Docstoc

NEIGHBOURHOOD REGENERATION LESSONS AND

Document Sample
NEIGHBOURHOOD REGENERATION LESSONS AND Powered By Docstoc
					                     NEIGHBOURHOOD REGENERATION:
                     LESSONS AND EVALUATION
                     EVIDENCE FROM 10 SRB CASE
                     STUDIES
                     Mid Term Report
                     Department of Land Economy




                     Annex




                       JANUARY 2002




NOT TO BE QUOTED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE AUTHORS
                                  Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                              Annexes




            CONTENTS
A1     The SRB programme in England: key characteristics of the regeneration partnerships over the six
       rounds ........................................................................................................................................................ 1
  A1.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 1
  A1.2 SRB and total expenditure for the six rounds........................................................................................ 1
  A1.3 Area type, duration of schemes and lead partners................................................................................. 3
  A1.4 SRB scheme forecast and anticipated outputs....................................................................................... 4
A2     The Case Study Schemes........................................................................................................................... 6
  1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 6
  A2.2 Northumbria Community Safety Strategy............................................................................................. 6
  A2.3 Engineering in Education ...................................................................................................................... 9
  A2.4 Limes Farm ......................................................................................................................................... 12
  A2.5 West Cornwall Initiative ..................................................................................................................... 15
  A2.6 Brent and Harrow................................................................................................................................ 18
  A2.7 Hangleton & Knoll.............................................................................................................................. 21
  A2.8 Chalkhill Estate ................................................................................................................................... 24
  A2.9 Lancashire Manufacturing Partnership ............................................................................................... 27
  A2.10      Canalside Rochdale......................................................................................................................... 30
  A2.11      Regenerating Wolverhampton ........................................................................................................ 33
A3     Summary of findings from the 1999 MORI social survey....................................................................... 36
A4     Questions included in the 1999 ONS national Omnibus survey.............................................................. 44
A5     Key lessons for the evaluation of Area Based Initiatives ........................................................................ 51
  A.5.1 Issues arising from the application of the research methodology experienced by the Cambridge
  evaluation team: some early findings ............................................................................................................... 51
A6     Publications to date.................................................................................................................................. 52
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


A1     The SRB programme in England: key
       characteristics of the regeneration partnerships
       over the six rounds


A1.1   Introduction


A.1.1.1 This annex looks at some of the basic characteristics of the SRB schemes over the first six
        rounds of the programme. It has been assembled with the help of the DTLR SRB Team and
        Regional Development Agencies and also by drawing on Delivery Plans/bids for the first
        three rounds, the DTLR Dataease database (covering rounds one and two) and further SRB
        documentation available from the DTLR regeneration website.

A1.1.2 During the first six rounds of SRB a total of 1,028 programmes successfully secured SRB
       funding. Almost a quarter of these were from London, with the remainder spread more evenly
       throughout the remaining regions from just under 15% for the North West to just over 6% for
       the East of England (see Table A1.1 below).

                Table A1.1     Breakdown of number of SRB schemes by round and by Region
         Region          R1          R2           R3          R4          R5           R6      All Rounds
         East            13           9           9            7          11           16       65 (6.3%)
         E Mids          11          15           14          10          11           19       80 (7.8%)
         London          49          41           48          22          38           46      244 (23.7%)
         N East          29          17           20          12          16           19      113 (11.0%)
         N West*         35          19           33          21          23           20       151 (14.7%
         S East          19          24           19          14          24           21      121 (11.8%)
         S West          10          11           14          10           8           18       71 (6.9%)
         W Mids          13          21           9           11          18           11        83 (8.1)
         York/Hum        22          15           16          14          14           19       100 (9.7%)
         Total           201         172         182          121         163         189         1028
       *North West includes Merseyside, which was merged with the North West region in round five.
       Source: DTLR and bid documents/Delivery Plans.


A1.2   SRB and total expenditure for the six rounds


A1.2.1 In terms of expenditure around £5.7 billion of SRB is forecast over the lifetime of the
       programmes, which is almost 22% of the total expenditure figure of around £26 billion. This
       total figure includes other public and European funding as well as monies from the private
       sector (expected to be in the region of £9 billion).




                                                                                                   Page 1
                       Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                   Annexes



A1.2.2 Regional levels of total expenditure fall generally in line with the proportion of SRB
       allocated, where London and the North West regions alone account for just over half of total
       expenditure and 45% of SRB spend. Lowest SRB and total expenditure levels were from the
       East of England and South West regions at around 2-3%. See Table A1.2 below.

                            Table A1.2       Expenditure (all years) for all 6 rounds
                            SRB £m          %          Other exp £m       %        Tot exp £m        %
        East               136.7         2.4         566.3            2.8          703.0           2.7
        E Mids             283.8         5.0         843.5            4.2         1,127.3          4.3
        London            1,519.6       26.6        5,669.7          27.9         7,189.3        27.7
        N East             650.2        11.4        1,856.3           9.1         2,506.6          9.7
        N West*           1,085.5       19.0        4,772.2          23.5         5,857.6        22.5
        S East             349.4         6.1        1,011.5           5.0         1,360.9          5.2
        S West             168.1        3.0          489.1            2.4          657.3           2.5
        W Mids             630.6        11.1        2,015.2           9.9         2,645.8        10.2
        York/Humb          879.5        15.4        3,077.0          15.2         3,956.6        15.2
        Total             5,703.4       100        20,300.8          100         26,004.4         100
       *North West includes Merseyside, which was merged with the North West region in round five.
       Source: DTLR and bid documents/Delivery Plans.

A1.2.3 Table A1.3 below indicates that, overall, 42% of schemes received £1.01-£5 million of SRB
       and a further 18% fell in the smallest category up to £500K. 5% of schemes received SRB
       funding in excess of £20 million. This has followed a similar pattern across most of the
       rounds with exception of round four where nearly 60% of SRB funds fell between £1.01-£5
       million with only 1% in excess of £10 million.

                       Table A1.3      Range of SRB expenditure (all years) by round %
                          R1          R2           R3           R4         R5           R6      All Rounds
         £0- £500K         21         19           15           20         11           21          18
         £501-£1m          10          7           5            6           8           9            8
         £1.01-£5m         40         33           50           58         45           31          42
         £5.01-£10m        10         17           17           15         12           20          15
         £10.01-15m        8          11           6            1          10           5            7
         £15.01-£20m       5           6           5            0           3           8            5
         £20m-£50m         6           6           2            0          11           5            5
         £50m-£100m        0           1           0            0           0           1            0
         Total            100         100         100          100         100         100          100

       Source: DTLR and bid documents/Delivery Plans.




                                                                                                   Page 2
                         Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                     Annexes



A1.2.4 In terms of total expenditure a third of schemes, overall, are in excess of £20 million, with
       around one-fifth in the £1.01-£5 million size range and 14% under £1 million. There are some
       variations between the rounds, with only 14% in the £1.01-£5 million range in round two
       compared with 30% in round four (see Table A1.4 below).

                         Table A1.4      Range of total expenditure (all years) by round %
                              R1         R2          R3              R4             R5             R6         All Rounds
         £0- £500K             4          6             6             6              5             13             7
         £501-£1m              8         10             5             7              7              6             7
         £1.01-£5m            23         14          16              30             25             20            21
         £5.01-£10m           16         13          21              26             16              7            16
         £10.01-15m            9          9             9            11              9             11             9
         £15.01-£20m           5          8          10               4              8              6             7
         £20.01-£50m          15         19          18              12             15             21            17
         £50.01-£100m         10         14             9             4             12              8            10
         £100.01-£150m         7          6             3             0              1              6             4
         £150.01-£200m         2          0             2             0              1              1             1
         Over £200m            1          1             1             0              1              1             1
         Total                100        100        100              100            100            100           100

        Source: DTLR and bid documents/Delivery Plans.


A1.3    Area type, duration of schemes and lead partners


A1.3.1 From Table A1.5 below it is clear that most partnership schemes sought to regenerate a small
       local area as they accounted for almost a half of all the schemes. A further 20% concentrated
       on an entire local authority district. This was generally reflected across all regions, although a
       third of the London programmes focused on larger areas of two or more local authority
       districts.

                          Table A1.5      Number of schemes by type of area (by region)
                                                            Type of area
                            Small**    1 LA      2+ Las        TEC         County         Region    Other        Total
         Eastern              41         10         6            0           7              1            0         65
         E Mids               42         13        12           1            7             5             0         80
         London               87         33        79           11           2             28            4        244
         N East               58         22         8            2           15             8            0        113
         N West*              82         34        7            3            9             10            6        151
         S East               57         33        23           0            3              3            2        121
         S West               33         13         7            1           11             4            2         71
         W Mids               30         24        9            2            9             5             4         83
         York/Hum             53         26        6            0            9             3             3        100
         All regions          483       208       157           20           72            67            21      1028
         All regions %        47         20        15            2           7              7            2        100
        *North West includes Merseyside, which was merged with the North West region in round five.
        ** Small target area covering only a part of one local authority district.
        Source: DTLR and bid documents/Delivery Plans.




                                                                                                                 Page 3
                        Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                    Annexes



A1.3.2 Schemes funded by the SRB programme can run between one and seven years. Table A1.6
       below sets out the breakdown of this duration by regions for all six rounds. Over two-thirds of
       all programmes are set to run for five years or more, with a third designed for seven years
       duration. This tendency towards longer duration programmes is fairly consistent across the
       regions, with the exception of the South West where only 48% are running for five years or
       more.

                          Table A1.6          Number of schemes by duration (by region)
                                                             Number of years
                              1         2           3              4           5           6           7       Total
        Eastern               0         2          11               8           9           3          32        65
        E Mids                3         3           2              12          30          14          16        80
        London                1         6          50              17          67          16          87       244
        N East                2         4          26              13          28          10          30       113
        N West*              2          7          11              9           35          24          63       151
        S East                3         7          23              15          19          12          42       121
        S West               10         5          11              11          16          11           7        71
        W Mids                0         0          10               3          12          17          41        83
        York/Hum              2         3          11              12          30          10          32       100
        All regions          23         37         155            100          246         117        350      1,028
        All regions %         2         4          15              10          24          11          34       100
        *North West includes Merseyside, which was merged with the North West region in round five.
        Source: DTLR and bid documents/Delivery Plans.

A1.3.3 Finally, Table A1.7 below considers the type of lead partners responsible for the partnerships.
       The most common lead partner was the local authority accounting for 53% of all
       programmes. This has remained the dominant type of lead partner, although by round six this
       had fallen to only 40% with an increase in joint partners and voluntary sector.

                                   Table A1.7           Lead partner by round (%)
         Region              R1         R2              R3              R4           R5          R6         All Rounds
         LA                  53         54              60              55           54          40            53
         TEC                 23          9              7                6            2           1             8
         Voluntary            4          3              5               10           13          18             9
         Community            0          5              5                4            2           5             3
         Private              7          4              8                4            1           3             5
         Joint                6         13              8               14           14          21            12
         Other                7         12              7                7           14          12            10
         Total               100        100         100                 100          100         100           100

        Source: DTLR


A1.4    SRB scheme forecast and anticipated outputs


A1.4.1 The final section of this annex looks at the types of outputs already achieved by the SRB
       partnerships and what is expected overall from the first five rounds of the programme. The
       types of outputs vary from jobs created/safeguarded, pupils benefiting from projects and new
       business start-ups to people benefiting from community safety initiatives, hectares of land



                                                                                                               Page 4
                    Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                Annexes


improved/reclaimed for open space and voluntary sector/community groups supported. Table
A1.8 below shows the outputs that have been achieved in each of the years SRB has run up to
1999-2000. The final column has a forecast of lifetime outputs for the first five rounds.
While it should be noted that, as forecasts, the lifetime outputs may change where remaining
schemes update subsequent Delivery Plans, it is still clear that SRB has produced a
considerable raft of outputs for the areas targeted. The volume and variety of outputs
presented reflect the multi-faceted nature of the regeneration problems being addressed by the
programme.

              Table A1.8                Summary of actual & forecast outputs for SRB schemes1
                                                                    Achieved outputs                           Forecast
    Programme outputs                        Round 1    Rounds          Rounds         Rounds      Rounds       Rounds
                                              95-6       1- 2            1-3            1-4          1-5           1-5
                                                         96-7            97-8           98-9        99-00               2
                                                                                                               lifetime
    Jobs created/safeguarded                 39,320      78,380         107,530        183,200     103,925      696,000
    Pupils benefiting from projects          531,900    687,860         968,760        1,486,540   1,195,668   5,371,000
    Residents of target area finding         21,270      33,910          40,960        107,710      62,942      409,000
    jobs (due to targeted assistance)
    New business start-ups                   10,460      16,360          19,480         11,680      9,946       87,600
    Area new/imp bus & comm                  323,110    821,450         1,323,590      1,365,630   1,448,003   10,097,000
    floorspace (sqm)
    Homes completed/impd                      6,960      20,530          36,090         60,680      55,983      308,000
    People benefiting from community        1,062,120   1,561,440       2,420,950      2,887,160   4,145,511   12,700,000
    safety inits
    Homes & buildings with imp               16,780      40,140          61,250         84,790      98,158      393,000
    security
    Ha land imp/rec for open space             320        650             770            1550       5,600        7,100
    Ha land imp/rec/serviced for dev           180        270             450            640         533         4,400
    Buildings imp/back into use                420        1660           9,310          7,260       3,912       18,440
    Vol orgs/comm gps suppd                   5410       13,010          20,500         27,660      35,442      136,000
    Private sector leverage                  £263m       £577m           £911m          £846m       £898m       £6.7bn
1
 Actual & forecast outputs are total outputs for SRB schemes - i.e. they include outputs from all funding sources.
2
 Each round may cover a period of up to seven years.
Source: DTLR Annual Report 2001 (formerly DETR)




                                                                                                                 Page 5
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


A2       The Case Study Schemes


1.1      Introduction


A2.1     At this mid term stage in the national evaluation ten of the twenty case studies have now
         reached completion and have been the subject of a final evaluation. This chapter provides a
         brief insight into the ten completed programmes. The ten completed case studies are
         summarised in Table A2.1 below.

                                 Table A2.1       The ten completed case studies
                                                                        Actual expenditure (£k)
          Area    Case study                                 SRB         Other       Private      Total
                                                                         public
          NE      Northumbria Community Safety Strategy         936        875.5        179        1,990.5
          WM      Engineering in Education                      416        233.2       241.9       891.1
          E       Limes Farm                                    996        7,869       1,127        9992
          SW      West Cornwall Initiative                      2731      11,544       3,709       17,984
          LO      Brent and Harrow                             1561         459         295        2,315
          SE      Hangleton & Knoll                           1,596.7      666.5       754.6       3,017.8
          LO      Chalkhill Estate                             3,250        923      25,466.3     29,636.3
          NW      Lancashire Manufacturing                    8,089.4     8,279.4    15,048.4     31,417.2
          NW      Canalside Rochdale                           10,472    11,615.7    46,735.9     68,823.6
          WM      Regenerating Wolverhampton                   16,410     15,981      31,838       64,229
         Source: Department of Land Economy final evaluation reports.


