure on housing-related projects, least on health and crime Total spend by theme 2000-2004 (£m: at 2003/4 prices) Worklessness, £86 , 16% Community development, £95 , 17% Crime, £64 , 12% Housing/physical environment, £147 , 26% Education, £94 , 17% Health, £65 , 12% Note: About 80% of projects are estimated has having cross- theme impacts

11. 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

12. NDCs have successfully worked with other service providers Agencies on NDC Boards Every £ of NDC expenditure attracts 50p from public sector. • RSL/Housing In most NDCs, agencies have • JC+ – Increased resources in NDC area – Changed patterns of service delivery – Included NDCs in their own forward strategies LA officers LEA/FE Police Some agencies are less visible e.g. LSA, RDA, Fire Service • Councillors PCT 0 20 40

13. NDC expenditure and outputs mostly additional to what would have otherwise happened in these areas Additionality Ratio Example output Per capita NDC spend 2000/01 to 2003/4 8,000 Homes improved or built .52 Housing and Environment (£333) 9,500 adults obtaining qualifications Education (£244) .82 70,000 young people involved in diversion activities .64 Crime and disorder (£164) 17,000 received job training Worklessness (£154) .82 104 new or improved health facilities Health (£149) .85 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.

14. An assessment of achievements

15. Most narrowed unemployment rate gap relative to parent authority; from a more disadvantaged position (99-03) 1.5 Gap widening 1.0 Percentage point chang to gap 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5 -3.0 Closing the gap -3.5 H'smith&Fulham Knowsley Tower Hamlets Plymouth Islington Wolverhampton Sunderland Hull Sandwell Newham Nottingham Coventry Hackney Norwich Haringey Southwark Newcastle Rochdale Southampton Middlesbrough Walsall Hartlepool Birmingham KN Oldham Lewisham Manchester Luton Brighton Sheffield Birmingham A Brent Liverpool Doncaster Derby Lambeth Salford Bristol Leicester Bradford

16. 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..

17. 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?

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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 25% 20% Percentage improvement 15% 2002-2003 2002-2004 10% 5% 0% All England All NDC All comparators IMD Decile 1 (most deprived)

21. Crime: NDCs doing better than comparator areas NDC Comparator 33 High fear of crime 2002 29 24 2004 21 44 2002 Victim of crime 40 38 2004 36 0 10 20 30 40 50 Percentage

22. 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

23. Where relative improvement compared with other wards in LAs, not leading to a displacement of crime Levels of crime in NDC ‘buffer’ zones (250m or 500m radius around the NDC area) Criminal Damage 250m 73 0 27 Violence 250m 58 33 8 Burglary 250m 67 11 22 Theft 500m 50 25 25 500m 61 17 22 250m 84 16 0 500m 74 11 16 500m 87 7 7 Improved (%) No change (%) Worsened (%)

24. NDCs closing gaps on most indicators of liveability NDC Comparator 3 Drugs a problem -1 Teenagers a problem 3 0 -3 Litter a problem -3 Vandalism a problem -2 -6 Abandoned cars a problem -11 -15 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 Source: Household Survey. Based on composite indicators of a number of different crime types

25. Little change in relation to health Indicators of self-reported health: 33 Smoking (Comparator) 33 40 Smoking (NDC) 38 Health worse than 12 months ago (Comparator) 19 19 2002 2004 22 Health worse than 12 months ago (NDC) 21 30 Long standing illness (Comparator) 32 33 Long standing illness (NDC) 32 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

26. 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.

27. 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

28. Perceptions of the area are improving (2002-2004) NDC Comparator -14 Area worse than 2 years ago (a) -9 6 Satisfied with area 1 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 Percentage point change

29. Stimulated a high degree of engagement with local residents, building local capacity • 19% of local residents involved in NDC activities. 2002 2004 Involved in NDC activities • 9,000 VCS groups supported Heard of NDC 0 50 100

30. NDCs and the local community… NDC population • Most NDCs have resident majority on boards BME 25% • 34 of 39 NDCs have used elections to select community reps. White 75% NDC Board composition • Regular communication through open meetings, surveys, newsletters etc. BME 20% White 80%

31. Which is leading to a greater connection between people and services Think NDC has improved area Trust local police 2002 2004 Trust local council Trust local NDC 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

32. Three challenges and some lessons

33. 1. Do local strategies always reflect local problems? Educational Expenditure the North and London: 2002/03 - 2003/04 Knowsley £486,795 Oldham £619,603 Salford £670,678 North West/East In worst 10 NDCs Rochdale £842,139 Liverpool £1,026,754 In best 10 NDCs Hartlepool £1,629,778 Manchester £1,790,955 Newcastle £2,105,392 Middlesbrough £2,726,623 Sunderland £3,448,834 Lambeth £710,973 Islington £729,382 The ‘best’ and ‘worst ‘ NDCs refer to the relative performance of those NDCs in terms of educational attainment. H'smith & Fulham £951,946 Southwark £961,981 London Lewisham £1,122,221 Brent £1,593,600 Hackney £1,717,919 Haringey £1,918,695 Newham £2,651,955 Tower Hamlets £2,659,263 £0 £1,000,000 £2,000,000 £3,000,000 £4,000,000 £5,000,000 Expenditure

34. 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

35. 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

36. Tenure patterns largely stable.. 80 70 60 50 NDC 2002 NDC 2004 National 40 30 20 10 0 Owner-occupier Social renters Private renters Note: National figures based on Survey of English Housing 2003/4

37. ..unless tenure changes, inmovers likely to be relatively more disadvantaged than outmovers 16 Inmovers Outmovers Owner Occupiers 48 41 16-24 18 29 NVQ4+ 31 61 Economically Active 78 0 10 20 30 40 Percentage 50 60 70 80 90

38. 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? 38 Owner occupier 48 41 Social sector renter 2002 2004 31 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage

39. 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

40. 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'

41. 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

42. Phase 2: An Introduction

43. 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

44. 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?

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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)