evaluation communities

8/4/2019 evaluation communities

1/136

Evaluation of the National Strategy forNeighbourhood Renewal: Local research project

www.communities.gov.ukcommunity, opportunity, prosperity


2/136


3/136

Evaluation of the National Strategy forNeighbourhood Renewal: Local research project

March 2010

ECOTEC Research and Consulting Ltd

Department for Communities and Local Government


4/136

Department for Communities and Local GovernmentEland House

Bressenden Place

LondonSW1E 5DU

Telephone: 0303 444 0000Website: www.communities.gov.uk

Queens Printer and Controller of Her Majestys 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 accuratelyand not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title ofthe publication specified.

Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-UseLicence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office ofPublic Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU

e-mail: [email protected]

If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected]

Communities and Local Government Publications

Tel: 0300 123 1124Fax: 0300 123 1125Email: [email protected]

Online via the Communities and Local Government website: www.communities.gov.uk

March 2010

Product Code: 09ACST06201

ISBN 978-1-4098-2193-9

The findings and recommendations in this report are those of the authors and donot necessarily represent the views of the Department for Communities and LocalGovernment.


5/136

Evaluation of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Local research project |

Contents

Executive summary 5

1 Introduction 10

1.1 The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal 10

1.2 Linkages to the evaluation of the National Strategy forNeighbourhood Renewal 11

1.3 Aims and objectives of the Local Research Project 13

1.4 Approach and methodology 14

1.5 Structure of the report 15

2 Narrowing the gap 17

2.1 Introduction and key findings 17

2.2 Crime 18

2.3 Environment 21

2.4 Health 23

2.5 Education 25

2.6 Employment 27

2.7 Housing 30

2.8 Neighbourhood quality of life 32

3 Delivery chain 37


3.2 Effectiveness of Local Strategic Partnerships 38

3.3 Effectiveness of local strategies 41

3.4 Effectiveness of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund 45

3.5 Effectiveness of neighbourhood structures 473.6 Effectiveness of Community Empowerment Networks 51

3.7 The future of the NSNR delivery chain 52

4 Resident engagement 54


4.2 How have residents been engaged? 55

4.3 Who has been engaged? 59

4.4 Benefits of resident engagement 61

4.5 Resident engagement in non-NRF districts 66


6/136

| Evaluation of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Local research project

5 Mainstreaming 69


5.2 Significant impact 70

5.3 Some impact 73

5.4 Limited to no impact 77

5.5 Non-NRF case study districts 81

5.6 Sustainability 83

6 Equality and diversity 85


6.2 The impact of the delivery chain on specific groups 86

6.3 The impact of resident engagement on specific groups 906.4 The impact of changes to mainstream services on specific groups 93

6.5 The impact of neighbourhood change on specific groups 95

7 Conclusions 98

7.1 Introduction 98

7.2 Drivers of improvement 98

7.3 Challenges to improvement 101

7.4 Future trajectories 104

Appendix 1: Policy landscape 107

Appendix 2: Overview of methodology 120

Appendix 3: Case study details 123


7/136


Executive summary

Introduction and methodology

The Local research project (LRP) was undertaken by ECOTEC Research and Consultingbetween 2006 and 2008. The LRP aimed to assess the impact and outcomes of theNational Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal (NSNR) through in-depth case studyresearch, and support the national evaluation1.

The LRPs case studies covered 18 deprived neighbourhoods in receipt of the

Neighbourhood Renewal Fund (NRF), and three deprived neighbourhoods without.The research utilised a combination of statistical analysis and primary qualitativeresearch, incorporating over 700 interviews with regional and local stakeholders and36 resident focus groups.

Have the aims of the NSNR been met?

The NSNRs goals of lower worklessness, less crime, better health, better skills,and better housing and physical environmenthave largely been met (to varying

degrees) within the case study neighbourhoods. However, success innarrowingthe gap with the rest of the countryacross these domains has been more variable.In some domains the national rate of progress has tended to exceed that atthe neighbourhood level. Quantitative and qualitative evidence from the casestudy neighbourhoods indicates the following rates of improvement, and NSNRcontribution:

Positive rates of improvement and strong NSNR impacts in respect of crimeand the environment (with increases in violent crime the major exceptionwithin this).

Variable rates of improvement and impact on education. Variable rates of improvement and limited impact on employment.

Limited improvements and difficult to attribute impacts on health.

Positive improvement but marginal impact on housing quality.

The evidence would suggest that since the introduction of the NSNR, there havebeen quality of life improvements in the majority of the case study neighbourhoods.They are now considered to be better places to live than 10 years ago. The NSNRsaspiration to arrest and reverse the wholesale decline of deprived neighbourhoods

appears, on the whole, to have been realised. The evidence suggests that this is theresult of improvements to local services, increased public and private investmentin neighbourhood infrastructure and in some cases improved community spirit

1 CLG (2010) Evaluation of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Final Report.


8/136


(catalysed by a combination of NSNR and non-NSNR related factors). Significantinroads therefore appear to have been made into a further aim of the NSNR, thatitshould no longer be accepted as routine that people on low incomes should suffer

conditions and services that are failing.

The NSNR was also committed to ensuring that different groups benefit fromneighbourhood renewal. Activities developed through the NSNR delivery chain (forexample by the police and Primary Care Trusts) have generated positive impacts foryounger people, older people, women, and to a lesser extent minority ethnic groupsand the disabled. Some interventions have also helped to strengthen communitycohesion within the case study neighbourhoods.

A number of areas for improvement remained. The most consistently cited concernsamongst residents related to the responsiveness of employment and training services,

a lack of housing choice and affordability, access to suitable (local) jobs, poortransport links and youth and gang-related violence. Unmet needs have exacerbatedcohesion tensions triggered by the arrival of new migrants. These problems appearedto be jeopardising progress towards two further aspirations of the NSNR; thatallneighbourhoods in the country should be somewhere people can see a future fortheir family, rather than places where so many peoples number one priority is tomove out.

How has the NSNR contributed towards change?

Local delivery chain

The NSNR set out the components of a comprehensive delivery chain to helpdeliver its vision locally. Compelling evidence was presented that the NSNR has hada significant impact upon local governance arrangements and the policy-makingprocess. It has catalysed:

Formalised and active Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs).

The development of jointly-shared strategies between service providers.

Improved use of local area statistics and other evidence in policy making. Improved commissioning processes to support the development of outcomes-

focused services.

The establishment of neighbourhood management, including NeighbourhoodManagement Pathfinders (NMPs).

New mechanisms, which have increased the ability of providers to engagewith different groups.

Where implemented effectively, the delivery chain has provided an important catalyst

for change, and in particular through:


9/136


LSP and NMP support for an increased level of partnership working betweenservice providers (and its validation through efficiency gains) and an increasedcommitment to narrowing the gap.

The prioritisation of specific deprived neighbourhoods within local strategies.

The use of NRF to fund supplementary targeted services (on a larger scaleand across a greater range of domains than was possible within the non-NRF neighbourhoods) and to make existing services more responsive. On thewhole, progress against both quantitative and qualitative measures appearedmost positive within the NRF case neighbourhoods.

The evidence suggests that some aspects of the delivery chain have been veryeffective (for example NMPs). LSPs and the targeting of NRF tended to improve over

the period, as leadership, processes and consensus matured. Other aspects, such aslocal strategies and the Community Empowerment Networks, demonstrated room forimprovement. Despite the importance ascribed to neighbourhood levelco-ordination within the NSNR, some local authorities did not establishneighbourhood management/partnership arrangements until the final two years ofNRF delivery. Furthermore, the potential for involving the Voluntary and CommunitySector (VCS) in the delivery chain appears to have been limited by the focus of theNSNR on improving mainstream services.

Reflecting the spatial emphasis of the NSNR, the extent to which the involvement ofdifferent groups at the LSP level was directly translated into strategy and delivery has

been limited. NSNR interventions targeted at specific groups have constituted only asmall proportion of activity, and have not consistently involved all service providers.