A2.2     Northumbria Community Safety Strategy


A2.2.1   The Northumbria Community Safety Strategy (NCSS) was a multi-agency approach pre-
         dating SRB and covering the Northumbria area (i.e. the counties of Northumberland and Tyne
         & Wear). While the Partnership and Drugs Accord Strategy were already in existence, SRB
         funding of nearly £1 million over two years (1995-1997) has enabled the operation of this
         initiative to be strengthened through capacity building among the partners and enhancing the
         delivery structure at local authority level. While a drugs initiative was considered a crucial
         area for attention, it was viewed as part of a wider Community Safety Strategy in which the
         issues of crime prevention and safety required a strategic and co-ordinated approach across
         the Northumbria area. The SRB programme provided an opportunity for local authorities to
         contribute to a county-wide strategy while recognising the specific needs and requirements of
         local delivery.

A2.2.2   It was against a background of the need for a co-ordinated approach to crime prevention that
         the Northumbria Community Safety Strategy came into being. The strategy evolved as the
         result of high levels of crime and civil unrest, being originally conceived through discussions
         between the Chairman and the Clerk to the Northumbria Police Authority and the Chief
         Constable. The discussions recognised the need for change in the way in which crime in local



                                                                                                   Page 6
                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                 Annexes


         communities was being dealt with and the importance of getting local authorities and other
         agencies to work alongside the police. Relevant background impetus had been provided in the
         Morgan Report (Home Office; The Local Delivery of Crime Prevention through the
         Partnership Approach 1991). SRB was an appropriate funding source firstly because thematic
         bids relating to crime were welcome and, secondly, because a reduction in crime would
         enhance neighbourhood regeneration more generally.

A2.2.3   After detailed discussion, and some modification, the original concept was launched in late
         1994 and a number of other agencies, including all the local authorities in the Northumbria
         Police area, were asked to become members. Some twenty five agencies have now become
         involved. The lead partner is Northumbria Police Authority and the Secretariat is based at
         Gateshead MBC comprising two full time posts: the Head of Strategy and a
         secretary/administrator (seconded from Gateshead MBC). The Police Authority is the
         accountable body for SRB funding purposes. Overall, monitoring of the SRB programmes is
         undertaken by Gateshead MBC as agents for the Police Authority.

A2.2.4   Apart from Gateshead MBC there are five other local authorities involved, namely Newcastle
         City Council, North Tyneside MBC, Northumberland County Council, South Tyneside MBC
         and Sunderland City Council. Each local authority area has a Community Safety Co-ordinator
         that reports to their respective Local Area Group.

A2.2.5   Other agencies represented are Northumbria Probation Service, the Crown Prosecution
         Service, the Prison Service, the Northumbria Coalition Against Crime (which contains
         representatives from the private sector), Victim Support, Home Office Drug Prevention Unit,
         HM Customs and Excise, the Racial Equality Council, Tyne and Wear PTE (NEXUS),
         Tyneside Careers, Tyneside TEC and Tyne and Wear Fire Authority.

A2.2.6   In the light of the original concept the Partnership adopted a mission statement, namely ‘to
         improve the quality of life in the region through a working partnership with the community,
         public, private and voluntary bodies. A Partnership designed to reduce both crime and the fear
         of crime by targeted and sustained action against those activities which detract from the
         peaceful enjoyment of life’.

A2.2.7   The programme established the following objectives:
         § to achieve sustainable regeneration through increased community safety;
         § to supplement and expand existing multi-agency work on drugs misuse (The Drugs
            Accord);
         § to achieve a reduction in drug misuse and drug-related crime;
         § to reduce the fear of crime amongst the local population.

A2.2.8   In tackling aspects of crime and improving community safety the Strategy Board recognised
         that the above objectives were relevant to improving the employment opportunities, education
         and skills of the young and those at a disadvantage. Moreover, it was also recognised that this
         approach was a precursor to improving the wider socio-economic activity of the area.

A2.2.9   The Partnership undertook a number of activities designed to bring organisations and
         individuals together in pursuit of the goal of increased community safety. A central element in
         its work was to help educate children about the dangers of drug abuse. The key projects
         comprised a Primary Schools’ Drug Education Programme, Drugs Education Seminars, a free
         Drugs Accord Information Line, a Drugs Awareness Programme (including interactive plays
         and video development), outreach youth work, peer initiatives in schools and support for
         community forums.




                                                                                                 Page 7
                       Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                   Annexes


A2.2.10 The SRB funds were used primarily for the purposes of developing the Drugs Accord and the
        development of Drugs Action Teams became the major part of the forward strategy. The
        Drugs Accord was thus able to facilitate the development of initiatives based on the work of
        essentially local groups but within an approach that was co-ordinated across the region and
        which thus formed the basis of a regional strategy. It also allowed the teams to interact with
        those involved in the Home Office Drugs Prevention Initiative.

A2.2.11 More specifically, the Drugs Accord programme involved drugs training sessions in primary
        and secondary schools, awareness and drug prevention training for youth workers, parents
        and school governors and the opening of young persons information centres. Training
        sessions were also organised for community groups, seminars/forums were set in place and
        drama workshops involving role play. A drugs advice/helpline was set up across the region
        and literature/information packs were made available via schools for teachers, parents and
        children. Some initiatives were dovetailed with other drugs programmes to increase impact
        and prevent duplication of scarce resources such as, for example, health authorities, police,
        Drug Action Teams. The gross outputs achieved are presented in Table A2.2 below.

                            Table A2.2        Northumbria Community Safety outputs

           Code    Outputs description                                                          Actual

                                               Jobs, training & education

           1b      Pupils benefiting from projects assigned to enhance/improve attainment    71,221 (490)
                                         Community safety/crime prevention

           5a1     No residents benefiting community safety initiatives:                    175,190 (2,580)
           5a2     ▪of whom are aged over 60                                                  6,631 (56)
                   ▪of whom are females                                                      62,432 (194)
           5c      No community safety initiatives                                                95

           5d1     No youth crime prevention initiatives                                          67

         (Black & minority ethnic figures in brackets)
         Source: [SEE DP111]???

A2.2.12 While the Drugs Accord initiative was part of a wider crime prevention strategy, it was also
        viewed by the Strategy Board as an opportunity to demonstrate the value of partnership
        working using a multi-agency approach in tackling a significant structural problem. The
        confidence of the Strategy Board has been endorsed by the Home Office in viewing the NCSS
        as an example of good practice. This has been further confirmed in that The Home Office
        Drug Action Teams are now the principal delivery mechanism for the forward strategy for the
        Drugs Accord programme across Northumbria and indeed the rest of England.




                                                                                                   Page 8
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes




A2.3     Engineering in Education


A2.3.1   The Engineering in Education scheme was submitted for SRB funding in 1995 by the West
         Midlands Industrial Club (WMIC) on behalf of The Engineering Liaison Service Partnership
         (TELS). TELS is a forum for the promotion of engineering, science and technology activity in
         the West Midlands region (now changed to SETPOINT - Single Access to Comprehensive
         Information about Science, Engineering, Technology and Mathematics). The organisation
         represents the interests of a wide range of organisations, whose principal aim is to promote
         the value of a career in the engineering, science and technology sectors.

A2.3.2   The programme was designed to harmonise and focus the activities of the Partnership
         members who were concerned to attract young people in the West Midlands to a career in
         engineering and manufacturing more generally. The Partners were involved in educating and
         training young people in the skills required for a career in the manufacturing sector.

A2.3.3   The background to the project was the recognition that there had been a considerable number
         of different industry-education initiatives which had sought to help young people in schools to
         know more about a career in manufacturing and more specifically the engineering sector, so
         that a steady stream of good quality people might be attracted into industry. Whilst it was felt
         that existing initiatives had often worked well, it did seem that more could have been
         achieved if there had been better co-ordination of endeavour.

A2.3.4   The previous finding was reinforced by a study financed by the Gatsby Foundation in 1992
         which surveyed the achievements of initiatives designed to encourage industrial clubs in
         schools. The study (Burnett et al 1992) identified 60 engineering related education-industry
         initiatives being operated across the United Kingdom education system at that time,
         establishing that virtually all of them had their own administrative structures and associated
         personnel. There was little direct co-operation between the schemes and not much evidence of
         any over-arching co-ordination taking place either by industry or the educational sector. There
         was evidence to suggest that such lack of co-ordination, which was true at both the national
         and local level, reduced the strength of the impact on young people. Moreover, senior
         mangers from participating companies, whilst supportive of such schemes, were confused by
         the number and scope of them. There was little strategic direction..

A2.3.5   The objectives of the project were, thus, to:
         §   bring coherence to the existing Engineering activity in the region by establishing a
             focused ‘Partnership for Regeneration in Engineering’. This activity was concerned to
             raise the status of engineering in West Midlands schools/colleges and to attract capable
             talent to the West Midlands engineering and manufacturing industry;
         §   define a suite of agreed programme activities appropriate to the needs of the Region
             which would improve the vocational skills of young people in the relevant professions
             and thus enhance their employment prospects;
         §   establish a series of Area Co-ordinators to ensure the delivery of high quality programmes
             tailored to the specific needs of their local area;
         §   provide access routes for those otherwise disadvantaged in the labour market;
         §   promote equal opportunities in the engineering industry irrespective of race, gender or
             creed;
         §   achieve improved business competitiveness and sustainable economic growth through the
             development of appropriately skilled and informed human resources;




                                                                                                  Page 9
                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                 Annexes


         §   achieve wider private sector involvement in the overall delivery of vocational guidance;
         §   encourage the concept of an ‘Engineering Related Curriculum’ in schools and colleges.

A2.3.6   The Partnership established for the purposes of delivering the project had a large
         Membership. There were over ten independent agencies in the TELS Partnership with
         interests to promote the needs of industry and particularly engineering, the TECs and
         Education Business Partnerships. The Accountable Body was the Engineering Employers
         Forum in the West Midlands. The project operated across the whole of the West Midlands
         region with the exception of Sandwell and thus embraced Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley,
         Hereford/ Worcester, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Walsall, Warwickshire and Wolverhampton.
         Each area had a Project Manager and Project Co-ordinators who were employed by either the
         TEC or the relevant Education Business Partnership in order to maximise the scope for
         synergy between the project and other initiatives being undertaken by them.

A2.3.7   The Engineering in Education scheme was of three years duration attracting £416,000 from
         the SRB Challenge Fund. Other public expenditure amounted to some £233,000 with
         £242,000 from private sources securing a total of £891,000.

A2.3.8   There were eight key programmes:
         §   Technology Tree was a programme bringing together local engineering companies and
             primary schools;
         §   The Young Engineers Club for children between 12-18 years, which included visits to
             companies to give an insight into the engineering industry;
         §   CREST, a national accreditation programme recognising student achievement in science
             and technology related project work, aimed at 11-19 year olds;
         §   Engineering Education Schemes aimed at students in the lower 6th Form who are either
             studying Mathematics and science subjects at “A” level or Technological Advanced
             GNVQ’s;
         §   Technology Enhancement Programme for students aged 14-19 years who are intending
             to follow a vocational approach to technology education;
         §   Year in Industry, providing a year of working in industry for students between
             secondary and Higher education;
         §   Young Engineer for Britain, an annual competition set up for pupils to develop their
             own engineering projects. The projects are designed by both individuals and groups from
             11-25 years;
         §   Technological Advanced GNVQs. Prior to the scheme none of the students in the areas
             of the scheme participated in Technological Advanced GNVQs.

A2.3.9   There were in addition a number of other initiatives such as the Neighbourhood Engineers
         Programme, which comprised volunteer engineers working with secondary schools, Women
         in Science & Engineering and Insight for Girls. The latter aimed at encouraging girls to
         consider the engineering industry as a career and Schools Challenge where students helped
         solve real engineering related problems set by companies. Total gross outputs achieved from
         the scheme are set out in Table A2.3 below.




                                                                                                Page 10
                        Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                    Annexes


                                Table A2.3        Education and Engineering outputs

           Code     Outputs description                                                         Actual

                                               Jobs, training & education
           1a1      No FTE jobs created                                                           7.8
           1b       Pupils benefiting from projects designed to enhance/improve attainment   13,664 (837)
           1c       No people trained obtaining qualifications                                    22
           1k1      No employers involved in collaborative projects with education to             442
                    improve student performance
           1k2      No students in collaborative projects                                    13,664 (837)
                                              Voluntary/community sector
           8a1      No voluntary organisations supported                                          163
           8a2      No community organisations supported                                          82
           8d       No employee volunteering schemes                                              156

          (Black & minority ethnic figures in brackets)
          Source: Delivery Plan 4 and EIEPS Final Summative Report

A2.3.10 Although it was a relatively small SRB project with a key thematic focus it established an
        effective partnership whose members selected from a core menu a range of programmes
        designed to introduce young people into the world industry. The establishment of such an
        effective partnership derived mainly from the fact that the core Secretariat had undertaken its
        research well, appreciated the need clearly, and was able to seize the initiative at a time of
        considerable change in the manpower needs of engineering. Regional wide coverage with a
        delivery mechanism that ensured that in each district there was a local project manager and
        co-ordinators customising and implementing the Scheme at the local level proved to be a
        good design feature of the Scheme. Effective partnership working was achieved. Local
        schools have worked more effectively since with local industry and the scale of achievement
        and commitment has been impressive.




                                                                                                   Page 11
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes




A2.4     Limes Farm


A2.4.1   The Limes Farm scheme was designed to address the problems on the Limes Farm housing
         estate in Chigwell, Essex. The estate, situated on the edge of Epping Forest District, has a
         population of around 2,500 comprising nearly 1,200 households. The housing stock
         predominantly dated from the late 1960’s and was built to poor design and construction
         standards with a block of high-density council properties centrally located in three courtyards
         within the estate. This central area proved to be unpopular under the Right to Buy scheme
         (where only 3 out of 3,300 properties sold across the district were in the central courtyards)
         and also had severe re-letting problems giving the estate the highest void rates in the district.
         As a result, the estate fell into general decline typified by high unemployment (15% of 16-24
         year old males were unemployed compared to 12% for the district in 1991) and the highest
         crime levels in the district. A high proportion of households were single parent families
         (13.2% on the estate compared to 2.3% in the district in 1991), and transfer requests came
         from 25% of Limes Farm households compared to only 8% for the rest of the district.

