Transcript NDC partnerships - Sheffield Hallam University

New Deal for Communities:
The National Evaluation:
Interim Assessment 2005 and
Phase 2
Adapted from NDC National Evaluation
(NRU Research Report 17)
Paul Lawless
[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
Designed
to
Distrusted by local residents
Communities at
the centre
produce
Sustainable
renewal
Overly focused on physical
regeneration
‘Holistic’ approach
for both
people
and
Divorced from long-term
public service providers
Close working with
LA and key agencies
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 areas
ABI
Drug Action Team
27
European regional development fund areas
26
Youth Inclusion Programme
24
Sure Start
22
Action team
20
SRB
15
Education Action Zone
12
Building safer communities
11
HMR pathfinders
10
Community cohesion pathfinders
8
Early excellence centres
7
Employment zones
7
Sports action zones
7
Home zones
6
Urban regeneration companies
4
Liveability pathfinder
2
NDCs are amongst the most deprived areas in England
50
40
30
percentage
NDC areas vary considerably: minority ethnic groups.
BME population, 2001
80
60
NDC
England and Wales
NDC average
70
20
10
0
Birmingham A NDC
Tower Hamlets NDC
Southwark NDC
Bradford NDC
Brent NDC
Wolverhampton NDC
Newham NDC
Lewisham NDC
Haringey NDC
Sheffield NDC
Lambeth NDC
Hackney NDC
Sandwell NDC
Luton NDC
Hammersmith & Fulham NDC
Nottingham NDC
Newcastle NDC
Islington NDC
Bristol NDC
Liverpool NDC
Doncaster NDC
Manchester NDC
Oldham NDC
Coventry NDC
Birmingham KN NDC
Leicester NDC
Sunderland NDC
Salford NDC
Brighton NDC
Derby NDC
Middlesbrough NDC
Walsall NDC
Southampton NDC
Hartlepool NDC
Plymouth NDC
Rochdale NDC
Norwich NDC
Knowsley NDC
Hull NDC
15.0
10.0
percentage
There is a 'London effect': nine of the ten areas with
highest rates of residential overcrowding
25.0
NDC average
20.0
Over 1.0 persons per room
5.0
0.0
Tower Hamlets NDC
Southwark NDC
Newham NDC
Birmingham A NDC
Brent NDC
Hackney NDC
Haringey NDC
Lambeth NDC
Hammersmith & Fulham NDC
Lewisham NDC
Bradford NDC
Islington NDC
Luton NDC
Sheffield NDC
Newcastle NDC
Sandwell NDC
Coventry NDC
Hull NDC
Birmingham KN NDC
Wolverhampton NDC
Leicester NDC
Brighton NDC
Norwich NDC
Derby NDC
Nottingham NDC
Oldham NDC
Liverpool NDC
Middlesbrough NDC
Knowsley NDC
Walsall NDC
Southampton NDC
Plymouth NDC
Doncaster NDC
Salford NDC
Sunderland NDC
Rochdale NDC
Manchester NDC
Hartlepool NDC
Bristol NDC
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
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 crosstheme impacts
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
Agencies on NDC Boards
RSL/Housing
JC+
LA officers
LEA/FE
Police
Councillors
PCT
0
20
40
NDC expenditure and outputs mostly additional to what
would have otherwise happened in these areas
Example output
Per capita NDC spend 2000/01 to 2003/4
Housing and Environment (£333)
Education (£244)
Crime and disorder (£164)
Worklessness (£154)
Health (£149)
Additionality
Ratio
8,000 Homes
improved or built
.52
9,500 adults obtaining
qualifications
.82
70,000 young people
involved in diversion
activities
.64
17,000 received
job training
.82
104 new or improved
health facilities
.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.
An assessment of
achievements
-3.5
Hull
Nottingham
Doncaster
Hartlepool
Liverpool
Newcastle
Coventry
Knowsley
Birmingham KN
Plymouth
Middlesbrough
Bristol
Sunderland
Sheffield
Wolverhampton
Southampton
Leicester
Manchester
Rochdale
Walsall
Luton
Bradford
H'smith&Fulham
Brent
Derby
Newham
Brighton
Lewisham
Sandwell
Oldham
Haringey
Hackney
Norwich
Southwark
Salford
Lambeth
Tower Hamlets
Islington
Birmingham A
Percentage point chang to gap
Most narrowed unemployment rate gap relative to
parent authority; from a more disadvantaged position
(99-03)
1.5
1.0
Gap widening
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
-3.0
Closing the gap
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
25%
Percentage improvement
20%
15%
2002-2003
2002-2004
10%
5%
0%
All England
All NDC
All comparators
IMD Decile 1 (most deprived)
High fear of crime
Crime: NDCs doing better than comparator areas
NDC
Comparator
33
2002
29
24
2004
21
Victim of crime
44
2002
40
38
2004
36
0
10
20
30
Percentage
40
50
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
Levels of crime in NDC ‘buffer’ zones (250m or 500m radius around the NDC
area)
Improved (%)
No change (%)
Worsened (%)
Violence
250m
500m
58
50
33
25
8
25
Burglary
250m
500m
67
61
11
17
22
22
Theft
250m
500m
84
74
16
11
0
16
Criminal
Damage
250m
500m
73
87
0
7
27
7
NDCs closing gaps on most indicators of liveability
NDC
Comparator
3
Drugs a problem
-1
Teenagers a
problem
3
0
-3
-3
Litter a problem
Vandalism a
problem
Abandoned cars a
problem
-20
-2
-6
-11
-15
-15
-10
-5
0
Source: Household Survey. Based on composite indicators of a number of different crime types
5
Little change in relation to health
Indicators of self-reported health:
33
33
Smoking (Comparator)
40
38
Smoking (NDC)
Health worse than 12 months ago
(Comparator)
19
19
2002
2004
22
21
Health worse than 12 months ago (NDC)
30
32
Long standing illness (Comparator)
33
32
Long standing illness (NDC)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
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)
NDC
Comparator
-14
Area worse than 2 years ago
(a)
-9
6
Satisfied with area
1
-20
-15
-10
-5
Percentage point change
0
5
10
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
2002
2004
Involved
in NDC
activities
Heard of
NDC
0
50
100
NDCs and the local community…
NDC population
• Most NDCs have resident
majority on boards
• 34 of 39 NDCs have used
elections to select
community reps.
BME
25%
White
75%
NDC Board composition
• Regular communication
through open meetings,
surveys, newsletters etc.
BME
20%
White
80%
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
Three challenges and some
lessons
1. Do local strategies always reflect local problems?
North West/East
Educational Expenditure the North and London: 2002/03 - 2003/04
Knowsley
Oldham
Salford
Rochdale
£486,795
£619,603
£670,678
£842,139
£1,026,754
£1,629,778
£1,790,955
£2,105,392
Liverpool
Hartlepool
Manchester
Newcastle
London
Middlesbrough
Sunderland
Lambeth
Islington
H'smith & Fulham
In worst 10 NDCs
In best 10 NDCs
£2,726,623
£3,448,834
£710,973
£729,382
£951,946
Southwark
Lewisham
Brent
Hackney
Haringey
The ‘best’ and
‘worst ‘ NDCs refer
to the relative
performance of
those NDCs in
terms of
educational
attainment.
£961,981
£1,122,221
£1,593,600
£1,717,919
£1,918,695
Newham
Tower Hamlets
£2,651,955
£2,659,263
£0
£1,000,000
£2,000,000
£3,000,000
Expenditure
£4,000,000
£5,000,000
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..
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
..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
50
Percentage
60
70
80
90
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
31
2004
0
10
20
30
Percentage
40
50
60
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])