Resident involvement

The NSNR aimed to make it easier for communities to influence decisions and takeaction to improve their neighbourhoods. Since its introduction there have been asignificant number of opportunities for local people to get involved in the processesof neighbourhood renewal. However, the mode of engagement has often beenlimited to formal consultation and representative roles. There has also been relianceupon existing VCS groups and a failure to fully utilise the Community EmpowermentFund to extend participation. Consultation fatigue amongst residents also remainedan issue. There were few examples of a coherent strategic response to wideningengagement amongst harder to reach groups (for example new migrants or faithcommunities).

The evidence suggests that the involvement of residents in neighbourhoodmanagement and in the design and delivery of local services (for example within theenvironment, crime and health domains) are relatively effective ways of extendingparticipation. Some of the most tangible benefits have accrued through such modesof involvement, including more responsive services with a higher profile (and thus the

potential for delivering improved outcomes), as well as increased social capital andcommunity capacity. Whilst the extent of engagement has varied by service provider,there was nevertheless evidence of positive outcomes across all domains of activity.


10/136


Bending mainstream services

A foundation of the NSNR was its emphasis upon bending mainstream servicesinto deprived areas in order to reach more neighbourhoods and support lasting

change. NSNR has achieved some success in influencing the ways in which servicesare structured, as well as expanding the range of services provided within deprivedneighbourhoods (particularly in terms of policing and environmental services, and toa lesser extent health services). The NSNR delivery chain (and especially the availabilityof NRF) has played an important catalytic role in this process.

However, it has been very difficult to bend or alter employment and educationalservices (perceived to be critical to local improvement). NRF has tended to be used totop up mainstream services, leaving projects susceptible to funding cuts even wheresuccessful. The mixed level of engagement in the NSNR from housing providers alsoappeared to represent a lost opportunity (as well as the variable levels of commitmentto partnership working overall). The impact of NSNR on bending mainstream servicesalso varied by case study local authority.

The evidence suggests that successful mainstreaming is also dependent upon acombination of local strategic leadership, organisational flexibility and supportivenational policies and targets, effective governance amongst service providers, and anexisting culture of partnership working.

Contextual challenges and barriers

It was apparent that the interventions associated with the NSNR have had a moreconsistently positive impact upon the symptoms of neighbourhood deprivation (forexample crime, environmental factors, and aspects of public health) as opposed to itsroot causes (including worklessness and low educational attainment).

Whilst some contextual factors such as the strength of the housing market and theeconomy have supported NSNR aims, neighbourhood deprivation has continued tobe driven by existing spatial patterns of inter-generational poverty and housing tenuremix, underpinned by strong behavioural factors. In turn, these are likely to have

been exacerbated by continued reductions in the stock of social housing nationally(further marginalising social housing tenancy) loss of manufacturing jobs and benefitdependency. Additionally, the arrival of poorer new migrant communities, includingasylum seeker and refugee families, has reinforced existing levels of deprivation.Organisational barriers to targeting neighbourhoods and individual examples ofservice underperformance have also constrained the impact of the NSNR within somedomains.

There was also evidence of a need for more innovative, multi-agency responses frommainstream services to problems disproportionately concentrated within certaingroups in the case study neighbourhoods. These included lower levels of attainment

amongst minority ethnic groups, the barriers to accessing services and employment(and prejudices) experienced by recent migrants, the challenge of youth crime andgang culture, and the social exclusion of the white working class.


11/136


Additionally, those case study neighbourhoods still dominated by unpopular socialhousing estates, characterised by serious physical design and cohesion problems anddislocation from the economic mainstream of society also faced significant barriers to

improving quality of life.

Conclusions

Whilst no case neighbourhood was able to consistently narrow the gap across alldomains, individual examples of success amongst each domain have demonstratedthe important role of local spatial interventions in helping to alleviate or containneighbourhood deprivation.

The evidence suggests that the key success factors in terms of improvement haveincluded: integrated approaches incorporating both social and physical renewal;neighbourhood management; resident involvement; local leadership and partnershipworking; the availability of additional and flexible funding; and supportive nationalpolicies.

In summary the key constraints have included: the housing tenure mix; behaviouraland economic barriers; ethnic diversity and population churn; political andorganisational barriers; weak performance management, short-termism and variablestrategic visions; and a lack of trust and visible impact in some neighbourhoods.

Views on the future trajectory of the case neighbourhoods were extremely mixed.Many considered that positive foundations had been laid for improvement, and thatthe NSNR delivery chain will continue to benefit deprived neighbourhoods in thefuture. Others stressed that the position was extremely fragile (and that progresswould be predicated upon addressing the constraints identified above). In theabsence of additional funding or obligations, the prospects for discretionary aspectsof the delivery chain, such as neighbourhood management, appeared uncertain.

It was clear that further sustained effort will be required if the aims of the NSNR areto be fully realised. This will need to include additional local solutions, as well as jointlocal, regional and national intervention (i.e. multi-level programmes), which are

tailored towards addressing the specific balance of neighbourhood problems in eachlocal authority area.


12/136

10 | Evaluation of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Local research project

1 Introduction

1.1 The National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal

A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal: national strategy actionplan2 was published by the Cabinet Office and Social Exclusion Unit in 2001.It marked the adoption of a new approach to the regeneration and renewalof deprived areas, in a systematic attempt to close the gap between deprivedneighbourhoods and the rest.

The overarching vision of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal(NSNR) was a bold assertion that:

Within 10 to 20 years no one should be seriously disadvantaged by wherethey live.

This vision was underpinned by two long-term goals:

In all the poorest neighbourhoods to have common goals of lowerworklessness and crime, and better health, skills, housing and physicalenvironment.

To narrow the gap on these measures between the most deprivedneighbourhoods and the rest of the country.

The Strategy explicitly accepted that there will always be some people andplaces that are more deprived than others, but asserts that:

We should be able to arrest and reverse the wholesale decline ofdeprived neighbourhoods, and prevent it from reoccurring

It should no longer be accepted as routine that people on low incomesshould suffer conditions and services that are failing and so sharply

different from what the rest of the population receives

All neighbourhoods in the country should be free from fear and besomewhere people can see a future for their family

We should not have so many neighbourhoods where so many peoplesnumber one priority is to move out

The NSNR was underpinned by the following key innovations:

The concept of minimum standards for deprived areas (floor targets),

against which Whitehall departments and the progress of local areaswould be judged.

2 A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal strategy action plan (2001), Cabinet Office and Social Exclusion Unit


13/136

Evaluation of the National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal: Local research project | 11

An emphasis upon bending mainstream programmes rather than relyingupon special funding programmes, in order to reach a larger number ofdeprived areas than targeted previously.

New mechanisms to deliver these aims including: the NeighbourhoodRenewal Unit (NRU) at the national level; Neighbourhood RenewalTeams (NRTs) in each Government Office for the Region (GOR); LocalStrategic Partnerships (LSPs) charged with allocating a NeighbourhoodRenewal Fund (NRF) and developing Local Neighbourhood RenewalStrategies (LNRS) within the 88 most deprived districts; and the ideaof neighbourhood management, including the establishment of 35Neighbourhood Management Pathfinders (NMPs).

An emphasis upon engaging the residents of disadvantaged communitiesin neighbourhood renewal activity, with a range of supporting funds to

help develop Community Empowerment Networks (CENs) and supportVoluntary and Community Sector (VCS) involvement.

In addition it was recognised that a number of complementary existingprogrammes would continue to benefit deprived neighbourhoods, includingSure Start, the New Deal for Communities (NDC) and Excellence in Cities(EiC).

This only provides a brief summary of NSNR and its major components.A more detailed account of the policy context is provided in Appendix 1.

1.2 Linkages to the evaluation of the National Strategyfor Neighbourhood Renewal

The LRP has its own aim and research objectives but has not beenundertaken in isolation. It forms an integral and mutually supportive elementof a broader and more strategic longitudinal evaluation3 of the NSNR. Thisdraws extensively upon secondary data sets, as well as the various studiesthat have been conducted into the different delivery components of theNSNR, limited primary research at the national and regional level, and the

LRP.

