Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Considering the Evidence Andrew Fyfe ODS Consulting 2 June 2009

Outline of Presentation What we did What we found  Context  Impact Challenges for the future

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 ( )  New Life for Urban Scotland ( )  Priority Partnership and Regeneration Programme Areas ( )  Social Inclusion Partnerships ( )  Better Neighbourhood Services Fund ( )  Community Regeneration Fund ( )  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

Tackling Multiple Deprivation in Communities: Considering the Evidence Andrew Fyfe ODS Consulting 2 June 2009