Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities:Considering the Evidence

Andrew FyfeODS Consulting

2 June 2009

Outline of Presentation

What we did

What we found Context Impact

Challenges for the future

What we did

What we did

Desk based research to Provide an understanding of the context for

geographically focused community regeneration

Explore the impacts of previous interventions

Outline the challenges for the future

What we did

Reviewed the literature, including Relevant research commissioned by

Communities Scotland and the Scottish Government

Evaluations of previous programmes to tackle concentrated disadvantage

Academic reviews and other literature on the range of approaches to tackling disadvantage

.... and brought our own knowledge

What we found – The context

The context - Programmes

Main geographically focused programmes: GEAR (1976-1987) New Life for Urban Scotland (1989-1999) Priority Partnership and Regeneration Programme

Areas (1996-1999) Social Inclusion Partnerships (1999-2006) Better Neighbourhood Services Fund (2001-2005) Community Regeneration Fund (2005-2008) Fairer Scotland Fund (2008-present) Urban Regeneration Companies (2004-present)

GEAR

Post New Town approach to partnerships in one of the poorest areas in Scotland

Led by SDA Focus on physical conditions (especially

housing) Jobs created in business parks – but limited

impact on local people

New Life for Urban Scotland

Partnership approach in four other areas Led by Scottish Office – to learn lessons on

how to tackle urban regeneration 10 year timescales Initially focused on physical improvements –

later emphasis on health, education and safety

Reinforced the need for comprehensive approach – results take long term effort

PPAs (+ Regeneration Programme)

12 large and 9 smaller partnership initiatives Funded from Urban Programme Decided by bidding process – concerns that

this was not transparent enough Extent of mainstream ‘bending’ into the target

areas was slow After 3 years became part of SIP programme

SIPs

21 existing PPAs and Regeneration Programme Areas became SIPs

Further bidding (much improved process) for further SIPs

27 approved – 13 geographic and 14 thematic

SIPs – Evaluation findings

Lack of meaningful data to set baseline and measure progress

Boundaries artificial Focus on projects rather than programmes Limited mainstreaming Genuine progress in developing community

engagement Positive outcomes on partnership working

Better Neighbourhood Services Fund

Introduced outcomes focused approach to regeneration

Evaluation found Need for agreed standard set of indicators of

change Need for better integration of physical, economic

and social regeneration Outcomes based approach effective Engaging communities brings benefits

CRF SIPs and BNSF brought together

Integrating regeneration work into community planning

Use of Regeneration Outcome Agreements to increase the focus on outcomes

Evaluation found Outcomes approach broadly welcomed Leading to improved partnership working Difficulties measuring progress against outcomes Some concerns that monitoring was too ‘hands

on’

FSF

Concordat and Single Outcome Agreements Replaces seven previous funds ‘Ring fenced’ until 2010 – but not later Early evaluation found

Learning about outcomes – but still more to do Shared focus on outcomes improving partnership Combining programmes and ‘lighter touch’

oversight welcomed Mixed views on impact on community

engagement

Urban Regeneration Companies 3 established in 2004 – and 3 in 2006/07 To provide a single vision and strategic focus

for the regeneration of an area Expected to deliver outcomes across

economic, social and environmental as well as physical regeneration

Not directly responsible for themes of worklessness, employability, health, education and quality of life

Not yet evaluated

Summary of lessons learned

Despite a history of regeneration, many areas still suffer serious deprivation

‘Catalytic’ programmes have been used – but little evidence of impact on mainstream funds

On their own the catalytic programmes do not bring about the scale of change needed

Community engagement and partnership are important themes

Evaluation of programmes has led to change – but little on impact

What we found - Impact

Impact

There is no clear systematic evidence of the overall impact of these programmes on poverty

Some evidence of closing the gap in employment; neighbourhood rating and household income

But improvement is slowest for the poorest – and signs that economic downturn impacts more heavily on deprived areas

British research Griggs (et al) found that

Person and place policies have developed separately

Many evaluations are short term The range of initiatives makes it difficult to identify

the impact of each Greatest impact was achieved when policies

Delivered tailored support to most disadvantaged Reflected local needs and priorities Were shaped by service users

British research

Robertson (et al) found that changing the ‘stigma’ of a place can be very difficult – the reputation of one neighbourhood dated back 500 years!

Bailey (et al) suggest that population ‘churn’ in deprived areas is not substantially greater

Taylor notes that the direction of travel in local government reform is common in England, Wales and Scotland

Summary of lessons learned

Lack of solid evidence of overall impact of programmes to tackle multiple deprivation

Evidence suggests limited impact on the gap – but would the situation have worsened without the programmes?

Need for agreed indicators, better local data and more focus on impact

Physical, social and economic programmes need to complement each other

Challenges for the future

Challenges - Impact

Need for reliable and comparable information about change in small areas

Clearer understanding of what makes a difference

Building and embedding outcomes focused approach

Take care that a more flexible approach does not divert resources away from the areas that need them most

Challenges - Mainstreaming

Modestly resourced regeneration programmes were meant to be the catalyst for mainstream resources – but little evidence of this

Given the scale of the problem mainstream (and national) resources will be needed

Some elements of successful regeneration Focus on the most disadvantaged areas –

especially in urban areas Use community planning and SOA to bend

mainstream resources Use ‘light touch’ monitoring; focus on impact Improve data and share lessons on what

works Engage communities and service users fully

Three final questions

Why have the most deprived areas not seen relative improvement after 30 years of effort?

Are we any closer to joining up our physical, social and economic regeneration activities? And what more can we do?

How can we identify what works? And how do we stop ‘re-inventing the wheel’?

Report available

Report available at

www.scotland.gov.uk/topics/research

Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities:Considering the Evidence

Andrew FyfeODS Consulting

2 June 2009