The aim of the NSNR evaluation is:

NSNR evaluation aim: To provide evidence on the extent and ways inwhich the NSNR is working and generate constructive and practical advice onhow to improve the design and delivery of the strategy.

The objectives of the NSNR evaluation are:

NSNR evaluation objective 1: To show the nature and extent of NSNR

impact and produce authoritative conclusions on the progress of NSNR innarrowing the gap.

3 This is being undertaken by AMION Consulting Limited


14/136


NSNR evaluation objective 2: To assess the design of the NSNR bothoriginally and as evolving and provide pragmatic and constructive advice onpossible ways in which it could be improved.

NSNR evaluation objective : To assess the resources that underpin theNSNR including the NRF and draw conclusions on its sufficiency and valuefor money. This will include consideration of indirect resources supportingdelivery of the strategy, for example through mainstreaming.

NSNR evaluation objective : To report on how the NSNR is beingimplemented (at national, regional, local and neighbourhood levels) anduncover what approaches to neighbourhood renewal are working best andwhy, as well as identifying what is not working well or at all, and why this isthe case.

NSNR evaluation objective : To consider the role and contribution of LSPsand Local Area Agreements (LAAs) in delivering the NSNR including use ofNRF, contribution towards mainstreaming, and their planning and deliveryactivities (for example LNRSs).

The NSNR evaluation essentially comprises of two inter related strands ofwork:

A broadly quantitative assessment of what is happening in the target areasincluding:

changes in area conditions

the processes of neighbourhood change and the relationships betweenindicators

the relationship between change and different interventions; and

the overall additionality and value for money of interventions.

A broadly qualitative assessment of the effectiveness and appropriatenessof the NSNR delivery mechanisms (the structures, processes and tools).

In summary, the evaluation method underpinning the NSNR evaluation is a

combination of:

Quantitative top-down or macro assessment (i.e. outcome measurementusing indicator data).

Quantitative bottom-up or micro assessment (i.e. data from previousevaluations of specific aspects of the NSNR, performance managementdata on inputs, outputs and outcomes, and case study research).

Qualitative evidence (i.e. interviews and workshops, previous evaluationsand research and case studies).


15/136


1.3 Aims and objectives of the Local Research Project

LRP aim: To gather primary evidence on how the NSNR is being

implemented in a number of English local areas, and to assess its impactand outcomes. This is to be an independent and objective research project,with its own agreed methodology, purpose, analytical independence andreporting arrangements. However, its main purpose is to serve the local levelprimary research needs of the overall NSNR evaluation and do this by testinghypotheses and issues emerging from that study, and filling gaps in evidenceidentified by that study.

Similarly, the Project Specification identified a series of 11 research objectivesto guide the delivery of the LRP. These have been refined over the course ofthe delivery of the LRP and include:

LRP objective 1: Undertake research in deprived areas to understand thenature and causes of neighbourhood change, and compare this with whathas happened in areas that have not received NRF support.

LRP objective 2: Describe the extent to which the gap has narrowedbetween the most deprived neighbourhoods and the rest and find out whythis has happened.

LRP objective : Research the ways in which the NRF has contributed tochange (complementing other research underway during 2006).

LRP objective : Research how partnerships and organisations coordinate indelivering neighbourhood renewal including local authorities, LSPs and theNDC.

LRP objective : Work with AMION on the national NSNR evaluation tounderstand regional and sub regional factors in renewal.

LRP objective :Analyse the role of various strategies, plans and documentsin helping achieve neighbourhood renewal [including LAAs, CommunityStrategies (CSs) and LNRSs] including the ways in which plans are negotiated,managed and delivered.

LRP objective : Research the extent and ways in which the delivery ofpublic services has changed as a result of the NSNR including the impact onresidents in deprived areas.

LRP objective :Assess the impact of the NSNR on groups of people,for example young or old people, ethnic minorities, disabled people, faithcommunities, men and women.


16/136


LRP objective : Research ways in which residents have engaged inneighbourhood renewal and any benefits that have derived from thisinvolvement.

LRP objective 10: Develop conclusions that feed into the overall evaluationof the NSNR led by AMION for CLG.

LRP objective 11: Produce locally useful outputs that can benefitpartnerships and others in the case study areas.

1.4 Approach and methodology

1..1 Case study districts and neighbourhoods

The LRP has employed a case study research design. Research has beenundertaken in two case neighbourhoods within nine case study localauthority districts (LADs) that have been in receipt of NRF support. Lessintensive research has been undertaken in a single case neighbourhoodwithin three further case study LADs that have not had financial supportthrough the NRF.

1..2 Case study delivery and informants

The findings from the research are based on the analysis of contextual

documents, statistical indicators of change and management data relatingto the case study areas, as well as the analysis of qualitative data to explorethe possible causes of change, gathered from in-depth stakeholder interviewsand resident focus groups.

Statistical analysis has included the review, benchmarking and update of arange of socio economic indicators, sourced from the floor targets InteractiveWebsite and AMION Consulting, including a range of neighbourhood leveltime series data covering:

Population estimates

Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) unemployment and worklessness rates

Low income rate

Pupil performance at KS2, KS3 and KS4 (test scores, by place of residence)

Standardised Mortality Ratio (SMR)

Low birth weight rate

Recorded burglaries (per 1,000 population)

Violent crimes, burglaries and thefts (per 1,000 at-risk population)

House prices.


17/136


700 in-depth interviews were undertaken sequentially with differentinformant groups reflecting the strategic and operational delivery of theNSNR. In addition 36 resident focus groups were delivered in the NRF

case study neighbourhoods with a diverse range of specific groups. Theseinterviews and focus groups provided the majority of the source material forthe LRP and its conclusions.

1.. Robustness and validity of the research

This research is primarily concerned with identifying possible causes ofchange and therefore draws mainly on qualitative interview data. By itsnature, qualitative analysis is more suggestive than conclusive and highlightsthe incidence of associative rather than causal relationships. However,the research findings in this report are exclusively based upon common

perceptions of change reported by multiple interview respondents withinmultiple case study areas, and where numerous supporting examples ofpossible causal relationships can be identified.

Further details about the selection of case study areas, their characteristicsand the research methodology are provided in Appendices 2 and 3.

1.5 Structure of the report

The remainder of the report is structured as follows:

Section 2: Narrowing the gap explores the nature and causes ofneighbourhood change within the LRPs case study neighbourhoods (LRPobjective 1), the extent to which the gap has narrowed and why this hasoccurred (LRP objective 2), and the influence of wider regional and subregional factors (LRP objective 5).

Section : Delivery chain considers the effectiveness of the deliverychain associated with NSNR, including local and neighbourhoodpartnerships (LRP objective 4), local strategies (LRP objective 6), and NRF(LRP objective 3).

Section : Resident engagement assesses how residents haveengaged in neighbourhood renewal, and the benefits derived from this(LRP objective 9).

Section : Mainstreaming: discusses the extent to which the deliveryof public services has changed as a result of NSNR, and how (LRPobjective 7).

Section : Equality and diversity assesses the impact of the NSNR ondifferent groups of people (LRP objective 8).

Section : Conclusions

develops a number of conclusions from theLRP, to feed into the overall evaluation of the NSNR (LRP objective 10).


18/136


It is supported by the following appendices:

Appendix 1: Policy landscape explores the drivers behind the

introduction of the NSNR, outlines its identified aims and goals, considersits infrastructure for delivery and provides an overview of recent evaluationevidence.

Appendix 2: Overview of methodology sets out additional detail inrespect of the methodological tasks undertaken for the LRP.

Appendix : Case study details provides further details on theselection criteria and characteristics of the case study areas.


19/136


2 Narrowing the gap

2.1 Introduction and key findings

This chapter explores the nature and causes of change within the case studyneighbourhoods, including the extent to which they have narrowed thegap with the rest of the country. It reflects the major long-term goals of theNSNR. The key findings include:

NSNRs contribution towards narrowing the gap has been highly variable

within the time frame covered by this study. There is evidence of positivelevels of improvement and strong evidence of NSNR impacts within thecrime and environment domains; mixed results and impacts within theeducation and employment domains; limited (and difficult to attribute)results within the health domain; and positive improvement (butmarginal NSNR contributions) within housing. However, NSNR has madean important contribution towards improving overall quality of life.