A2.4.2   To tackle both the physical and social decline on the estate Epping Forest District Council
         recognised that many issues had to be addressed. Thus, the involvement of a wide range of
         partners was sought to maximise their combined resources into an Integrated Regeneration
         Scheme. The aims of the scheme were to:
         § regenerate the public sector housing in the central courtyard area through physical
           improvements to 321 properties in the central courtyard area;
         § develop social housing through the development of 72 dwellings in conjunction
           with the London and Quadrant Housing Trust;
         § enhance the local physical environment, including improved public lighting,
           footpaths and traffic calming measures and a play area;
         § improve community/social conditions, including improved health facilities,
           amenities for the young and a Community Development Worker;
         § reduce the victims of crime and improve community safety through a beat officer
           and an estate-based police office;
         § provide employment and training opportunities for residents, including business
           start-up, construction training, women returners and IT.

A2.4.3   The Limes Farm Regeneration Partnership was formed in 1994 to bid for the SRB Challenge
         Fund. It was instigated and led by Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), who saw the
         funding as an opportunity to expand their regeneration programme and achieve the wider
         objectives of an Integrated Regeneration Scheme. The Council was aware of a number of
         agencies with an involvement on the estate and contacted them regarding the bid. From this
         the Partnership was developed and Epping Forest District Council were appointed the
         accountable body.

A2.4.4   A Co-ordinating Committee was established and, together with the lead partner, it comprised
         Essex County Council (Highways & Transportation, Social Services and Education Depts.),
         the Metropolitan Police Service, Limes Farm Community (formerly Residents) Association
         and the Essex & Herts Community NHS Trust. Additional partners included London &
         Quadrant Housing Trust, Essex Probation Service, Essex TEC, West Essex Business
         Education Partnership, Essex Careers and Business partnership, Loughton & District Citizens
         Advice Bureau local schools and the Church.




                                                                                                 Page 12
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


A2.4.5   The Limes Farm SRB scheme commenced in 1995 and was of three years duration. Actual
         SRB expenditure was £1million, with £7.9million other public expenditure and a further £1.1
         million from the private sector, making a total of £10 million over the SRB three year period.
         Some expenditure on the housing programme pre-dated the SRB period and continued for a
         further year when all housing improvement works were completed, the total expenditure for
         this five year period was £13.2 million.

A2.4.6   Of the 8 SRB funded projects 5 fell within the Council’s Limes Farm Housing Improvement
         Programme (HIP). The first two of these were targeted on the maisonettes in the three central
         courtyards. They were to install Mechanical Ventilation Heating Systems in the kitchens and
         to undertake over-cladding of all properties. Two further projects in the pilot block were a
         door entry system and the installation of lifts. The fifth project was the establishment of a
         local authority estate Management Office. In addition, a number of non SRB funded projects
         were also undertaken under the HIP. These included security improvements to doors and
         windows, door entry systems, garden areas for ground level properties, porch enclosures and
         roof alterations.

A2.4.7   SRB also funded a training and employment project which ran a number of courses including
         returner’s courses and IT training. Collaboration with the local schools also resulted in a
         number of half-day events being offered by the Construction & Industrial Training Board on
         Construction Safety. To supplement this the building contractor also did a lot of safety work
         with teachers and children throughout the year. The last 2 SRB projects were managed by
         EFDC Leisure Services comprising, on the one hand, three-year funding for a Community
         Development Officer working on the estate and, on the other hand, finance for the Multi-
         Games Area Project, an all weather sports surface for use by estate residents.

A2.4.8   In addition to the SRB funded projects there were a number of other initiatives which ran
         within the scheme. The first of these was the provision of social sector housing on the estate
         through the conversion of garages and ground floor flats to 72 dwellings with garden space.
         This project was funded by the London and Quadrant Housing Trust as well as by a local
         authority Housing Association Grant. It formed an important part of the overall Limes Farm
         Housing Improvement Programme funded largely by EFDC.

A2.4.9   Essex and Herts Community NHS funded the so-called The Health Clinic Project , an
         initiative which provided a much improved facility for the estate, fitting in with the socio-
         economic objectives of the SRB programme to improve community amenities for residents.
         The creation in 1995 of a new Health Clinic provided a fuller more accessible service for the
         community all under one roof.

A2.4.10 The Community Safety Project funded by the Metropolitan Police was another important part
        of the overall scheme, being concerned with the reduction in crime levels and the fear of
        crime. This provided a beat office and officer for the estate along with a number of crime
        prevention initiatives such as involvement with local schools, the Community Association
        and the Scope initiative for the elderly. Finally, the enhancement of the local physical
        environment on Limes Farm was achieved through a number of pedestrian improvement
        projects undertaken by Essex County Council’s Highways and Transportation Department,
        including lighting and footpath improvements. The achievements of these non-SRB funded
        projects played an important part in the overall success of the scheme by contributing to the
        wider objectives including crime prevention, improvement of social/community amenities
        and the environmental appearance of the estate. . Table A2.4 below shows some of the key
        gross outputs achieved by the scheme.




                                                                                                 Page 13
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


                       Table A2.4          Limes Farm Partnership selected gross outputs
         Code   Outputs description                                                                 Actual
                                                 Jobs, training & education
         1a1    No FTE jobs created                                                                  12
         1a3    No FTE construction jobs (person wks)                                               2,993
         1b     No pupils benefiting projects assigned to enhance/improve attainment                 310
         1c     No people trained obtaining qualifications                                            12
         1d     No residents accessing employment through training advice or targeted assistance     44
         1e     No training weeks                                                                    41
         1f1    No trained people obtaining jobs                                                      12
         1g     No entering self-employment                                                          14
         1j     No young people benefiting from projects to promote personal & social development   1,087
                                                      Economic growth
         2c1    New businesses supported                                                             12
         2d     No businesses receiving advised as a result of SRB assisted activities                12
         3a4    No local authority dwellings improved                                                180
         3a5    No Housing association dwellings completed                                            46
                                            Community safety/crime prevention
         5a1    No benefiting community safety initiatives                                          4,002
         5b1    No dwellings with upgraded security                                                  180
         5c     No community safety initiatives                                                      19
         5d1    No youth crime prevention initiatives                                                 32
         5d2    ▪ Nos attending crime prevention initiatives                                        1,862
                                            Environmental improvements
         6c     No buildings back into use                                                            2
         6e     No traffic calming schemes                                                            4
         6f     No waste management/recycling schemes                                                 6
                                                      Community facilities
         7a2    People with access to new sport facilities                                           623
         7a3    People access to new cultural facilities                                             697
         7a4    No new health facilities                                                              1
         7a5    No new sports facilities                                                              1
         7a6    No new cultural facilities                                                            2
         7b2    No using improved sports facilities                                                  584
         7b3    No using improved cult facilities                                                    395
         7b4    No health facilities improved                                                        25
         7b5    No sports facilities improved                                                         4
         7b6    No cultural facilities improved                                                       1
                                               Voluntary/community sector
         8a1    No voluntary organisations supported                                                 12
         8c     No individuals involved voluntary work                                               84

         Sources: Limes Farm Partnership Delivery Plans & Government Office Monitoring Returns.

A2.4.11 The Limes Farm SRB Programme demonstrated the advantages of partnership working linked
        to existing regeneration initiatives. The addition of SRB funding has not only enhanced the
        physical up grading of ageing housing stock, but encouraged a number of social development
        projects that have contributed to an increased range and quality of estate-based facilities.
        Evidence of main programme bending and additionality (for example through the
        Metropolitan Police, Essex Youth Services, the Health Trust, EFDC Leisure Services and the
        Highways Dept.) has demonstrated that Partnership working has been an effective
        regeneration strategy for the Limes Farm Estate




                                                                                                    Page 14
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


A2.5     West Cornwall Initiative


A2.5.1   The broad focus of the West Cornwall Initiatives was, on the one hand, town centre and
         related environmental improvements, supported by community development initiatives to
         develop local capacity and, on the other hand, a number of economic initiatives to promote
         employment opportunities. It was a round one four year programme of activity (1995/96 to
         1998/99), with a total SRB spend of £2.7million and a total expenditure of just under
         £18million. It also comprised£11.5 million other public and £3.7million private sector spend.

A2.5.2   The West Cornwall area, with a population of 233,000, comprises the three districts of
         Carrick, Kerrier and Penwith, with the high priority areas being the corridor of old industrial
         towns stretching from Penzance through Hayle, Camborne and Redruth to Falmouth and
         Penryn, including Helston. The population is dispersed in large villages and hamlets, with a
         density of 1.3 persons per hectare, compared to 3.6 in England as a whole. Poverty is
         extensive rather than intensive because of the population dispersal and, therefore, involves
         less visible forms of multiple deprivation. There are strong local community identities despite
         the damage done to life chances by the industrial decay, which provide a basis for local
         actions. The area is also characterised by extensive dereliction with just under 3,000 hectares
         of land derelict in 1993.

A2.5.3   The West Cornwall Initiative Partnership (WCI) was established in 1992 and included all of
         the partners who subsequently signed up to the bid. It arose out of concern about the
         economic base and jobs after the decline of fishing, agriculture, manufacturing and tin
         mining, and a recognition that there was no hope of re-building the past. Following a series of
         meetings with the Districts and the County, a vision of a one-stop shop (which preceded
         Business Link) was born to be housed in a central building occupied by the key economic
         agencies, providing some managed workspace with a view to co-ordinating local economic
         development activity in West Cornwall. A derelict factory on the Cardrew Industrial Estate in
         Redruth was identified which was owned by English Estates who had previously been
         instructed by DTI to sell their buildings. Following a meeting with English Estates, a “land
         swap” deal was agreed for the factory in exchange for some Kerrier District Council (KDC)
         land already prepared for development. With the promise of 3 year support from British
         Telecom, European funds and KDC, the partnership had established its infrastructure but had
         no executive functions other than the managed workspace.

A2.5.4   Hence, when the SRB Challenge Fund was announced the partnership was already
         established, had an infrastructure in place but very little activity in the regeneration field. The
         original intention was that it should become a strategic body with executive functions carried
         out by other bodies.

A2.5.5   There were 17 signatories to the bid, three of whom were private sector (the Chairman of
         WCI, Barclays Bank and BT) and three were Districts (Carrick, Kerrier and Penwith). The
         other eleven signatories were Cornwall County Council, Devon and Cornwall TEC, Business
         Link, Cornwall College, the Rural Development Commission, English Partnerships, Business
         in the Community, West Cornwall Enterprise Trust, Groundwork Kerrier and the West
         Cornwall LEADER programme. The lead partner and accountable body was Kerrier District
         Council, who took the lead in putting the bid and delivery plan in place.

A2.5.6   The strategy in the scheme had three elements:
         §   Action for business
         §   Action for people
         §   Action for places



                                                                                                  Page 15
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


A2.5.7   The objectives of the scheme were to design integrated programmes which developed town
         centres, rejuvenating strategic locations and bringing derelict industrial buildings and sites
         back into use to house important economic activities, including heritage development centres
         and visitor attractions.

A2.5.8   The West Cornwall SRB Round One has created 100 projects throughout West Cornwall,
         apart from the project which contributed to the SRB administrative support team. The
         remainder fall into six main themes:
         §   there were 26 Business support projects which included provision of new workspace,
             business start-up advice and training, a grant fund, capital support to bring buildings back
             into use, marketing and export promotion, as well as the provision of a new facility;
         §   there were 5 projects aimed at developing Education-business links. The main focus of
             the activity was to make children in school more aware of the work of work, taken to its
             extreme by the provision of work experience. All but one of the projects was undertaken
             at the level of West Cornwall within the context of a framework document;
         §   overall, there were 15 projects that were in direct support of tourism activity in West
             Cornwall. Eleven were for new, extended or improved visitor centres or attractions, of
             which six were new. Four projects were to support marketing of particular towns, trails or
             resorts;
         §   projects with a labour market focus of training or employment accounted for 10 of the
             projects. Seven were to provide training for particular disadvantaged groups, being
             located where these groups could access the assistance. Two were aimed at seriously
             disadvantaged groups to equip them to participate in training measures and one was
             directed to providing local centres or transport support so that the disadvantaged were
             able to participate. Job creation was not specifically a criterion, but a number of the
             business support projects had sought to create job opportunities through the provision of
             workspace or to safeguard existing jobs through capital support;
         §   19 projects were aimed at developing aspects of community development. Two thirds of
             the projects were the development or enhancement of community facilities. These were
             spread across a range of groups, including health and care for the elderly, youth, sport,
             play groups and citizens advice;
         §   there were 24 projects on environmental and community safety. Half of them were for
             town centre improvements, a third for community safety initiatives and the remainder for
             physical reclamation and landscaping, including Penzance promenade.

A2.5.9   The distribution of projects by district indicated that 29% were initiatives whose direct impact
         would be at the level of West Cornwall as a whole. The proportion of those targeted on
         activities within each district was similar for Penwith (31%) and Kerrier (26%), and lower in
         Carrick (9%). This broadly reflected the relative disadvantages of the three districts. Table
         A2.5 below shows a selection of some of the key gross outputs achieved by the scheme.

A2.5.10 With such a large number of projects the West Cornwall initiative could not be described as
        strategic, but it did nevertheless address a variety of needs across West Cornwall in a very
        visible way. This had a number of positive outcomes:
         §   a large number of local people were involved in the SRB process through the project
             bidding, appraisal and approval processes which has done much to develop local skills;
         §   the projects implemented have demonstrated that SRB works locally and encouraged
             other funders to put in funding to later projects;
         §   what was done in local areas under SRB1 has been a platform for some significant local
             actions in later rounds of SRB.




                                                                                                 Page 16
             Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                         Annexes


               Table A2.5        West Cornwall Initiative selected gross outputs
 Code     Outputs description                                                            Actual
                                     Jobs, training & education
 1a1      No FTE jobs created                                                            1,517
 1a2      No FTE jobs safeguarded                                                        1,227
 1b       No pupils benefiting from projects assigned to enhance/improve attainment      17,789
 1c       No people trained obtaining qualifications                                     2,745
 1d       Residents accessing employment through training advice/targeted assistance      1,087
 1e       No training weeks                                                              1,810
 1f1      No people training obtaining jobs                                                390
 1j       Young people benefiting from projects to promote personal/social development   9,786
                                          Economic growth
 2a       No new business start-ups                                                        687
 2b1      Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2)                                    3,152
 2b2      New bus/commercial floorspace (m2)                                              7,846
 2c1      New businesses supported                                                         303
 2d       No of businesses receiving advise as a result of SRB assisted activities         537
                                              Housing
 3a1      No private sector dwellings completed                                            18
 3a5      No Housing association dwellings completed                                       23
                                Community safety/crime prevention

 5a1      No benefiting community safety initiatives                                       810
 5b1      No dwellings with upgraded security                                              600
 5b2      No commercial buildings with upgraded security                                  1,408
 5d1      No youth crime prevention initiative                                             15
                             Environmental improvements
 6a       Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha)                                      137
 6b       Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha)                                     9.2
 6c       No buildings back into use                                                       79
                                    Community facilities
 7a2      People with access to new sport facilities                                      76,173
 7a3      People access to new cultural facilities                                       411,977
 7a5      No new sport facilities                                                            7
 7a6      No new cultural facilities                                                        22
 7b2      No using improved sports facilities                                              1,623
 7b3      No using improved cultural facilities                                           56,520
 7b5      No sport facilities improved                                                      10
 7b6      No cultural facilities improved                                                   14
 7c       Visitors attracted/served by new improved facilities (per year)                656,332
 7d       Visitor facilities improved/established                                           73
                             Voluntary/community sector
 8a1     No voluntary organisations supported                                             538
 8a2     No community organisations supported                                             105
 8c      No individuals involved voluntary work                                           503
Source: Cornwall Regeneration records for lifetime targets and achievements.




