European Evaluation of the URBAN II and URBACT Programmes

Presentation on the Findings to Date

Aims of Evaluation

To understand:

-

the impact and effectiveness of URBAN II how URBAN II was utilised across Europe the impact and effectiveness of URBACT lessons learnt for the future

Approach/ Status of Evaluation

Evaluation is on-going (reporting December) so findings are interim:

-

Undertaken review of Programme Complements, Annual Reports, Evaluation Reports for all programmes

-

Assessed programme data on outputs, results and impacts

-

Interviewed all Programme Managers

-

Currently undertaking detailed case studies for 15 programmes (Graz, Sambreville, Arhus,Le Mantois,Le Havre,Dortmund,Leipzig,Perama,Crotone,Carrara, Rotterdam,Porto Gondomar,Gijon,Halifax, Bristol

URBAN II- A Synopsis

Promoted innovative responses to urban decline:

-

Delivered between 2000-2007 70 programmes in 14 Member States Approx 750 million euros from ERDF Promoted holistic approaches to regeneration Relatively flexible on how funds should be spent a localised ‘bottom up’ approach.

Headline Achievements

• 4,000 gross jobs created • Improved 2.3 Million m2 of space within target cities • Created 3.2 Million m2 of green space • 80 km of cycle and footpaths created • Trained 65,000 people • 247 crime related projects implemented • 593 community capacity building initiatives • 2,249 businesses supported

Achievement of Output, Result, Impact Targets

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 290 235 287 Output 73 26 52 Result 51 13 44 Impact M o re than 120% 80% to 120% Less than 80%

Achievement of Targets by Theme (impact and results)

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 41 20 25 Eco no mic 24 24 30 P hysical 59 30 36 So cial M o re than 120% 80% to 120% Less than 80%

Issues with Performance Data

- Relatively good output information but strong data on impacts and results lacking in many places (targets were often not set, actual figures not collected) - Lack of a clear chain between outputs, results and impacts - Over 4,000 indicators used to measure the progress and impact of programmes - Notion of an underestimation when target setting

Exploring the Counterfactual

• • • • • •

A relatively new method – used much more in the US A comparison was made of unemployment performance in 36 URBAN II areas was made (2000 to 2006) in relation to their city averages Unemployment patterns varied widely in this period between countries – and also between URBAN II areas At EU level, the unemployment difference between URBAN II areas and their cities remained 3% in the period covered Areas with much higher unemployment than their city average managed to reduce the gap (from 8.1% to 6.9%) The underlying reasons (and relations with URBAN II) need to be identified on the ground

Strategy and Delivery

- Relatively holistic approaches adopted, although two main typologies of programmes were found (those focused on Economic and Social regeneration and those on physical regeneration) - Decentralised management of programmes led to a wide variety of uses and interpretations - Local/ City Authority dominant in management and often in delivery - Strong partnership working with wide variety of organisations involved

Strategy and Delivery

- Limited evidence of real community involvement in URBAN II - Mixed evidence of exit strategies/ sustainability at programme and project level - Integration of programmes in wider city/ regional strategies often limited.

URBACT I Evaluation

• Aimed to promote

knowledge transfer

to

enhance capacity

.

as a means • Strong on

individual

learning, limited examples of

institutional

learning, influence on policy or the

application

of lessons learned •

Programme design

- no arena for applying lessons •

URBACT II

- addressed many of these issues directly – needs careful monitoring