Positive progress has been made in respect of acquisitive crime (includingburglaries and thefts) as well as aspects of anti-social behaviour. NSNRhas made an important contribution through the use of NRF to help

target certain types of crime, top-up existing police services withindeprived neighbourhoods and/or pilot neighbourhood policing andwardens, and through encouraging partnership working, underpinnedby NSNR-related strategies. However, the impact of NSNR on helping tocontain rising levels of violent crime has been limited.

Within the majority of case study districts and neighbourhoods, thequality of local environments has improved, closing the gap withthe rest of the country. NSNR appears to have played a catalytic rolethrough the impact of NRF (and local strategies) on the adoptionof area-based models of service delivery, the use of NRF to fund

targeted environmental projects, wardens and encourage communityownership, and the encouragement of multi-agency working throughLSPs and neighbourhood structures, improving intelligence and serviceresponsiveness.

Despite absolute improvements in levels of health, the case studydistricts demonstrated mixed to poor levels of progress in narrowing thegap. This was attributed to the contingent nature of health outcomesupon contextual factors such as income and education, churn and ethnicdiversity, as well as silo working within some PCTs. Positive changewas perceived to have been driven by (NRF funded) targeted public

health interventions, as well increased accessibility to mainstream healthfacilities within some deprived neighbourhoods.


20/136


The case study NRF districts have made positive progress innarrowing the educational gap, out-performing the non-NRF districts.Improvements were attributed to the national drive to improve

educational standards, the impact of excellent schools and leadership,and the use of NRF to support additional learning provision. More mixedprogress was evident at the case neighbourhood level, attributed tocultural factors, diversity and churn, and schooling quality.

The majority of case study NRF districts narrowed their employment andenterprise gaps. Progress in the case neighbourhoods was offset by anincrease in long-term benefit claimants. The ethnic minority employmentrate also experienced a trend of decline. Factors associated withimprovement included the national economy, existing funding streams,and (NRF-funded) supplementary employment services (underpinned by

Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets). Increases in worklessness wereattributed to cultural and demand side factors, diversity, churn andorganisational barriers.

Statistical evidence suggests that the quality of social housing hasimproved within the case study districts, and that private sectorhousing has became more desirable. This was attributed to DecentHomes funding and stock transfer, comprehensive estate regenerationprogrammes, resident involvement, and national housing demand.Evidence of resident dissatisfaction related to a lack of family sizedaccommodation (pushing some families into low quality rented homes).

The evidence suggests that quality of life has improved within two thirdsof the NRF case neighbourhoods. This was attributed to improvements inneighbourhood facilities, environmental services and policing, residentshomes and the built environment, and community spirit and activity.Factors associated with no change or a decline in quality of life includedviolent crime, a lack of local employment opportunities, poor transportlinks and a lack of suitable housing. More mixed progress within thenon-NRF districts highlighted the important role of additional funds.

2.2 Crime

2.2.1 Progress in narrowing the gap

Crime posed a significant challenge within the case study districts prior tothe introduction of NSNR. Vehicle crime, burglaries and robberies werebetween 30 and 40 per cent higher than the national average. Problemswere magnified within the case neighbourhoods, with burglaries 50 percent higher, thefts 75 per cent higher and violent crime two and a half timeshigher.

Overall, positive progress has been made in narrowing the crime gapbetween the case study NRF districts and the national average. In termsof vehicle crime and burglary, more NRF districts experienced a narrowingof the gap than a widening gap (and overall these types of crime have


21/136


reduced). In terms of robbery, the NRF districts were equally split betweenthose where the gap narrowed, and those where it widened, with an overallincrease mirroring the national position. These changes were reflected at

the case neighbourhood level (although also accentuated with regards toviolent crime). The case study non-NRF districts included the only area thatexperienced a widening gap across all measures, and on balance, progressat the neighbourhood level was slightly poorer than in NRF districts, with allexperiencing a widening burglary gap.

2.2.2 Causes of change or no change

Given the significant national drive to reduce crime levels and innovations inpolicing practice (legislated for by the Crime Disorder Reduction Act), as wellas potential wider societal influences, it is difficult to isolate specific localised

causes of improvement within the LADs. However, within those case studyareas that demonstrated positive progress in tackling high levels of crimeand fear of crime (for example Hastings and Wolverhampton) the followingfactors were evident:

Increased targeting of mainstream police resources on specific crimes(target hardening), crime hot spots and persistent offenders, linkedto innovations in data collection and a general requirement torespond to areas of greatest need. This trend has been complementedby the use of additional NSNR resources such as NRF to help fund successfulinterventions, such as alley-gating to prevent burglaries and CCTV to deter

thefts. Priorities and targets have also been leant corporate legitimacythrough their inclusion within NSNR related strategies and LAAs.

The introduction of Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs), wardensand additional Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and PoliceConstables (PCs) in many neighbourhoods, with provision oftenfunded (in the pilot stages) by NRF, or levered in by neighbourhoodmanagement organisations. Such provision has helped to deter non-violent crimes, increased reassurance, and improved community relations,encouraging residents to come forward with additional intelligence. Otherexamples include (NRF funded) mobile cop shops.

Complementary environmental improvements within someneighbourhoods (such as improvements in lighting, park security andopen spaces, and successful interventions to tackle environmentalcrime), in some cases funded by NRF, as well as housing regenerationprogrammes (which have improved estate design and road layouts).The latter were funded by Decent Homes funding, and have in turn helped toreduce crime and fear of crime.

General improvements in partnership working, in order to jointly

identify and tackle the causes of crime (as well as taking morepunitive action). Strategically, this appears to have been driven primarilyby Crime Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs). However, partnershipworking has also been encouraged by LSPs (as well as by neighbourhoodmanagement organisations) and evidence from NRF projects that partnership


22/136


approaches can be effective in reducing crime. Examples of this includeweeks of action, where the police and relevant partners have cometogether to target specific crime types within deprived neighbourhoods. The

establishment of neighbourhood structures and projects, catalysed by NSNR(such as neighbourhood forums and area-based environmental teams), havealso provided the police with additional sources of intelligence. In some casesthis has proved so successful that the police have reorganised their services tobetter align with neighbourhood geographical boundaries.

Real and perceived increases in violent crime and youth disorder were felt tobe linked to a rise in gang culture (and the drugs trade), as well as limitedeconomic opportunities for young residents. Some consultees consideredthat local agencies had not effectively addressed this issue, and that supportfor the provision of additional (or affordable) youth facilities and activities,

and vocational or employment opportunities, had been inadequate. The mainexceptions to this appeared to be case neighbourhoods with an NMP, whichwere instrumental in delivering additional youth support.

The evidence however is inconclusive. Although perceptions of youth crimewere marginally less negative within those case neighbourhoods that hadused NRF to fund effective diversionary activities (such as summer/mobileestate provision, in tandem with Home Office programmes such as PositiveFutures), such areas still experienced rises in violent crime. Evidence of widerfailures to formulate a joined-up and longer-term response by statutoryand third sector organisations, educational and economic factors, and thelimited reach of youth activities (as well as the draw of the drugs trade) allappear to have played a role. In at least one case study LAD it was noted thatattempts to tackle drug dealing had simply resulted in displacement, whilsta common perception was that perpetrators of crime came from outside theneighbourhood (requiring a wider response).

It was also evident that despite delivering increased visibility, warden andPCSO presence may not always provide an effective deterrent to moreserious crimes (due to a perception of limited powers). It was also clear fromthe consultation that although extra police constables had been introduced

in some neighbourhoods, this presence was sometimes least visible whenmost needed, for example during the evening and school holidays. Finally,there was a perception that problems have a strong ethnic dimension, andthat increasing population diversity requires a different policing responseand increased community engagement. Relationships between the police andyoung people in some neighbourhoods were still considered to be poor.