                                                                                         Page 17
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes




A2.6     Brent and Harrow


A2.6.1   Brent and Harrow was a first round SRB scheme which ran for three years, 1995 to 1998. It
         was a thematic scheme concerned with increasing the start up rate and quality of new
         businesses and creating a small firm enterprise culture in the North West London TEC area.
         The TEC area covers the whole of the two London Boroughs of Harrow and Brent, which
         have a combined population of 450,000.

A2.6.2   Harrow is a largely residential and relatively affluent Borough with good transport links to
         surrounding areas, Heathrow and the M4 corridor. A high percentage of the working
         population is employed in managerial, technical, professional and skilled occupations. Brent,
         like Harrow, is an ethnically diverse Borough and, while the north is similar to Harrow, the
         south and east of Brent suffers from a range of economic and social problems including high
         rates of unemployment. Part of the SRB scheme aimed to establish community enterprises in
         the deprived ethnic community of Brent.

A2.6.3   The SRB scheme complemented and supported the “London New Business Programme” as it
         applied in Brent and Harrow. SRB expenditure on the scheme totalled about £1.5 million over
         a three year period. A scheme of this size, covering a large area, could not be strategic.
         Rather, the scheme was used to top-up and enhance the expenditures and activities of two
         existing local partnerships through which the North West London TEC was already delivering
         part of its training and enterprise strategy for Brent and Harrow.

A2.6.4   Although the SRB scheme played rather a minor supporting role in relation to the TEC
         activities as a whole, it introduced two innovative features. The first related to school/business
         links in which underachieving secondary school pupils were provided with an advisor/mentor
         from the staff of private sector companies. The second was the targeting of appropriate
         business advice and support to strengthen organisations and community development in Brent
         and Harrow, including the start-up of community businesses in the most deprived ethnic
         minority neighbourhoods. Both of these innovative features met with some success – although
         on a relatively small scale.

A2.6.5   The aim of the scheme was “to help create a dynamic local economy in North West London
         through:
         §   improving the quality and growth rates of new businesses;
         §   enhancing education/industry links to ensure that young people can benefit from the job
             opportunities locally;
         §   enabling the participation of voluntary groups through the development of successful
             community enterprises”.

A2.6.6   In identifying these three objectives, which remained distinct and separate throughout, the
         scheme built on three strategic partnership groups, two of which had already been developed
         by North West London TEC. The three partnership groups were known as:
         §   New Business Development
         §   Understanding Business
         §   Community Works

A2.6.7   The partners for the New Business Development initiative were the TEC Enterprise Director,
         two enterprise agencies namely Brent Business Venture and Harrow in Business and the




                                                                                                 Page 18
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


          Midland Bank. For “Understanding Industry” the partnership consisted of the London
          Boroughs of Brent and Harrow, the Careers Service Partnership, the existing
          Education/Business Partnership, individual schools, FE colleges, the private sector and the
          TEC. For the “Community Works” strand of the SRB scheme the Partnership Board consisted
          of the Equal Opportunities Sub-Group, which was chaired by a member of the TEC Board
          and included representation from national and local voluntary and community groups and the
          Princes Trust.

A2.6.8    Total expenditures associated with the three strands of the scheme was £2.3 million, of which
          £1.6 million (67%) was SRB, £0.5 million other public expenditure (22%), and £0.3 million
          (11%) was from private sector sources. Expenditure on each of the three strands was £1.2
          million (52%) on new business development, £0.9 million (40%) on education/business links
          and £0.2 million (8%) on community enterprises in deprived estates.

A2.6.9    Projects within the New Business Development element were delivered by Progress in
          Business, which was a joint venture between two local Enterprise Agencies (Harrow in
          Business and Brent Business Venture). This jointly delivered programme was part of the
          London New Business Programme and offered counselling, advice and training to help people
          plan, start and progress their business ventures. Support included introductory seminars,
          planning workshops, one-to-one counselling, pre-start training modules, specialist
          information (for example, book-keeping, marketing, health & safety) and also offered
          membership of the local Business Club.

A2.6.10 Understanding Business projects focused on enhancing the knowledge of business amongst
        school children in the two Boroughs. To do so five involved mentors from local
        businesses/organisations would give their time freely to work with individual disadvantaged
        pupils (or small groups) on a regular basis. Other projects under this theme were:
          §   the Business Entitlement Project, which consisted in preparing training documents for
              teachers with a view to integrating business education into the regular curriculum;
          §   a Food Technology Project for science students, encouraging them to pursue further
              training and a career in local food processing firms that were experiencing skills
              shortages;
          §   an Internet Project for 6 special schools.

A2.6.11 Projects under the Community Works theme encouraged community groups and individuals
        to set up community businesses and to develop community enterprise. They involved start-up
        grants and allowances offered to community businesses. Courses in business skills training
        were put on for potential managers of businesses and voluntary sector organisations. Business
        support and advice was available from experienced business advisors.

A2.6.12 The scheme was heavily targeted towards community groups and voluntary sector
        organisations working in ethnic minority communities. It promoted information and
        vocational training for ethnic minority representatives and supported voluntary organisations
        active in the local community. There was also a successful publicity initiative for the scheme
        based on a newsletter, leaflets and direct media advertisement. See Table A2.6 below for the
        key gross outputs achieved.




                                                                                                 Page 19
                       Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                   Annexes


                                     Table A2.6           Brent & Harrow outputs
          Code     Outputs description                                                               Actual
                                               Jobs, training & education
          1a1      No FTE jobs created                                                                1,126
                                                                                                      (311)
          1k1      No employers in collaborative projects with educational institutions to improve
                   student performance
          1k2      No students in collaborative projects                                              650
          1L       No teachers who have had a placement into business in the last period              1,115
                                                    Economic growth
          2a       No new business start-ups                                                           609
                                                                                                      (226)
                                               Voluntary/community sector
          8a1      No voluntary organisations supported                                               (205)
          8c       No individuals involved voluntary work                                              58
          8e       No community enterprise start-ups                                                 17 (14)
         (Black and minority ethic figures in brackets)
         Source: Project monitoring records submitted to the Government Office for London

A2.6.13 In retrospect, this scheme aimed to develop a three-pronged approach in: firstly, creating a
        more dynamic local enterprise culture by supporting small business start-ups; secondly,
        creating closer links between schools and businesses; and ,thirdly, helping to set up
        community businesses in deprived neighbourhoods. These projects provided an opportunity
        for SRB expenditure to be grafted onto the TECs overall business support initiatives.




                                                                                                     Page 20
                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                 Annexes




A2.7     Hangleton & Knoll


A2.7.1   The Hangleton and Knoll Project (HKP) was set up in 1983 as the Hangleton Community
         Project functioning as a Community Development Agency. Initially it was part of the 'People
         And Churches Together' (PACT) initiative, though it became an independent charity in 1992.
         It derived its initial funding from churches, community organisations and charities. It is run
         by a Partnership Board of some 14 members drawn from the community, local authority,
         Youth Services, local community-based organisations, the police and the church. The HKP
         organisation and its activities have gradually expanded, currently employing over 25 people
         with an annual turnover of £500,000. Its main activities are community development work,
         youth work and regeneration.

A2.7.2   In 1995 there was a period of extensive consultation with the communities located on the
         Hangleton and Knoll local authority housing estates (total population of around 8,000). This
         resulted in HKP and the former Hove Borough Council putting forward a SRB bid for a
         £1.6million scheme of four years duration that has now been extended by a further two years.
         With matched funding from the local authority, private sector and other public finance, a total
         budget of just over £3million was made available for the scheme. This SRB Programme is
         one of the few community led Round 2 schemes and, as such, provides valuable lessons
         regarding the role of local communities in the regeneration process.

A2.7.3   The 1995/96 Submission Document stated that the programme:

                 “… combines locally based access to information on employment and training
                 opportunities, with increased scope for residents to develop their confidence, life
                 skills and communication skills via expanded and more varied community activity.
                 Through their active participation in, and management of the local regeneration
                 process, residents will be empowered with the skills to enable them to access the
                 existing and future opportunities available in the wider Brighton and Hove
                 conurbation.”


A2.7.4   From its inception the SRB scheme built on development work undertaken in previous years
         while providing increased opportunities for the community to become more involved in the
         social and physical development of their area. In consequence, it focused on:
         §   employment opportunities, particularly amongst young people and lone parents;
         §   enhancing skills and experience;
         §   generating activities that would divert young people from crime, alcohol and substance
             misuse;
         §   increasing community, sport, culture and health facilities that would diffuse tensions
             between generations;
         §   improving the local environment.

A2.7.5   The SRB programme is managed by the H&K Partnership Board, which is a registered
         charity with trustees drawn from local organisations and residents. The Accountable Body
         was originally Hove Borough Council. However, with the change to unitary status in 1997,
         Brighton & Hove Council became the Accountable Body for all five SRB Schemes in their
         area. The Council has subsequently implemented a unified SRB Programme that is delivered
         through the Brighton & Hove Regeneration Partnership. The Hangleton & Knoll Challenge
         Partnership has continued to manage the SRB Scheme for Hangleton & Knoll on the ground,
         but acts under the wider strategic direction of the Brighton and Hove Regeneration



                                                                                                  Page 21
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


         Partnership. The Board includes representatives from HKP, Hangleton Community
         Association, Hangleton and Knoll Community Festival, the community, Hove Borough
         Council (now Brighton & Hove Unitary Authority), the Sussex Police and Brighton & Hove
         Youth and Community Service.

A2.7.6   The regeneration strategy sought to achieve sustainable outcomes by designing projects that
         were complementary and inter-linking. It built upon 12 years of community development
         work in the H&K area and was a programme designed by local residents and delivered by
         local residents. The 12 projects were grouped into four broad themes:
         1. Creating ladders of opportunity linked to advice on training and employment
         § The Opportunities Advice Centre was the flagship of the SRB scheme and provided
            local residents with a local training/employment advice centre located within the heart of
            the community. This project has developed a person-centred approach to dealing with
            clients and in providing training/job search facilities to assist those who wish to move into
            employment.
         2. Building community capacity
         § Two projects within this theme involved the further development of the St Richards and
            Hangleton Community Centres. The improvements enabled these centres to offer the
             community and local groups the opportunities to develop a wider range of
             activities and events.
         §   The Community Chest project enhanced capacity building through the provision of
             pump-priming funds for new community groups starting in the area. It focused on the
             participation of the community in developing and running new initiatives that will exist
             beyond the lifetime of the project.
         §   The Hangleton and Knoll Arts Festival, established in advance of the SRB initiative,
             benefited from SRB funding by expanding its activities and developing a programme
             which operates throughout the year that has encouraged the creation of new local arts
             based community groups. As part of this initiative a small photographic project was
             also operated.
         3. Creating activities for young people
         § The Youth Music Project, which commenced operations in January 2000, provides a
            range of educational music projects for young people and adults at a dedicated venue with
            some outreach programmes. The project has a crime prevention element within the youth
            arts programme that will offer the opportunity to access Key Skills qualifications.
         4. Greening Hangleton and Knoll
         § A number of environmental projects have contributed to the physical regeneration of the
            two estates. The Greening of Hangleton and Knoll has entailed the development of an
            environmental strategy for the area that has involved local residents in prioritising
            funding in order to maximise the impact on the local environment. Projects have
            included improvements to Hangleton Park, the development of a wildlife garden and
            refurbishment of an existing pond as a resource for the community. These initiatives
            have sought to raise public awareness regarding local environmental issues. The local
            authority has also contributed to this aspect of the programme through the construction of
            improved junction layouts and traffic calming measures.




                                                                                                 Page 22
                       Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                   Annexes


A2.7.8   Key gross outputs achieved by the Hangleton & Knoll SRB project are set out in Table A2.7
         below.
                                    Table A2.7        Hangleton & Knoll outputs
          Code      Outputs description                                                            Actual
                                               Jobs, training & education
          1a1       No FTE jobs created                                                             4.1
          1a3       No FTE construction jobs (person wks)                                          623.9
          1b        No pupils benefiting from projects assigned to enhance/improve attainment*      66
          1c        No people trained obtaining qualifications*                                     40
          1d        No residents accessing employment through training advice or targeted         299 (1)
                    assistance
          1e        No training weeks                                                              1710
          1j        No young people benefiting from projects to promote personal & social         966 (43)
                    development
                                        Community safety/crime prevention
          5c        No community safety initiatives                                                   2
          5d1       No youth crime prevention initiatives                                            14
          5d2       ▪ Nos attending crime prevention initiatives                                    273
                                           Environmental improvements
          6a        Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha)                                     5.53
          6e        No traffic calming schemes                                                       8
                                                  Community facilities
          7a2       People with access to new sport facilities                                     3,066
          7a3       People access to new cultural facilities                                       1,333
          7a5       No new sport facilities                                                          4
          7b3       No using improved cult facilities                                               802
          7b6       No cultural facilities improved                                                  2
                                            Voluntary/community sector
          8a1       No voluntary organisations supported                                            3
          8a2       No community organisations supported*                                           21
          8c        No individuals involved voluntary work                                        360 (2)
         (Black and minority ethnic figures in brackets)
         Source: Brighton & Hove Council

A2.7.7   Hangleton & Knoll was one of the few community led Round 2 schemes that built on
         previous community based initiatives. Its starting point was the development of enhanced
         community activity through the empowerment of local people that would enable them to play
         a pivotal role in the local regeneration process. The SRB programme was designed to support
         and compliment existing community organisations that had built a reputation within the HK
         area. The scheme also sought to fill identified gaps in provision so residents could benefit
         from a wide-ranging regeneration programme. Overall, there was a need to build community
         confidence, develop communication networks and to equip residents with the skills to access
         opportunities across the Brighton and Hove conurbation.