Within the non-NRF case study districts, improvements in crime wereattributed to the introduction of similar service innovations, increasedpartnership working and resident engagement. There was also evidence thatNSNR has had some influence on the targeting of specific neighbourhoods

and the adoption of multi-agency approaches. The evidence suggests thatNRF has brought some additional benefit, given that the NRF case study areashave experienced more success overall.


23/136


2.3 Environment

2..1 Progress in narrowing the gap

National floor targets within the environment domain have includedmeasures relating to the quality of local parks and street litter. Levels of parksatisfaction at the LAD level were slightly below the national average priorto the introduction of NSNR, whilst satisfaction with the cleanliness of localstreets was around one third lower. Case neighbourhoods were also reportedto be suffering from declining commercial areas and built environments atthe baseline position.

Overall, positive progress has been made in narrowing the liveability gapbetween the case study NRF districts and the national average. More districts

experienced a narrowing of the gap in perceived levels of unacceptable litterand satisfaction with parks. Within the majority of case neighbourhoods.Many stakeholders and residents considered that the streets were cleaner,that the quality of parks and open spaces had improved, and thatenvironmental crime had diminished. Within some case neighbourhoods,anecdotal evidence was backed up by survey results: in the NMPneighbourhood of Great Lever, resident satisfaction had more than doubled.In a small minority of case study neighbourhoods, perceptions ran counterto the general trend. This appeared to be driven by ongoing problems withcriminal damage. A less positive picture was also evident within the non-NRFcase study districts. A widening gap in relation to environmental indicators,

and negative stakeholder assessments of environmental crime, were mostprevalent.

2..2 Causes of change or no change

The evidence from the case studies would suggest that NSNR has played acatalytic role in the positive environmental improvements seen in many NRFdistricts and deprived neighbourhoods. Across the case study NRF districts,the following common drivers of change were evident:

The introduction of more responsiveness mainstream environment

and parks services, including the adoption of area based models ofdelivery, driven by national policy influences and response to localneed. This organisational shift appears to have been driven by local authoritycommitments to the national Cleaner, Safer, Greener agenda, within theregulatory context of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA)process. Given that satisfaction tends to be lower within deprived wards,this created a favourable organisational context for introducing area baseddelivery (and interventions targeting deprived neighbourhoods). In manycases, changes were piloted and part-funded by NRF, and influenced by thespatial priorities set out within local NSNR strategies.

The flexible use of NRF (alongside the Safer Stronger CommunitiesFund) to support additional interventions, which have improvedenvironmental quality. NRF has been used to fund successful estate, grotspot and graffiti clean up programmes, as well as longer-term enforcement


24/136


action and infrastructural changes to help deter environmental crime. NRFhas also been used to fund exterior renovations to private homes and localbusinesses, and community-led projects such as pocket parks, in bloom

competitions and park community events. In some cases projects haveincluded innovative attempts to pump-prime social enterprises, as well asresident management vehicles such as friends of parks groups, to supportlonger term environmental management within deprived neighbourhoods.NRF has also funded complementary interventions, such as neighbourhoodwardens, which have gathered intelligence and undertaken improvements.

The encouragement of multi-agency working by NSNR-relatedstructures such as LSPs, area panels and co-ordinators and NMPs.NSNR structures and funds, which have tended to prioritise tacklingenvironmental issues, have encouraged greater partnership working

between environmental and other service providers (e.g. the police and fireand rescue services, and housing providers) to tackle problems such as fly-tipping and abandoned vehicles more effectively. NSNR structures have alsoencouraged greater voluntary sector and resident engagement (for examplewith Groundwork Trust), which has helped to improve local intelligenceand in some instances the sustainability of positive outcomes. In someneighbourhoods, multi-agency tasking teams were set up or supported withNSNR resources to help co-ordinate information and action.

The impact of wider physical and housing regeneration programmes.The latter, stimulated by stock transfer and the Decent Homes programmewere considered to have improved the general appearance of the builtenvironment and green spaces in some neighbourhoods. The impact ofdistrict-wide and town centre physical regeneration programmes was alsonoted as a driver of increased satisfaction, as well as the use of HeritageLottery Funding (HLF) to improve local parks.

Local contextual factors were identified as having had a mixed impact uponlevels of improvement. Evidence of gentrification and increasingly mixedtenure within at least two case neighbourhoods, driven by the influx ofmore affluent households in search of cheaper homes, were felt to have

driven positive environmental change. Identified constraints included patternsof behaviour and attitudes within deprived neighbourhoods, leading togeneral neglect of the environment (littering, criminal damage etc), rootedin high levels of unemployment, the transience of some communities or highproportions of young people (and limited diversionary activities).

Within a minority of case study LADs, the resource constraints on providingmore mainstream services in deprived neighbourhoods (in addition to area-based working), were identified as a barrier to addressing the scale of localproblems. Within one LAD, organisational barriers to improvement werealso identified as an issue, with divisions in the management of green spaces

between the council and an Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO)having resulted in differing standards of upkeep.

Evidence from the non-NRF case study districts would appear to confirmthat important drivers of environmental improvement (in addition to NSNR)


25/136


have included local authority and housing-led regeneration schemes,as well as favourable organisational contexts. NSNR has achieved someinfluence via the introduction of neighbourhood wardens in the one non-

NRF case neighbourhood that was perceived to have experienced positiveenvironmental change (supported by an ALMO). However, given that theseareas have in general experienced less progress in narrowing the gap (whilstqualitative evidence would suggest that project interventions and theprovision of area based services have been on a less intensive and joined-upscale), NRF appears to have brought some additional benefit. Within onenon-NRF district (where environmental crime was perceived to have increasedover the period), interventions had been restricted to educational work.

2.4 Health2..1 Progress in narrowing the gap

Across a variety of health indicators the case study districts wereunderperforming significantly at the baseline position. Teenage pregnancieswere almost 25 per cent higher, the circulatory disease and cancer mortalityrates 14 per cent and 10 per cent higher and average life expectancy almostone year lower than the national average. Within the case neighbourhoods,low birth weights and the mortality rate were on average one third and 60per cent higher than nationally.

More NRF case study districts experienced a widening gap with the nationalaverage across all health indicators than did not. Although many LADsexperienced absolute improvements in health, this was achieved at aslower rate than nationally. Mixed progress was also evident at the caseneighbourhood level. Roughly half benefited from a narrowing of the gapin relation to the mortality ratio and low birth rate (with mixed levels ofabsolute progress), whilst more saw the gap widen with regards to the illnessratio, as part of an overall trend of deterioration. There was a consensusthat health outcomes are driven by longer-term change processes, and thatquantitative data is likely to mask some improvements in public health and

lifestyles within the case neighbourhoods. Conversely, some recognised thatthe neighbourhoods continue to face significant health challenges such asteenage pregnancy, smoking, mental health issues and substance abuse.Whilst within two of the non-NRF districts, progress was less positive than inthe NRF districts, Telford and Wrekin appears to have made most progressoverall, with improvements at all levels.


Within the minority of NRF case study districts and case neighbourhoodswhere the statistical data and/or qualitative evidence suggested positive

health trends (for example in Sheffield), improvement was said to have beendriven by the following common factors:


26/136


Positive contextual factors, including local and sub-regional economictrends and national health policies. These have included the changingnature of employment and environmental improvements in some LADs

resulting from the decline of heavy industry, allied to national anti-smokingand healthy eating campaigns, and improvements in medicine.

Organisational change within PCTs, where they have beenrestructured to become co-terminus with local authority boundariesand/or amalgamated from a number of separate sub-districtorganisations. This was considered to have facilitated improved partnershipworking with local authorities, a more strategic approach to targeting andhealth improvements.

NRF-funded public health interventions (including smoking cessation

groups, healthy eating and dietary advice, exercise classes andsubstance misuse services), strategically targeted at gaps in provisionand the needs of at risk groups. Whilst objective evidence of theirimpact upon longer-term outcomes is at present limited, such interventionswere considered by stakeholders to have driven positive changes in healthawareness and lifestyles. They also appeared to have played important rolesin improving peoples perceptions of local health services.