                                                                                                  Page 23
                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                 Annexes




A2.8     Chalkhill Estate


A2.8.1   The Chalkhill Estate SRB scheme was approved by the Government Office for London in
         July, 1995 and was scheduled to be completed over a five-year period in March, 2000. The
         scheme was entitled “Remaking Chalkhill - A Legacy for the Future”. The SRB scheme itself
         was quite small in comparison with more recent schemes aimed at tackling deprived run
         down inner city estates. Over the five year period SRB expenditure amounted to only £3.25
         million. However, this small SRB scheme was designed to run alongside a housing and
         physical renewal scheme for the Estate which was originally scheduled to involve total costs
         of about £80 million.
A2.8.2   The Chalkhill Estate, situated between Wembley Stadium and Brent Town Hall, extended to
         34 hectares of public sector housing in 1995, and with 1,890 housing units (mainly flats) was
         the second largest council housing estate in Brent, with a population of 4,750 residents.
         Chalkhill makes up part of St Andrews Ward and is adjacent to St Raphaels Ward. The two
         wards taken together represent a very large concentration of deprivation of which Chalkhill is
         only a part.
A2.8.3   The housing in Chalkhill was of poor quality and limited almost entirely to socially rented
         flats. Two thirds of households wanted to leave the Estate. Three quarters of the population
         were ethnic minority communities. There was a high proportion of large (5+)families and
         one-parent families. Qualifications and skill levels were low. Only four in ten head of
         households of working age were working. Almost half the households had no one in work
         and were 90%+ dependent on state benefits for income. Levels of self employment were half
         the England average.
A2.8.4   In the early 1990s the Chalkhill Estate had benefited from an Estate Action Scheme which
         funded improvements to the 30 Bison blocks of flats. This funding was used to remove the
         linked walkways which had joined together the Bison blocks and to provide concierge
         facilities within such blocks. This earlier Estate Action Scheme greatly reduced the chances
         of Chalkhill benefiting from further mainstream or SRB funding for major housing renewal.
         In 1995 a major housing renewal scheme was designed by the London Borough of Brent in
         association with the Metropolitan Housing Association and Wimpey Construction, which was
         to be funded largely from private sector sources along with some funding from the Housing
         Corporation. The total cost of the scheme was expected to be £80-£90 million and it would
         be implemented between 1995/6 and 2000/01.
A2.8.5   The Partnership was not established at the time of the bid and it was intended that partners
         would be from the London Borough of Brent, Wimpey Construction UK, Metropolitan
         Housing Trust, North West London TEC, West London Leadership, the Housing Corporation
         and the Wembley Business Support Group. These arrangements did not come fruition and
         eventually the Chalkhill SRB Board became a sub-committee of Brent Councils’
         Regeneration Committee, comprising 6 Councillors and 4 representatives from the Chalkhill
         private sector partners - Wimpey Homes and Metropolitan Housing Trust, together with two
         local employers -Ujima and Onyx. The Board was serviced by the Director of SRB
         Programmes for Brent Council with delegated powers.
A2.8.6   The relatively small SRB scheme of £3.25 million over 5 years - 1995/6 to 2000/01 - was in
         some ways a thematic scheme designed to assist Chalkhill residents in obtaining some job
         benefits from the housing renewal scheme and to raise their employability in competing for
         jobs in the wider Wembley labour market area. Thus, the dominant theme of the SRB scheme
         was that of improving training and raising employability of Chalkhill residents.
A2.8.7   Chalkhill, however, was not a comprehensive regeneration scheme in the usual sense of term.
         It excluded the physical and housing renewal which was funded in other ways. Over 90% of




                                                                                                Page 24
                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                 Annexes


         SRB expenditure was devoted to projects concerned with employment, training and
         employability. About 1% was devoted to supporting the Chalkhill Primary School and 1/4 of
         1% was devoted to community development and capacity building. Although the bid
         document discussed the possibility of improving local health service provision around a
         modernised health centre on the Estate this did not materialise. There were no projects
         concerned directly with crime and safety, although there was a large project which provided
         training in improving the security of buildings.
A2.8.8   Given that the SRB scheme was very small there was a case for focusing limited resources on
         one key government regeneration objective - namely employment, training and employability.
         In this way the pepper-potting of many small projects across all service areas (economic and
         social) was avoided and the concentration of projects in the key area of employment and
         training generated a real possibility that the SRB scheme could make a real difference to the
         Estate, over and above the impact of housing renewal and physical regeneration.
A2.8.9   SRB expenditure contributions were made to a total of 18 projects through the lifetime of the
         scheme. Of the total of 18 projects wholly or partly funded by SRB there are 10 key projects
         which were of good quality and durable, some providing examples of very good practice.
         These 10 key projects accounted for 95% of SRB project expenditure. The remaining eight
         projects, together accounting for only 5% of total SRB project expenditure, were either very
         small, of a temporary nature, flawed in some way and closed down or failed to achieve any
         measurable outputs on the ground. The key projects can be summarised into two groups:
         1   Construction industry related training
         §   Community Refurbishment Scheme. It provided high quality construction training
             leading to NVQ level 2 qualifications. It was unique in offering up to 18 months waged
             work experience as part of a two year course.
         §   Construction Labour Scheme. It aimed at local people with previous or current
             experience of working in the construction sector. It matched local workers with the skill
             and experience requirements of building contractors.
         §   Security Training focused on security relating to housing, buildings and areas of
             the public realm and involved extensive on-site experience.
         §   Catering was a project designed to provide catering facilities on the Chalkhill site.
         2   Raising employability and employment of Chalkhill residents
         §   Local Employment Initiative. This project matched local unemployed adults to known
             current job vacancies in locally based companies.
         §   ESOL. Clients for whom English is not their first language were assessed process to
             determine their level of English and assigned to an appropriate class.
         §   Basic Education, designed to assist disadvantaged young people (16-24), the majority of
             whom were refugees, to move onto employment or further education and training.
         §   Practical Action for Choice of Employment. PACE worked with young people 16-24 to
             prepare them for the world of work.
         §   Customised Training. Employers were targeted for this project and clients trained
             to the employers specification.
         §   Chalkhill Primary School. The project funded a homework club at Chalkhill
             Primary School which had been classified as a failing school.

A2.8.10 Table A2.8 below presents key gross outputs achieved by the SRB scheme.




                                                                                                Page 25
                       Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                   Annexes


                                     Table A2.8          Chalkhill Estate outputs
          Code      Outputs description                                                         Actual
                                              Jobs, training & education
          1a1       No FTE jobs created                                                          34 (9)
          1b        Pupils benefiting from projects assigned to enhance/improve attainment     367 (224)
          1c        No people trained obtaining qualifications                                 554 (310)
          1e        No training weeks                                                           13,472
          1d        No residents accessing employment through training advice or targeted      566 (226)
                    assistance
          1f1       No people trained obtaining jobs                                           572 (334)

         (Black & minority ethnic figures in brackets)
         Source: London Borough of Brent SRB Management Team Monitoring Date

A2.8.11 The SRB scheme was designed to support and complement a much larger housing renewal
        scheme to be funded largely by the private sector with the assistance of a Housing
        Corporation grant. The focus of the SRB scheme, as previously noted, was on projects
        designed to increase employability and training, with the majority of SRB funding being
        devoted to long duration, high quality and high cost construction training and work
        experience on the Chalkhill housing renewal schemes itself. The main training effort was,
        therefore, devoted to relatively few residents on the estate. There were projects addressing
        employability more generally across the estate but these were relatively small compared with
        construction training.




                                                                                                  Page 26
                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                 Annexes



A2.9     Lancashire Manufacturing Partnership


A2.9.1   The Lancashire Manufacturing Partnership was a thematic SRB round one scheme. Its
         mission was to improve the competitiveness and performance of the manufacturing industry
         in the county of Lancashire through a strategically targeted programme of integrated business
         support and training initiatives. It was focused on the manufacturing sector across the whole
         of Lancashire. This included the coastal area of West Lancashire containing the towns of
         Morecambe, Lancaster, Blackpool and Preston, and the former traditional textile area of East
         Lancashire containing towns such as Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington, Nelson and Colne and
         Rossendale. In 1994 the area had a population of 1.4 million and over 4,600 businesses. The
         scheme received £8.1 million of SRB monies with a further £8.3 million from other public
         expenditure and £15 million levered in from the private sector.

A2.9.2   Three partners were assembled in order to bring to bear the depth and breadth of expertise
         required to implement the programme: the two Training and Enterprise Councils in
         Lancashire – East Lancashire TEC (ELTEC), Lancashire Area West TEC (LAWTEC) – and
         Enterprise plc. Enterprise and ELTEC had submitted separate outline bids to GONW, but
         these were rejected. Instead, the three partners were encouraged by the Government Office to
         bid as a partnership with LAWTEC so that a more strategic approach could be taken to
         manufacturing support across the county as a whole. The three partners formed, and took
         equal shares in, a company limited by guarantee called “The Lancashire Manufacturing
         Partnership” (TLMP). TLMP was established specifically to accommodate the joint SRB bid.

A2.9.3   The scheme ran for five years from 1995 to 2000. It had the following strategic objectives:
         1 Process objectives
            ▪ promote initiatives specifically towards ethnic minorities
            ▪ develop a self-sustaining private sector led manufacturing support group in
               Lancashire
         2 Outcome objectives: land, labour and capital as factors of production
            ▪ protect and improve the local environment and infrastructure
            ▪ enhance the employment prospects, education and skills of local people
            ▪ improve access to long term finance for manufacturing SMEs
         3 Outcome objectives: new firm formation
            ▪ increase participation in enterprise creation
         4   Outcome objectives: industry competitiveness
             ▪   improve competitiveness of the local economy
             ▪   enhance the image of Lancashire
         5   Outcome objectives: sustainable job creation
              ▪ create and/or safeguard sustainable jobs in Lancashire

A2.9.4   The pursuit of these objectives fitted clearly with the SRB strategic objectives of sustainable
         economic growth, wealth creation, business support (SO2) and employment prospects,
         education and skills (SO1). However, the objectives were both wide-ranging and ambitious –
         dealing with critical factors likely to underpin the future success of Lancashire’s
         manufacturing base, such as land and property, educational attainment and access to capital,
         as well as direct support to encourage new start-ups and improve the performance of existing
         businesses.

A2.9.5   In operating the scheme there were also a number of process objectives. These were to
         provide greater support to ethnic minority start-ups and existing businesses. They were also to




                                                                                                Page 27
                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                 Annexes


         develop private sector involvement in the scheme to the extent that there would be a
         sustainable private sector led initiative beyond the life of SRB.

A2.9.6   The manufacturing support programme incorporated projects within six themes:
         §   Investment in Companies This theme sought to address the lack of long-term investment
             capital available to manufacturing SMEs, resulting from risk aversion by capital markets
             which hinders investment in firms which lack trading track records or security. The 4
             projects were Investment in Manufacturing, Non Executive Director Programme,
             Diversifying the Manufacturing Base and Inward Investment.
         §   Investment in People The 8 projects run within this theme sought to improve
             manufacturing skills amongst the labour forces as well as provide a highly qualified pool
             of labour to aid the formation of new manufacturing businesses and the competitiveness
             and growth of the existing manufacturing base. They also addressed the deficit in
             workforce training by companies and tackled the difficulties faced by managers and
             others made redundant by industrial restructuring in re-skilling and re-entering the labour
             market.
         §   Investment in Manufacturing Workspace It sought to tackle market failures of risk
             aversion and information deficiencies which were restricting the provision of quality
             managed workspace for new and small manufacturing companies. Three projects were
             covered here including the Skelmersdale Technology Centre.
         §   Investment in Enterprise sought to aid the county’s industrial diversification into higher
             value-added manufacturing activities by improving the rate of new firm formation,
             survival and growth. Specific dimensions of the theme were aimed at increasing the
             number of ethnic minority businesses and encouraging unemployed people to start up in
             business. The five projects included New Business Development and Micro Business
             marketing Growth.
         §   Investment in Technology and Innovation sought to tackle information deficiencies,
             and risk aversion, relating to manufacturing best practice in innovation, new product
             development and manufacturing systems. They did so by providing manufacturing
             companies with networking opportunities, access to information and collaborative and
             individual company development support. There were 8 projects including World Class
             Manufacturing and Lean Enterprise.
         §   Investment in Strategic Infrastructure focused on the 230 acre former Leyland DAF
             site. This was seen as a major opportunity for a strategic regional employment and
             distribution centre with the capacity to attract inward investment and generate significant
             employment impacts.




                                                                                                Page 28
                       Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                   Annexes



A2.9.7   The achievements from the scheme are presented in Table A2.9 below which sets out the key
         gross outputs attained.

          Table A2.9       Lancashire Manufacturing Partnership selected gross outputs
          Code      Outputs description                                                         Actual
                                             Jobs, training & education
          1a1       No FTE jobs created                                                          1,451
          1a2       No FTE jobs safeguarded                                                      1,829
          1b        Pupils benefiting from projects assigned to enhance/improve attainment      12,726*
          1c        No people trained obtaining qualifications                                   1,883
          1j        Young people benefiting from projects to promote personal/social dev           10
          1L        No teachers who have had a placement into business in the last period         702
                                                 Economic growth
          2a        No new business start-ups                                                    451
          2b1       Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2)                                10,311
          2b2       New bus/commercial floorspace (m2)                                          7,914
          2d        No businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB assisted activities       4,719
         *Evidence from Dept Land Economy beneficiary survey estimated this figure to be around 17,000.
         Source: [SEE Fin eval Rep!!]

A2.9.7   The Lancashire Manufacturing Partnership, as previously mentioned, was a five year round
         one SRB scheme devoted to the single regeneration theme of providing advice and assistance
         for the manufacturing sector and business education links in the large County Area of
         Lancashire. The scheme demonstrated many of the weaknesses in design, concept, and
         implementation which were common to all round one schemes, but has important lessons to
         offer which are relevant to current and future regeneration policy. The rationale of the scheme
         to remove the long standing shortfall in manufacturing jobs by raising the competitiveness
         and growth of the manufacturing sector seemed a valid way of limiting and reducing the
         incidence of long term unemployment and deprivation.




                                                                                                  Page 29
                       Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                   Annexes



A2.10     Canalside Rochdale


A2.10.1 Canalside Rochdale was a round one scheme which ran for five years from 1995 to 2000,
        securing £10.5million from the SRB Challenge Fund. It was set up
                  "to regenerate the Canalside area of Rochdale by facilitating the physical renewal of
                  land and premises, by stimulating and supporting local businesses, by helping local
                  people get appropriate training to help them obtain the jobs which will be created, by
                  renewing outworn housing and by helping local residents and business people to
                  build a safer community." (First Delivery Plan).

A2.10.2 By the early 1990s this area had been identified by the Rochdale Partnership as one of four
        Priority Action Areas in the Rochdale Economic Regeneration Strategy. Thus, due to its
        severe need combined with its potential to attract private sector investment Canalside was
        selected to apply for SRB funding.

A2.10.3 The prime area of focus for the physical renewal was along the Rochdale Canal - the
        “Canalside area” -, which is some 215 hectares and has a population of 11,000 comprising the
        communities of Newbold, Deeplish, Sandfield and part of Kirkholt (around Rhodes Crescent).
        A wider "Area of Benefit" was designated for the operation of the training and social projects
        in the programme. The latter included the town centre and housing estates in Wardleworth,
        the rest of Kirkholt, Milkstone and Turf Hill, increasing the size of the population benefiting
        from the scheme to some 35,000.

A2.10.4 As a Priority Action Area Canalside illustrated all the classic signs of a severely deprived
        area. By the 1990s the ageing housing stock was worn out and inadequate with overcrowding
        double the Borough average (6.4% of households living with more than 1 person per room
        compared with 3.1% in the Borough). Unemployment was also high, where in 1994 it was at
        14% for women and 21% for men compared with overall Borough and sub-regional averages
        of around 12%. Car ownership was significantly lower, where around 55% of households did
        not have a car compared with 42% in the Borough and 33% nationally.

A2.10.5 In Canalside 26% of the population were of Asian origin (compared with 7% in the Borough)
        and experienced even higher unemployment rates at 27% compared with the borough average
        of 11%. 70% of the Asian population of the Borough live within the “Area of Benefit” and
        also suffer much higher levels of overcrowding than the rest of the area. Long-term illness
        was also a factor for 17% of the population compared with 15% in the Borough. Some health
        issues were particularly prevalent among the Asian community, such as diabetes and heart
        disease.

A2.10.6 The roots of the Rochdale Partnership stem from the late 1980s with a series of talks between
        Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC) and other local agencies exploring ways to
        gather funds for the regeneration of the area. The Rochdale Partnership emerged from this
        initiative and was established in 1992 to bid for resources under the City Challenge Fund.
        While this bid was not successful the partnership continued to promote economic,
        environmental and social regeneration in Rochdale. In 1993 the Rochdale Development
        Agency was formed to spearhead the economic and physical regeneration of the borough and
        in the following year the Rochdale Housing Initiative was set up to work with local agencies
        to promote and co-ordinate public and private sector housing. In 1994 the Rochdale
        Challenge Company (which embodies the partnership in its legal form) submitted its bid to
        the SRB Challenge Fund.




                                                                                                       Page 30
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


A2.10.7 At the outset there were 10 members on the Board representing the five partnership agencies.
        These were Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC), Rochdale TEC/Business Link,
        Rochdale Development Agency, the Rochdale Voluntary Sector Forum and the Rochdale
        Chamber of Commerce. Towards the end of the scheme the TEC and Chamber of Commerce
        merged to become the Rochdale Borough Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise
        (the Chamber). Throughout the lifetime of the Canalside scheme the Partnership grew with
        new members joining from the local further education college (Hopwood Hall), the Rochdale
        and Bury Health Authority, the Rochdale Racial Equality Council, the Employment Service,
        the Trade Union movement and the Greater Manchester Police.

A2.10.8 The strategy devised for regenerating Canalside was designed to operate within five key
        programme areas. Each programme area had its own set of objectives which linked in to the
        SRB Strategic Objectives. These five programme areas were:
        1. Training for Life and Work
        2. Economic Regeneration
        3. Housing Action
        4. Environmental Renewal
        5. Building a Safer Community

A2.10.9 There were a total of 46 main projects in the programme. One SRB project did not take place
        and was substituted by a replacement. There were a total of 38 SRB funded projects which
        fell within the five key programme areas, with a further 5 non-SRB funded projects included
        as they constituted an integral part of the overall objectives. SRB funding was also assigned
        to 3 further projects concerned with the staffing and administration of the scheme as a whole.
        They are summarised by theme below:
         §   Training for Life and Work The projects run under this theme were targeted at the most
             disadvantaged communities in Canalside. They sought to provide new training
             opportunities, create better access to jobs with new guidance and vocational preparation
             programmes, reach people most in need of training and guidance, strengthen education
             business links in local schools and establish a business start-up programme with a
             particular focus on the Asian community. 10 projects were designated to this theme and
             were managed by the Rochdale Borough Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise
             (now known as the Chamber - formerly the TEC) and Business Link.
         §   Economic Regeneration Just over half of the SRB funds were allocated to economic
             regeneration. This part of the programme was designed to concentrate public investment
             into the physical regeneration of the Canalside area to create an environment that would
             attract private investment. As a result a total of 15 projects were designed to contribute to
             the economic regeneration of the area.
         §   Housing Action There were 6 projects under the Housing Action theme, being both
             renewal and development schemes, five of which received SRB funds.
         §   Environmental renewal The longer term aim of creating a self-sustaining environment
             in Canalside was the basis for this theme, comprising 4 SRB funded projects. The overall
             aims were to enhance the image of Rochdale by improving the condition of buildings,
             streets, open and neglected spaces to make the area a better place to live and work.
         §   Building a safer community This programme area built on the existing initiative which
             established the Community Safety Partnership comprising RMBC, the police, the
             Probation Office and local community, which in turn emerged from the achievements of
             the Rochdale Safer Cities Project. 8 SRB funded projects were run, including drug
             awareness, security, youth crime, community safety, health issues, racial issues and
             community capacity building.

A2.10.10 TableA2.10 below sets out selected gross outputs achieved by the SRB scheme.



                                                                                                 Page 31
                        Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                    Annexes


                           TableA2.10        Canalside Rochdale selected gross outputs
           Code     Outputs description                                                         Actual
                                              Jobs, training & education
           1a1      No FTE jobs created                                                        1232 (144)
           1a2      No FTE jobs safeguarded                                                       2449
           1a3      No FTE construction jobs (person wks)                                        10416
           1b       Pupils benefiting from projects assigned to enhance/improve attainment       12218
           1c       No people trained obtaining qualifications                                 1386 (554)
           1d       Residents accessing emp through training advice/targeted assistance        1703 (770)
                                                    Economic growth
           2a       No new business start-ups                                                   151 (62)
           2b1      Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2)                                 48578
           2b2      New bus/commercial floorspace                                                12770
           2d       No business receiving advice as a result of SRB assisted activities         224 (37)
                                                       Housing
           3a1      No private dwellings completed                                                35
           3a2      No private dwellings improved                                                 624
           3a4      No local authority dwellings improved                                         219
           3a5      No Housing association dwellings completed                                    91
                                        Community safety/crime prevention
           5a1      No benefiting community safety initiatives                                   24620
           5b1      No dwellings with upgraded security                                           860
           5d1      No youth crime prevention initiatives                                         15
           Environmental improvements
           6a     Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha)                                    16.75
           6b     Land improved/reclaimed for development (Ha)                                   14.99
           6c     No buildings back into use                                                       21
           6e*    No traffic calming schemes                                                      872
                                                  Community facilities
           7a3      People access to new cultural facilities                                     2281
                                              Voluntary/community sector
           8a       No voluntary organisations supported                                           46

          (Black and minority ethnic figures in brackets)
          ??[NEED TO CHECK THIS]Canalside own generated outputs.
          Source: Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council.

A2.10.10 In many Northern industrial towns and cities the addressing of the problems of deprived
         neighbourhoods takes place in more adverse macro-economic circumstances than is the case
         for deprived neighbourhoods in more prosperous regions. Northern industrial towns and
         cities continue to experience a decline in manufacturing employment, leading to plant
         closures and derelict sites, and the decline in manufacturing jobs is not necessarily matched
         by the growth of employment in service sectors. The Rochdale SRB case study provides a
         good example of the extra difficulties faced in attempting to regenerate deprived
         neighbourhoods in Northern industrial towns and cities.




                                                                                                   Page 32
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes



A2.11    Regenerating Wolverhampton


A2.11.1 The relative decline of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom since the early 1970s
        has produced dramatic changes to the local economies of many of the United Kingdom's
        oldest urban areas and Wolverhampton is no exception. With 300 years of history as a centre
        of industrial activity the savage contraction of the industrial sector over the last thirty years
        has led to high levels of worklessness and associated deprivation. By the early 1990s
        unemployment was around 14% compared with a national average of 8%. Indicators of social
        deprivation pointed to a community experiencing high levels of unemployment, poor
        educational prospects and low quality housing. Ethnic minorities were particularly
        disadvantaged. Moreover, the physical fabric of much of the built environment including the
        traditional town centre was worn-out and in need of substantial refurbishment.

A2.11.2 It was against this background that the SRB round one Regenerating Wolverhampton scheme
        was conceived. The scheme covered the whole borough of Wolverhampton, an area with a
        population of some 240,000 at the time of the 1991 Census. It was of five-year duration and
        will have spent £45 million by the time of its completion in 2001 (having been granted a
        slight time extension). Of the total regeneration expenditure some £16 million will have been
        from SRB.

A2.11.3 The regeneration scheme had a number of objectives. A key focus was on improving the
        economic base of Wolverhampton and to ensure that it was a competitive location for the
        production of goods and services. This would require that Wolverhampton had a skilled and
        flexible workforce as well as a good supply of quality land and premises. This economic
        objective was accompanied by the desire to improve the quality of life of the local population
        by making selective improvements to the physical landscape including housing related
        factors. The economic and environmental themes were reinforced in the bid document Vision
        Statement by recognition of the need to encourage learning and development amongst the
        younger population, particularly those from ethnic minorities. It was also emphasised that
        effective regeneration required that the community be represented and involved in the
        regeneration process from the outset.

A2.11.4 The Regenerating Wolverhampton scheme was an important case study with which to seek to
        learn lessons from. Wolverhampton provides an example of the difficulties which urban areas
        have faced in adapting to the decline of British industry, and where the problems of bringing
        about economic and social regeneration are arguably amongst their greatest.

A2.11.5 Wolverhampton is an area in which, until comparatively recently in the post war period, much
        of its population knew relative prosperity and full employment. However, its vulnerability to
        the process of deindustrialisation was exposed at the time of the first oil crisis in the early
        1970s. The fiercely recessionary times of the early 1980s caused it to loose one in three of the
        industrial jobs it had at the beginning of that decade. The result of nearly thirty years of
        industrial decline was that by the time of yet another period of economic downturn in the
        early 1990s its economic base was very weak indeed. The legacy of being first and foremost a
        location for the production of manufacturing goods had meant that other, more private service
        sector, based companies and thus jobs were in relatively short supply. Its land stock and the
        floorspace built upon it reflected its traditional economic focus and, like elsewhere in the
        Black Country, much of its infrastructure was unsuited to the essentially road based transport
        needs of the Modern Age.

A2.11.6 The Regeneration Scheme was prepared by the Wolverhampton Partnership Committee,
        which is an independent body with four members from Wolverhampton Council, four from



                                                                                                 Page 33
                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                  Annexes


         the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce Training and Enterprise and individual members
         from the Wolverhampton Voluntary Services Council, West Midlands Police, the
         Wolverhampton Race Equality Council, the Wolverhampton Health Authority, the
         Wolverhampton and District Trades Council and, at the beginning, the Black Country
         Development Corporation which has now closed. The Chair was held by a counsellor from
         the Borough and the Vice-Chair was filled by a local businessman.

A2.11.7 The bid requested a total of £23.64 million from the Single Regeneration Budget over five
        years and the view was that a further £43.185 million would be levered from other sources.
        At approval the programme was reduced in size, securing £16.4 million of SRB funds which
        levered in some £15.98 million other public and £31.84 million private sector monies. The
        other resources that have been used have come from the private sector, the European Union,
        English Partnership, the National Lottery and the Millennium Fund.

A2.11.8 The Vision Statement behind the Wolverhampton bid placed considerable emphasis on
        improving the competitive base of the local economy and this was one of the key themes
        identified in the bid document - Generating Wealth. There were three others. These were
        Learning and Development, Empowerment and Diversification in Housing and A Cohesive
        Community. There were a total of 39 projects under the Regenerating Wolverhampton
        programme falling within the four theme areas. They are summarised below:
         §   Generating wealth included 8 projects focused on bringing forward land and property
             for commercial development and upgrading landmark buildings and key gateways.
             Support was given to help company start-up, expand their existing operations and thus
             develop their business. Business advice was provided through the Engineering industry
             development and in the early years assistance with meeting customised training needs.
             Companies were also assisted in improvements to their security;
         §   Learning and Development There were 12 projects designed to remove obstacles to
             learning and development. 4 sub-themes were identified. These were realising the full
             potential of citizens from ethnic minority groups, helping the unemployed with
             reintegration to the labour market, upgrading childcare facilities linked to economic
             activity, vocational guidance to adults particularly from ethnic communities and creating
             enthusiasm amongst young people in occupations in industry;
         §   Empowerment & Diversification in Housing included 4 projects to move forward the
             general process of stock improvement, tenure diversity and tenure empowerment in the
             estates of Ettingshall Village, Stowlawn, Oxford Street/Temple Street and the Lunt. When
             the original round one bid was downsized the Lunt area was removed. There were 4
             project areas;
         §   Cohesive Community comprised 15 projects designed to engage and anchor the
             voluntary and community sectors more effectively, increase access to health, support
             Community Safety Partnership. They were also to provide more activities for young
             people, reduce domestic and neighbourhood violence and provide facilities that would
             allow residents to gain advice and mediation.

A2.11.10 Table A2.11 below sets out the key gross outputs from the scheme.




                                                                                                 Page 34
             Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                         Annexes


           Table A2.11       Regenerating Wolverhampton selected gross outputs
Code Outputs description                                                                 Actual
                                     Jobs, training & education
1a1    No FTE jobs created                                                             3,046 (540)
1a2    No FTE jobs safeguarded                                                        2,099.5 (138)
1b     No pupils benefiting from project designed to enhance/improve attainment      51,978 (13,438)
1c     No people trained obtaining qualifications                                     22,992 (7924)
1d     Residents areas accessing emp through training, advice/targeted assistance        489 (94)
1e     No training weeks                                                                   744
1f1    No people trained obtaining jobs                                                2,243 (625)
1g     No entering self-employment                                                      160 (30)
1j     Young people benefiting from projects to promote personal & social dev         6,532 (1779)
1k1    Number of employers in collaborative projects with educational institutions         522
       to improve student performance
1k2    No students in collaborative projects                                          15,615 (4072)
1L1    No teachers who have had a placement into business during the last period          1,098
                                          Economic growth
2a     No new business start-ups                                                        777 (144)
2b1    Business/commercial floorspace improved (m2)                                       20,427
2b2    New bus/commercial floorspace (m2)                                                231,184
2c1    New businesses supported                                                         777 (133)
2d     No businesses receiving advice as a result of SRB assisted activities               4,122
                                            Housing
3a1    No private dwellings completed                                                     82
3a4    N local authority dwellings improved                                               465
3b     No dwellings in tenant management organisations                                  150 (50)
                              Community safety/crime prevention
5a1    No benefiting community safety initiatives                                    182,819 (38,965)
5b1    No dwellings with upgraded security                                                 666
5b2    No commercial buildings with upgraded security                                      638
5c     No community safety initiatives                                                      92
5d1    No youth crime prevention initiatives                                               17
                                   Environmental improvements
6a     Land improved/reclaimed for open space (Ha)                                        19.05
6c     No buildings back into use.                                                         58
                                        Community facilities
7a1    People access to new health facilities                                          1,403 (710)
7a2    People with access to new sport facilities                                     4,820 (2,100)
                                   Voluntary/community sector
8a1    No voluntary organisations supported                                            1,233 (120)
                                              Childcare
10a     No childcare places provided                                                     151 (17)
Source: Regenerating Wolverhampton SRB Team




                                                                                           Page 35
                                                                                         Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                     Annexes




A3 Summary of findings from the 1999 MORI social survey
                                                  Table A3.1           Household attributes - family structure, age and ethnicity
                                    3 SRB areas                     Chalkhill                    Hangleton/Knoll                   Rochdale                  England1
                             1996        Change 96-99        1996       Change 96-99           1996     Change 96-99        1996       Change 96-99   1996      Change 96-99
                              %                               %                                 %                            %                         %
    1 person household      24   (24)     +1    (+3)    25      (28)       +3     (+2)    25      (25)   0     (+3)    23     (21)      0      (+2)    28            0
    5+ persons (all ages)   14   (13)     -1     (0)    15      (11)        0     (+2)     8      (8)    -2    (+3)    19     (20)      0      (-2)     7            0
    Lone parent family      16   (13)     -2     (-2)   26      (26)       -5     (-4)     9      (9)    -1    (-2)    12     (10)      0      (-1)     6            +1
    Age 65 (H of H)         22   (26)     +6    (+8)    14      (21)       +9     (+9)    34      (35)   +2    (+6)    20     (21)     +5      (+8)    26            -1
    White (H of H)          68   (77)     +3     (1)    35      (48)       +1     (-1)    98      (98)   0      (0)    77     (74)      -2     (-1)    95            -1
Source: MORI
NB In this and subsequent tables the first column for each area shows percentages for the full cross sectional sample. Figures in brackets relate to the panel sample only. The
figures of change between 1996 and 1999 are the changes in percentage points.