Increased accessibility to health services within neighbourhoodswhere new PCT facilities had been established (such as integratedhealth centres), or through the use of new technologies (such as text

message appointments), funded through mainstream resources. Insome areas this was complemented by new health outreach workers, fundedthrough NRF, which were highly valued by groups such as women and ethnicminorities.

The influence of NSNR structures and strategies on increased multi-agency working and a more strategic approach towards tacklinghealth inequalities in deprived neighbourhoods. There is a strongrelationship betweenperceptions of positive health impacts within caseneighbourhoods, and evidence of PCTs that have pro-actively engagedwith NSNR structures such as LSPs and NMPs (underpinned by local NSNRstrategies), to help target services and pilot preventative programmes.This has resulted in: jointly funded posts to co-ordinate activity acrosslocal authorities; new GP referral services; the location of public healthinterventions within local authority facilities such as youth, community andfamily centres and schools (with the latter being catalysed by an NMP); andincreased partnership working with the voluntary sector.

Conversely, in areas where PCTs have struggled to overcome organisationalbarriers to neighbourhood service delivery (and have delivered projects inan organisational silo) stakeholders were pessimistic about neighbourhood

health outcomes and community awareness. Some consultees reflectedthat a lack of significant progress in improving education, employment andincome levels, as well as population churn within neighbourhoods withhigh levels of social housing or HMOs, may have constrained progress. Thecontinued problem of teenage pregnancy (despite a number of NRF funded


27/136


sexual health projects) was felt to be underpinned by contextual and culturalfactors prevalent within deprived neighbourhoods (low aspirations, skills,family break-up etc). Some argued that NSNR-related preventative work (and

targeted programmes such as Sure Start), are likely to impact upon outcomesincrementally and over a longer time period.

Others considered that the concentration of certain ethnic groups withindeprived neighbourhoods (associated with a higher prevalence of certainillnesses) had resulted in cultural barriers to health improvement. Thechallenges of providing effective health services in deprived areas werealso noted, particularly where there is a diverse population requiringtailored support, a transient population with constantly changing needs, or(increasingly) new migrants with English for Speakers of Other Languages(ESOL) requirements (the case study districts demonstrating most

improvement have relatively homogenous profiles).

Evidence from the case study non-NRF districts largely confirms this analysis,highlighting the important role of NSNR in influencing change (including NRFin catalysing PCT neighbourhood interventions), alongside organisational andcontextual constraints. In Telford and Wrekin, progress was attributed to thePCTs adoption of targeting groups and neighbourhoods in greatest need(based upon local authority statistics) followed by the development of publichealth interventions in partnership with statutory agencies and the voluntarysector and based in existing community facilities. Influenced by NSNR,interventions were part-funded by an Single Regeneration Budget (SRB)programme. Elsewhere, relatively poor progress was attributed to their lackof a strategic response to health problems within deprived neighbourhoodsand additional targeted interventions (in the absence of NRF).

2.5 Education


Prior to the introduction of NSNR, the gap between the case study districts

and the national average was significant across all measures of educationalattainment. Attainment at key stage two (KS2) level four (English andmaths) was on average 5 per cent lower, at key stage three (KS3) level five(English and maths) 12 per cent lower, and at GCSE (5 grades AC), almostone third lower. This was reflected closely amongst residents at the caseneighbourhood level.

Many more case study NRF districts experienced a narrowing of the gap thandid not in terms of KS2, KS3 and GCSE attainment. The picture at the caseneighbourhood level was more mixed. In terms of point scores at GCSE, amajority of NRF neighbourhoods saw the gap narrow, whilst the gap in the

proportion of 1820 year olds accepted to higher education narrowed inhalf. However, a majority of neighbourhoods saw the gap widen at KS3,and in particular at KS2. Amongst the non-NRF case study districts there was


28/136


mixed progress, with the majority experiencing a narrowing of the gap atKS2 and GCSE, but none at KS3, and similar neighbourhood outcomes.


No LAD made progress across all educational measures at both the districtand case neighbourhood levels. The following predominantly non-NSNRrelated factors have nevertheless been critical in catalysing improvements:

National policy and targets to improve educational standards, andassociated programmes such as Education Action Zones (EAZs),Excellence Clusters and Extended Schools. These programmes wereconsidered to have provided a more structured framework and helped tostimulate the partnership working (for example with child mental health

services) required to help improve educational provision in deprived areas.Perceptions of improvement were more negative within those LADs whereschools were not considered to have fully exploited such opportunities.

The quality of specific local schools and LEAs, and in particulareffective head teachers capable of exploiting national and locallyfunded initiatives to their schools advantage. Conversely, a lack ofstrategic leadership and/or the incidence of a physically inadequate andfailing secondary school serving a case neighbourhood (with poor levels ofdiscipline), were considered to have provided major constraints where theeducational gap had widened.

Additional targeted interventions within local schools, such as literacyassistants, learning mentors and support for behavioural problemsand those at risk of exclusion (much of which was supported usingNRF). These have tended to operate within the policy frameworks set outabove (for example supporting Excellence Clusters), and have demonstratedpositive impacts on individual attainment and aspirations. However, dueto the resource intensive nature of this work, and a focus on district-wideeducation targets, it would appear that their wider impact on levels ofattainment amongst the residents of deprived neighbourhoods has beenmarginal.

Improved access to further education and adult learning within somecase neighbourhoods (boosting staying on rates and adult skills). Thishas included the opening of new educational venues (such as braches ofcolleges, universities, family centres and mobile and library learning facilities),mainly as part of mainstream investment plans, although in some instancespart-funded by NRF.

Three wider cultural and contextual factors were felt to have providedsignificant constraints on improvement at the case neighbourhood level.Firstly, a continuing culture of low aspirations within many deprivedneighbourhoods, and consequent lack of value placed in education,were felt to be constraining progress. This was considered to be rooted inlonger-term family problems, including inter-generational worklessness, alack of positive role models and the disengagement of parents from their


29/136


childrens education, and manifested in other problems such as high levels of1618 year olds Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET), teenagepregnancy and anti-social behaviour (further undermining attainment). As a

consequence, it was cited that a number of children had become stuck, andthat in one LAD this had resulted in low teacher morale.

Secondly, high (and increasing) levels of diversity, resulting in a multitude ofdifferent first languages being spoken within some schools, were consideredto have imposed significant additional burdens on teachers and impactednegatively on attainment (especially at KS3). Within a number of NRF caseneighbourhoods, between 20 and 30 different languages were said to bespoken within local primary schools. Within one case neighbourhood, theeducational challenges associated with being a reception area for asylumseekers and refugees was also noted.

Thirdly, many consultees commented that high levels of population churn(as well as high population densities) have impacted negatively on teachingpractices and attainment, through resulting in varying or significantclass sizes, and a lack of continuity in educational provision amongstneighbourhood residents. For example, analysis of a cohort of Year 11 pupilsin one case neighbourhood school found that 70 per cent of them had notbeen based in the school at Year 7.

It was noted that improving attainment within deprived neighbourhoods isa long-term process, requiring more than quick fix solutions. Stakeholders

suggested that the necessary investment in early years and family support(using for example Sure Start as a hook to engage parents in their childslearning) will take 1015 years to manifest itself in improved attainment.Some considered that the attainment of recently arrived ESOL speakers mayimprove as they progress from KS2 to GCSE. For others, the lack of progresswas related to failings within the national curriculum, including a lack ofvocational options for 1416 year olds and those excluded from school.

The case study non-NRF districts would appear to confirm that educationalservice performance (and the construction of new facilities), in addition towider contextual factors, have been the main drivers of change (with NSNRhaving a peripheral impact). Whilst there was less evidence of additionalprovision being funded within the non-NRF districts to target hard to reachgroups, given the potentially marginal impact of NRF education interventions,further statistical analysis would be required to determine whether this canaccount for their marginally poorer progress.