1
    Survey of English Housing 1995/6 & 1998/9.




                                                                                                                                                                    Page 36
                                                                                               Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                           Annexes




                                                                   Table A3.2      Qualifications, skills and training
                                                      3 SRB areas                         Chalkhill                        Hangleton/Knoll                        Rochdale
                                                 1996        Change 96-99        1996          Change 96-99             1996        Change 96-99         1996          Change 96-99
                                                  %                               %                                      %                                %
    No qualifications:
    Head of household                       51       (51)     0      (+1)   45          (45)      +6      (+10)    45       (45)     -4     (-2)    60          (62)     0     (-2)
    Any member of household                 47       (47)     -1     (-1)   42          (42)      +2       (+3)    45       (45)     -7     (-5)    54          (51)    +1     (+2)
    Of those with qualifications any
    CSE/GCSE/O'level:
    Head of household                       47       (44)    +10     (+5)   44          (42)       +8      (-3)    45       (44)    +18    (+13)    53          (47)    -1      (-5)
    Any member of household                 51       (53)    +9      (+1)   47          (49)       +7      (-3)    54       (51)    +14    (+11)    61          (58)    -4     (-10)
    Taken part in education or              21       (22)    +8      (+7)   19                     +8              29               +13             19                  +1
    training within the last 3 years (all
    respondents under 60 not in
    education)
                                 2
    Type of training received:
    Part of job                             54       (60)    -4      (-3)   38                     -8              72               -11             51                  +4
    Day/evening classes                     29       (29)    +5      (+7)   42                     -3              22               +12             22                  +8
    Government Training Scheme              11        (9)    -3      (+1)   11                     +8               6                -3             15                  -8
Source: MORI




2
    Cell sizes are too small to present figures separately for each SRB area for the panel sample.




                                                                                                                                                                             Page 37
                                                                                      Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                  Annexes




                                                  Table A3.3          Employment status of head of household by area
                                  3 SRB areas                    Chalkhill                    Hangleton/Knoll                 Rochdale                England3
                             1996      Change 96-99         1996     Change 96-99           1996     Change 96-99        1996     Change 96-99   1996   Change 96-99
                              %                              %                               %                            %                       %
    Employed full-time      32   (32)   +1    (-1)     26      (22)      0     (-1)    36      (37)   +3    (-1)    34      (32)   0     (+1)     52           +1
    Employed part-time      10   (8)    -2       (0)   10      (5)       -1    (+2)    11      (9)    -4    (-2)     9      (10)   0     (-1)      5           +1
    Unemployed              10   (8)    -2    (-1)     17      (16)      -3    (-3)     4      (4)    0      (0)     8      (7)    -1    (-1)      5           -2
    (registered & not
    registered)
    Economically inactive   30   (29)   -4    (-4)     34      (41)      -4    (-7)    19      (16)   -4    (-4)    33      (33)   -2    (-4)     10            0
    (working age)
    Retired                 23   (28)   +7    (+7)     16      (27)     +11    (+5)    33      (33)   +4    (+9)    23      (25)   +3    (+4)     27           +1
    Employment rate         55   (56)   +4    (+4)     43      (37)     +5     (+4)    70      (69)   +3    (+5)    56      (56)   +2    (+3)     78           +4
    excluding retired (%)
    Unemployment rate as    19   (17)   -3    (-4)     31      (37)      -2    (+3)     8      (8)    +1     (0)    16      (14)   -2    (-1)      8           -3
    conventionally
    measured (%)*
Source: MORI
*Unemployed as a percentage of employed plus unemployed.




3
    Survey of English Housing 1995/6 & 1998/9.




                                                                                                                                                                 Page 38
                                                                                             Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                         Annexes




                                                                 Table A3.4          Incomes - respondent/spouse income
                                            3 SRB areas                         4                               4                   Rochdale4                          5
                                                                        Chalkhill                 Hangleton/Knoll                                               England
                                       1996       Change 96-99     1996     Change 96-99       1996         Change 96-99     1996        Change 96-99    1996       Change 96-99
                                        %                           %                           %                             %                           %
    Income below £100 per wk      34      (30)    -7     (-4)       41          -10             28                  -5        32              -3          19               -3
    Income £100-£300 per wk       49      (51)     0      (0)      51               +4          42                  0         51              0           36               0
    Income over £300 per wk       17      (19)    +7     (+4)       8               +6          30              +5            17              +3          44               +4
    Income Support (household)    29      (26)    -8     (-7)       42          -11             19                  -3        23              -4          19               -2
    Housing Benefit (household)   37      (30)    -7     (-3)       58          -12             22                  -3        28              -3          19               -2
    90% benefit income            39      (36)    -7     (-3)       45              -5          27                  0         43             -13           -               -
    No benefit income             28      (26)    +15    (+10)     29           +12             33              +5            24             +25           -               -
    National insurance pension    23      (28)    +1     (+1)       14              +5          36                  -4        21              -1           -               -
    (respondent)

Source: MORI




4
    Figures are not shown for individual SRB areas for the panel sample because of small cell sizes.
5
    Survey of English Housing 1995/6 & 1998/9, Family Resources Survey.




                                                                                                                                                                           Page 39
                                                                                        Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                    Annexes




                                                                      Table A3.5                 Health
                                               3 SRB areas                         Chalkhill                        Hangleton/Knoll                        Rochdale
                                          1996        Change 96-99        1996          Change 96-99             1996        Change 96-99         1996          Change 96-99
                                           %                               %                                      %                                %
 Health status (self assessment):
 Good                                45       (44)    +2      (-4)   43          (38)       0        (+2)   49       (50)    +1      (-6)    44          (41)   +3      (-4)
 Not good                            24       (26)     0      (+2)   25          (34)       +3       (-7)   21       (18)     0      (+8)    26          (28)   -2      (+3)
 Health improved in previous three
 years:
 Better                              9         (7)    -1      (+3)   10           (8)       -4       (+3)   10        (8)    +2      (+2)    6            (5)   +1      (+4)
 Worse                               27       (29)    +2      (+6)   27          (30)       +1        (0)   24       (25)    +7     (+13)    30          (33)   -1      (+3)


Source: MORI




                                                                                                                                                                       Page 40
                                                                                     Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                 Annexes




                                                                       Table A3.6       Crime and Safety
                                           3 SRB areas                    Chalkhill                    Hangleton/Knoll                       Rochdale              England
                                      1996       Change 96-99        1996      Change 96-            1996       Change 96-99         1996          Change 96-99
                                                                                    99
                                       %                              %                               %                               %                           96     96-9
 Area very/fairly safe when       38       (37)   +1    (+3)    36      (35)   -2      (0)      44        (44)   +5    (+7)     35          (31)    -2    (+1)    68         0
 walking alone at night
 Area a bit unsafe/very unsafe/   44       (44)   -4     (-7)   50      (53)   -5      (-8)     33        (31)   -3     (-4)    47          (51)    -2     (-7)   11         0
 don't go out alone after dark
 More safe than three years       9        (16)   +3     (-4)   16      (16)   +11    (+14)     2         (12)   +5     (-4)    9           (19)    -4    (-15)
 before
 Less safe than three years       22       (25)   0      (-1)   17      (22)   -5      (-8)     21        (22)   -3     (-3)    26          (32)   +7     (+5)
 before
 Seen crimes/offences in last
 year:
 Any                              81       (80)   -5     (0)    84      (73)   -11     (+8)     80        (84)   -3    (-5)     80          (79)    -3    (+1)
 5+                               22       (17)   -3    (+2)    28      (18)   -11     (+3)     13        (14)   +3    (+4)     23          (21)    -3    (-3)
 Reasons for feeling unsafe:
 Fear of attack                   69       (66)   +2    (+1)    82      (83)    0     (+3)      52        (50)   +5     (0)     71          (73)     0     (-5)
 Youths                           30       (32)   +5    (+2)    26      (38)    -5    (-18)     31        (29)   +7    (+9)     33          (31)   +12    (+10)
 Poor lighting                    20       (20)   -3    (-7)    22      (33)   -12    (-25)     11         (8)   +5    (+1)     20          (25)    -1     (-6)
 Drug dealers/users               9         (5)   +2    (+5)    12      (10)    -2     (-6)     3          (4)   +3    (+5)     10           (4)   +5      (+9)


Source: MORI

NB Figures in brackets relate to panel sample.




                                                                                                                                                                  Page 41
                                                                                           Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                       Annexes


                                                                   Table A3.7          Community involvement
                                                  3 SRB areas                        Chalkhill                     Hangleton/Knoll                         Rochdale
                                           1996          Change 96-99        1996         Change 96-99           1996        Change 96-99         1996          Change 96-99
                                            %                                 %                                   %                                %
 Whether feel closely involved
 in the community:
 Yes                                  27          (28)   +7      (+3)   28          (27)   +11     (+8)     25       (28)    +1      (-2)    28          (30)   +10     (+5)
 No                                   71          (69)   -8      (-2)   69          (70)    -9     (-7)     74       (72)    -2       (0)    69          (67)   -11     (-2)
 Whether taken part in                14          (19)   +1      (-1)   12          (13)    -2      -3)     22       (26)    +1      (-1)    10          (15)    +1     (-1)
 voluntary/community activity
 in last year
 Strongly agree if alone could        50          (58)   +5      (-1)   32          (44)    +9     (+6)     58       (61)    +5      (0)     60          (65)    -1     (-7)
 rely on friends/ relatives in area
 to help
 Strongly agree could count on        52          (62)   +7      (+1)   31          (45)   +10     (+4)     65       (70)    +3      (-2)    63          (66)    +1     (+1)
 friends/ relatives to keep an eye
 on home
 Strongly agree could turn to         44          (51)   +5      (0)    28          (37)    +7     (+4)     50       (51)    +5     (+3)     55          (60)    0      (-5)
 friends/ relatives locally for
 advice or support
Source: MORI
NB Figures in brackets relate to panel only.




                                                                                                                                                                         Page 42
                                                                                              Neighbourhood regeneration: lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies.
                                                                                                                                                                          Annexes


                                                           Table A3.8         Satisfaction with accommodation and area
                                              3 SRB areas                         Chalkhill                      Hangleton/Knoll                  Rochdale                       6
                                                                                                                                                                          England
                                         1996        Change 96-99            1996      Change 96-99           1996       Change 96-99        1996      Change 96-99   1996 Change 96-99
                                          %                                   %                                %                              %                        %
    Very/fairly satisfied:
    Accommodation                   74       (83)   +11       (+2)      53      (67)    +18      (+3)    88      (91)    +3     (+3)    83      (84)    +4    (+2)    90        +1
    Area                            64       (72)   +6        (-2)      45      (65)    +20      (+1)    85      (85)    0      (-1)    66      (62)    -4    (-4)    87        -1
    Very dissatisfied:
    Accommodation                   11        (5)    -5       (+1)      23       (9)    -10      (+4)    3        (2)    +1      (0)     7       (6)    -3    (-2)     2         0
    Area                            16       (10)    -4       (+2)      28      (13)    -11      (+6)    5        (3)    -2     (-1)    13      (14)    +3    (+4)     3        +1
    Positive attributes:
    Close to shops                  26       (30)    +3       (-1)      16       (23    +18      (+9)    30      (30)     -4     (-1)   32      (33)    -5    (-5)     -         -
    Quiet/peaceful                  23       (27)     0       (-4)      10      (16)    +1       (-1)    30      (31)     -1     (-2)   29      (30)    -2    (-7)     -         -
    Good neighbours                 17       (23)    +2       (-2)      10      (20)    +3       (-3)    21      (25)    +1      (-4)   20      (22)    +2    (+2)     -         -
    Location                        13       (15)    -2       (-1)      12      (19)     -2      (-8)    14      (16)     -1      (0)   12      (10)    -2    (+4)     -         -
    Open space                      10       (13)    -4       (-5)       2       (2)     -1       (0)    27      (28)    -12    (-10)    4       (3)    -2    (-1)     -         -
    Serious Area based problems:
    Crime                           31       (28)    -3       (-3)      35      (34)    -6       (-11)   16      (16)      0     (-2)   40      (38)    -1    (+1)    22             7
                                                                                                                                                                                -4
    Vandalism/hooliganism           28       (25)    -4       (-2)      37      (29)    -9        (+3)   19      (21)     -5     (-7)   28      (27)    +2     (0)    14         -1
    Litter                          25       (25)    +6       (+7)      26      (21)    +8       (+17)   13      (16)    +4       (0)   34      (38)    +8    (+8)    13         -2
    Traffic                         28       (31)    +3       (+1)      25      (16)     0       (+16)   23      (27)    +7     (+1)    35      (37)    +2     (0)    18          -
    Dogs                            22       (23)    -5       (-2)      16      (13)    -6        (+1)   23      (26)    -10    (-13)   27      (26)    +1    (+7)    16         -4
    Drug dealers/users              16       (13)    +4       (+6)      18      (13)    +3       (+13)    8       (9)    +1      (-1)   21      (18)    +8    (+8)    3           -
    Housing tenure:
    Owner occupied                  43       (56)    +6       (+2)      6       (11)    +12      (+3)    65      (67)    +2     (+1)    61      (75)    -2    (+1)    68        +1
    Rented: of which                56       (43)     -6      (-2)      91      (88)     -9      (-3)    34      (31)    -1     (-1)    38      (25)    +3    (-1)    32        -1
    Local authority                 75       (72)    -11       (0)      87      (74)    -20      (-2)    77      (78)    -5     (-1)    48      (60)    +6    (+6)    54        -2
    Housing Association             16       (21)    +9       (+2)      12      (25)    +18      (+2)    10      (12)    +5     (+2)    26      (24)     0    (-1)    14        +2
    Private                          8        (6)    +2       (-1)       1       (1)    +3        (0)    11      (10)    +2     (-1)    25      (14)    -6    (-3)    31        +1
Source: MORI




6
    Survey of English Housing 1995/6 & 1998/9.
7
    England figures for "serious area based problems" show change 96-98 from Survey of English Housing 1997/8.