2.6 Employment


Within the case study districts, average employment and business start uprates were around 6 percentage points lower than in the rest of the country,prior to the introduction of NSNR (although the ethnic minority employment


30/136


rate was slightly higher). Within the case neighbourhoods, problems weresignificantly worse, with worklessness almost three times higher thannationally.

Since the introduction of NSNR, the majority of case study NRF districts havenarrowed the gap in relation to employment and VAT registrations (althougha new gap developed in terms of ethnic minority employment). Mixedprogress was evident at the case neighbourhood level. Although a significantmajority of neighbourhoods narrowed the (JSA) unemployment gap, the gapin the take-up of benefits relating to work limiting illnesses (i.e. economicinactivity) increased in most cases. Perceptions were largely pessimistic withsome considering that worklessness was still endemic. By contrast, theemployment gap widened in two of the three non-NRF case study districts.The non-NRF case neighbourhoods experienced a narrowing of the gap

in the work limiting illness rate, but a widening of the gap in terms ofunemployment, again resulting in mixed progress overall.


Within improving case study NRF districts, success was attributed to thefollowing:

The favourable national economic conditions between 1 and 200,manifested in increased (and more flexible) job opportunities withinthe labour market. Rising employment rates were considered to have

benefited deprived areas, in terms of helping to narrow the gap.

Within a minority of LADs, the impact of significant levels of focusedlonger-term investment (sourced from a range of area basedprogrammes), to help tackle unemployment and economic inactivity,on the supply and demand sides. This has included the Department forWork and Pensions (DWP) Action Teams for Jobs programme, which waspremised on a more localised and flexible model of working (and which inKnowsley was said to have assisted 2,000 people back into work). It hasalso included the attraction of new businesses and employment throughinfrastructure improvements (funded for example through Objective 1 and

2 European Regional Development Funds). Within this, the strength ofpartnership working with the third sector and social enterprises was cited asan important element of success.

The impact of NSNR, principally through the use of NRF to supportsupplementary local authority-led employment services targetinghard to reach client groups. Such approaches commonly adopted a morepersonalised and longer-term approach to supporting individuals into work,and involved partnerships with the voluntary and private sectors to increasesuccess rates. In Knowsley, for example, an NRF-supported programmeassisted 976 clients into employment. There was also evidence that LAAswere influencing the spatial focus of these programmes, through targetingefforts upon specific deprived areas. Such interventions (given that manywere also being supported though RDA and other non-NSNR sources offunding), are likely to have gone ahead anyway, albeit on a smaller scale.


31/136


Within the minority of LADs where interventions had not been pursued,there was a stronger perception that worklessness remained a problem.

Reflecting the mixed rate of progress, consultees more readily emphasisedan array of barriers to reducing worklessness. Firstly, a number of embeddedcultural factors were identified as having constrained the uptake andimpact of employment programmes. These included inter-generationalunemployment, lack of role models, low aspirations, resistance to travellingto work, and a poor work ethic (or interest in available service sector work).These had manifested themselves in further barriers to employment such asteenage pregnancy, low levels of educational attainment and confidence,the lure of the black economy, substance abuse (and general ill-health) andhigh levels of NEET and Incapacity Benefit (IB) dependency. One stakeholderconceded that their LSP had seriously underestimated the challenge of

moving IB claimants into work.

Secondly, a reduction in available job opportunities and access to decentwork were cited as significant barriers (a perception shared by youngerand more elderly people alike). This was attributed to the continuing loss ofmanufacturing jobs allied to the creation of new service sector employmenteither perceived to be in lower concentrations than available previously (forexample due to the locational disadvantages of some towns), inaccessibledue to poor transport links, or unsuitable for low skilled and/or ESOLspeaking communities. The latter was considered to have provided a majorbarrier to improvement within those neighbourhoods with high levels ofdiversity, and in particular growing refugee populations (for example fromSomalia). Employers were perceived to offer little support for ESOL speakers.Within the vicinity of case neighbourhoods, employment opportunitiesappeared to be limited to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) andsmall shops, providing limited opportunities for those unable to travel towork due to family or other constraints.

The negative impact of population churn (and specifically neighbourhoodsorting) was also noted. It was considered that problems have beenexacerbated within many case neighbourhoods as those with better

prospects and access to jobs have tended to move out. This has leftbehind a residual workless and/or poorer transient population, includingconcentrations of vulnerable or discriminated against groups with mentalhealth, disability and other barriers to work.

Finally a range of organisational barriers to improvement were cited,including: in some LADs the failure of Jobcentre Plus to develop targetedmodes of delivery; a lack of co-ordination between employment programmestargeting hard to reach groups; insufficient innovation, informationsharing and partnership working, for example between regeneration andemployment services, between childrens, youth and adult services, and with

the voluntary sector; a focus on outputs rather than outcomes, resultingin a limited emphasis on sustainability, and, within further education, theprioritisation of retention and higher-level over accessible entry level courses.


32/136


Within this context, the wider impact of NRF-funded employmentinterventions (despite generating positive individual outcomes), is likely tohave been relatively marginal. Some considered that planned DWP reform

of the benefits system (as well as time for improvements in educationalattainment to bear fruit), were likely to have more significant neighbourhoodimpacts in the future.

The non-NRF case study districts appear to support this analysis. Similarcultural supply side, economic demand side, and demographic constraintson improving worklessness were identified, as well as organisational barriers.However, within all three districts (which experienced marginally less positivechange than the NRF districts) the common missing variable appeared to besupplementary worklessness programme. This would appear to confirm thatNSNR has had a positive marginal impact on employment outcomes (when

positioned within broader strategies).

2.7 Housing


At the introduction of NSNR, 61 per cent of local authority owned dwellingswere classified as non-decent within the case study districts. Average houseprices within the case neighbourhoods were almost 50 per cent cheaper thanthe national average.

The majority of case study NRF districts have reduced their percentage oflocal authority owned dwellings classified as non-decent (with this progressreflected in the non-NRF districts). At the neighbourhood level, the vastmajority of case neighbourhoods experienced increasing average houseprices, and at a faster rate than nationally, reducing the house price gap. Theexceptions to this trend included two outer London case neighbourhoodswith high levels of social housing. However, it also appears that progressand perceptions are more variable at the neighbourhood level, and thatlevels of satisfaction with housing improvement differ by group. Within some

neighbourhoods, the quality of social housing was still considered to be poor(despite statistical evidence to the contrary). In some areas with high levelsof private sector housing, it was considered that housing improvementshad been more piecemeal, or that there had been a decline in conditions.Continued problems with homelessness were noted in a minority ofneighbourhoods.


Improvements within housing were attributed to the following, primarilynon-NSNR related drivers:

The policy driver of the national Decent Homes programme, whichhas catalysed improvements in housing management and therefurbishment and renovation of social housing estates across thecountry. The associated stock transfer to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs)


33/136


and ALMOs has played a key role in improving service responsiveness andreleasing significant Decent Homes funds (up to 500m in one LAD) andother investment capital to support improvements. The key factor in the

most successful case study LAD, Hounslow (which reduced its non-decentdwellings from 69 per cent to 18 per cent and improved satisfaction on theIvybridge Estate), was felt to have been the performance of its ALMO. At theneighbourhood level, elements of resident dissatisfaction can be linked to thephased nature of investment and a focus on specific streets.

The combination of Decent Homes with additional private sectorinvestment to diversify the tenure mix within neighbourhoods andremodel public housing estates, as part of more comprehensiveestate-based regeneration programmes. This has included changes tothe physical layout and design of some estates, and the provision of new

community facilities and green spaces. Where such a holistic approach waspursued (within a minority of case neighbourhoods), it appeared to havegenerated particularly positive impacts upon resident perceptions. Withincase neighbourhoods where improvements had been more cosmetic innature, issues with poor design, problem flats and low security continued todrive low levels of satisfaction.

The active involvement of local residents (by RSLs and ALMOs) indesigning housing improvements and estate regeneration, whichhas helped to unlock Decent Homes funding and increase residentsatisfaction with the outcomes of investment. In addition to helpingselect the options for estate transformation, local residents have beeninvolved in naming new streets or redesigning open spaces. This cultureof resident engagement appeared to have pre-dated NSNR, with SingleRegeneration Budget (SRB) and tenants and resident associations providingkey mechanisms.

The national trend of increasing house prices over the period, andspecific local and regional pressures on housing markets (combinedto a lesser extent with the success of local regeneration and NSNR-related environmental interventions). The housing boom prior to

2008 was identified as the major cause of increased private demand andinvestment in housing. Increased neighbourhood desirability was alsoattributed to general environmental and infrastructural improvements,catalysed by housing regeneration and Objective One, SRB, transportschemes and NSNR (for example through the impact of NRF on green spacesand environmental crime). The use of small renovation grants and multi-agency enforcement action against neglectful landlords have also improvedthe appearance of private-sector homes within some (NRF and non-NRF)neighbourhoods. In some neighbourhoods, it was considered that thecombination of increased market demand and physical improvement (as wellas right to buy legislation) had helped to create a virtuous circle, which would

drive further improvements.

A number of significant constraints were identified. It was apparent(particularly in London and the south east, and within ethnically diverse


34/136


neighbourhoods), that the delivery of Decent Homes was not addressingunderlying elements of dissatisfaction. A lack of family sized propertiesand accessible homes for older and disabled people were commonly cited

problems, as well as the existence of long waiting lists for social housing andaccess to affordable private alternatives. This was said to have resulted inovercrowding and/or displacement into poor quality private rented homes,with less family support. This was reported to have been driven by politicaland contextual factors, including a national lack of emphasis on new buildsocial housing (combined with reductions to the existing stock throughdemolition and Right to Buy), increased market demand for private homes(and new-build flats for young professionals) pricing local residents out of themarket, and the arrival of new migrant groups in some neighbourhoods withlarger families.

Continuing problems with the quality of private sector homes in someneighbourhoods were attributed to low levels of income and homeownership, and especially the continuing presence of Houses in MultipleOccupation (HMOs) and population transience, resulting in a lack ofinvestment. Within two coastal neighbourhoods, the problem of HMOs wasfelt to have increased, due to improved access to buy-to let mortgages anda continuing trend towards converting Bed and Breakfasts into homes forhousing benefit claimants (part of the ongoing legacy of tourism decline).

Whilst the factors driving the improvement of housing conditions andsatisfaction have been largely non-NSNR related, comparison between NRFand non-NRF case study areas suggests that NSNR has delivered positiveimpacts at the margins. This was achieved through funding projects whichhave helped to boost neighbourhood desirability and through the catalyticrole of neighbourhood management in encouraging multi-agency workingand more responsive housing services.

2.8 Neighbourhood quality of life

The NSNR included less tangible objectives to improve quality of life within

deprived neighbourhoods and reverse poor experiences of inadequateservices, fear of crime and terminal decline (we should not have so manyneighbourhoods where so many peoples number one priority is to moveout). Given the inherent difficulties of impacting upon certain socio-economic outcomes, inextricably linked to the populations of deprivedneighbourhoods, neighbourhood satisfaction arguably provides anappropriate short-term measure of the success of NSNR.

Against this measure, there is evidence of positive change within the casestudy NRF districts, and in particular within the case neighbourhoods, since2001. The majority of stakeholders (and many residents) were of the opinionthat quality of life has improved, with around two thirds of the 18 NRF caseneighbourhoods considered to have improved as a place to live and work.Given the level of deprivation and poor reputations that were prevalent in


35/136


these areas prior to the start of NSNR4 (and the potential for problems toescalate) this is an extremely positive finding.

There was evidence that a minority of case neighbourhoods had turneda corner; increased popularity as a place to live and success in mitigatingpoor reputations were translating into increasing numbers of residentshappy to stay in the neighbourhood, new incomers, fewer empty properties,and increasing house prices. A range of factors were associated withimprovement:

Improved access to services, through the opening of new communityfacilities in some case neighbourhoods, including integratedchildrens/Sure Start centres and health centres, learning facilities,libraries, and housing and neighbourhood management offices (to

which NSNR has provided a marginal contribution). Such developmentswere also said to have helped to improve access to information, and theability to engage with and challenge services.

Improved service responsiveness, particularly in terms ofenvironmental and community safety services, through theintroduction of area based teams, wardens and PCSOs (with NSNRplaying a more significant role). Despite some evidence of residualcynicism and mistrust towards the police, there was also evidence ofa consensus within many neighbourhoods that services had improvedcompared with five years ago (due to improved targeting, partnership

working and resident engagement). This had delivered much appreciatedvisible change.

Improvements to residents homes, stimulated by nationalprogrammes, the transfer of social housing to more effectiveproviders and physical regeneration initiatives. Within Tower Hill inKnowsley, this process (which had also involved local residents in choosingstreet names) was considered to have had a significant impact upon local andexternal perceptions.

Improved community spirit and levels of community activity, linked to

a variety of factors including NSNR (where projects such as festivals,park events and in bloom competitions, and new services, hadstimulated community participation and new associations). Externalto NSNR, the arrival of new migrant communities, with strong networks ofsocial capital, appeared to have impacted positively upon community spiritwithin some case neighbourhoods.

Within a small minority of neighbourhoods, the emergence ofmore vibrant retail areas and new housing, driven by increasedprivate sector investment linked to sub-regional demographic and

economic trends as well as physical regeneration initiatives.Such

4 Qualitative evidence from the LRP suggests that existing resident surveys relating to NSNR interventions may haveunderestimated the extent of improvement within target neighbourhoods, since quantitative measures of satisfaction mayfail to fully capture existing levels of dissatisfaction amongst residents (whilst also failing to highlight variations by group).


36/136


changes appear to have further served to boost residents confidence in theirneighbourhoods.

Focus On: Green Estate, Manor, Sheffield (NRF neighbourhood)

Green Estate, a social enterprise, develops services intended to increase thequality and use of open spaces in the Manor Castle and Woodthorpe areasof Sheffield. It was established in 1999 and has received around 1.25min NRF since 2002. NRF is seen as having been significant in helping GreenEstate to lever in additional monies and achieve a range of positive impacts.These include improving the local environment and green space, in turnhelping to encourage investment by developers and RSLs. It was noted thatpeople are now using green spaces more, and that local residents recognisethat services are responding to local needs in a more effective and targeted

way. Green Estate won UK best new social enterprise in 2006.

Figure 2.1 Green Estate, Sheffield

Source: Green Estate, 2008

Green Estate has had some notable successes in engaging residents,which has contributed to the success of its approach through encouragingcommunity ownership and sustainability. The number of local people

involved in Green Estates activities has risen from around 100 to morethan 12,000 people per year, through constant formal and informalengagement. This has included talking to people on the streets, and moreformal routes through RSL forums, Tenant and Resident Associations etc.Green Estate has become a mainstream delivery body for the council,delivering a range of environmental and green space services.

A number of factors were commonly associated with a perceived decline(or no change) in quality of life (threatening to overshadow widerimprovements). The problems of violent crime (and specifically knife and

gun crime), gang culture and drugs had fostered a culture of fear amongstcertain groups of residents, including younger and older people. Althoughmedia reporting appeared to have played a role in reinforcing this, it wasevident that actual experiences of crime (or experiences of repeated problemsfrom a core group of young people) were key drivers. The net result was


37/136


that residents of some neighbourhoods were keen to leave at the firstopportunity.

Poor access to employment opportunities and suitable housing, as well asto services such as hospitals, supermarkets and leisure facilities due to poortransport links, were highlighted within a minority of case neighbourhoods asmajor ongoing drivers of dissatisfaction. Among some residents, it was alsoapparent that the introduction of new services had been eclipsed by ongoingexperiences of poor basic service delivery (securing doctors appointments,housing repairs, quality of teaching etc). For some, the underlying driversof neighbourhood deprivation (and their poor reputations) had not beenaddressed and were acting as a push factor for those able to leave.

Lack of community cohesion also appeared to be constraining progress.

It was apparent that t

Documents

evaluation communities