                                                                                                                                                                               Page 43
                           Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                      Annexes



A4   Questions included in the 1999 ONS national
     Omnibus survey

1.   How long have you (or your spouse/partner) been living in this area. By this area I
     mean a 15-20 minute walk (which is approximately a mile) from your home (or this
     estate)?
     CODE NUMBER OF YEARS

2.    (If less than 5 years)
     Ask or record months.

3.   (If less than 5 years)
     Why did you move to this area rather than some other area?
     DO NOT PROMPT
     CODE ALL THAT APPLY

     SET [8] OF
     (1)   Property related
     (2)   Area related
     (3)   Personal reasons
     (4)   Work reasons
     (5)   Retirement
     (6)   Financial reasons
     (7)   No choice
     (8)   Other
     (9)   Don’t know

4.   How likely are you to move out of this area in the next 2 years?

     (1)     Very likely
     (2)     Fairly likely
     (3)     Fairly unlikely
     (4)     Very unlikely
     (5)     Don’t know

5.   Do you want to move out of your current accommodation?

     (1)     Yes
     (2)     No
     (3)     Don’t know

6.   (If respondent wants to move out of current accommodation)
      And do you want to move out of this area or move to different accommodation in this
      area? By this area I mean a 15-20 minute walk (which is approximately a mile) from
      your home (or this estate)?




                                                                                                           44
                           Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                      Annexes


      (1)     Move out of the area
      (2)     Move within area
      (3)     Don’t know

7.    (If respondent wants to move out of accommodation)
      Why do you want to move?
      DO NOT PROMPT
      CODE ALL THAT APPLY

      SET [7] OF
      (1)   Property related
      (2)   Area related
      (3)   Personal reasons
      (4)   Work reasons
      (5)   Retirement
      (6)   Financial reasons
      (7)   Other
      (8)   Don’t know

8.    (If parent of child aged 5-15 in household)
      Do you (or your partner/spouse) help your child(ren) with their homework or any
      other educational activity?

      (1)     Yes
      (2)     No

9.    (If parent of child aged 5-15 in household and helps with child's homework)
       How many hours a week, on average, would you say you (or your spouse/partner)
       spend helping your child(ren)?

      (1)     Under 1 hour
      (2)     1 but less than 2 hours
      (3)     2 but less than 5 hours
      (4)     5 but less than 10 hours
      (5)     10 but less than 20 hours
      (6)     20 hours or more

10.   (If parent of child in household)
      Overall would you say that this area is a good or bad area to bring up children? By
      this area I mean a 15-20 minute walk (which is approximately a mile) from your
      home (or this estate).

      (1)     Good
      (2)     Bad
      (3)     Don’t know

11.   (If parent of child in household and area bad for bringing up children)
       Why do you say that?
       DO NOT PROMPT
       CODE ALL THAT APPLY


                                                                                                           45
                            Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                       Annexes




       SET [10] OF
       (1)   Nothing to do/no play facilities
       (2)   No safe place to play
       (3)   Too much traffic
       (4)   Availability of drugs
       (5)   Gangs of teenagers/bad peer pressure
       (6)   Poor schools
       (7)   Poor childcare facilities
       (8)   No job prospects
       (9)   Too much crime
       (10) Other

12.    [*] Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the sports and leisure facilities
       in this area. By this area I mean a 15-20 minute walk (which is approximately a mile)
       from your home (or this estate)?

       (1)    Very satisfied
       (2)    Fairly satisfied
       (3)    Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
       (4)    Fairly dissatisfied
       (5)    Very dissatisfied
       (6)    Don’t know

13.    I would now like to ask about how involved you are with other people living in this
       area, that is within 15-20 minutes walk (1mile) of your home/the estate you live on. I
       am going to read out some statements and I would like you to tell me how strongly
       you agree or disagree with each of them, choosing your answer from the card.

13.1   (If address odd number)
       [*] If I was alone and needed help, I could rely on one of my friends or relatives in
       this area to help me.

       (1)    Strongly agree
       (2)    Tend to agree
       (3)    Neither agree nor disagree
       (4)    Tend to disagree
       (5)    Strongly disagree
       (6)    Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)

13.2   (If address odd number)
       [*] If my home was empty, I could count on one of my friends or relatives in this area
       to keep an eye on my home.

       (1)    Strongly agree
       (2)    Tend to agree
       (3)    Neither agree nor disagree
       (4)    Tend to disagree
       (5)    Strongly disagree
       (6)    Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)


                                                                                                            46
                                   Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                              Annexes




13.3       (If address odd number)
       [*] I felt that I could turn to friends or relatives in this area for advice or support.

       (1)   Strongly agree
       (2)   Tend to agree
       (3)   Neither agree nor disagree
       (4)   Tend to disagree
       (5)   Strongly disagree
       (6)   Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)

13.4         (If address odd number)
             [*] I feel I could turn to friends or relatives in this area for financial assistance.

             (1)     Strongly agree
             (2)     Tend to agree
             (3)     Neither agree nor disagree
             (4)     Tend to disagree
             (5)     Strongly disagree
             (6)     Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)

13.5         (If address even number)
             [*] I feel I could turn to friends or relatives in this area for financial assistance.

             (1)     Strongly agree
             (2)     Tend to agree
             (3)     Neither agree nor disagree
             (4)     Tend to disagree
             (5)     Strongly disagree
             (6)     Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)

13.6         (If address even number)
             [*] I feel that I could turn to friends or relatives in this area for advice or support.

             (1)     Strongly agree
             (2)     Tend to agree
             (3)     Neither agree nor disagree
             (4)     Tend to disagree
             (5)     Strongly disagree
             (6)     Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)

13.7         (If address even number)
             [*] If my home was empty, I could count on one of my friends or relatives in this area
             to keep an eye on my home.
             (1)     Strongly agree
             (2)     Tend to agree
             (3)     Neither agree nor disagree
             (4)     Tend to disagree
             (5)     Strongly disagree
             (6)     Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)


                                                                                                                   47
                            Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                       Annexes


13.8   (If address even number)
       If I was alone and needed help, I could rely on one of my friends or relatives in this
       area to help me.

       (1)     Strongly agree
       (2)     Tend to agree
       (3)     Neither agree nor disagree
       (4)     Tend to disagree
       (5)     Strongly disagree
       (6)     Don’t know (DO NOT PROMPT)

14.    Have you helped any friends or relatives who live in this area in the last four weeks?

       (1)     Yes
       (2)     No
       (3)     Don’t know

15.    From this card, could you please tell me which, if any, of these you have done in the
       past fortnight.
       CODE ALL THAT APPLY

       SET [13] OF
       (1)   Went to visit relatives
       (2)   Went out with relatives
       (3)   Spoke to relatives on the 'phone
       (4)   Went to visit friends
       (5)   Went out with friends
       (6)   Spoke to friends on the 'phone
       (7)   Spoke to neighbours
       (8)   Spoke to a health professional (e.g., doctor, nurse, professional health visitor)
       (9)   Attended an adult education or night school class
       (10) Went to a leisure centre
       (11) Went to another social outing
       (12) Friends visited me
       (13) Relatives visited me
       (14) None of these

16.    On the whole, would you say you feel closely involved in the local community, or
       not?

       (1)     Yes
       (2)     No
       (3)     Don’t know

17.    (If 16 = No)
        Why don’t you feel closely involved in the local community?
        Please choose your answers from the card.
        CODE ALL THAT APPLY




                                                                                                            48
                           Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                      Annexes


      SET [14] OF
      (1)   I am not interested in getting involved
      (2)   Have not been asked to become involved
      (3)   Would not/do not feel welcome
      (4)   Don’t know what to do/how to
      (5)   No particular reason
      (6)   I was moved to this area by Council
      (7)   I want to leave this area
      (8)   I am too busy
      (9)   I only have time for my family
      (10) Health problems [SPONTANEOUS ONLY]
      (11) Like to keep myself to myself [SPONTANEOUS ONLY]
      (12) Not lived here long enough [SPONTANEOUS ONLY]
      (13) Too old [SPONTANEOUS ONLY]
      (14) Other [SPONTANEOUS ONLY - PLEASE RECORD]
      (15) Don’t know [SPONTANEOUS ONLY]

18.    (If 16 = No and other specified)
      Please specify other reason.

19.   Do you have any loans/credit or owe money to any of the people or organisations on
       this card?

      (1)     Yes
      (2)     No

20.   (If respondent owes money)
      And to which of these people or organisations do you owe money?
      CODE ALL THAT APPLY

      SET [12] OF
      (1)   Friend or relative
      (2)   Bank overdraft
      (3)   Credit/store/charge card
      (4)   Personal loan from bank/building society
      (5)   HP or instalment purchase (include mail order company)
      (6)   Loans from money lender, pawnbroker or check company
      (7)   Loan from DSS social fund
      (8)   Rent arrears
      (9)   Mortgage arrears
      (10) Loan from a finance company
      (11) Utility company - electricity
      (12) Other

21.   (If respondent owes money)
       How easy are you finding it to keep up your payments.
       Would you say you…
       RUNNING PROMPT
       (1)     Have no difficulty in keeping up repayments
       (2)     Find it rather difficult


                                                                                                           49
                         Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                    Annexes


      (3)     Or find it very difficult
22.   (If respondent owes money)
      Are you behind in the repayments/instalments for any of the loans you mentioned?

      (1)    Yes
      (2)    No

23.   (If respondent owes money and behind with some repayments)
      Which one(s) are you behind with?
      CODE ALL THAT APPLY

      SET [12] OF
      (1)   Friend or relative
      (2)   Bank overdraft
      (3)   Credit/store/charge card
      (4)   Personal loan from bank/building society
      (5)   HP or instalment purchase (include mail order company)
      (6)   Loans from money lender, pawnbroker or check company
      (7)   Loan from DSS social fund
      (8)   Rent arrears
      (9)   Mortgage arrears
      (10) Loan from a finance company
      (11) Utility company -electricity
      (12) Other




                                                                                                         50
                               Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                          Annexes



A5       Key lessons for the evaluation of Area Based
         Initiatives


A.5.1    Issues arising from the application of the research methodology experienced by the
         Cambridge evaluation team: some early findings

 A5.1.1 It is clear to the research team that it is crucial to commence the evaluation of projects in
        advance of their closure. E.g.: interviewing staff; collecting key data; discussions regarding
        exit strategy; exploring issues of sustainability and capacity building. This is because key
        personnel can often move on relatively quickly and interviews with them yield higher quality
        information and data that may not readily be available on the closure of programmes.

 A5.1.2 While postal surveys are a relatively inexpensive method of empirical study compared with
        face-to-face interviews there is clearly a trade-off between the quality of response and cost of
        survey. The research confirmed that as long as questionnaires are uncomplicated and not too
        long, postal surveys generally are a good medium to use.

 A5.1.3 Surveys are more likely to attract higher response rates if questionnaires are distributed as
        soon as possible after projects have ceased their operations, rather than expecting recipients to
        recall the impact of projects as a matter of historical record.

 A5.1.4 It is imperative to research any concurrent survey work and major reports (whether
        commissioned internally or externally) as this is invaluable in developing an evaluation of the
        programme as well as offering a context for evaluation surveys.

 A5.1.5 Sometimes contractual arrangements between a lead partner and contractor can make it
        difficult to gain access to data without incurring extra expenditure for the manual retrieval of
        data. This has implications regarding the procedures for recording information using
        computer databases which should be somewhat consistent across SRB programmes.

 A5.1.6 The resources required to provide an ongoing monitoring service for the survival of small
        businesses may mean that they are not followed up sufficiently in terms of survival rates
        beyond SRB. This is significant for a short duration project vis a vis the much longer periods
        required for small business consolidation.

 A5.1.7 The development of evaluation workbooks has proved to be useful in collecting information
        on a consistent basis from widely differing SRB programmes. While there has been no
        intention to directly compare programmes or individual projects, it has been possible to draw
        out lessons regarding the strategic and operational development of the various initiatives. For
        example, in terms of socio-economic enhancement, opportunities for wider partnership
        working, elements that increase the bending of main programmes, evidence of closer working
        between the public, private and voluntary sectors.

 A5.1.8 It would aid the research process considerably if strategies could be developed to draw local
        communities into the evaluation and monitoring process. This could be achieved through
        more detailed social surveys, workshops and opportunities for local communities to directly
        influence research and evaluation during their implementation. The evaluation process
        should, therefore, record the degree of local involvement in key evaluative and research issues
        as an integral element of output measures, capacity building and sustainability.




                                                                                                               51
                           Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                                                      Annexes



A6     Publications to date

1. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 74, An examination of unsuccessful bids.
2. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 83, The evaluation framework.
3. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, A Partnership for
   Regeneration - an interim evaluation, 1998.
4. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 91, Expenditure in relation to local area
   needs in England.
5. The Distribution of the SRB Challenge Fund Expenditure in Relation to Local-area Need
   in England. Urban Studies, 36(12), 1999.
6. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 100, Key results from the residents'
   baseline social surveys.
7. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 101, New findings on the nature of
   economic and social exclusion in England: implications for new policy initiatives.
8. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 109 - An examination of baseline issues.
9. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 111, First final evaluation of three SRB
   short duration case studies. (Northumbria Community Safety, Brent and Harrow and
   Limes Farm Estate in Epping Forest District).
10.Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper 114. Second final evaluation of two SRB
   short duration case studies (Engineering in Education in the West Midlands and the West
   Cornwall Initiative).
11.The Nature of Local Area Social Exclusion in England and the Role of the Labour Market.
   Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 16(1), 2000.
12.(Forthcoming) Evaluation of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund: Summary
   household survey results 1996-1999. Department of Land Economy Discussion Paper.
13.(Forthcoming) Answering the really Difficult Questions: the Role of Local Social Surveys
   in Assessing the Impact of Regeneration Initiatives. Department of Land Economy
   Discussion Paper.
14.(Forthcoming) Third Final Evaluation of Five SRB Case Studies. Department of Land
   Economy Discussion Paper.
15.(Forthcoming) A Mid Term Review of the Achievements of the Single Regeneration
   Budget (HMSO).




                                                                                                           52
Neighbourhood regeneration; lessons and evaluation evidence from 10 SRB case studies
                                                                           Annexes




                                                                                53

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:11/14/2011
language:English
pages:55